The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




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
Dirty Little Secrets Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate
James Dunnigan    6/21/2006 11:05:43 PM


The U.S. Army completed a study of
current 5.56mm M855 round, in response to complaints from troops that
this ammunition was in adequate in combat. Troops reported
many instances where enemy fighters were hit with one or more M855
rounds and kept coming. The study confirmed that this happened, and
discovered why. If the M855 bullet hits slender people at the right
angle, and does not hit a bone, it goes right through. That will do
some soft tissue damage, but nothing immediately incapacitating. The
study examined other military and commercial 5.56mm rounds and found
that none of them did the job any better. The study concluded that, if
troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better
chance of dropping people right away.  The report recommended more
weapons training for the troops, so they will be better able to put two
5.56mm bullets where they will do enough damage to stop oncoming enemy
troops. 



The study did not address
complaints about long range shots (over 100 meters), or the need for
ammo that is better a blasting through doors and walls. The army had
been considering a switch of a larger (6.8mm) round, and the Special
Forces has been testing such a round in the field. But a switch is
apparently off the table at the moment. The U.S. Marine Corps is doing
its own study, but has not finished it yet. 



The army report is not likely to be well received by the troops.


 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
historynut    RE:U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate   6/23/2006 11:08:49 AM
I seem to recall that long ago the army equipped its troops with a .38 caliber pistol. Then they sent them to the Philippines where they found that .38 caliber lacked stopping power. That's how we got the .45 caliber 1911 model which would put people down with one shot. As for aiming higher, and fireing two shots, you aim at what is visible and you can hit. The other guy is not going to just stand there so you can pick the best spot to aim at. And firing two shots at everyone takes away the reason for having the M16. The reason behind the M16 was that with a lighter round you could carry more ammution. If you fire two rounds at everyone that means that with a 30 round magazine you can only shoot 15 terrorists. The guy beside you with that old M14 with a 20 round magazine can shoot 20 terrorists and he can shoot them at longer ranges. There is also the fact that after getting shot the first time the terrorist may not give you a second shot. That gives you a wounded terrorist but once he heals you will have a more skilled terrorist, he knows what he did wrong and will not do thay again which means he will last longer and kill more people. You need to listen to the people getting shoot at they know what works. If a 6.8mm better use it.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate   6/23/2006 12:10:00 PM
I rather think that the guy with the M14 woould be shooting two rounds at each hostile, too. I don't know what the round-per-casualty-inflicted is, but apparently in Vietnam it was 10,000 to one or more. Urban fighting ought to bring that figure down a bit, but in a firefight I suspect it's still unusual for an infantryman to get a kill for his entire ammo load, let alone a single magazine. Two rounds is for close work, single, aimed shots for further away - i.e. more than 20m. Funny how the calibre junkies always call out for people to listen to the troops, but when the troops say that 5.56mm is OK they don't listen. This was discussed some time back in one of the other fora here, and those that had seen action mostly sided with the report, putting the vociferous complaints down to the inexperienced, REMF-types. FWIW. A hostile hit once with any calibre, if he survives, is likely to be more cautious or crippled in some fashion.
 
Quote    Reply

Grainger    RE:U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate   6/25/2006 7:50:16 PM
This is a passage from the Field Report for 20 April to 25 April 2003 by the Marine Corps Systems Command Liaison Team, Central Iraq "5.56mm vs. 7.62 Lethality ~ 5.56mm ?definitely answered the mail? and ?as long as the shots were in the head or chest they went down? were typical quotes from several Marines; many who were previously very skeptical of 5.56mm ammunition. Most of the interviewed Marines who reported targets not going down and/or could still fight were referencing non-lethal shots to the extremities. There were reports of targets receiving shots in the vitals and not going down. These stories need not be described, but are of the rare superhuman occurrences that defy logic and caliber of round. Some Marines did ask about getting the heaver-grained 5.56mm rounds, up to 77 grain if possible."
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate   6/25/2006 8:38:23 PM
From what I know: The destructive energy is ½mv^2. If you can get the same energy from a smaller shot by raising velocity the gravity drop is less and thus the judging of distance (the hard part to train) less critical. The critical part is not so much what well-trained professional say - as they can use bow and arrow if it comes to that; but the lethality of poorly trained troops, reserves, national guard and so on. After one session on the firing range with the GV95 - which is a canadian m16: 1. The effective range, where a man size target was hit in the first or second shot, rose with 50% for mediocre infantrymen/women from 200 yards to 300 yards. 2. The rifle could be used as a submashinegun at close ranges, greatly increasing flexibility and simplyfying logistics. 3. Fieldstripping and maintainance was greatly facilitated. 4. More people could be trained to use the rifle; Little old ladies afraid of guns could use the 5,56mm. 5. Small unit dependence on the mashinegun was reduced as using it as a mashine gun on shortish ranges was reasonably credible. Personally I've been trained on MG 42 mashinegun, Lee-Enfield repeater, M1 Garand, G3A Heckler & Koch and tried the GV95, submashineguns. I'm not a great shot as it has always been a secondary task for me. The 5,56 mm has meant a tremdeous increase in firepower for less training. Just my 5 cents.
 
Quote    Reply

DPolwarth    RE:U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate   7/8/2006 4:25:35 AM
I was wondering what the payoff would be in terms of recoil for a larger caliber round. Would the propellant be reduced to keep the recoil the same, or are they suggesting that the firer would have to compensate for a higher recoil?
 
Quote    Reply

JohnBarry    RE:U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate   7/10/2006 2:13:39 PM
>>The study did not address complaints about long range shots (over 100 meters), or the need for ammo that is better a blasting through doors and walls.<< Does the call for more urban fighting make the last statement about the report(what it did not cover) the most important. Does the need for greater penatrating power through walls and other cover make the debate about soft tissue results less important.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.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