Weapons review from Iraq veteran

[juan_gigante]

My 100th post hit the forum at a high enough velocity that it penetrated right through, and didn't get a chance to tumble.

[SgtMuhammed]

MD, what I said was that there is no doctrine one way or the other. The goal is to render the enemy combat ineffective. If that means killing him so be it, wounding, fine, making flee in terror, that works too.

The SF CQB course calls it aiming for the "bowling pin." Center mass and up through the head. Put a shot in there and you will stop the bad guys nearly every time. If he dies or not is not part a consideration but a good hit makes it very likely that he will.

Speaking of SF, all the ones I worked with, 1 SFG and 2nd Ranger Bat. in Lewis and several Delta operators elsewhere, used personalized versions of the M4. The Delta guys can use whatever they want and most still use the M4 with as many bells and whistles as they can fit on it.

As I said earlier, I actually prefer the German G3 but I loved my M4.

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

I shot a dog once. feces flew out his ass.

[Colin]

Well 2 pages of discussing whether you should shoot to kill with a 5.56 or shoot to kill with a 7.62. Fun.

Wasn't the issue whether the 5.56 puts an enemy on his ass fast enough, specifically when compared to the 7.62?

Seems that the argument can be summed up easily.

The US and NATO 5.56 weapons absolutely depend on their higher quality of training and better accuracy and ROF to displace the fact that there are more powerful rounds available.

If a soldier has a 3 second window to put a man down they are banking on the fact that 6 or 8 5.56 rounds is better then 3-4 7.62mm rounds. Now if you only hit him with one, the .30 cal is a better weapon but if you use the weapon/training to it's advantage you should be able to utilize the high ROF to your advantage.

There are also times where the stopping power and penetrating capabilities of the larger round are preferred. I would propose a couple of squad attached UMP45's and man with an M21 in every squad (as marksmen). I think I've got a picture of some US weapons leaning against a wall and there is an UMP among them.

Also what about JHP rounds? Is there a convention that says it must be FMJ? Seems that the insurgents would most likely be unarmored.

Finally, I think the idea of antiseptic's in the armour/clothing could be a workable idea.

Thoughts from you vets would be nice because I am a young textbook warrior.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

[i have noticed that I have never seen a lartge animal go strait down from using arrows (low velocity in comparison to bullets). [/QB]

Arrows don't inflict any soft-tissue shock at all - and they rarely hit organs that would instantly incapacitate since those are usually the most heavily protected by bone or position.

Instead arrows mainly kill by blood loss!!

as for shooting to wound - any policy along those lines requires teh enemy to co-operate by caring about their wounded!! :eek: :eek:

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Colin:

The US and NATO 5.56 weapons absolutely depend on their higher quality of training and better accuracy and ROF to displace the fact that there are more powerful rounds available.

Then it is funny that Russians dumped the 7.62 in favour of 5.56 decades back... but maybe they relied on their higher quality of training.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Colin:

Wasn't the issue whether the 5.56 puts an enemy on his ass fast enough, specifically when compared to the 7.62?

Yes.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Then it is funny that Russians dumped the 7.62 in favour of 5.56 decades back... but maybe they relied on their higher quality of training.

They looked at sdopting 5.45mm, but the calibre was never popular and is now only in very limited use.

Perhaps they forgot about the training bit, and found that it wasn't much use without it? :cool:

[Peter Cairns]

China has switched to 5.8mm.

Peter.

[Bruce70]

A few people have stated that it is the one person who deosn't go down immediately that will kill you. This is probably true (although I would have thought that you would have time to hit them again at CQ). Therefore, they have argued for a larger round, and/or for hollow points (which I do believe there are conventions against - don't know if the US is a signatory or not). But, if it only takes one person to kill you, what happens if that one person is wearing body armour? For CQ I think a combination of 12ga and 5.56 would be ideal. Incidentally, isn't that currently the norm?

[akd]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

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

Then it is funny that Russians dumped the 7.62 in favour of 5.56 decades back... but maybe they relied on their higher quality of training.

They looked at sdopting 5.45mm, but the calibre was never popular and is now only in very limited use.

Perhaps they forgot about the training bit, and found that it wasn't much use without it? :cool: </font>

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

I wonder if a combo bullet can be made that acts like a sabot round?

Its a specialized round that is very high velocity using a sub-caliber sabot round. Much like the tank round in principal, but with the difference that the sabots are meant to fly to the sides but are also projectiles themselves. At close ranges, they are still viable maimers/killers. This would be a specialized round for entering rooms during MOUT.

The actual 'penetrator' is very high velocity projectile (4000 fps) and designed to break-up due to the shape of the body. Its major effect is to rapidly induce a shockwave in viscous tissue.

As the steel-tipped lead-bodied penetrator enters the target, it easily pierces most body armor. But its soft rear shaft will destabilize the round and cause it to fragment within the body.

A 3 round burst from this weapon will deliver 9 projectiles (6 sabots and 3 penetrators). All forming a cone of destruction. Against someone with no body armor, it will tear them apart.

[Guest Mike]

It's failed to replace the 7.62mm x 43 calibre AK-47 which remains in use worldwide - perhaps "very limited" is a bit harsh, but it's not popular or as widespread as its predecessor.

[Peter Cairns]

Heres an odd one, I remember about a decade back there was talk of liquid propellant.

In theory it would work like fuel injection in a car. The Bullet would form a seal over one end of a cavity and then the propellent would be injected and ignited just as in a combustion chamber. The bullet would be the piston , except that it would keep going and be replaced by a new round.

Now did i just dream this (I am after all the inventor of the disposable mortar), and did anything ever get off the drawing board, as far as a prototype.

Peter.

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

These non-hollow point type rounds supposedly plow a great path of destruction. A good round for a semi-auto shotgun?

The sharp edges at the frontal extremity of the Devel bullet (fin ogive and tip), upon impact with game, cause deep lacerations. The fluted curvatures between the fins then cause a simultaneous high-pressure radial flow of target mass out into the wound channel. The resultant bleeding and organ trauma from the enlarged fin lacerations is what causes game to go down and stay down when shot.

[Michael Dorosh]

Ok, back to the silly story about how wounding soldiers creates logistical burdens and is therefore somehow preferable to killing someone.

I was just reminded on another board I frequent that...

...dead soldiers are also a logistical burden. I mean, if your buddy gets zapped, you or a medical aidman are going to stop and assess his condition whether or not he is dead or wounded.

He is also going to be attended to after the fight, by a graves registation team who will document his location and identity and then bury him locally, or haul his body out for processing. If the latter, it will be stored in facility set up for that purpose. Or quite possibly, your enemy will be hauling bodies with them where possible. Don't the US Marines pride themselves on not leaving the dead behind? Takes as many men to carry a dead one as a live one.

Some sergeant major in the rear will have to spend time collecting his personal belongings out of unit baggage, and his company commander may well have to sit down and write a letter home.

Now, granted, we may be talking about fighting the uncivilized, but if they are so backwards as to simply leave their dead for the vultures, how much medical support do you suppose they will really have, either?

[ December 06, 2005, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Heres an odd one, I remember about a decade back there was talk of liquid propellant.

In theory it would work like fuel injection in a car. The Bullet would form a seal over one end of a cavity and then the propellent would be injected and ignited just as in a combustion chamber. The bullet would be the piston , except that it would keep going and be replaced by a new round.

Now did i just dream this (I am after all the inventor of the disposable mortar), and did anything ever get off the drawing board, as far as a prototype.

Peter.

I recall something like this several years ago but I have no idea how advanced it ever got. I know they are still working on something like this for tanks but I don't know if they are still serious about small-arms.

[Nerd King]

They already have 5.56 combo bullets that can tear apart flesh likes nobody's business yet still have penetration. Problem is, some genuis in the upper ranks decided that our military doesn't use them. You can probably thank a bleeding heart liberal somewhere for that.

As for what Special Forces, SEALs, Delta,the alphabet soups,and contractors use, I worked with them plenty, hell was attached to them in A-Stan, and let me tell you their choice of weaponry was eclectic. I knew more than a few SF guys who swore by M16A1s! The alphabet soups and contractors, being civies and not restricted by military ammo regs, often used M4A1's (The full auto version) with the combo 5.56 rounds.

I barely saw any of them use 9mm. Almost all had .40 or .45, either SOCOM or Sig Sauer for the most part.

The M4 Carbine and M16A4 is an excellent platform and I love it, I just think we need to be using ammo that does the job better.

My old unit also got our hands on the XM-8, and that was a sweet piece of weaponry, not that it didn't have its flaws, but damn was it nice.

As for burst firing, the 3-round burst is damn near useless. The weapon jams up much more easily on 3-rd burst, and accuracy goes out the window, and yes even in CQB that matters because if the room is a hard surface you have ricochets to deal with. Controlled pairs are much more efficient. I would take 3 accurate rounds over 10 badly fired rounds any day of the week.

As for that shotgun round pic, DAMN that thing looks EVIL!

Bruce 70:

"A few people have stated that it is the one person who deosn't go down immediately that will kill you. This is probably true"

Based on my experience, yes that is true. It only takes one and next thing you know you've got a room full of dead grunts and wailing moms back home.

"(although I would have thought that you would have time to hit them again at CQ)."

What if you don't have time? Want to take chances?

"But, if it only takes one person to kill you, what happens if that one person is wearing body armour?"

In my time in Iraq and Afghanistan I cannot recall witnessing even one enemy wearing body armor.

"For CQ I think a combination of 12ga and 5.56 would be ideal. Incidentally, isn't that currently the norm?"

The shotguns are used more often for breaching, but yes they are used in CQ. And what if the shotgun man isn't the one faced with a drugged-up insurgent? It sure isn't helping the 5.56 man right there and then.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Nerd King:

"But, if it only takes one person to kill you, what happens if that one person is wearing body armour?"

In my time in Iraq and Afghanistan I cannot recall witnessing even one enemy wearing body armor.

Ah yes, but you say it only takes one, and I bet you haven't looked at them all.

Just trying to point out that the "it only takes one" argument is a bit silly. You can't use a weapon that is more efficient 1% of the time and less efficient 99% of the time. There may be an argument for a different round (I really have no idea), but the fact that it isn't effective on every single occasion is not it.

For example, suppose you are using a 7.62 round. Is that going to be effective the one time you really needed a 30rnd mag?

Incidentally, we were given a demonstration of the 5.56 round (from an austeyr) to convince us that it did in fact have stopping power. The demonstration consisted of firing a round at an 80L drum of water and watching it go flying in the air. Pretty silly demo when you think about it...

[ December 06, 2005, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

[Nerd King]

Think of it this way... you are clearing an insurgent-held building, and your fire team engages ten insurgents while room-clearing. 9 of them go down immediately from the 5.56 as they should. One gets hit but doesn't go down immediately. You are all now royally ****ed.

I never mentioned how many compared to one it takes, now did I? You conjured up the one vs. every terrorist in the world odds yourself. What if it is one of every 5, or 10, or 20?

[Bruce70]

That is a fair point, and it strengthens you argument significantly *if* you can specify what that number is.

P.S. I edited my post (just after you responded) with the 7.62 example.

[Nerd King]

As I mentioned before my solution is to adopt a more lethal 5.56 mm round. I like the size, ballistics, and platforms the 5.56 is on, just not the characteristics of the Army-issue FMJ against an unarmored target.

[Nerd King]

As for the number, I cannot say without diving into some heavy statistics and I hate statistics, but I can say it is more often than it should be. Also, if I hit the dude in let's say a limb, I don't want to drill a neat little hole in him (and cavitation doesnt work as well against muscle as it does against organs), I want to shred the **** out of his muscle and tendons and thus render him useless. And something powerful or nasty enough to do that will usually drop him as well. And that would be pretty nice for even a limb hit. I have seen combo rounds cause almost-immediate death in traditionally non-fatal areas.

[Bruce70]

Nerd King: Just out of curiosity. You mention that you have not seen one instance of an enemy wearing body armour. Do you have any direct knowledge of a non-instantly-fatal 5.56 wound resulting in the loss of life to the firer or his comrades? (I apologise if this is a sensitive question)

[akd]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

It's failed to replace the 7.62mm x 43 calibre AK-47 which remains in use worldwide - perhaps "very limited" is a bit harsh, but it's not popular or as widespread as its predecessor.

lol, I didn't realize by "they" you meant the entire world and not Russia. You have point there, but not one about effectiveness as much as availability and cheapness.

Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

I wonder if a combo bullet can be made that acts like a sabot round?

Its a specialized round that is very high velocity using a sub-caliber sabot round. Much like the tank round in principal, but with the difference that the sabots are meant to fly to the sides but are also projectiles themselves. At close ranges, they are still viable maimers/killers. This would be a specialized round for entering rooms during MOUT.

The actual 'penetrator' is very high velocity projectile (4000 fps) and designed to break-up due to the shape of the body. Its major effect is to rapidly induce a shockwave in viscous tissue.

As the steel-tipped lead-bodied penetrator enters the target, it easily pierces most body armor. But its soft rear shaft will destabilize the round and cause it to fragment within the body.

A 3 round burst from this weapon will deliver 9 projectiles (6 sabots and 3 penetrators). All forming a cone of destruction. Against someone with no body armor, it will tear them apart.

What you fail to see is that the military is not looking for just a devastatingly effective CQB weapon or round. They still require flexibility in roles, otherwise they could just give everyone auto shotguns and be done with it.

Anyways, what you are referring to is basicly down the lines of the saboted flechette rounds and double bullet rounds the Army has experimented with in depth in the past.

[ December 06, 2005, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: akd ]