The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 19, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Little Bullets Lose Respect
Horsesoldier    11/15/2005 9:36:07 AM
A monumental swing and miss by Strategypage on this one . . .

>>November 15, 2005: The U.S. Army?s cancellation of the XM8 (a replacement for the M16) reflects disenchantment with the 5.56mm round, more than anything else.<<

Which, of course, explains why we cancelled XM8 (which could easily be rechambered for another cartridge/caliber combination) in favor of, um, not to state the obvious, a rifle firing 5.56mm ammunition . . . in fact, mostly in favor of a carbine firing 5.56mm ammunition from a shorter barrel.

>>Moreover, the 5.56mm round is less effective in urban fighting, where you often want to shoot through doors and walls.<<

No, you really do not "often" want to do so since blind fire means you are just p*ssing away bullets and runs entirely counter to our actual doctrine for doing CQB. You might want to shoot through automobile doors and windshields, but that is another matter.

Whoever wrote this does not know what they are talking about.

>>The 5.56mm round is not as effective at doing this as is the heavier 7.62mm bullet. And the troops have plenty of 7.62mm weapons available, in order to compare. There is the M240 medium machine-gun. While this 7.62mm weapon is usually mounted on vehicles, it is often taken off and used by infantry for street fighting. Lots of 1960s era 7.62mm M14 rifles have also been taken out of storage and distributed. While used mainly as sniper rifles, the snipers do other work on the battlefield as well, and the troops have been able to see that the heavier 7.62mm round does a better job of shooting through cinder block walls, and taking down bad guys with one shot. Too often, enemy troops require several 5.56mm bullets to put them out of action.<<

And an M14 is about the size and length of a boat anchor, making it esteemably unsuitable for CQB use . . .

>>In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier round. The question is, which one? The army has been experimenting with a 6.8mm round, but now some are demanding that the full size 7.62mm round be brought back.<<

Um, no, sorry, there are not, at least not anyone whose opinion means much and who has not been whimpering about this issue since 1965. At least that's what I see, assigned to a USASOC unit -- 95% of the guys I work with are perfectly happy with the SOMOD M4 and the other 5% like 6.8mm. *No one* I work with who is an actual shooter thinks that 7.62x51mm is the answer for any weapon except those intended for sniping and medium machineguns.

>>There are M16 type weapons that use the full size 7.62mm round (and the lower powered AK-47 7.62mm round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly be adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and receiver.<<

Um, sorry, but no. SCAR-L is the bulk of the contract (something like 120,000 5.56mm SCAR-Ls, less than a quarter of that SCAR-H in 7.62x51mm) and to convert it to fire a round that exceed the overall length of 5.56x45mm (i.e. 7.62x51mm) you have to change out the upper *and* the lower receiver. Which is to say, you need an entirely new weapon, plus/minus the handgrip and shoulder stock.

>>Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.<<

Or could simply be that the money for an unnecessary change of weapons was not available since we're spending billions each month fighting a war?

>>The other big complaint about the M16 is it?s sensitivity to fine dust, as found in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. This stuff causes the rifle (and the light machine-gun version, the M243), to jam. Troops have to be cleaning these weapons constantly. Another problem with the M243 is that most of the ones in service are very old, and in need of a replacement (with new M243s, or a new weapon design.) The XM8 solved much of the ?dust sensitivity? problem, but part of the problem was the smaller round.<<

I think the "M243" reference pretty clearly sums up the incompetence of the writer of this piece.

 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Yimmy    RE:Little Bullets Lose Respect   11/15/2005 10:08:01 AM
That article was obviously written after having read this article: link One of limited credability itself.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE:Little Bullets Lose Respect   11/15/2005 10:21:06 AM
"http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1519807/posts" Obviously from the school of bigger is better. I notice the reviews of weapon systems got better and the size and weight of the round increased. Perhaps, the problems they were having with their (M249) SAW's were because they were looking at the M243 TM. Although, how you confuse a vehichle smoke grenade launcher with a light machinegun is beyond me.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Little Bullets Lose Respect   11/15/2005 10:27:33 AM
Yeah, that article inclines me to call BS on its authenticity. Not so much on the whining about 5.56mm, but this little bit of wisdom . . . >>The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.<< The M9 has a very bad reputation, and specifically a bad reputation for reliability mostly related to the magazines in the desert environment. That's been put out in the various Iraq AARs, but it also matches the dismal view of the the weapon in general that the been there/done that guys I know have. And then . . . >>The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45's are being re-issued en masse.<< First, HK Mark 23 is pretty rare in SOF units. Army SF and Rangers don't use it. Delta has access to it, but apparently does not use it either, preferring 1911 custom jobs or a 9mm besides the Beretta. So maybe this guy is talking about the SEALs . . . maybe. As for the government M1911s being re-issued in quantity . . . um, no. The USMC uses some, but they're custom jobs, like the guys in Delta. I've not heard anything from any credible source about the M1911A1 turning back up in quantity -- nor would you want the ones the government may or may not have in storage to do so, since the damned things were retired because they were so shot out you could hardly hit paper with them at twenty five meters. A *new* M1911A1 can be a fine weapon, but stuff dredged up from some warehouse where it has been sitting since the invasion of Grenada is going to be nothing but a pacifier for nervous children in uniform . . .
 
Quote    Reply

Cato    RE:Little Bullets Lose Respect...M9   11/15/2005 11:24:28 AM
Is there general dissatisfaction with the Beretta, or are the beefs limited to specific features? I heard that the biggest gripe was bad magazine springs. I can't imagine a forty year old M1911 A1 would perform much better. Cato
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE:Little Bullets Lose Respect...M9   11/15/2005 12:10:47 PM
I never had a lot a use for the M9 while serving. However, I picked up a Beretta 92FS (the same as the M9 as far as I can tell) as a civilian. The magazine springs I think are probably the big issue. It doesn't seem to take a lot to wear them out either. Particularly if you leave the magazines loaded for extended periods of time and the ones the Army probably has in abundance are old to begin with. It doesn't seem to take too much to get a malfunction either as far not being cleaned regularly. Although, those are all lessons learned as a slacker civilian with occasionally poor maintenance practices. I do find myself curious as to all these "claims" of guys staying in the fight after supposedly being hit by 9mm rounds. If you are close enough to be using a pistol, you should be able to score some center mass hits. I just don't see someone with a couple 9mm slugs in there lungs (or various other important organs) putting up too much additional resistence. CATO, as our token medical professional, how many gunshot wound guys are up and about after taking a couple rounds center mass ?
 
Quote    Reply

Cato    RE:Little Bullets Lose Respect...M9...Joe   11/15/2005 12:40:16 PM
I have assisted in delivering living patients to difinitive care who have been hit in the upper chest four or five times. I can think of one patient in particular who had three sucking chest wounds (two with sounds coming out of both entry and exit wounds), intubated, bi lateral needle decompresion, and was bleeding so profusely that he was bleeding pink because all he had left in his circulatory system was colored saline. We generally don't find out whether or not the patient survived or not, we just try to deliver a patient rather than a corpse. However, we once had a guy walk out to meet us in the street with a bullet in the chest. The corollary to that tale was the guy shot once in the heart with what looked like a .22, and he DOAd. The human body is pretty rugged, but has its fragile spots. I think that, to answer your question, if you shoot somebody multiple tomes in the torso, they will cease to be a threat to you, and their survival will come down to prompt emergency medical care, not deficiency of weapon used.I'm sure ChdNrm(I,II,III,orMXXVII) could shed more light on the subject. They only use us when the guy is alive post shoot-out. Cato
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Little Bullets Lose Respect...M9   11/15/2005 1:19:30 PM
>>The magazine springs I think are probably the big issue. It doesn't seem to take a lot to wear them out either. Particularly if you leave the magazines loaded for extended periods of time and the ones the Army probably has in abundance are old to begin with. It doesn't seem to take too much to get a malfunction either as far not being cleaned regularly.<< Magazine springs seem to have been the big problem in the desert. Where I work locking blocks are the problem -- when we train with pistols we put massive amounts of rounds through them over a short period of time and with, say, forty to fifty guys we will break anywhere from five to eight locking blocks in a week.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Little Bullets Lose Respect...M9   11/15/2005 1:25:03 PM
Concerning the M9, is it American practice to load the magazines with 15 rounds? As far as I know, it is common practice to Load Browning HP magazines with 10 rounds (13 round capacity), due simply to the rounds comming in boxes of 10. This may account for the magazines lasting longer. Concerning the 9mm round, I believe it to be superior to .45, its standard FMJ ball loading delevering slightly greater energy, its flatter trajectory, and its greater piercing capabilities. From what I understand, 9mm NATO sub-gun ammunition is loaded very hot, to take full use of the longer barrels of SMG's, such as the MP5. Does the M9 pistol use this hot subgun ammo, or does it use weaker pistol loads?
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Little Bullets Lose Respect...M9   11/15/2005 3:41:15 PM
>>Concerning the M9, is it American practice to load the magazines with 15 rounds? As far as I know, it is common practice to Load Browning HP magazines with 10 rounds (13 round capacity), due simply to the rounds comming in boxes of 10. This may account for the magazines lasting longer.<< We load them to 15. A lot of guys are believers in the Vietnam era idea of shorting 5.56mm mags to ensure better function, but I've never met anyone who does the same with M9 magazines. Our bullets come in 50 round boxes, by the way, which makes for some fun math with 15 round magazines . . . >>Concerning the 9mm round, I believe it to be superior to .45, its standard FMJ ball loading delevering slightly greater energy, its flatter trajectory, and its greater piercing capabilities.<< The counter argument was put forward officially by the FBI whose studies on the matter suggested that with pistols as long as you can get 10-12" of penetration the more important issue is simple wound diameter. Basically boils down to the notion that the larger the hole, the better the chance of hitting or knicking something significant. Both arguments, in my opinion, have something going for them. Lots of US shooters have never warmed to 9x19mm, but its been killing guys for a hundred years now (and the Iraq AARs found that the guys who complained about a lack of stopping power were generally the ones who had never fired a pistol in anger . . .). But .45 ACP has been doing the same for about the same amount of time. In any case, the US Army decided that the really do prefer the bigger bullet, so NATO standards or no NATO standards, we're going back to .45 ACP soon -- but that is in the future, and I still don't know what the guy writing about the M243 light machineguns and all was talking about saying hordes of old M1911A1s were being handed back out . . . >>From what I understand, 9mm NATO sub-gun ammunition is loaded very hot, to take full use of the longer barrels of SMG's, such as the MP5. Does the M9 pistol use this hot subgun ammo, or does it use weaker pistol loads?<< I'm not sure of the specs for the SMG ammo you're talking about, but military ball ammo in 9mm is loaded hotter than most standard commercial 9mm ammo, so it may be the same stuff or same standard that you are describing.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Little Bullets Lose Respect...M9   11/15/2005 6:27:36 PM
Who actually gets issued pistols in the US military? I mean, the .45 vs 9mm argument in pistols is not really heard of in the UK, partly because we have used the 9mm round for so long, and partly because very few of us actually get issued a pistol! Onloy officers of Major rank or above get issued a pistol as standard, although junior officers do have the option. I would sooner put my faith in Sheffield Steel than a pistol as a back-up option.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Little Bullets Lose Respect...M9   11/15/2005 9:30:47 PM
>>Who actually gets issued pistols in the US military? I mean, the .45 vs 9mm argument in pistols is not really heard of in the UK, partly because we have used the 9mm round for so long, and partly because very few of us actually get issued a pistol! Onloy officers of Major rank or above get issued a pistol as standard, although junior officers do have the option.<< Prior to Iraq, it was both officers under most TO&Es and also as a PDW for a range of jobs where a rifle or carbine was seen as clumsy -- i.e. tank crews used to get by with one M16 or M4 per crew and everyone else with M9s. That whole idea kind of went south rapidly when tankers started pulling foot patrols in Baghdad and such. Also, some of our SOF units issue everyone a pistol as a secondary weapon. Since Iraq there has been a recognition that pistols are useful for some CQB applications. One of the requirements noted in the Iraq AARs was the issue of at least a couple pistols per infantry squad that could be handed off as needed to members of the squad when their use was warranted. >>I would sooner put my faith in Sheffield Steel than a pistol as a back-up option.<< Having a pistol to fall back on in a close quarters fight if your primary runs dry or has a stoppage is pretty invaluable. Given a choice between carrying a bayonet or carrying a pistol, I'd take the pistol, personally. But one has to be properly trained to use it -- the bulk of pistol marksmanship training in the US Army is dreadful and dated, as is much of the pre-OIF equipment (holsters etc) still in the system.
 
Quote    Reply

Bigbro    RE:Little Bullets Lose Respect...M9   11/15/2005 11:36:57 PM
A note about pistol skills, One of the kids of one of the guys that shot matchs with us started shooting also. I think he made "b" class shooter before he went into the army. Ended up a driver for his CO and the CO had to qualify with his M9. Told his driver to go ahead and try out the pistol. Shot the lights out and was asked to be on the base pistol team. He is a ranger now and had done two trips to the sand box last time I talked to his dad. M9 VS. 1911, glock, XP, H&K, Hi-Power. The M9 would be the last of the lot that I would pick up. At the local cop shop you could pick your own pistol. Newbes would almost always buy a 92F for their first service weapon. Less than a year later they had something else. Never saw one of our plate matches won with a 92 in five years of matches. 5000 rounds a year though my 1911 .45, I had the factor slide stop break in year three. You do need to replace the recoil spring every 1500 rds however. 9x19 is OK, 9x23 winchester in a Glock or H&K that would be the best of all worlds. Bb
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy