Early AR-15's in Vietnam

[Slater]

Reading some of the early reports from Vietnam about the AR-15's effectiveness can be interesting. Knowing that many people were pushing for the AR-15's adoption, there has been suggestion that some reports were exaggerated/embellished to make the rifle's effectiveness appear greater than it was. Personally, I have no idea but (for example) this is an excerpt from one such report:


"At a distance of approximately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an AR-15 full automatic hitting one VC with 3 rounds with the first burst. One round in the head-took it completely off. Another in the right arm, took it completely off, too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about five inches in diameter. It cannot be determined which round killed the VC but it can be assumed that any one of the three would have caused death. The other 2 VC ran, leaving the dead VC with I carbine, 1 grenade and 2 mines.

(2.) (C) "On 9 June a Ranger Platoon from the 40th Inf Regt was given the mission of ambushing an estimated VC Company. The details are as follows: a. Number of VC killed: 5 b. Number of AR-15's employed: 5 c. Range of engagement: 30-100 meters d. Type wounds: 1. Back wound, which caused the thoracic cavity to explode. 2. Stomach wound, which caused the abdominal cavity to explode. 3. Buttock wound, which destroyed all tissue of both buttocks. 4. Chest wound from right to left, destroyed the thoracic cavity. 5. Heel wound, the projectile entered the bottom of the right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip. These deaths were inflicted by the AR-IS and all were instantaneous except the buttock wound. He lived approximately five minutes."

This was (as far as I'm aware) 55 grain ammo fired from a 1:12 twist barrel. Do these type of wounds sound plausible?

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/343778.pdf

[vicious_cb]

Do these type of wounds sound plausible?

You should probably visit the terminal ballistics forum and educate yourself if you think things like this are even remotely possible with 5.56/.223.

[just a scout]

Sounds pretty spectacular. Idk, I’ve seen plenty of GSWs the only things close to those effects was 12ga 00 at point blank range. Or someone falling on a grenade. I’d say padding reports for the Project Manager’s OER.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Averageman]

I've seen a guy take a round from about 150-200 meters, it killed him, but I don't even think he knew what happened to him.
The round went in above his hip and below his web gear and cored his liver.
It was difficult to even find the entrance wound and there was not exit wound.
He walked about a half a K and laid down, medics were on them scene asap.

[Caduceus]

You should probably visit the terminal ballistics forum and educate yourself if you think things like this are even remotely possible with 5.56/.223.

While I tend to agree, weren't early AR's a 1/12 with 55gr?

I ask because the ballistics forum doesn't have much in that category, given that modern AR/M4 variants are 1/7.

All that BS about "shooting to wound" aside, if the round was more unstable in flight, I can see how it would tumble more. Not that it would "explode" per se, but would it "ice pick" like was reported in Somalia?

[vicious_cb]

While I tend to agree, weren't early AR's a 1/12 with 55gr?

I ask because the ballistics forum doesn't have much in that category, given that modern AR/M4 variants are 1/7.

All that BS about "shooting to wound" aside, if the round was more unstable in flight, I can see how it would tumble more. Not that it would "explode" per se, but would it "ice pick" like was reported in Somalia?

That myth was busted in the 80's. As stated in the literature, 55gr M193 was tested in everything from 1/14 to 1/7 twist and it didnt make any difference. M193 wounding mechanism is velocity dependent, not twist dependent.

You dont need to read the literature, just use logic. Think about it, bullet technology has advanced so far to the point where we have bullets that fragment FAR more violently than M193 ever did or we can make bullets that expand to 2x their diameter in less than 1in of tissue yet we still dont see the wounds they are describing.

[1168]

nevermind

[Ned Christiansen]

Somewhere I have a 1964 (I think) True magazine that has an article something like "The Armys' New Wonder Rifle" and that first story almost sounds like it's from that article or that's where the author got it. I have recently tried to find it for some article background, and failed.... tried to find it online and failed.

Some years ago after a ballistic gel session a couple of us shot up the remaining and discarded gel on full auto with XM193. I remember thinking I was glad it was just gel, the sights and sounds on gel were bad enough.

[Circle_10]

While I tend to agree, weren't early AR's a 1/12 with 55gr?

I ask because the ballistics forum doesn't have much in that category, given that modern AR/M4 variants are 1/7.

All that BS about "shooting to wound" aside, if the round was more unstable in flight, I can see how it would tumble more. Not that it would "explode" per se, but would it "ice pick" like was reported in Somalia?

The "Ice picking" in Somalia was reportedly with Green Tip M855, not M193. There have been various explanations for what caused this to occur, (lower velocity, extremely thin targets etc .) or the perception that it was occurring.
On the other hand I've heard other accounts of M855 working just fine too. Although both are velocity-dependent in general the consensus seems to be that M193 is somewhat more accurate and has better terminal ballistics on tissue than M855, or at least fragments more reliably...I don't see it removing anyone's head though.

[Slater]

I've heard opinions that the M16 lost a bit of lethality when the change was made from the M16A1/M193 to the M16A2/M855. Again though, maybe that was just perception.