US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
Hey, at least the American troops HAVE bullets! some of our troops run out as there's not enough to go round!
 

FieldDiscipline

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
739
Reaction score
18
Location
Great Britain
Whilst I agree with the logic of a hollowpoint round doing more damage and killing quicker, it is not an idea that sits well with those who write conventions. We want to be able to treat casualties remember :rolleyes:

When we did away with the 7.62 SLR there was alot of argument about stopping power. It still goes on today. I'm told we went with 5.56mm to fit in with NATO. The new weapon system is more accurate and far better to suited to operating in built up areas than the SLR.

I dont agree with shot placement being an argument. In a firefight, careful, control headshots arent really on the cards. Point at the big square bit in the middle.

tkd1964, I've heard that story too. I dont know how true it is, but I wouldnt bet on it.

I havent read everything on the ammo oracle site. Very interesting that FN developed the M855 round, given that they made the SLR.

5.56 is man enough for the job. Its gotta be said though that if we could have a 7.62 short (the preffered weapon of the enemy) in such an accurate weapon, it'd be worth looking at. Its getting the balance, not all ops are in an urban environment. The average range of a conventional infantry contact is 300m.
 

Touch Of Death

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
11,610
Reaction score
848
Location
Spokane Valley WA
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.


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?

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.
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.
Excuse me but an M-16 round can penetrate an engine block. How much more power is needed?
Sean
 

Steel Tiger

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
77
Location
Canberra, Australia
Excuse me but an M-16 round can penetrate an engine block. How much more power is needed?
Sean

That is the essential problem. The M-16 with the M855 round can penetrate an engine block, it doesn't transfer the energy to the target as well as a larger calibre, or expanding bullet, would.

The M855 round was developed with a certain type of situation envisioned. That situation, fighting enemies with similar equipment, has not as yet eventuated, instead insurgents in everyday clothing are the adversary in the main. Still the M855 round does a good enough job, some thought needs to be given to increasing energy transfer though.
 

Deaf Smith

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
85
Actually ken that 300 m is about it.

Back in WW2 the Germans figured out that enguagments normaly didn't even start till inside 300 meters (yes there are exceptions, but actually few as for rifle fire.) Many were much much closer as the German 'GI's didn't want to reveal their positions early and also to make sure a good possibility of hits.

So they developed the 7.92x33. It was a split between the 9x19 in the subguns and the 7.92x57 service round. 7.92 was selected cuse their machinery for rifle making was, of course, 7.92! The MP44 was the rifle of choice for this round (though they did make another that was kind of good if weird looking.)

The Russian 7.62x33 is a ripoff of the German round, just as the apperience of the AK-47 is a ripoff of the MP44 (but the insides are much different.) For them (the Ruskies that is) it was a split between the 7.62x25(Tokarev) and the 7.62x54R (Nagant.)


more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92_x_33_mm
 

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
144
Location
Springfield, Missouri
I may not be communicating clearly.

are y'all saying that 300 yards/meters/whatever is the maximum distance for normal encounters?

I would imagine, given the type of conflict in which we've been involved in the last 50 years or so (urban, jungle, CQB) that <100 meters would be the more common distance.
 

5-0 Kenpo

Master of Arts
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
60
The problem is that there are no perfect solutions. Everything is a trade-off.
 

chinto

Senior Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
2,026
Reaction score
38
OK in the interests of full disclosure I do not like the 5.56/.223 round for military use except in very special kinds of combat. for urban combat I would take an M14 or an M1 over an M16/M4 any day.. same for mountain fighting ! in both situations the 7.62X51 or earlier 7.62X63 ( 30-06) round is a 100 times better at penitration and or putting the threat down, especially at longer ranges. .. at 50 yards the .223/5.56mm round is very very nasty!! ( especially with the original 3000 fps rounds .. but the ball powder screwed the weapon up! ) the ss109 is about 2900 fps at 61grains and the old M14 round is 150 grains at 2800fps and the old M1 30-06 is the same weight or heavier at 2900 to 2950 fps. the physics say that it will hit a lot harder then the stupid supped up basically 22 cal weapon.
so if I have to go into combat, I want a .30 cal ( 7.62) round and in 308/7.62X 51 or slightly larger.
 

Andy Moynihan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
176
Location
People's Banana Republic of Massachusettstan, Disu
I may not be communicating clearly.

are y'all saying that 300 yards/meters/whatever is the maximum distance for normal encounters?

I would imagine, given the type of conflict in which we've been involved in the last 50 years or so (urban, jungle, CQB) that <100 meters would be the more common distance.


The 300 yard mark is just what the M16 series was designed around.
 

FieldDiscipline

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
739
Reaction score
18
Location
Great Britain
I dont have any documents to back that up I'm afraid. Just what I was taught. Thats the average not the maximum. The old light support weapon was effective out to 500m, and the GPMG (7.62) could be used for indirect fire over miles!

It depends on the kind of operation obviously, but your weapon needs to be balanced for all kinds of operation. I bet during the invasion there were plenty of 300m contacts. I accept that more recently they are more likely to be closer than that, but there will still be a long range requirment. 5.56mm isnt perfect, but its a pretty good balance.
 

allenjp

Brown Belt
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
456
Reaction score
10
Location
San Diego, California
Actually ken that 300 m is about it.

Back in WW2 the Germans figured out that enguagments normaly didn't even start till inside 300 meters (yes there are exceptions, but actually few as for rifle fire.) Many were much much closer as the German 'GI's didn't want to reveal their positions early and also to make sure a good possibility of hits.

So they developed the 7.92x33. It was a split between the 9x19 in the subguns and the 7.92x57 service round. 7.92 was selected cuse their machinery for rifle making was, of course, 7.92! The MP44 was the rifle of choice for this round (though they did make another that was kind of good if weird looking.)

The Russian 7.62x33 is a ripoff of the German round, just as the apperience of the AK-47 is a ripoff of the MP44 (but the insides are much different.) For them (the Ruskies that is) it was a split between the 7.62x25(Tokarev) and the 7.62x54R (Nagant.)


more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92_x_33_mm

Actually, if memory serves me correctly, the russian AK round is a 7.62x39
 

Deaf Smith

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
85
Appoligies allenjp. Yes it is 39mm and not 33. Just crossed that up with the German round.

Deaf
 

Latest Discussions

Top