US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war

[MA-Caver]

US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war

By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer Mon May 26, 8:10 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/battling_over_bullets
WASHINGTON - 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.

I don't know about anyone else but if I'm gonna be in an urban combat situation I want a hard hitting bullet so that when I put it in someone I don't have to worry too much about the guy getting back up and putting one in me.

"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.

Somehow this doesn't make any sense... you can hit a person in the head, even between the eyes or directly in the heart even with a .22 and they could still conceivably survive... at least long enough to do the same to you.

Read this sentence carefully will ya?

"The bullet does exactly what it was designed to do. It just doesn't do very well at close ranges against smaller-stature people that are lightly equipped and clothed," says Alexander, who spent most of his 26-year military career with the 5th Special Forces Group.

Is it me or is there something wrong with a bullet that doesn't do well at close range against someone wearing, say, a plain white cotton t-shirt?

If we're going to keep our troops there in Iraq, fighting in probably one of the worse conditions that ANY combat soldier has to fight in (close-quarter urban combat or street to street fighting... in the enemy's hometown!!)... then at least give them the advantage of having superior firepower/ammunition no-matter what kind of gun they put in their hands.

And this I agree with.

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."

Shooting as few rounds as possible helps cut down on shooting possible friendlies... and children.

Anyone else get this? I get the feeling that I might be missing something here.

 

[Big Don]

Don't forget that the 9mm round is VASTLY inferior to the old reliable .45 cal round...
The purpose of war, a famous guy said, is to break things and kill people. The weapons our troops use must be effective.
While in a perfect world, we'd never have to kill, the world we live in is far from perfect and when lethal force is called for, too much power beats not enough every day of the week.

 

[Steel Tiger]

The shift away from the heavier 7.62mm round to the 5.56mm one is rather interesting. Initially it was done because of weight considerations. A soldier would not be so encumbered with an equivalent amount of ammunition. The British had wanted to go even smaller to 4.85mm with the EM2 (which eventually compromised into the L85A1).

The effectiveness the soldiers are talking about all has to do with energy transfer and the 5.56mm bullet does not do this very well. We have seen a similar situation with the move from .45 and .455 to 9mm in pistols. Those big old .45s were called "man-stoppers" for a reason. When you got hit by the big bullet you stopped. But the illusion that velocity is better has created the current situation.

Its great if you are up against an enemy wearing the same body armour as you are, but not so good when he is wearing shorts and a t-shirt.


All that being said, there is nothing at all wrong with the M-4. It is an improvement on the M-16 while being essentially the same rifle.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

You know they make hollowpoint rifle rounds nowadays in addition to hollowpoint pistol rounds which would get rid of this problem irrespective of caliber.

We seriously need to drop at least THAT part of the Geneva Convention. If I ever have to fight the Swiss, I'll obey the Geneva Convention(nobody bloody else does...)

 

[Ahriman]

Andy: naaay, that'd reduce the number of bullets exiting on the opposite side towards some random location... Hey, random flying bullets are cool, aren't they? One effectively maimed a civilian when our brave and well-equipped policemen took down a bank robber recently.
...
Now seriously. An expansive round (is it the proper English name?) does much more damage obviously, reducing time until death after being shot. This is more "humane" IMO... and it doesn't really over-penetrate, which reduces the chance of unintended hits, which is, again, more humane... thus I don't really get the humanitarian idea of this part of the GC.
While only seriously injuring an enemy fighter may be a good idea if his comrades are willing to help him (thus it'd remove 3 fighters theoretically from the fight), the irregular fighters don't really seem to follow this thinking.
...
"If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn't matter what you shoot him with" is true, but "right spot" needs clarifying. Vital organs, certain areas of the brain and the like have to be damaged to the greatest possible level. Now is it easier to hit and destroy them with a bigger bullet or with a smaller one if both bullets are FMJ? Just think about the difference between having an aorta cut halfway in and having the same aorta cut fully in two pieces...
...
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but human idiocy upsets me.

 

[tkd1964]

I was told awhile ago that the reason for the smaller round was so that a wounded enemy would have to be carried off by two or more enemy leaving fewer to fight. Isaid I would rather have that one dead enemy instead of three more coming back another day and the one who was wounded would be like a pissed off dog looking to bite anyone. The only logic of war is that a dead enemy will not be back the next day to kill you.

 

[mrhnau]

I was told awhile ago that the reason for the smaller round was so that a wounded enemy would have to be carried off by two or more enemy leaving fewer to fight. Isaid I would rather have that one dead enemy instead of three more coming back another day and the one who was wounded would be like a pissed off dog looking to bite anyone. The only logic of war is that a dead enemy will not be back the next day to kill you.

Well, if you are facing a crazed attacker just waiting to self-detonate, you might want some stopping power, insuring he does not keep coming forward after being shot in the chest.

Dead enemies are not likely to self-detonate.

I think the concept of injuring someone rather than killing has its place though, just not in this kind of war. At least not for our side!

 

[CuongNhuka]

Two thoughts on this: one, no duh. The Army is very conservative. It took a while before they admit that they might need something new (the precursor to the M16 lasted from pre WWII - beginnning of Vietnam).

Two, the M16 is being phased out in favor of the M4, which has a smaller round that has more power behind it.

 

[Ahriman]

tkd1964: I mentioned this concept... It might work where there's a regulation concerning retrieving injured ones, but even then it'd work only in that specific fight. Now irregulars are those who don't have regulations... and in the USA's case these opposing irregulars are fanatic enough to ignore losses according to what I hear and see in the news.
...
mrnhau: "Dead enemies are not likely to self-detonate" - this is something I never understood. It's not that hard to make a bomb that blows up either when a button is pressed or when heartbeats stop. Ahwell, at least they aren't working at top efficiency... lucky for us.
"At least not for our side!" - don't give them ideas, AFAIK the USA doesn't really leave injured soldiers behind so yes, this concept would work very well against US troops in theory.
...
CoungNukha: having more kinetic energy is one thing... what matters here is the bullet's efficiency when it comes to sharing that kinetic energy with the target. Most FMJ rifle rounds will overpenetrate unarmoured targets, be it 0.223 or .50, so increasing the power has little use.

 

[allenjp]

Two thoughts on this: one, no duh. The Army is very conservative. It took a while before they admit that they might need something new (the precursor to the M16 lasted from pre WWII - beginnning of Vietnam).

Two, the M16 is being phased out in favor of the M4, which has a smaller round that has more power behind it.

Uh...no. The M16 and the M4 fire exactly the same round. It is the
5.56 mm, or what is referred to in the civilian world as the .223. The only difference between the M16 and the M4 is that the M4 is a smaller rifle with a shorter barrel. This gives the M4 certain tactical advantages over the M16 especially in urban situations and room/house/building clearing situations because it is easier to wield and turn quickly in tight quarters. The shorter barrel actually reduces muzzle velocity, in this case by quite a bit since the barrel is almost six inches shorter, thus making it a bit less powerful. But it is still the same round. This is a basic concept in firearms technology: longer barrel = higher muzzle velocity.

Now that we got that lesson out of the way, I have talked to many veterans of the Iraq war and many of them have commented the same thing. They think this round just does not have enough stopping power, and they would like to see the military switch to the 7.62x39 mm, which is the round fired by the AK47 and the SKS, or even the .308(7.62x54 NATO round if my memory serves me correctly), which is what the M14 fires. In my opinion this would be a good idea, however we have to remember that shooting accurately is far more important than what size bullet you're firing. Which is why our soldiers are still killing far more of them than they are of our soldiers, even though they have the bigger bullets: those guys don't know how to shoot very well, and our soldiers are some of the best trained marksmen in the world. Give me a U.S. Marine or a U.S. soldier, or even a U.S. sailor with an M16 any day over an "insurgent" with his kalashnakov. Just my opinion.

All that said I would like to see them switch over, our guys (and gals) deserve to have the best available.

 

[allenjp]

You know they make hollowpoint rifle rounds nowadays in addition to hollowpoint pistol rounds which would get rid of this problem irrespective of caliber.

We seriously need to drop at least THAT part of the Geneva Convention. If I ever have to fight the Swiss, I'll obey the Geneva Convention(nobody bloody else does...)

The russians have been making hollowpoint rounds for years and years ad years...I used to buy russian made surplus hollowpoint rounds for my SKS all the time...this is not a new idea. The problem is that it is hard for a hollow point to go through body armor (not that our enemies are wearing it anyway though).

 

[allenjp]

The shift away from the heavier 7.62mm round to the 5.56mm one is rather interesting. Initially it was done because of weight considerations. A soldier would not be so encumbered with an equivalent amount of ammunition. The British had wanted to go even smaller to 4.85mm with the EM2 (which eventually compromised into the L85A1).

The effectiveness the soldiers are talking about all has to do with energy transfer and the 5.56mm bullet does not do this very well. We have seen a similar situation with the move from .45 and .455 to 9mm in pistols. Those big old .45s were called "man-stoppers" for a reason. When you got hit by the big bullet you stopped. But the illusion that velocity is better has created the current situation.

Its great if you are up against an enemy wearing the same body armour as you are, but not so good when he is wearing shorts and a t-shirt.


All that being said, there is nothing at all wrong with the M-4. It is an improvement on the M-16 while being essentially the same rifle.

Yep, I agree. This is the same old argument that has been going on in the civilian world with pistols for years now. The "lighter and higher velocity is better" crowd just won't go away.

The problem is that if you look at the ballistic measurements, the smaller, higher velocity rounds actually create more energy than the bigger, slower ones. So in theory they are "more powerful". But when you take reality into account (energy transfer to the target, vital tissue damage, slugs not exiting the body,) the larger diameter rounds are (IMHO) more effective. Especially when your target is hopped up on khat.

 

[theletch1]

I was told awhile ago that the reason for the smaller round was so that a wounded enemy would have to be carried off by two or more enemy leaving fewer to fight. Isaid I would rather have that one dead enemy instead of three more coming back another day and the one who was wounded would be like a pissed off dog looking to bite anyone. The only logic of war is that a dead enemy will not be back the next day to kill you.

I believe what the person you were speaking to was referencing was one of the strategies of the NVA and VC during the Vietnam war. Booby traps and shooting to wound are very effective force equalizers when faced with a higher tech enemy.

The russians have been making hollowpoint rounds for years and years ad years...I used to buy russian made surplus hollowpoint rounds for my SKS all the time...this is not a new idea. The problem is that it is hard for a hollow point to go through body armor (not that our enemies are wearing it anyway though).

I think his point (ha, ammo pun attack as Sukerkin would say) was that the Geneva convention doesn't allow for the use of hollow points not that they weren't around. (two puns in one sentence!)

 

[theletch1]

One more random thought. With the 5.56mm round you get a good flat trajectory out to a good distance. Eventually the round will tumble and cause greater damage when it hits. Is it possible that the close ranges of urban warfare aren't giving the round enough time to tumble, thereby creating a "shootthrough" scenario?

As for not wearing body armor... The round is supposed to fragment (if my boot camp memories serve me) and the body armor would assist the round breaking up as it entered the body. A slower velocity round would therefor be better suited to the task as the ranges are closer and the needed resistance to help with fragmentation of the 5.56 isn't there.

 

[Grenadier]

Some good reading:

http://www.thegunzone.com/556faq.html


One important aspect of the 5.56 mm NATO round, is that with a thin copper jacket, the bullet will violently fragment in a gel-like medium (such as a human body). This fragmentation, though, is dependent on there being at least a decent velocity upon impact. M193 (55 grain), aka WInchester Q3131A, is actually a pretty good manstopper, at ranges where you don't go below the terminal velocity.

As for soft body armor, almost any soft body armor can be defeated with almost any centerfire rifle cartridge, including the 5.56 mm NATO.


On another note, the 5.56 mm NATO and the .223 Remington are very similar, and many arms chambered in the cartridge can safely use either, BUT...

The SAAMI (.223 Remington) chamber has a shorter leade than the NATO (5.56) chamber does, and can lead to a dangerous pressure buildup in arms chambered specifically for the .223 Remington, when 5.56 mm NATO ammo is used.

 

[badbart]

This is interesting info:

http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm#223

 

[Deaf Smith]

This will answer all your questions about the 5.56 mm and what it can and cannot do.

http://www.ammo-oracle.com/

It's very detailed and very very factual. No guessing, no opinion, just facts.

And BTW, sure there are more powerful rounds that will get the job done, but there are trade offs with any system you use cause TANSTAAFL.

Deaf

 

[Empty Hands]

And BTW, sure there are more powerful rounds that will get the job done, but there are trade offs with any system you use cause TANSTAAFL.

QFT. We would be saying the same things in reverse if the troops were equipped with hollow points or other man-stopping rounds and came upon an enemy that required AP rounds. I don't know how realistic this would be, but perhaps each soldier should be equipped with both AP and man-stopping load outs? Maybe a 5.56 hollow point wouldn't be as useful as a 7.65 or .45 in stopping power, but be an improvement over the current AP configuration?

 

[KenpoTex]

Shot placement is critical...that said, I'm not generally a fan of the idea of using FMJ ammo in a combat context. SP or HP would (IMO) perform better in the majority of cases (where you don't need AP capability).

just my $0.02

 

[Deaf Smith]

Problem is the Hauge Convention outlawed 'dum-dum' bullets. And that is why we use FMJ (abet with the cannenlur thinned so it breaks appart, and, of course, the bulllets tumble.)

That is why true JHPs are not used. Snipers do use match hollowpoints but these slugs are not made to expand or shatter. They just move the weight to the rear for better accuracy.

The Russians used a hollow cavity in their 5.45 round, and maybe that's a good idea. But the U.S. has always been a bit squemish about breaking agreements like the Hauge.

The advent of the EOT, ACOG, and the like have made accuracy much much easier to achive. Expect to see a M16/M4/AR that simpley has a very good trigger, no burst fire, and maybe even a opt-rod gas action.

I have the EOT and I can say it's makes snap shots very very much faster than the old apenditure sights. And yes, accuracy is the most imporatant thing you need with any point defense weapon.

Deaf