Another story of how the 5.56 can't stop em' -- WE NEED A NEW ROUND

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: Another story of how the 5.56 can't stop em' -- WE NEED A NEW ROUND
HYPOCENTER 2/10/2007 4:52:49 PM

Not sure if anyone has read this story; http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/gates-of-fire.htm But, a terrorist took 4 point plank shots from an M4 and kept on fighting. It is yet another example of why 5.56 sucks and CAN'T STOP EM. It makes me angry. QUOTE: A man came forward, trying to shoot Kurilla with a pistol, apparently realizing his only escape was by fighting his way out, or dying in the process. Kurilla was aiming at the doorway waiting for him to come out. Had Prosser not come at that precise moment, who knows what the outcome might have been. Prosser shot the man at least four times with his M4 rifle. But the American M4 rifles are weak - after Prosser landed three nearly point blank shots in the man’s abdomen, splattering a testicle with a fourth, the man just staggered back, regrouped and tried to shoot Prosser. Then Prosser’s M4 went “black” (no more bullets). A shooter inside was also having problems with his pistol, but there was no time to reload. Prosser threw down his empty M4, ran into the shop and tackled the man.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Horsesoldier 5/28/2007 11:40:20 AM

in the interest of throwing gasoline on the flames ;)

i saw over on military com a day or two back that the military commissioned a study of troops coming back from iraq. gear tactics all sorts of things and interestingly enough 30% of the soldiers interviewed wanted either a more powerful cartridge or a more powerful rifle than the M4.
30% is a fairly good percentage of the been there done that guys.

I'd be interested in hearing more details of the population for that study, as others have already suggested.

One of the post-OIF studies indicated that a large number of troops wanted a more powerful handgun than 9mm. The relevance of this sentiment was somewhat dubious, in my opinion, since no one surveyed had fired a handgun in combat. Troops just "knew" (based largely on old wives tales and American gun magazines, I suppose) that a bigger caliber weapon was needed.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier 5/28/2007 11:55:44 AM

30% is a fairly good percentage of the been there done that guys.

I wonder how many of those actually had reason to fire their weapons. And of those that did, I wonder how many of them actually landed a hit on an insurgent.

Just rambling, but it does seem to be somewhat the wrong way round, what with our using the 5.56x45mm round, and "their" using the 7.62x39mm round. The 7.62mm Soviet is far superior in penetrating cover, while it retains better wounding characteristics at medium ranges (if inferior to 5.56mm at short ranges) due to its greater projectile weight. The main bonus (that I see) with the 5.56mm round is its high velocity, and therefore flat trajectory, and its low recoil. This undoubtably makes it easier to score hits with than the Soviet range. But then to be, this makes it superior for poorly trained insurgents and conscripts, while the Soviet range (with its much greater ability to penetrate cover), with its rainbow trajectory would be superior for professional soldiers who are trained to compensate for this.

Weight of 7.62x39 compared to 5.56 is quite notable as well. I'm not sure on overall weight, but the 123 grain M43 projectile suggests a little less than twice the mass of the SS109 round with its 62 grain projectile (assuming differences in brass case and powder weights are not nearly as pronounced) .

I don't know if the poor trajectory of M43 favors trained troops. Or, more exactly, under real combat conditions, even professional troops are hard pressed to compensate for range either via adjustment of iron sights or use of hold overs as targets are evading and trying not to be shot (assuming targets are not clustered at a single range, and the engagement does not begin with some deliberate sight adjustments). Optics with built in BDCs in the reticle appear to be a different story.

Quote Reply

Ehran 5/28/2007 12:30:19 PM

I'd be interested in hearing more details of the population for that study, as others have already suggested.

if memory serves the sample pop'n was 3475 or so returning troops. it was actually mentioned in the article which was a pleasant surprise. think the study was done by the Pew group.

Quote Reply

Jeff_F_F Change in the air? 6/5/2007 6:50:55 PM

It looks like the marine corps at the least is considering the possibility of moving to a larger caliber round. Since both services will be adopting a new family of small arms with completely new ammunition within a decade this is the time for them to decide what caliber to use. Current development is for 5.56mm weapons but there are hints that it isn't the final word. Buried at the end of this powerpoint >;, which is rather bare-bones and mostly discusses the current Infantry Automatic Rifle program is an interesting comment that

"Over the next eight years the Marine Corps will examine weapons accuracy, weapons performance and the need for improved penetration of barriers

- The Marine Corps will evaluate alternatives to the current 5.56mm NATO rounds

- If through evaluation, a need for increased caliber agility exists then a Service Rifle Replacement program may be necessary."

The eight year timeline suggests that this evaluation will correspond to the development of the Lightweight Small Arms Technology program and hints that the end product may not be 5.56mm. Note that the ammunition resulting from this program will not be NATO compliant in any case, so that is not an issue.

Quote Reply

greyghost 6/5/2007 8:03:15 PM

I heard the Marines are looking at going to G3's chambered in 8mm mauser. They will be using something like the G8 or HK21 as the new SAW. I have an old Hakim in 8mm mauser and that round in 198gr FMJ can tear up some s@#t.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier 6/6/2007 12:58:04 AM

"Over the next eight years the Marine Corps will examine weapons accuracy, weapons performance and the need for improved penetration of barriers

- The Marine Corps will evaluate alternatives to the current 5.56mm NATO rounds

- If through evaluation, a need for increased caliber agility exists then a Service Rifle Replacement program may be necessary."

They're looking, but I don't put much stock in the chances of them changing calibers unilaterally. If SOCOM lacked the wherewithal to make it happen, I just don't see the Corps going it alone.

Quote Reply

Jeff_F_F 6/6/2007 2:17:14 PM

Right now there is a huge amount of resistance to changing rounds because of logistic considerations. The difference is that (assuming Congress doesn't force the Army to cancel the LSAT program...) there will be a brand new round chosen within a decade anyway. Whether that round is 5.56 or something else will have negligible effect on logistics. It will have a bit of an impact on the final design of the production weapon, but shouldn't be any more complicated than creating an M-16 that fires 6.8mm or whatever.

Quote Reply

ker 6/6/2007 2:20:26 PM

Treaty obligations aside, I think that a blended metal bullet for the M-16/4 would be nice.

Any change in weapons is very expensive.

For what it would cost to retool the DOD for the new round they do other things. My favorite today is build "M4-D2" a remote controlled droids that go around corners or in door/window and can fire a weapon. (Maybe a less-lethal weapon like pepper spray or a flash bulb so bright it causes temporary convulsions. or a 200 pound suit of titanium and plastic body armor with a matched pair of mac-11s. Now that would clear room.

MP and infantry platoons could all get a lot of new kit for the $$$ of changing rounds across the force.

44 magnum syndrome sets in and people feel bigger is better and biggest is always best. In reality you half sort the totem out from the economics.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier 6/6/2007 3:50:14 PM

Yeah, if the new round works out, we're surely looking at a switch over to a carbine/rifle chambered for the same round as the SAW-replacement will fire. It would seem to provide a blank slate sort of point where a higher caliber would be feasible -- though a 90 grain 5.56mm round would solve a lot of complaints . . .

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10