June 7, 2006: The U.S. Army completed a study of current 5.56mm M855 round, in response to complaints from troops that this ammunition was inadequate in combat. Troops reported many instances where enemy fighters were hit with one or more M855 rounds and kept coming. The study confirmed that this happened, and discovered why. If the M855 bullet hits slender people at the right angle, and does not hit a bone, it goes right through. That will do some soft tissue damage, but nothing immediately incapacitating.
This information in this study is not new, our troops knew that the C7 had reduced stopping power back in 1986 when the C7 was first introduced, and the men who had been involved in Cyprus with the Turks voiced the same concerns! One of the explanations, outside of following NATO standards, was that since we were involved in peacekeeping operations, we did not require ammunition that caused massive flesh trauma.
The study examined other military and commercial 5.56mm rounds and found that none of them did the job any better. The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away.
Are they recommending shooting at the head or heart rather than for center of mass? This also tends to disregard the fact that the enemy is moving and using cover, maing them much more difficult to hit than on a test firing range.
The report recommended more weapons training for the troops, so they will be better able to put two 5.56mm bullets where they will do enough damage to stop oncoming enemy troops.
Typical - blame the troops for having poor marksmanship rather than providing a weapon that will stop an enemy with one shot. Perhaps we shold also blame the enemy forces for not standing still long enough?
The study did not address complaints about long range shots (over 100 meters), or the need for ammo that is better a blasting through doors and walls.
100 m is long range???
Spontaneous thoughts.....
