View Full Version : US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080527/D90TL4K00.html
May 26, 8:10 PM (ET)
By RICHARD LARDNER
WASHINGTON (AP) - As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor, a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies.
As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry.
"Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice," says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. "It just has more stopping power."
Strange as it sounds, nearly seven years into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bullets are a controversial subject for the U.S.
The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.
Designed decades ago to puncture a Soviet soldier's helmet hundreds of yards away, the M855 rounds are being used for very different targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of today's fighting takes place in close quarters; narrow streets, stairways and rooftops are today's battlefield. Legions of armor-clad Russians marching through the Fulda Gap in Germany have given way to insurgents and terrorists who hit and run.
Fired at short range, the M855 round is prone to pass through a body like a needle through fabric. That does not mean being shot is a pain-free experience. But unless the bullet strikes a vital organ or the spine, the adrenaline-fueled enemy may have the strength to keep on fighting and even live to fight another day.
In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets.
Yet the Army is not changing. The answer is better aim, not bigger bullets, officials say.
"If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn't matter what you shoot him with," said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small arms division at Fort Benning, Ga., home to the Army's infantry school.
At about 33 cents each, bullets do not get a lot of public attention in Washington, where the size of the debate is usually measured by how much a piece of equipment costs. But billions of M855 rounds have been produced, and Congress is preparing to pay for many more. The defense request for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 seeks $88 million for 267 million M855s, each one about the size of a AAA battery.
None of the M855's shortcomings is surprising, said Don Alexander, a retired Army chief warrant officer with combat tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Somalia.
"The bullet does exactly what it was designed to do. It just doesn't do very well at close ranges against smaller-statured people that are lightly equipped and clothed," says Alexander, who spent most of his 26-year military career with the 5th Special Forces Group.
Paul Howe was part of a U.S. military task force 15 years ago in Mogadishu, Somalia's slum-choked capital, when he saw a Somali fighter hit in the back from about a dozen feet away with an M855 round.
"I saw it poof out the other side through his shirt," says Howe, a retired master sergeant and a former member of the Army's elite Delta Force. "The guy just spun around and looked at where the round came from. He got shot a couple more times, but the first round didn't faze him."
With the M855, troops have to hit their targets with more rounds, said Howe, who owns a combat shooting school in Texas. That can be tough to do under high-stress conditions when one shot is all a soldier might get.
"The bullet is just not big enough," he says. "If I'm going into a room against somebody that's determined to kill me, I want to put him down as fast as possible."
Dr. Martin Fackler, a former combat surgeon and a leading authority on bullet injuries, said the problem is the gun, not the bullet. The M4 rifle has a 14.5 inch barrel - too short to create the velocity needed for an M855 bullet to do maximum damage to the body.
"The faster a bullet hits the tissue, the more it's going to fragment," says Fackler. "Bullets that go faster cause more damage. It's that simple."
Rules of war limit the type of ammunition conventional military units can shoot. The Hague Convention of 1899 bars hollow point bullets that expand in the body and cause injuries that someone is less likely to survive. The United States was not a party to that agreement. Yet, as most countries do, it adheres to the treaty, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The Hague restrictions do not apply to law enforcement agencies, however. Ballistics expert Gary Roberts said that is an inconsistency that needs to be remedied, particularly at a time when so many other types of destructive ordnance are allowed in combat.
"It is time to update this antiquated idea and allow U.S. military personnel to use the same proven ammunition," Roberts says.
In response to complaints from troops about the M855, the Army's Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey assigned a team of soldiers, scientists, doctors and engineers to examine the round's effectiveness. The team's findings, announced in May 2006, concluded there were no commercially available rounds of similar size better than the M855.
But Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Corps major, said the Army buried the study's most important conclusion: that larger-caliber bullets are more potent.
"It was manipulated," says Milavic, a Vietnam veteran who manages an online military affairs forum called MILINET. "Everybody knows there are bullets out there that are better."
Officials at Picatinny Arsenal declined to be interviewed. In an e-mailed response to questions, they called the M855 "an overall good performer." Studies are being conducted to see if it can be made more lethal without violating the Hague Convention, they said.
Larger rounds are not necessarily better, they also said. Other factors such as the weather, the amount of light and the bullet's angle of entry also figure into how lethal a single shot may be.
Heavier rounds also mean more weight for soldiers to carry, as well as more recoil - the backward kick created when a round is fired. That long has been a serious issue for the military, which has troops of varied size and strength.
The M14 rifle used by Joe Higgins was once destined to be the weapon of choice for all U.S. military personnel. When switched to the automatic fire mode, the M14 could shoot several hundred rounds a minute. But most soldiers could not control the gun, and in the mid-1960s it gave way to the M16 and its smaller cartridge. The few remaining M14s are used by snipers and marksman.
U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., is buying a carbine called the SCAR Heavy for its commandos, and it shoots the same round as the M14. The regular Army, though, has invested heavily in M4 and M16 rifles and has no plans to get rid of them.
A change in expectations is needed more than a change in gear, said Col. Robert Radcliffe, chief of combat developments at Fort Benning. Soldiers go through training believing that simply hitting a part of their target is enough to kill it. On a training range, getting close to the bulls-eye counts. But in actual combat, nicking the edges isn't enough.
"Where you hit is essential to the equation," Radcliffe says. "I think the expectations are a little bit off in terms of combat performance against target range performance. And part of that is our fault for allowing that expectation to grow when it's really not there at all."
The arguments over larger calibers, Radcliffe says, are normal in military circles where emotions over guns and bullets can run high.
"One of the things I've discovered in guns is that damned near everyone is an expert," he says. "And they all have opinions."
---
On the Net:
Army's Picatinny Arsenal: http://tinyurl.com/6vlwm
I'm trying to decide between the stove-top popper, or the microwave bag. The popper thingy makes more flavorful popcorn, but the microwaveable is so much more convenient.........
:D
I'm pretty sure God kicks a baby whenever someone references "stopping power".
"One of the things I've discovered in guns is that damned near everyone is an expert," he says. "And they all have opinions."
Repeated for emphasis. :D
-B
Personally I've never been able to figure out why we allow our armed forces to be handicaped by an outdated Hague convention rule limiting us to FMJ ammo. Unilaterally canning that provision and moving to a JHP bullet would seem to make the most sense to me.
I'm trying to decide between the stove-top popper, or the microwave bag. The popper thingy makes more flavorful popcorn, but the microwaveable is so much more convenient.........
:D
Now thats funny right there, I don't care who ya are...
Odd that he forgets to mention that most SOF use MK 262 Mod 1, which has a hollow point and fragments much better than M855. M193 also fragments better than M855, is that no longer used? Maybe NG only now?
Almost anyone in the know says that M855 is less than ideal for many purposes, but it is still quite effective regardless.
BushmasterFanBoy
05-26-08, 21:36
I think an acceptable short term solution is to switch to m193. After that, adopt the mk262 mod 1, and then work from there. This isn't rocket science, the m855 is not needed in Iraq. The 5.56 however, is very much needed.
losbronces
05-26-08, 21:37
I love this part: "In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets.
Yet the Army is not changing. The answer is better aim, not bigger bullets, officials say."
If 20% wanted larger caliber, doesn't that imply that 80% didn't????
This article is garbage...
This article is garbage...
;)
It is readily apparent, to me at least, that this article is yet another "it's Bush's fault" hatchet jobs.
It appears to be a well intentioned, but poorly written article on a critical subject that the Big Army has been ignoring and covering-up for too long. Please see my comments on ammunition in this thread: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=14980.
The entire idea of the Hague Convention on preventing bullets that create greater suffering etc. has been surpased by time and evolution. Secondly the enemy we currently face are illegal combatants by the same accord, and thus are not afforded those protections. Military units conducting anti-terrorist duties have been ruled previsouly not having to follow the rules against expanding ammunitions, so it then follows that units conducting operations in OIF/OEF should be allowed to follow those previosuly setup guidelines.
All that being said, all ammuntion types have upsides and downsides. For most of the current military operations M855 may currently be the best jack of all trades. I run Mk262 Mod1 as a DOD contractor - however I am no longer shooting up cars, Mk262 has previsouly been ruled compliant with the Hague Convetion, I have limited numbers of M995 AP if need be, however.
The biggest problem IMHO is marksmanship -- troops WAY to often dont hit what they aim at. Going to a bigger better whatever bullet is not going to solve the problem either UNLESS the Big Army starts teaching its soldiers how to shoot.
The biggest problem IMHO is marksmanship -- troops WAY to often dont hit what they aim at. Going to a bigger better whatever bullet is not going to solve the problem either UNLESS the Big Army starts teaching its soldiers how to shoot.
This needs to be said again. A bigger bullet hitting a non vital spot won't kill the bad guy either. It may hurt a bit more though ;)
Robb Jensen
05-27-08, 05:58
The biggest problem IMHO is marksmanship -- troops WAY to often dont hit what they aim at. Going to a bigger better whatever bullet is not going to solve the problem either UNLESS the Big Army starts teaching its soldiers how to shoot.
I think that it's exactly it. Also most people are also very bad at range estimating.
i just see this as another chance at shooting down colt, notice theres one expert that says its the gun not the bullet.
tinman44,
I hope your comment is in jest, otherwise you are completely out of touch...
i just see this as another chance at shooting down colt, notice theres one expert that says its the gun not the bullet.
Not likely.
While people often cited that "SOF uses MK262", many SOF units that initially made the switch to MK262 have now voluntarily switched back to M855. This is not speculation, it is fact.
MK262, while more accurate and more "lethal", is less reliable and durable in combat conditions. There have been minor feeding and setback issues as well as over pressure problems caused by heat. Some SOF units decided that the added accuracy and lethality was not worth the trade off in functional reliability.
Just FYI.
Now, this is relevant, interesting information. First I have heard of issues with MK262 in the field.
Why would heat affect them specifically more adversely than, say, M855? Powder composition?
To me it's the same old issues.
Lethality. Kill or incapacitate?
Load out weight
Lowest common denominator end user.
Budget
At least they have recognized the needs of certain units to make choices better suited to the needs of those units.
Kind of interesting that the gov't is paying $330 per 1K for an order of 267M rounds. Seems steep to me.
Keep in mind exactly what Mk262 was designed for--precision near match accuracy using semi-auto fire from a Mk12 vs. what the M855 was designed for--full-auto fire from a M249. Early lots of Mk262, circa 2002-2003, used propellant that provided great accuracy, but was not thermally stable in high heat. Recent lots have used an improved propellant that has solved this issue. The major problem with Mk262 is that it is NOT barrier blind and has relatively poor intermediate barrier performance.
The article is full of fallacy.
I find it interesting that they quote some doctor that says it's the gun. He states that the M4 has a 14.5" barrel... ~measures the barrel of his M4~ Huh, maybe my ruler is off.
I also have trouble with the idea of CQB with an M14, even a shortened one.
My buddy, just back from Iraq hates 5.56, but he used to be a M60 gunner so I know how partial he is to 7.62.
Plenty of experienced operators still swear by the M4, though they may use different rounds for different missions.
And I have definitely seen bad guys "shake off" 30 cal. hits too.
I think too many people have this Hollywood image of getting touched by a bullet and dying. The common statistic I have heard is that gunshots are only 5% lethal. Compare that to the 35% lethality of knifings...
I know that there are an infinite number of variables when we talk about trauma that cannot be quantified, nor reduced to bullet size.
Are there any non-biased statistics out there?
Hluill,
That "some doctor" you mentioned is COL Martin Fackler, former director of the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory and founder of the IWBA. Dr. Fackler is a very experienced combat surgeon and the progenitor of modern wound ballistic research--he DEFINITELY knows what he is discussing--with 5.56 mm FMJ, it is all about velocity. Oh, BTW, the M4 and M4A1 have 14.5" barrels...
Hluill,
That "some doctor" you mentioned is COL Martin Fackler, former director of the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory and founder of the IWBA. Dr. Fackler is a very experienced combat surgeon and the progenitor of modern wound ballistic research--he DEFINITELY knows what he is discussing--with 5.56 mm FMJ, it is all about velocity. Oh, BTW, the M4 and M4A1 have 14.5" barrels...
How are we measuring the barrels?
I am not that good at remembering all the numbers, but what little I know about the M4 velocities says that the 16" barrel of the M4 produces a velocity capable of tumbling the bullet on two inches of penentration. From what I have read, this tumbling is what earned the M16 the nickname "Evil Black Gun" by the Vietnamese. I have seen the horrific wounds that it causes and am satisfied with the trauma that it induces, even on "skinny", unarmored bad-guys. I also like that it doesn't penetrate too far, like 7.62, and lowers the risk of hitting security and support guys outside the building.
In the service I used what I was issued, M855 62 grain. Contracting, I used 55grain, usually M193 surplus. I used to swear by the 55-grain, but I have been told by the instructors at Blackwater that heavier bullets have a higher velocity, thus tumble more reliably.
Don't get me wrong, I like 7.62. Give me those long guns on overwatch or three M60s on tripods in support anyday. I like watching them perforate their targets: trucks, huts, bunkers, mobile homes...
So much of combat is based on dramatic experience, it's easy to get strong opinions based on exceptional incidents. For a long time I hated using a collapsable stock because I had seen one shatter which led to some really tense moments on a room entry.
I think training is still the biggest issue, especially in the Army, but I could rant on that for pages.
THE M4/M4A1 has a 14.5" barrel - end full stop.
Civilian guns typically have 16" barrels to avoid the NFA issues.
I had a lot of Hornady TAP where the brass was not properly annealed and it split at the neck and flame cut thru the brass and marred some chambers. Circa 1999-2000 time frame.
I have (touch wood) no setback issues with the Mk262 Mod1 so far -- the 0 was having problems similar to the 69gr GM that State issued briefly here.
The issue is M855 is not a great barrier round either -- its vaunted semi/light armor piercing capabilities dont really do a lot. Mk262 does a reasonable job messing up an auto, but M995 does it better -- and frankly I dont like any 5.56mm round for trying to "tear shit up".
In the wrung what you brung world here there are still a lot of systems out there that are capable of defeating obstacles and barriers.
I think in the interim a better 5.56mm round needs to be found and quickly fielded.
However I think the priority must be better training and more of it.
After that we can look at fielding a better system - a la Hk418 (IIRC that is the 416 in 6.8 right?) or Mk17 in that 7mmMurray or whatever.
One problem with annecdoatal troop info from my own experiences -- I once shot a guy @ 400m with a Mk18, I also burned a car (Bongo Van) with 1 x round of Mk262 Mod1 (who knew a single round into the engine could sever a fuel line and somehow cause a fire -- BigRed was there and laughing too hard). I've shot a guy [who drove off later] with 4 rounds from an Ak does that mean 7.62x39 is worthless ( I think so, but that is another story). Individual results need to be taken in context -- what about the many people I may have missed with a Mk18? Failure with other things? People, and myself included, tend to fixate on one or two events and as such the objectivity and the whole picutre is lost.
The M4/M4A1 is an excellent weapon system, and M855 is an okay performer. that said I beleive that the American fighting man deserves the best equipment to find fix and destroy the enemy that can be provided, and I do not think that either of the above are the best for that task anymore.
As far as NATO standards go, I would be more interested in the ABCA countries - as other than the Dutch in Afghanistan no one else is shoulder any of the combat in Iraq or Afghanistan -- do we really care what the French or Germans use when drinking a Latte in Kabul?
THE M4/M4A1 has a 14.5" barrel - end full stop.
Civilian guns typically have 16" barrels to avoid the NFA issues.
Huh, maybe I have been using modified M4s too much... I am not that good at remembering numbers, that is for sure.
However I think the priority must be better training and more of it.
Amen! Too many units that I have been in sacrificed training for recruitment/retention and new office furniture.
One problem with annecdoatal troop info from my own experiences -- I once shot a guy @ 400m with a Mk18, I also burned a car (Bongo Van) with 1 x round of Mk262 Mod1 (who knew a single round into the engine could sever a fuel line and somehow cause a fire -- BigRed was there and laughing too hard). I've shot a guy [who drove off later] with 4 rounds from an Ak does that mean 7.62x39 is worthless ( I think so, but that is another story). Individual results need to be taken in context -- what about the many people I may have missed with a Mk18? Failure with other things? People, and myself included, tend to fixate on one or two events and as such the objectivity and the whole picutre is lost.
I definitely suffer from this, but is there a reliable way to draw a "bigger picture"?
The M4/M4A1 is an excellent weapon system, and M855 is an okay performer. that said I beleive that the American fighting man deserves the best equipment to find fix and destroy the enemy that can be provided, and I do not think that either of the above are the best for that task anymore.
As far as NATO standards go, I would be more interested in the ABCA countries - as other than the Dutch in Afghanistan no one else is shoulder any of the combat in Iraq or Afghanistan -- do we really care what the French or Germans use when drinking a Latte in Kabul?
It's funny that most units that can choose their own weapon systems, choose M4 variants as their default weapon. I have played with a lot of different countries weapons and the best "Assault Rifle" is the M4, for many different, and biased, reasons.
Dude, I have no idea of your background, but I have a few sudden newsflashes for you.
The M4/M4A1 is no longer the gold standard.
It has and has always had a 14.5 " barrel.
Units that have full control of what they use have typically now gone off to the Hk416, or eagerly awaiting the FN Mk16 SCAR-L
As far as NATO standards go, I would be more interested in the ABCA countries - as other than the Dutch in Afghanistan no one else is shoulder any of the combat in Iraq or Afghanistan -- do we really care what the French or Germans use when drinking a Latte in Kabul?
Just to help me. I know the Germans and French governments are wussies when it comes to that, but Canada, and I believe Denmark, as well as Australia have guys actually fighting in Afghanistan?
Thanks for any info
Chad
Just to help me. I know the Germans and French governments are wussies when it comes to that, but Canada, and I believe Denmark, as well as Australia have guys actually fighting in Afghanistan?
Thanks for any info
Chad
I'm guessing, but I think the ABCA is America, Britain, Canada, Australia. You could say it's ABCDA and include Denmark.
Dude, I have no idea of your background, but I have a few sudden newsflashes for you.
The M4/M4A1 is no longer the gold standard.
It has and has always had a 14.5 " barrel.
Units that have full control of what they use have typically now gone off to the Hk416, or eagerly awaiting the FN Mk16 SCAR-L
Dude, I have been out of the loop for a bit, to be sure. The M16A2 was the standard back when I was in the green line, and I remember when we were first issued them. "White-Elephant hunting" I used M4 variants. ~shrugs~ I had repeatedly heard that it had a 16" barrel. I was down at Blackwater and distinctly remember them talking about the characteristics of the 16" barrel on the M4. I have now been told by several of you that the issued M4 does not have a 16" barrel. I have friends in the green line and their weapons don't look any different than the one I had, but maybe it was an inch and a half shorter. ~shrugs~ Numbers aside, I was happy with that weapon's performance.
I am familiar with the 416, it was coming in as I was going out. Firing one convinced me to invest in a POF for my personal work-gun. I may be a fossil (yeah, still carry .45...), but I see it as another M4 variant. Granted, it's a nice weapon using a great idea, but still just a variant in my mind. But then again, as seen by many, I could be wrong...
Civilian guns typically have 16" barrels to avoid the NFA issues.
I thought most most civilian M4geries had 14.5" barrels with a perm installed FH to bring it to the legal 16"?
I'm guessing, but I think the ABCA is America, Britain, Canada, Australia. You could say it's ABCDA and include Denmark.
Ah, ok. Thanks. Makes sense.
I guess ABCDDA. Dutch and Danes ;)
Chad
BushmasterFanBoy
05-27-08, 20:38
I thought most most civilian M4geries had 14.5" barrels with a perm installed FH to bring it to the legal 16"?
**Shouting in a Hitler voice with saliva spewing from the mouth**:
"The 6920 is de stanardt!"
A real M4 doesn't have a 16inch barrel. So like you said the M4geries as they are called, feature a 14.5inch barrel with a permanently attached muzzle device. This in my opinion is a civilian version of the M4.
The 6920 is not, in my opinion, an M4gery. It's more of a rifle that pretends to be a carbine, but really it's too long. Kind of like the fat chick who thinks she is still hot. Yea, that's the Colt 6920.
But, you have so many people who jump on the 6920 bandwagon, that they mistakenly believe that it's pretty close to an actual M4.
Anyway you slice it, pinned muzzle devices are LAME.
Carbineoholic
05-27-08, 22:44
Well I'll tell ya a story. I speak to a lot of returning Vets. Pro door kickers. Some in special ops, and all that were hated the 5.56. The army gave them all kinds of versions from different makers for field tests. I heard comments like 'cool toy', neat trick gizmos on some and the like. The one thing all agreed on was a bigger more powerful round. The unit finally tossed all the 'cool toys' and grabbed up AK's. "The Ak had more ass". "The sbr's we were given were good in CQB but we had to fire more rounds to put Haji down, so we tossed'em and grabbed up some AK's, mounted some Aimpoints and went back to work." The AK's stayed. A few even requested Thompsons or the .45 H&K. I smiled. I had snagged a Thompson in 72 and loved it. It never left my side. My M-16 failed me so many times, I didn't trust it. I just had to keep it around. At range it was superb, but up close the .45 was God.
Me I'm just an old Ranger who listens to the young ones, but in the 70's hidin behind a tree for cover didnt mean crap. The AK would rip right thru. I still got the scars. I feel what the new crew says. And I gotta agree. Seems now a days there are so many rules, some good some freakin stupid. All to be "fair".
**** fair, this is a war. Id shoot a LAWS into a sniper in a big tree soon as look at him and sleep good that night knowing no one would ever say anything. We were alive but in the same breath we wouldn't think of harming a hair on a dog unless it was armed. Go figure.
We need 'choice'. Use what the job requires.
The new PC Army has its head up it's ass sometimes, and this is a bad time.
M2cents. Take it for what it's worth. And if you happen to break a rule and beat that Haji butterfly with a bat, think of me and smile, it's ok, your still alive.
(and tell that liberal to quit hissing at me!)
Peace y'all!
"The Ak had more ass". "The sbr's we were given were good in CQB but we had to fire more rounds to put Haji down, so we tossed'em and grabbed up some AK's, mounted some Aimpoints and went back to work." The AK's stayed.
Interesting story. And they even went through trees big enough to conceal your body, did they?
Tell us, how did you mount an Aimpoint on an older AK back then?
Also what, other than poor shot placement, would lead you to believe that an M16 was inferior to the AK in CQB? I know a bigger round can be beneficial, don't get me wrong. But, in this particular case maybe you can elaborate...
And is it unfair for our troops to use a better round when it comes to accuracy and velocity? How specifically are we being cheated by utilizing the round in that regard?
Lastly, since "Haji" is a modern term relating to muslims, how did that apply back in your day?
Just genuinely curious, not trying to offend. ;)
But that is a constant state for me.
First I see discreopencies with barrel statistics, but it's an inch and half so maybe it's just me and my powers of observation.
And next there are the plethora of the "War Stories", some of which I have told myself, and some of them are even true.
There are the stories about the "Evil-Black Guns." There are the stories about the killing power of 30 cal. And there are the stories that contradict all of it.
Are there reliable statistics? Is there non-biased data? There are facts out there. I go back to the idea that inflicting wound trauma cannot be simplified to velocities and bullet sizes.
And if there is one area the Army needs to focus time and money on, it's better marksmanship training.
The one thing all agreed on was a bigger more powerful round. The unit finally tossed all the 'cool toys' and grabbed up AK's. "The Ak had more ass". "The sbr's we were given were good in CQB but we had to fire more rounds to put Haji down, so we tossed'em and grabbed up some AK's, mounted some Aimpoints and went back to work." The AK's stayed. A few even requested Thompsons or the .45 H&K.
That's interesting. I'm wondering why units would be asking for Thompsons in this day and age because it has not been available in the system or laying around in over 35 years at least.
i'm also wondering how they just mounted the Aimpoints they had to the Aks since it requires specialized mounts that replace various parts of the gun. This isn't something that you just have with you.
There is no discrepancy with barrel lengths--the M4 and M4A1 have 14.5" barrels. Period. Many civilian & LE AR15's that are similar in looks to the M4, like the Colt 6920, use 16" barrels.
There are "unbiased" sources of wound ballistic info, for example the old IWBA data, the FBI BRF, and the recent USMC ammo study. The raw data from the JSWB-IPT is also solid, although the public summary released by the Army is highly redacted and misleading.
I was down at Blackwater and distinctly remember them talking about the characteristics of the 16" barrel on the M4. I have now been told by several of you that the issued M4 does not have a 16" barrel.
I used to swear by the 55-grain, but I have been told by the instructors at Blackwater that heavier bullets have a higher velocity, thus tumble more reliably.
Hluill, The guys down there know what an M4 is and that it has a 14.5" barrel.
They also know more about ballistics than the statement above. Besides, the statement is so vague since no particular loading is mentioned. As a general rule, as the bullet gets heavier, the velocity gets lower, otherwise pressures will be to great.
If factual data cannot be referenced, please leave it off the site.
Mark
Anyway you slice it, pinned muzzle devices are LAME.
Yes, but they get you around the equally as lame 1938 NFA.
variablebinary
05-28-08, 11:09
A lot has changed since the cold war.
The mass introduction of carbines is an example. You'd think more consideration would be given to the fact that ballistics between a 20" and 14.5" are very different with issued ammo.
What effect does the steel penetrator have?
variablebinary
05-28-08, 18:03
This debate is exactly why I said we should be formally evaluating our frontline weapons every 5-10 years.
The issue of M855 + M4A1 should have been addressed a by now.
tinman44,
I hope your comment is in jest, otherwise you are completely out of touch...
yes pointing out a one liner was in jest.
SmackDiesel
05-29-08, 00:08
This debate is exactly why I said we should be formally evaluating our frontline weapons every 5-10 years.
The issue of M855 + M4A1 should have been addressed a by now.
__________________
Amen and Amen...
There seems to be alot of illinformed carbine owners on this site. Thats the purpose of such forums....to help educate each other and inform.
The SS109 and M855 ball penetrators are excellent munitions; and all on this site (if shooting civilian carbines) would benefit tremendously from shooting these cartridges or close clones. I have to assume 99% of us all have 1-7 to 1-9 twist rate in our carbine uppers. The 55 grn bullet is just too light. PERIOD! Those with longer uppers and longer twists can shoot the 55grn with better results.
There are readily available 62 grn lead core sp's that achieve similar results in performance to their military cousins for about 1/2 to 2/3 the cost. I have finally given up and will rely soley on reloading for my bullet needs. Who cares if I can't penetrate an engine block at 600 meters.....I can still hit it. Besides I squirreled away plenty of M855's from Unc. Sam when he wasnt looking (for a rainy day).:D
"The SS109 and M855 ball penetrators are excellent munitions; and all on this site (if shooting civilian carbines) would benefit tremendously from shooting these cartridges or close clones.}
SS109/M855 are "excellent" for what they were designed for--full auto fire out of the M249 SAW/FN Minimi; they are not particularly consistent nor do they offer ideal terminal performance out of rifles and carbines, especially those with shorter barrels.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_re_us/army_chief_bullets
Chief of staff: Army reviewing complaints over bullets
By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer
The military is reviewing soldiers' complaints that their standard ammunition isn't powerful enough for the type of fighting required in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army's highest-ranking officer said Thursday. But Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said it was too soon to say whether the Pentagon will switch. Current and former soldiers interviewed by The Associated Press said the military's M855 rifle rounds are not powerful enough for close-in fighting in cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Speaking with reporters at a conference in Huntsville, Casey said leaders are constantly soliciting feedback from soldiers in the field and were aware of complaints about the M855 ammunition. "To effectively prepare them we have to adapt as the enemy adapts, and that is some of the feedback we have gotten," Casey said. "We'll evaluate it quickly and then we'll decide how we want to proceed." But Casey said it would be premature to say if the Pentagon will consider a different type of ammunition. "I can't tell you exactly what we're going to do," he said. The M855 rounds were designed decades ago to puncture the steel helmets of Soviet soldiers from hundreds of yards away. Some soldiers said that they are not large enough to stop an enemy immediately in close quarters. Casey said the military has been evaluating its equipment and practices since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. "Technology is pulling us, and what we're learning on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is pushing us," he said.
Yes, but they get you around the equally as lame 1938 NFA.
Point of order, National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934.
Continue, it's been a very enlightening (and very funny) discussion.....
Relevant to the discussion:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Spickert_Fulton.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf
Doc,
I agree. The M855 does work well with the SAW and for what is was intended to do at the time- stave off the Russian hordes. I really have to wonder why after the experiences in Somalia and the last few years of GWOT these guys at the upper level don't figure it out.
Is it just a matter of the same old comfortable shoe, influence with the DoD by the embeded companies or just plain old indifference? I carry M855 now because I have to. I also have to wonder if part of the problem is our capacity as a country to be able to produce ammo in quantities and qualities needed?
It wasn't all that long ago that the military was short .50 caliber ammo and started drawing on old war stock.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.