Weapons review from Iraq veteran

[Nerd King]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

And somebody made the point that while you can carry more 5.56mm, if it takes 3 5.56mm rounds to bring a guy down, it kind of balances things out.

Sure as heck doesn't "balance out" when I'm the one entering the room and how my ammo functions will determine whether I live or die. Not a good feeling, trust me.

[Peter Cairns]

At a startegic or operational level, wounding is better than killing as it creates a greater burden logistically. Thats why cluster bombs are particularly effective.

Where as a conventional iron bomb obliterated those close in, wounds those further out but does hurt those far away, a cluster bomb kills fewer but wounds far more.

However as rightly said to the man on the ground facing an enemy, you shoot to kill and want a round that will do it.

Wound rather than kill isn't an urban myth, it's just not practiced at a tactical level.

Grenades are designed to kill because thats what you want when fighting at close range. Land mines are designed to main because thats what you want when your not about.

Peter.

[Nerd King]

The days of thinkng WWIII in Fulda Gap are gone, and so is the strategic thinking (or should be at least). Nowadays results on a tactical level can possibly have strategic implications. Chew on that one.

[juan_gigante]

I already wrote all this, but then accidentally deleted it, so it'll be shorter this time around.

Originally posted by Nerd King:

Sure as heck doesn't "balance out" when I'm the one entering the room and how my ammo functions will determine whether I live or die. Not a good feeling, trust me.

I'm on your side. I feel that soldiers would be better served with a round that puts their enemy down with one shot, period. 5.56mm is not that round. I was responding to those complaining about the added weight of 7.62mm, and saying that troops could therefore carry fewer rounds.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Grenades are designed to kill because thats what you want when fighting at close range.

So you acknowledge that a 7.62mm round is superior for CQB (what American soldiers will be facing for the foreseeable future) because it possesses better knockdown/kill power and "thats what you want when fighting at close range"?

[Nerd King]

Actually Juan there are 5.56mm rounds out there that do heinous damage, and very effective. BUT our military is not allowed to use them. Some contracters out there have used them with great results.

[SgtMuhammed]

Actually the intent when you engage the enemy is to render him unable to prevent your manuevers. There is no doctrine about killing or wounding or scaring or tickling.

Smaller rounds are not only lighter and can be carried in greater quantity but they can be fired faster and more accurately. Soldiers are trained to aim center mass, which will normally dissable anyone you hit.

There are stories of people being hit nearly everywhere with everything and surviving. These incidents and incidents that people claim to hear get repeated and repeated until they become bigger than life. One of the Rangers in Somalia took an RPG through his body but lived for several hours, does that mean the RPG isn't effective. The Rangers also talk about a Somali who was on the recieving end of several bursts from an M60 and still left the battle under his own power.

Sometimes people are just hard to kill.

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Many people argue that knockdown power has more to do with high velocity than mass of projectile. The major physical property at work is the rapid expansion of internal tissue (balooning). This squeezes internal organs like the heart and pinches the spine and drops a large mammal. The fact that the animal has taken pain killers or psychotic mimicking drugs would not help.

Anyone taking multiple hits through the chest by 5.56mm at close range would be incapacitated. Rapid 3 round bursts would be very effective in close quarters.

[Nerd King]

OK, let's raise hands and see how many people here have actually shot another armed person at point blank range.

That's what I thought.

The 5.56 FMJ does not have the stop-them-now power that it should have for close-quarters fighting. Is it still effective? Yes. Is it the best round out there? No. Are there other rounds out there, easily available, that can do the job better? YES.

PERIOD.

"Actually the intent when you engage the enemy is to render him unable to prevent your manuevers."

Dear lord, been reading the manuals have we? Shooting him seems to do the trick quite well. Wasn't that easier to say? Let's say your "manuevers" is clearing a room. The difference between him falling down NOW and falling down 10 seconds later are HUGE.

"There is no doctrine about killing or wounding or scaring or tickling."

Last time I checked my infantry manuals say the objective in close combat is to decisively engage, close with, and destroy the enemy, or something to that effect.

"Soldiers are trained to aim center mass, which will normally dissable anyone you hit."

If you hit the aorta, spinal cord, or heart it generally stops them in their tracks. However, the lungs are surprisingly resilient to the initial impact of a bullet. The air in them cushions the cavitation caused by the round. BTW I have medical background too so the above is an accurate statement. Granted, he won't be a happy camper in a little while, but that isn't helping me RIGHT NOW, within a few seconds.

"There are stories of people being hit nearly everywhere with everything and surviving. These incidents and incidents that people claim to hear get repeated and repeated until they become bigger than life."

True, very true. Then again there are folks out there who refuse to believe that their pet weapon/round caliber isn't made for the job at hand, even when they have never fired a shot in anger and sometimes never even fired a shot at all.

"Anyone taking multiple hits through the chest by 5.56mm at close range would be incapacitated. Rapid 3 round bursts would be very effective in close quarters."

Usually, yes they are down for the count. But what if they aren't? Want to bet your life on it? And three round burst is useless.

Also, your explanation of the bullet effects is inaccurate. It is called cavitation, and it compresses the organs, not vice versa, and yes it is very devastating.

It sounds all nice and warm and logical and fuzzy talking about this crap on a BB in a safe warm chair spouting info obtained from a Discovery channel show or some outdated strategic manual, it's quite another dealing with the reality of the situation. I don't care what Jane's says, and Guns and Ammo says, what some dude's uncle who knew a guy who's brother was over there. All the facts and neat little examples and figures in the world don't mean s**t in those few seconds.

PERIOD.

[Tarquelne]

All the facts and neat little examples and figures in the world don't mean s**t in those few seconds.

PERIOD. [/QB]

Hmm....

Actually, don't all the facts and neat little examples and figures in the world simply describe why what happens in those few seconds happens? I, for one, hope some decision makers sitting warm and safe somewhere have put the necessary time into studying all the facts.

And while what we say here may not matter, the facts still do. I, for one, am curious.

From what I've read the saving grace of the 5.56 would seem to be that you can get more rounds on target, and quickly. Not just in CQC, but at an intermediate distance. The advantage of the larger rounds is increased "stopping power.

So isn't this a question of how many more rounds you can get on target with a 5.56, and how quickly you can do so? Compared, of course, to the actual stopping-power advantage of the larger rounds?

How often to people really just keep going after a "useless" burst of 5.56 fire? How much harder is it really to hit your target before he does something unfortunate with the heavier rounds?

Well, grogs? I don't suppose anyone has anything that smells like data?

(Hmm... and does suppression fire figure into this? Is more shots (granted by the smaller/lighter 5.56 significantly more or less important than the increased ability to penetrate cover/intimidate (I'm assuming) of the larger rounds?)

[Nerd King]

"And while what we say here may not matter, the facts still do"

yes you are correct, I did not word that very well. I should said "facts", as in purported to be them without any experience to prove so.

"How often to people really just keep going after a "useless" burst of 5.56 fire?"

It only takes one to kill you.

For the record, I like the 5.56 round's size, portability and the weapon systems designed for it. If we were allowed to use 5.56 rounds with higher immediate lethality, I would be happy as a clam.

"Well, grogs?"

This isn't meant to insult anyone, but just what gives their opinions any weight? (Unless they have combat experience that is) And quoting other sources doesn't count.

[SgtMuhammed]

If you shoot someone and hit something vital they will drop. If you don't they wont it doesn't matter what you hit them with. If he is still moving you shoot him again. Normally you don't even wait to find out if he is, you shoot till you are sure he is no longer a threat.

And yes Infantry is to Close with and destroy the enemy through fire and manuever. Destroy being the military term for, render combat ineffective. If that is accomplished by driving the enemy away or making him surrender then you have accomplished your mission. There is no manual that says every time you engage the enemy you will kill him or you have failed.

I actually prefer the bigger round but like I said, anything will kill. Quickly if put in the right place and slowly if not.

[Tarquelne]

This isn't meant to insult anyone, but just what gives their opinions any weight? (Unless they have combat experience that is) And quoting other sources doesn't count. [/QB]

1) Their opinion has weight if you trust them. Hopefully based on past experience. (A _very_ fuzzy factor.)

2) Their opinion has weight if the argument they present is a good one. (Sound, valid, all that jazz. Usually a fuzzy - or at least non-obvious - factor.)

3) If all else fails it counts if they reference a good source. (It will require some extra reading: I suggest building up a stable of sources you feel you can get away with simply dismissing. "On, it's from them. I'm sure it stinks." Its a tremendous time saver.)

This is the Internet, baby. Anyone who can include a link can function as an expert. Quite possibly a very, very annoying, dimwitted and stubborn one, but an "expert".

So: If you're not willing to take someone's word, and if examining an argument for internal consistency etc. etc. doesn't get you anywhere, then an opinion has "weight" when it's backed by something you can't simply dismiss as derived from a lack of experience or knowledge. (Disclaimer: All of this does presume that it's possible to transfer accurate knowledge via communication, and that some other people know things.)

On the necessity of combat experience:

Hmm... The armed forces, which collectively I'd guess has more combat experience than the Nerd King, chose the 5.56 awhile ago, and still may keep it. Why should we listen to you?

Heck, not all combat vets agree. It's obviously not a sure-fire path to the truth. (And, yes, I have had a conversation with at least one combat vet who swore by the 5.56 rounds. And no, I can't supply a link or any documentation.))

It's been said that the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data"... Now I freely admit that I have no proof that whoever said that is either a logician or a semanticist, but I believe it's true anyway.

[ December 05, 2005, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

If you shoot someone and hit something vital they will drop. If you don't they wont it doesn't matter what you hit them with. If he is still moving you shoot him again. Normally you don't even wait to find out if he is, you shoot till you are sure he is no longer a threat.

And yes Infantry is to Close with and destroy the enemy through fire and manuever. Destroy being the military term for, render combat ineffective. If that is accomplished by driving the enemy away or making him surrender then you have accomplished your mission. There is no manual that says every time you engage the enemy you will kill him or you have failed.

Yes. However, the assertion that knocking him down so two other soldiers have to look after him is a bunch of horse-crap. It may look good on paper or a calculator, but surely to God no one goes out and designs ammunition with that in mind. Ammunition is for killing people.

[juan_gigante]

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

Hmm... The armed forces, which collectively I'd guess has more combat experience than the Nerd King, chose the 5.56 awhile ago, and still may keep it. Why should we listen to you?

I can't remember who, but somebody once mentioned that the US Army does not fight wars - it moves men and material. While it is not exactly accurate, the US Armed Forces are largely a beauracracy, one that often makes decisions that are not linked to conditions on the ground. Rather than look at what the US Army is doing to judge what is the best weapon, I would look at the Special Forces units. These are guys whose speciality is fighting. They have no (or at least fewer) concerns for logistical issues, the military-industrial complex, money, patronage, and all that jazz that too often rules decision-making at the Pentagon. They want the best equipment available. And they are clamoring for larger calibur weapons. Disregard, even, the SCAR in 6.8mm; the HK SOCOM is .45 instead of 9mm (at special request), and the special forces are getting old M14s far faster than the regular Army guys are. When the best soldiers in the world get a choice between small and large caliburs, they seem to be voting nearly overwhelming for larger calibur weapons.

And this isn't new. As far back as Vietnam, Special Forces units (who generally have more control over their equipment loadout than regular Army) often chose AK-47s over M16s (although to be fair, early M16s shouldn't really count against 5.56mm). I will close with a quote from a Navy SEAL in Vietnam: "Happiness is 3 kills and a warm AK-47 before breakfast."

[Kurtz]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

And this isn't new. As far back as Vietnam, Special Forces units (who generally have more control over their equipment loadout than regular Army) often chose AK-47s over M16s (although to be fair, early M16s shouldn't really count against 5.56mm). I will close with a quote from a Navy SEAL in Vietnam: "Happiness is 3 kills and a warm AK-47 before breakfast."

And from the same war there are stories about Vietnamese who prefered the M16. The grass is always greener on the other side.

[FAI]

Originally posted by Kurtz:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by juan_gigante:

And this isn't new. As far back as Vietnam, Special Forces units (who generally have more control over their equipment loadout than regular Army) often chose AK-47s over M16s (although to be fair, early M16s shouldn't really count against 5.56mm). I will close with a quote from a Navy SEAL in Vietnam: "Happiness is 3 kills and a warm AK-47 before breakfast."

And from the same war there are stories about Vietnamese who prefered the M16. The grass is always greener on the other side. </font>

[Tarquelne]

While it is not exactly accurate, the US Armed Forces are largely a beauracracy, one that often makes decisions that are not linked to conditions on the ground. Rather than look at what the US Army is doing to judge what is the best weapon, I would look at the Special Forces units.

The "armed forces" comment was mostly a joke - "mostly" because I presume that the occasional combat vet gets a say - but I think your Special Forces point is a good one.

I've wondered for awhile if the average degree of training has a lot to do with how large a round a rifleman can be expected to handle in an automatic weapon: The theory being that while a draft army needs all the help it can get hitting the target, the Special Forces - and presumably today's average soldier - can make better use of a larger round without getting tripped up by the disadvantages. Or maybe not.

When the best soldiers in the world get a choice between small and large caliburs, they seem to be voting nearly overwhelming for larger calibur weapons.

OTOH, maybe they use their ability to get what they want to get weapons that really aren't as good, but "feel" better. Or there's a lot of residual dissatisfaction over the early M-16. Or larger rounds are considered more SF, or just different. (Or they can very reliably quickly put a large round into a target while others can't.) I dunno. For all I know the SF has guys who know everything the top egg-heads in Army weapon selection do, plus have scads more combat training and experience.

But there may be more going on than "The best fighters know the best weapon." (That'd be nice - and it makes sense - but it sounds almost too good to be true.)

This subject seems to come up every few months, and there never seem to be all that many links.... hint hint.

[Kurtz]

I read it. In a book.

Don't remember where I read it, Consider it "anecdotal evidence" or somefink. I think the availability of ammo was a factor.

Again, this is an unexpected situation and that's why I remembered reading it.

If the US in Vietnam had been issued with AK-47s and the Vietnamese with the M16, I'm sure some US troops would have preferred the M16.

[Wisbech_lad]

Thought that 0.257 was the best compromise?

0.303 too big/ heavy/ overkill, but a bullet from the Boer Woer that the Boer hunters did well with, but ill-suited to WW1. But so much stock, that no-one could afford to start from scratch for WWII. After that, there is the 0.223, that really is bit too small, but is overkill to the WW2 findings (rifle fire is to keep the other guys heads down, rarely kills them, so volume/ logistics> stopping power)

SF, by their very nature, will always go for customised stuff to show that they are special. Note the story about British SF using M16 in Falklands - at the time, everyone else in the British Army was using FN 7.62 rifles... and I remember the SAS using H&K at one point, basically because they could.

[aka_tom_w]

Way way back in the early days of the CMBO chat room or BB like this one there was a discussion VERY much like this one I think.

The whole issue of the size and weight of the round came up and there was some reference to a particularily GOOD Swiss army study (or they commissioned the study, or something) that weighed in heavily on this issue.

The details are sketchy in my mind but one of the factors that seemed to make rounds more deadly IIRC was the weight of the round. It seemed (in general) IIRC the wider fatter, heavier rounds proved to have more stopping power.

I wish I could reference that study (I will search for it when I have time) to see if there are specific rounds like the 5.56 mm round debated here. It was an old study and may be out of date.

Does anyone here recall the study or the investigation byu the Swiss into stopped power of the small arms round I am refering to?

The thing about the study is that they IIRC had good methodology and did in fact reccomend at least one specific round as the best, but I don't recall which round was the winner.

(Sorry for the sketchy details)

This is a great thread and I am intersted in reading more about this topic for sure.

thanks

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Still searching for the Swiss Stopping power ballistics study

this might help

The choice of calibre and ammunition

Although it was recognised that the 7.5mm GP11 round was no longer compatible with the nevv requirement for a lighter rifle, the calibre and ammunition had still to be determined. While accepting that combat generally takes place at ranges not exceeding 150-200m, the GRD nevertheless wished to have a round which would be effective out to 600m. Taking this into account, the 5.56 x 45mm calibre seemed insufficient, at least in the form of the M 93 round and at a time when the results of the NATO trials aimed at adopting a new standard round had not yet been made known. It can be assumed, however, that the promising performance of the new Belgian SS109 ammunition had not escaped the attention of the Swiss military authorities, since they decided to evaluate two new calibres - 6.45mm and 5.6mm.

SIG and the Federal Arms Factory each produced 105 examples of their respective rifles in the two calibres - 73 in the standard version and 32 in the short version for technical testing and service trials. In 1981, however, the 6.45mm calibre was definitely ruled out in favour of the 5.6mm calibre, because the former was ill suited to the need for a lightweight weapon. Switzerland's wish to underline its political neutrality dictated the choice of 5.6mm rather than 5.56mm calibre but, despite this, the 5.6mm rifle is perfectly compatible with all the various types of 5.56 x 45mm ammunition and studies conducted on the round have led to a 4.1 g projectile very similar to that of the SS109. Unlike the latter, the 5.6mm projectile does not have a steel core, the weight being made up by a thicker sleeve. In conformity with the Hague Convention, the GP90 is designed to be fired from a barrel with a 1-in290mm rifling twist which optimises the interior ballistics (minimum wear of the bore), exterior ballistics (particularly flight stability at ranges out to 300m at very low temperatures) and terminal effects out to 600m (perforation and stopping power) The Eidgenbssische Waffenfabrik in Thun and the Eidgenossische Pulverfabrik in Wimmis will begin production of the ammunition in 1990.

from this web page

-tom w

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Originally posted by Nerd King:

[QB]

"Anyone taking multiple hits through the chest by 5.56mm at close range would be incapacitated. Rapid 3 round bursts would be very effective in close quarters."

Usually, yes they are down for the count. But what if they aren't? Want to bet your life on it? And three round burst is useless.

Also, your explanation of the bullet effects is inaccurate. It is called cavitation, and it compresses the organs, not vice versa, and yes it is very devastating.

Its actually called temporary cavitation. As opposed to permanent cavitation. Its the rapid hydrostatic response of tissue to the energy of the bullet. I was using graphic laymen's terms.

But what I described, the balooning of tissue (a baloon is a cavity, no?), impinging on vital organs (crushing the heart, pinching the spine, etc.) is correct. Its what drops animals like flys. Not sure what you think you are correcting?

Many vets I served with (Vietnam War vets) described M16A1 5.56mm 'dropping' moving enemy (soldiers that were on their feet). They called them 'wet-sacks' because they went down immediately in a limp state under the effects of gravity. They were 'greased'. Many would lose large chunks of flesh or even limbs from hits that they said would physically move the enemy (like a punch). There was no clean permanent cavitation but rather violent teporary cavitation against tissue and catastrophic effects against bone.

At extremely short ranges, you would fire full auto. Multiple hits by 5.56mm in rapid succesion seemed to increase the temporary cavitation effect (one 'balooning out' hitting another internally).

The enemy was typically smaller than many other humans. When attempting a full blown assault, they often wrapped their arms and legs tightly.

[ December 06, 2005, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com ]

[aka_tom_w]

Its actually called temporary cavitation. As opposed to permanent cavitation. Its the rapid hydrostatic response of tissue to the energy of the bullet. I was using graphic laymen's terms.

See the image at the bottom of this thread, (the last post on the page) that show's a diagram of the temporary cavitation effect of the 5.56 mm round.)

-tom w

[ December 06, 2005, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

there's more here:

Big Hole School - In this school of thought, and the medically correct one, the more permanent damage that is done to the target (and incidentally the more rapidly the target bleeds out) the more effective the bullet and more likely incapacitation. The more tissue cut, crushed, and/or destroyed by the bullet's passage the better, as more real system trauma results. In addition, in order to be effective at all target angles the bullet must penetrate sufficiently to reach vital organs in the target no matter from what direction the bullet impacts. Most authorities agree that for anti-personnel use a minimum penetration in calibrated ballistic gelatin of about 12" (with 14" - 15" being considered ideal) is needed. This is necessary to achieve reliable performance under all conditions against a human target. It should be noted that minimum depth for major blood vessels and organs in a human is about 15cm ( 6"). With bullets used for hunting the general consensus is the deeper the better. In both cases this has to be coupled with the ability to create the largest diameter permanent hole possible. Most authority seem to agree that the hole needs to be at least .5" or greater in diameter and as deep as possible. A problem arises here in that as a bullet expands it tends to penetrate less, so expansion and penetration have to be carefully balanced by bullet weight and bullet construction. This bullet design problem is exacerbated by the fact that if a target is covered by some material such as cloth, glass, metal, etc. the expansion--and hence the penetration of the bullet--can alter dramatically.

This school tends to favor medium to heavy weight bullets at moderate velocity, with a general preference to bullets of .40 caliber and greater. The stated requirements for optimum performance are:

An average penetration of 14" in 10 percent gelatin

Velocity of between 800 and 1000 f/s

Maximum practical bullet weight for the caliber. (9 mm - 147 gr, 10 mm - 180 gr, .45ACP - 230 gr)

The most famous of these studies is the FBI "Ammunition Standards" testing and evaluation done in the 80s which attempted to rank ammunition effectiveness. While the study was well done and showed the effectiveness of making a large diameter and deep hole the ranking system was flawed because of the following test assumptions

Bullet expansion, in and of itself, was rewarded. Thus a 9 mm bullet that expanded to .45" was rated as more effective than a .45 cal bullet that did not expand even if the wounds were identical.

Penetration depth of 12" was awarded a value of "1" while a penetration of 11.9" was given a value of "0," the same as a penetration of 6".

The FBI has since stopped ranking the ammunition and has just started to publish the test results themselves. I personally think that a ranking system based solely upon a combination of actual penetration depth modified by the average dimensions of a human torso (to discount cavity volume outside the depth of a torso), and the volume of the permanent cavity might make a useful ranking system if the statistical caveats could be worked out.

One word about depth of penetration. Some people in law enforcement hold that too much penetration with ammunition used for self defense is a bad thing. They warn that a bullet that passes through a target may hit someone else resulting in all kinds of law suits. However, considering that according to action reports from the NYPD that 80 - 90 percent of the shots fired in law enforcement situations fail to even hit the target (Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, and a few other school grads excepted!) I wouldn't worry too much if your ammo is penetrative. Better too much than not enough when the chips are down. However, ammunition that meets stated requirements above for optimum performance will in most circumstances not exit with a torso hit

Interestingly, the big hole school has always been accepted in the hunting field as pretty much the way to go, yet for some reason tissue damage and deep penetration have taken a while to be accepted by handgunners. Maybe the reason that energy dump and temporary cavity believers aren't vocal in the hunting area is that it is hard to talk when you are in between the toes of a cape buffalo or in a lion's or bear's stomach. Another interesting observation is that much of the existing medical literature on bullet wounds is still full of misconceptions and false statements. While things seem to be slowly improving there is quite a way to go for medical literature to catch up with the truth.

interesting terminal ballistics web page

[aka_tom_w]

more

This profile is the M855 5.56mm NATO cartridge, with a 62gr steel core FMJ boat tailed bullet @ 3035 f/s. This is a classic fragmenting rifle bullet profile. Penetration is acceptable at 34cm (13.4"). Note the long narrow neck of about 9 cm (4") before the bullet tumbles and fragments. The original M193 55gr round produces a similar profile but it has a longer neck, and slightly smaller temporary and permanent cavities. Both of these bullets fracture at the cannelure at velocities above about 2700 f/s. Below that velocity the bullets simply tumble without producing the extensive permanent cavity much like the 7.62 mm M80 ball round.

Is this the SAME bullet type as Nerd King is talking about here?:

The 5.56 FMJ does not have the stop-them-now power that it should have for close-quarters fighting. Is it still effective? Yes. Is it the best round out there? No. Are there other rounds out there, easily available, that can do the job better? YES.

PERIOD.

[ December 06, 2005, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]