Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The truth about the 5.56mm round
TriggaFingaz    1/24/2004 1:51:19 PM
To all infantrymen and gunusers out there , tell me this: is the 5.56x45mm round an effective round or is it so weak that you need more than one shot to drop a man? Some books say that it is absolutely lethal, able to stop one's heart owing to sheer velocity. Other accounts claim that enemy soldiers hit with this round continue charging. Some books claim it will tumble and dig multiple wound channels in the body, detractors claim it drills straight though people but yet has poor anti-material penetration. Which is more accurate? Please specify whether you used M193 or M855 'green tips'.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
doggtag    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   9/13/2004 10:38:58 AM
I was more or less being sarcastic about using the 22 rimfire. Although the two weapons I suggested would be ideal to use (the American 180 is very rugged and requires little maintenance to keep going ands going (maybe more would be needed when fighting in the sandbox.) Certainly there are effective rounds in all calibers. If the US troops would be trained with adequate sighting systems to engage enemies in headshots instead of center mass, then the 170 HMR would be my recommendation: very high velocity equating to very flat trajectory, and it will split a groundhog or rabbit in half (shockwave does the damage.) Someone mentioned earlier here about the 22-250, another good round. American gunsmiths have tinkered with some of the flyweight bullets (under 7mm) and have pushed velocities to right around 5000feet per second. The shockwave damage these wildcats and speed demons creates needs to be seen to be believed. Almost 2 decades ago, I tried a 22 Magnum for rabbits and turkey (I've always been a good shot: shotguns are for people with poor accuracy), and enjoyed it thoroughly. But today we have the 170HMR (my cousin keeps offering me to shoot his custom competition pistol chambered for 170, but we never can make range time together.) Certainly small bullets work, but they need the velocity to do it (shock wave damage compensating for lack of bullet KE.) A better balanced and shaped 5.56 would be plenty adequate with a higher velocity and enhanced tumble or expanding effect. But making barrels shorter is only going to kill its effectiveness even more. Some of the funnest targets to shoot are chunks of ice (freeze water in cardboard milk cartons: nice scatter effect, no clean-up), eggs and tomatoes and other fruit (always use stuff starting to spoil, no point wasting good food), and frozen modelling clay (frozen when you start out: you can really see just what the bullet can do when the clay isn't totally "thawed" in its natural "room temperature" state.) Clay chunks are nice because you can keep mushing them back into shape...or get creative and make little shapes with them! .
 
Quote    Reply

VisigothCSA    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   9/14/2004 4:33:50 AM
Dogtag, I rather thought you were, but it was an interesting thought exercise. I do think they are missing a point, however, with this whole argument. Rifles were meant for aimed fire while the various machine guns were meant for high volume fire. MGs have the obvious advantage there: They are heavier, have interchangable barrels and can keep up a much higher sustained rate of fire than rifles can. Perhaps switching rifles to 6.8 and replacing the SAW with a newer and lighter M60 type gun could solve both problems. We would have rifles with better knockdown and squads would have a weapon better capable of piercing obstacles and laying down suppresive fire. In WW2 the infantry carried at most 200 rounds of .30-06. They relied on the machine guns and BARs for suppressive fire, for the most part. We should probably go back to that idea.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   9/14/2004 8:01:10 AM
Visigoth, I haven't found any articles about the Williams/Lisk subgun in 22 online, but I pulled my info from "The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons", 5th edition (c2000, ISBN 0 87341 778 X), pages 52-56. It was agreed that the 22 round itself was not a killer, but in large numbers, the rounds were comparable to a swarm of hornets. The article states the weapon was about 12 pounds empty in prototype form, but it likely would have been reduced in a production model. Gas operated, belt fed (1 foot of belt held 47 rounds), and firing from open bolt, the weapon was quoted at firing between 1500-2700 rounds per minute. The gun designers anticipated a twin-barrel, single belt fed weapon could throw out 5000rpm, and certainly that level of even 22 ammo is sufficient (every man a minigunner.) Considering how cheap 22 rimfire is, that would still equate to lower "battlefield costs" than any 5.56 or 7.62 MG. It was about 26 inches in length in prototype form. I know from personal shooting experience that the 22 Lightning ammo I buy says "Warning: 2 1/2 mile range!" on the box, because the rounds have shown to carry that far (safety issue more than tactical.) So for close-range general "keep heads down" support, it certainly could be worth considering. There are a good number of articles available online about people's attitudes and experiences with 22 ammo, pertaining to accidents and intentional shootings. And singly, the bullet isn't much. But by the dozens, could be just as lethal as a handful of heavier rounds. But good luck getting 22 rimfire to penetrate anything more than cardboard and tin cans (unarmored windshield certainly: a 22 subgun with that rate of fire could put a supply convoy into a disorganized frenzy. Of course, since most 22 ammo is some form of expanding bullet (hollow points), the Hague Convention huggers would have to be appeased by reworking the round into something "more humane", at which point it would probably lose all credibilty as an effective cartridge for anything more than cans and rodents. A couple months ago, I posted up an article from a gun magazine which suggested, from Afghanistan and Iraq experience, the best round to replace the 5.56mm. The article examined the 300 Whisper, 6.8mm SPC, 6.5mm PPC, and a few others. It was decided by the testers (people who shoot for sport, build their own guns, and made a career of gauging bullets against each other, not someone politically motivated) that a Lapua match grade bullet in 6.5mm (don't remember the bullet weight or propellant load) offered the best overall lethality and range improvement at the fairest modification to equipment. But at the time, there seemed to be a lobby for 6.8mm going through the government as possible caliber for the XM-8 rifle. I haven't had sufficient time lately to do much follow up study on this, though. The gains of 6.8 over 5.56 were quite favorable at minimal weight gain and minimal modification to existing platforms, yet offer much improved target effects, lethality, obstacle/barricade penetration, and range; but again, those gun testers decided the 6.5mm Lapua ammo was even more superior. Certainly political favoritism has a lot do to with it (keeping 5.56mm in service when there are far more capable rounds available on the market), and since the politicians aren't the ones fighting and dying, the frontline troops will always have to make do with what they get. Anything about not being able to get a better round in service because of ammo plants having to re-tool or whatever: that's one more shining example of government shortsightedness- never planning ahead with effective contingencies (like keeping a second plant at low-rate production just in case we need to get it going at full-speed in time of conflict. Personally, I think having just one ammo contractor from just one facility is the greatest weakness the US could have. Current ammo manufacturers are quite capable of adhering to such demanding tolerances in bullet/cartridge manufacture.) God forbid the US gets involved in another mess somewhere. We won't have enough small arms ammo, let alone enough troops..
 
Quote    Reply

andyf    sights   9/14/2004 1:41:20 PM
can you mount the british SUSAT on the m16? from what I understand its a very useful bit of kit
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   9/14/2004 6:36:15 PM
saw a demo of the american 180 vs a cinder block once. cinder block got reduced to powder pretty much. just amazing what that many rpm does to a target.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    American 180 vs cinder block   9/15/2004 3:49:58 PM
It has been said, "A swarm of bees can kill a man as quickly as a tiger." Certainly, en masse, 22 rimfire can cause a lot of damage. Hence my "suggestion" of equipping Humvees with 22 rimfire miniguns and a 55 gallon drum of ammo (I wonder just how many rounds that would be...) A miniaturized linear linkless feed, like the US uses on all its rotary cannons, should alleviate any concerns over feeding difficulties of 22 rimfire cartridges...although for safety, it is doubtful any military would use rimfire ammo, preferring centerfire instead. Effectively, such a weapon would "chain saw" a guy in half. Miniguns and rotary cannons (modern term for gatlings) firing at 6000rpm equates to 100 rounds per second. Even 22 rimfire, in those numbers, creates an impressive amount of lead and brass (by weight) in the air at any one second. Even at relatively "low" velocities of 1200-1600 feet per second, the 22 rounds, a 6000rpm/100 rounds per second, will roughly be about 12-16 feet behind each other. And 20-30 grain bullets, fired in a burst of 100 rounds, equates to 2000-3000 grains of lead and brass hitting the target. Overkill, maybe. But effective. Certainly though, one needs to decide if 100 rounds of 22 rimfire is cost effective vs a dozen rounds of 7.62 (or whatever.) But sometimes, it's just damn cool to be able to fire off ammo in numbers like that: 6000rpm from a "magazine" of several tens of thousands of rounds. Now if every 3rd or 5th round was a tracer, it would almost look like some kind of laser show (shades of AC-47 Spooky gunships.) That might actually add to the pyschological warfare of it. If we really want area-fire suppression weapons, use miniguns if they will be vehicle mounted. But for medium infantry ranges (200-800m: half-mile engagement capability would be very desireable in certain operations), certainly the individual infantry weapon needs to be something more than 5.56mm..
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:American 180 vs cinder block   9/19/2004 10:33:28 PM
one of the scariest firepower demos i ever saw was a chunk of old footage from ww2. french village divided by a small river. mainstreet ran over a small concrete bridge which was covered by a good sized bunker on the far side. judging from the bodies laying about there had been at least one attempt to rush the bridge. what they did was back one of those quad 50's on a halftrack out of an alley and then lit up the bunker. you could literally watch the bunker melt away under the pounding. they honked it till they ran out of ammo and pulled back into the alley. no further problems crossing the bridge after that display.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    quad 50 firepower   9/20/2004 11:41:02 AM
Apparently, the quad 50s were quite effective against human wave attacks in Korea and Viet Nam, also. It's too bad the US retired its M163 vehicles (M113 mounting a Vulcan 6 barrel 20mm cannon.) Apparently, they functioned quite nicely during Desert Storm, especially with a "magazine" of over 1000 rounds of 20mm ammo. I also have a WW2 magazine with an article about the Skink: a Sherman mounting 4 20mm Polsten guns (variants of the Oerlikons.) The article talks about the capable fire support role the quad 20mm guns provided, and at one point were used to tear up several German-occupied buildings in some town. It is a safe bet the Russian ZSU-23-4 could also do a number on exposed troops. And the M42 Duster was another ideal anti-personnel system in Viet Nam (twin 40mm AA tank.) Certainly, the need for high-volume (and very destructive) area suppression fire will always be favorable. Until every frontline soldier is trained with a weapon sufficient for medium-range sniper work (800-1200m with thermal and magnification optics), suppression fire will always have a place. Quad 50s and 20mm are one method. But even a 7.62mm minigun can be ideal "back up". And certainly, if 6.8mm is adopted, GE will build us a minigun in that caliber, also, just as they built the 5.56mm version we've all seen in the movie "Predator" (the XM214 minigun is supposedly capable of firing up to 10,000rpm, or 166 rounds per second. Definitely a chain saw if ever there was one.) .
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:quad 50 firepower   9/20/2004 11:47:42 AM
And Ehran, if you thought the quad 50 "demo" was impressive, remember that USAAC Mustangs had SIX and Thunderbolts had EIGHT 50s in their wings. No small wonder the Luftwaffe lost. And typically, the 50s in those aircraft fired at about 800 rounds per minute, which equated to far, far more lead than the quad 50. It would have been interesting to see a "6-pack" mounting of 50s, on a halftrack, although certainly the quad was more than adequate. And it is fortunate for the Germans and Imp Japs that the US did not have electric gatlings at the outset of WW2 (P-38s would have been ideal platforms.) Imagine B-17s and B-24s having miniguns (30 or 50 cal) in their turrets instead of just twin 50s. And I
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:quad 50 firepower   9/20/2004 12:18:44 PM
...I was going to say, And I could only imagine a WW2 destroyer in the Pacific fitted out with a dozen WW2-era "phalanx" CIWS, (manned instead of automatic.) A hail of lead like that would most likely have cut kamikaze numbers in half easily. .
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics