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:jap destroyer strafed, why high ROF rules   9/21/2004 7:15:11 PM
If it WAS a B-25, it could well have been one of the models sporting the 75mm howitzer poking out of the nose, just under the 50cal MGs (a -G or -H model.) 75mm armed Mitchells were very effective against Imp Jap shipping. Typically, the dorsal turret which held 2 50cals could be "locked" forward, and four MGs were above the 75mm in the nose, with 4 more (2 port, 2 starboard) along the fuselage sides firing forward also. Or, there was also the "solid" nose containing 8 50cals. It is fortunate for Japan that the US never further developed some of its heavy fighters like the Chain Lightning and Moonbat. Some of these proposed a forward armament of up to 6 37mm guns (like the single model of P-39/P63 Airacobra/King Cobra aircraft.) Still, a B-25 with a pair of 6- or 7-barrel 50cal miniguns would have done far more horrible damage. That would have possibly offered a ROF, for the 2 guns, totalling 10000-16000rpm (just guessing, the aircraft would need to be able to withstand the recoil.) Damn! And I would imagine an Allied tank buster could have been equipped with a 20mm Vulcan, shades of a scaled-down A-10 but with props. Some of the US and British prototype twin-engine heavy fighters and light bombers would have fit this role nicely. It is obvious why the US still sees value in using 20mm Vulcans in our aicraft when others have opted for single-barrel 30mm guns. The same can be said for area-support weapons for the troops: miniguns have a psychological effect regular machine guns don't. Miniguns won't jam or have runaway "cook-offs" like regular machine guns. So long as the soldier himself doesn't have to carry it, if it's gonna be on a vehicle mount, make it a minigun. One can fire off short bursts if necessary, just like MGs. But that additional high rate of fire has certain benefits all itself, and would be far more ideal at performing area suppression, especially in the advent of any human wave attacks (I suspect several engagements during the Korean war would've gone differently had miniguns and sufficient ammo been available instead of the just as heavy, slower firing 30 cal Brownings.) And if some of those Afghanistan cave rats found themselves suddenly under fire from longer-ranged, high ROF miniguns instead of "slow firing" SAWs, M60s, and M240s (or whatever), they might not have fired "down from the hills" with bolt-action rifles as much. And since nobody really "hoofs" an M2 around anymore, give 'em all GAUs. .
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:jap destroyer strafed, why high ROF rules   9/22/2004 1:43:16 PM
And if some of those Afghanistan cave rats found themselves suddenly under fire from longer-ranged, high ROF miniguns instead of "slow firing" SAWs, M60s, and M240s (or whatever), they might not have fired "down from the hills" with bolt-action rifles as much. well you could try the canadian approach to that sort of thing. i believe the canadians in 'stan are running 1.7 rounds fired per confirmed kill right now.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Canadian tallies   9/22/2004 2:12:24 PM
...and so far, a Canadian sniper team takes the record for longest confirmed snipe, with a 12.7mm rifle: 2430m But the thing is, not everybody is armed with sniping weapons. Even 5.56mm, with a sufficient barrel to milk out every last propulsive inch of the propellant, can generate a good kill at range. But the problem is that the US keeps making the barrels a tad shorter on its service rifles/carbines, and the terminal effects are decreasing because of this. Maybe Canadians train more in marksmanship? Still, more than enough troops have raised concern to warrant more investigation into replacing the 5.56mm round. And also, if Canada's ratio is 1.7:1, then either they are damn fine machine gunners, or they don't do much area suppression fire. Maybe for the time being, the Canadians should be training the US in proper shooting. Or is it that the Canadians are more cautious about drawing fire to themselves, so they haven't had the need to shoot as much? It would be interesting to see a comparison, of frontline soldiers in Afghanistan, which nations have fired off more ammo per soldier, and which nations have the best ratio. Is this how the Canadian tally was achieved? And if so, do you have the "tally sheet" of how other nations fared?. Perhaps it all boils down to firing discipline. Or it could be a matter of sighting systems. Certainly, there is need for serious inquiry as to whether the problem truly is the ammo, or the shooter. Naturally, most shooters DO claim it is the ammo..
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:The truth about the 5.56mm round   9/22/2004 6:51:56 PM
After seeing and using the M-16 in Viet Nam I an certain that it is an ammo problem. The origional 55 grain projectile was very leathal. But in going for longer range, the heavier slug lost it's lethality. This would not matter a wit IF we used soft point ammo in the current fracas. The geneva convention only protects signatories who are uniformed combatents! The Islamo-fashist terrorists are by definition NOT SOLDIERS and thus are not protected under the GC! Police use soft point ammo with very good results for many years now, without hue and cry of inhumane weapons. Issue of JSP or JHP ammo would solve all of the 5.56's problems. None of the benifits of more powerfull ammo can make up for the reasons why we whent to small caliber ammo in the first place. Which relate to the traid off between firepower/ergonomics and weight. It is a mistake to change calibers to make up for a lack of thought before hand.
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   9/22/2004 7:06:13 PM
In Viet Nam I caried 30-45 loaded M-14 magasines depending on how far I thought I might have to go. They weighed over two pounds each, the M-14 and both sights, an other twenty five, My side arm&ammo, grenades and personal stuff made the total ~100 to 140 pounds. Most of the folks I know are packing almost as much weight in Afganistan, 90-120 pounds. The problem is with the mission and terrain not the weapon system. The 6.8mm does not have sufficiantly powerfull balistics to warrent the change in the Afgan mountains. Re-issue of the M-14 or the issue of soft point 5.56mm ammo would fix the problem no dought. A simple statement to the effect that we are not fighting those who deserve protection under the Geneva accords would go a long way toward fixing all of our small arms problems.
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:Protective thickness of materials.   9/22/2004 7:10:44 PM
Defectiv thoughts here. The GC Accords do not apply to terrorists! Only "Uniformed Soldiers"! We do not worry about soft point ammo in Blue on Blue because it is much easier for our body armor to stop it than the AP type we now use.
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:Hague Convention   9/22/2004 7:19:34 PM
Untill we are willing to use the ultimate terror weapons against the scumbags who kill inocent children, we will have to kill or capture them one or a few at a time. But if we had Nuc'ed All of the remote sites used by OBL the day after 9-11 the rest of the world would have thorn the bumbs out rather than face the same possabilities. Do not cry about the radiation. More than half of all of the Nuclear weapons ever shot off were tested in the American southwest and we all do not have three eyes or two heads. (Over 1000!) Do your research and get the facts.
 
Quote    Reply

VisigothCSA    RE:Canadian tallies   9/22/2004 9:29:05 PM
The Canadians have mostly sent their top units over there including snipers. I have read stories about the snipers be on the next ridge over providing cover fire for American troops who were getting up close and personal with the bad guys. Ratios of less than 2 shots per kill are about right for good snipers. They have such high rates because they are a long way off and have time to aim, and don't generally have the pressure of being shot at. The range also provides a psychological separation to the killing, making it easier to do.
 
Quote    Reply

VisigothCSA    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   9/22/2004 9:45:18 PM
I recently read an article about a new version of M-14. It has a shorter 18" barrel and a compensator on the muzzle that all but eliminates muzzle climb. The problem our forces have with the shorter barrels is well known amongst the troops. While it does make the weapons handier, it cuts effective range down considerably. This could easily be solved by going with a bullpup design like the Steyr AUG or the British SA-80. This would allow a full length barrel in a shorter package. Making an M-14 version of this would allow a stronger cartridge in a handier sized rifle, and the compensator could help with the muzzle climb issue. Magazines could be made a bit lighter by using plastics. I've had some plastic mags for my Mini-14 that are much lighter than the metal ones and have much cleaner feeding than the metal ones also. They are also tough as I have beaten them around a bit and they came through without a scratch. It might also be possible to use a modular barrel and magazine system to change the weapon according to local needs. In the field, the 7.62 could be used. In cities, some of the troops could swap out for a carbine version using .45s or a new carbine round. I think something like a long cartridge 10mm round, like the pistol round, could make a decent round for city fighting. It would certainly have good knockdown at less then 100 yards and shouldn't be a problem to handle in full automatic fire.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   9/23/2004 3:45:42 AM
The civilian gunsmiths who do little more than shoot all day long and tinker around with bullet weights, casings, and propellant loads are the ones the government needs to ask to design the best round for the job, not corporate bullsh*t artists who are only out to make their fast bucks off fat government contracts. Seems to me, a few more of those "ballistics experts" that work for some of the government defense contractors need to start reading Guns and Ammo and Shooter's Digest more often. Sorry, but that's my personal opinion. You don't get guys who've never had to rely on their weapon to save their life, to develop the guns and bullets for the guys who ARE depending on their weapon to save their lives..
 
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