The Military Is Just Now Figuring This Out?

[Sailormilan2]

Quote

 

"I saw the tests that clearly showed how miserable the bullets really were in performance."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Bruce Jones, mechanical engineer

 

 

(CBS) As American troop casualties in Iraq continue to mount, concern is growing they may be outgunned. That includes new questions about the stopping power of the ammunition that is used by the standard-issue M-16 rifle.

 

Shortly after the U.N. headquarters was bombed in Baghdad in August 2003, a Special Forces unit went to Ramadi to capture those responsible.

 

In a fierce exchange of gunfire, one insurgent was hit seven times by 5.56 mm bullets, reports CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian. It took a shot to the head with a pistol to finally bring him down. But before he died, he killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded seven more.

 

"The lack of the lethality of that bullet has caused United States soldiers to die," says Maj. Anthony Milavic.

 

Milavic is a retired Marine major who saw three tours of duty in Vietnam. He says the small-caliber 5.56, essentially a .22-caliber civilian bullet, is far better suited for shooting squirrels than the enemy, and contends that urban warfare in Iraq demands a bigger bullet. "A bullet that knocks the man down with one shot," he says. "And keeps him down."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read Armen Keteyian's Reporter's Notebook

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Milavic is not alone. In a confidential report to Congress last year, active Marine commanders complained that: "5.56 was the most worthless round," "we were shooting them five times or so," and "torso shots were not lethal."

 

In last week's Marine Corps Times, a squad leader said his Marines carried and used "found" enemy AK-47s because that weapon's 7.62 mm bullets packed "more stopping power."

 

Bruce Jones is a mechanical engineer who helped design artillery, rifles and pistols for the Marines.

 

"I saw the tests that clearly showed how miserable the bullets really were in performance," he says. "But that's what we're arming our troops with. It's horrible, you know, it's unconscionable."

 

To demonstrate to CBS News, Jones fired the larger-caliber 7.62 bullet fired by AK-47s used by insurgents in Iraq into a block of glycerin. The hole cavity is 50 percent or more larger than that of the 5.56.

 

"You can't just go out and, you know, rig up a little block of Jello and shoot at it and prove anything," says Pierre Sprey, a former Pentagon weapons expert.

 

Since the early days of the Vietnam War, Sprey has been a champion of the 5.56, and believes it both lethal and light.

 

"The brilliant thing about that bullet is that it allowed the infantrymen to easily carry 300 rounds," Sprey says. "Whereas the old sharpshooter's heavy, slow round — he could only carry 100."

 

In the chaos of war, the more bullets the better, he says, because bursts of automatic fire beat one big bullet at a time.

 

"There is no such thing as a well-aimed shot in combat, because combat is fought by scared 18-year-olds who haven't been trained enough and are in a place they've never seen before," Sprey says.

 

Here at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, the government's own engineers have done the most extensive testing on the 5.56 since 1990 and issued two draft reports.

 

In the first, dated 2004, the 5.56 ranked last in lethality out of three bullets tested.

 

A second draft, dated last month, confirmed that rating, ranking the 5.56 dead last in close-quarter combat.

 

The army issued a final report last week that concludes in essence that those test results are wrong and misleading. It argues the 5.56 has the "same potential effectiveness" of the 7.62 during the heat of battle.

 

Either way, there's no questions that if the Pentagon did have any questions about this bullet, it would face some very expensive modifications to the M-16.

 

©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/07/...in1692346.shtml

 

[Doble Troble]

It's a great cartridge and caliber for wounding.

 

I think anyone who has killed a few large and small mammals understands the limitations, especially when loaded with FMJ. If we loaded them up with HP it would be an entirely different story.

 

There is a lot to be said about carrying a lot of ammo, but when you're not shooting expanding bullets a 30 cal beats a 22 every time.

 

Maybe we should go back to the 45-70.

 

A Garand or M14 chambered in 8 x 57 seems like a good compromise of bore diameter, ballistics and documented ability to supply and carry enough ammo.

 

And the comment (from a disarmed beaurocrat living in Washington DC) about 18 y/o's in combat not being able to shoot accurately fries my last nerve. We clearly need to start training our youngsters in primary school how to shoot accurately. Once trained accurate shooting is instinctual. But this scares the hell out of our government, which it should, which is why this type of training is so important.

 

I propose that part of "no child left behind" should be the demonstrated ability to shoot a rimfire rifle course of fire with a respectable score before admission to high school. Then centerfire proficiency becomes mandatory.

[roscoedoh]

We could keep the 5.56. We could spend a billion dollars and develop a new cartridge that will fall somewhere between the 7.62x39 and the 7.62x51 in performance. Or, we could join the rest of the world and convert to the 7.62x39 ourselves.

 

I read an interesting article once that said the FN FAL was originally designed for an intermediate length .30 caliber cartridge and had to be redesigned for the 7.62x51 when we forced the 308 down the world's throats.

 

As much as I hate the communists and as much as I'm not qualified to make this statement, I think the Russians managed to do something right when they developed the 7.62x39. And almost 60 years later, its still going strong. That should tell us something.

[karlunity]

 

They won't allow HP it is against the Geneva Convention.

 

As to 5.56, well it worked on little gooks, but I would have felt better with my old M-14.

Why not use 7.62/39? Think of all the captured ammo we could use.

 

Karl

[FC]

I guess we're betting on multiple hits with the little bullet. I like the 7.62x39 too.

[usmc0332]

We should not be using a varmit cartridge against lethal targets. It would be possible for me to hunt bears with a .243, but if I was going on a hunt like that I would rather use a round MORE than capable of the job. I have heard rumors that the Marine Corps is currently developing a larger caliber round for the M16 format. A friend of mine was stationed in Iraq. They had to deal with many PC rules of engagement(what are the enemies rules of engagement again?). While at a machinegun emplacement with a M240(7.62) he was not allowed to use it to engage a lone enemy carrying weapons. He complied and reports that he had a solid hit, upper chest, at 50 meters. He said that the target sat down for several minutes before getting up and walking away without his weapons. He was disarmed so he could not be engaged again. If the same event had occured using a decent weapon such as the M14, it would have been a successful engagement. As they say, there is no replacement for displacement. I read a report of a Delta team in Afghanistan, where a senior member insisted on using an M14. The younger guys had fun at his expense, teasing him about not being current with the times and using an M4. When they were in firefights, they noticed that 1 hit=1 enemy down when he hit them, yet it took several hits for them to have the same result. The M16-5.56mm was designed to be used in guarding flightlines. The small round did less damage to aircraft than the 7.62. Do we also want to do less damage to the enemy?At least the .45 is regaining favor again. I doubt that these insurgents probably worry about their wounded. We should be helping them out and have a service round more capable of punching bus tickets to allah.

 

I believe that we have enough documented history of 18 year old well trained US servicemen being able to do their job with a rifle. Our men in uniform are probably the best trained now that they ever have been. For a government official to claim anything less leads me to believe that yet another stuffed shirt should be out on his ass and find his true calling, selling well used cars.

[sonic1]

i"ve read were a lot of the guys are wanting the m14 because they need more knockdown...and anyone says a Marine can"t shoot ...is crazy

[karlunity]

Heck, the Russians ripped off the Germans who had been using a 7.92 by 33 in their assault rifle 44.

The German army knew how to make an effective infantry rifle and round.

 

Karl

[Spiris]

The 6.8 Remington SPC is currently undergoing testing in the M4 version. This round is quite impressive when compared to the 5.56 or the 7.62x39. 115 gr., .277 caliber at 2800 fps in the current military load. Flat shooting and hard hitting, the m-16 can easily be converted to the 6.8. This will be just the ticket for the troops.

 

Spiris

 

http://ammoguide.com/?catid=263