Weight comparison of ammo. Results surprised me

FlSwampRat said:

I was doing another article for the company page and was comparing 9mm with .45 as a defensive choice and I put one of each on our Dept. of Agriculture certified scale and was surprised to note how close 9mm was to being just about half the weight of a .45

In retrospect, I guess it shouldn't have. I know the projectile weights of 9mm run about 125 gr and .45 ACP are about 240 grain, but I somehow never put together the fact that with the same weight of bullets you could have almost twice as many rounds.

So the next thing I wanted to check out the difference between '06 and 5.56. The difference for the WW soldier and the Vietnam soldier is the '06 weighs in at 30.3 gr and the 5.56 weighs in at just 11.5 gr.
Nothing earthshaking here, just hadn't really thought about the comparisons for the ammo humper.

View attachment 866831

Click to expand...

I am a fan of the M1a, having earned my Distinguished Rifleman Badge with the rifle. And I was in the pitts pulling targets, lambasting the M16 when a shooting bud of mine, a Vietnam Veteran, told me that the combat load for the 7.62 was 200 rounds but he could carry 400 rounds of 5.56. And I asked, "Did you ever shoot 400 rounds in a day?" and he had. As much as I love the 7.62 Nato, the M14, that is still something to think about.

Except for the receiver, this is all GI

No reason to say this but: it's not a bad thing to carry more rounds per pound! With all the crap an infantryman carries today, that did not exist in WWII it probably evens out!

FlSwampRat said:

I know the projectile weights of 9mm run about 125 gr and .45 ACP are about 240 grain...

Click to expand...

Unless that was just a typing error, the standard bullet weight for the 45 ACP is 230g rather than 240g.

Dave

FlSwampRat said:

Have to admit, I've never fired an M1. Just the 16 and the 60. Mmmmmm the 60 was a happy little thing.

Click to expand...

Yes Swampy,

M1s are Garand to shoot!

You're old enough to remember the knapsack and haversack, shelter half roll and so on!

Today there's Night Vision Gear, comm gear and better protective gear etc, etc, etc.

The 81mm base plate sucked after 15 miles though. It's amazing how much fun I have forgot about.

Talk about selective memory huh! Oh, and then mount MF too.

Ammo eats up a lot of weight. After all, it is mostly made of lead. Consider this: US GI 9mm is 124 grains, civilian 9mm is usually 115 grains, but sometimes as much as 147 grains. Standard GI 5.56 is 62 grains. So if we are comparing a MP5 to M4 in terms of weight penalty- 9mm "lead" essentially weighs 2x (or more) what 5.56 weighs. Let's take it step further- typically 7.62 x 39 is about 124 grains- again, 2x the lead as green tip. Not as heavy in comparison to MK 262 (77 grain) but the AK ammo (or 9mm in a SMG) is MORE than twice the weight of M193 5.56 (55 grain). Carry a half dozen (or more) magazines, and the comparative weight penalty adds up QUICK. It gets even worse for belt fed machine guns, considering their appetite. Also, it's fun to compare 9mm (115-147 grains) to 45 ACP- (usually 230 grains or so). 7.62 NATO? Typically, between 150 and 180 grains. 223/5.56, again, between 55- 77 grains. That means in terms of "lead weight") that you are carrying- a side-by-side comparison of those 2 means that a "light" 308 round nearly twice the lead of a "heavy" 5.56 round- plus, the guns that launch that 308 will always be heavier than a M4/M16, with few exceptions. Now, add the 100 pounds of other lightweight equipment required on the modern battlefield to do your mission and survive. I've done it, and I have the knees, ankles, and back to show it. As technological capabilities increased- improving our ability to fight, win, and survive- the weight penalty has also increased. Our combat troops are expected to move further and faster than ever before, 24/7, without regard to annoying "distractions" like weather and terrain.

FlSwampRat said:

Kinda funny looking back at the packs the infantrymen carried back in WWII and what the men carry today. Heck, it was a lot less when I was in back in the '70's. Nowadays they're dang near carrying a HumVee on their backs.

Click to expand...

Yep. Infantrymen back then weren't required to move as far or as fast as they are now, and the penalty for advanced technology is paid in pounds. The WW2 supply and logistics troops that the grunts saw as they were getting on the landing craft? Most of the time, they would see them within a day or 2 after hitting the beach, bearing gifts of supply. Airborne troops were (and still are) expected to do their job for up to 72 hours upon hitting the LZ, so if they didn't jump in with it, they are SOL. Then there is the logistical problem of the "front outrunning the rear". A maneuver element that has exhausted supplies and advanced too far forward is a unit that is potentially in big trouble.

Slamfire said:

I am a fan of the M1a, having earned my Distinguished Rifleman Badge with the rifle. And I was in the pitts pulling targets, lambasting the M16 when a shooting bud of mine, a Vietnam Veteran, told me that the combat load for the 7.62 was 200 rounds but he could carry 400 rounds of 5.56. And I asked, "Did you ever shoot 400 rounds in a day?" and he had. As much as I love the 7.62 Nato, the M14, that is still something to think about.

Except for the receiver, this is all GI

View attachment 866835

View attachment 866836

View attachment 866837

View attachment 866838

Click to expand...

Let's not forget those beefy M14/M1A mags are chunkers unloaded compared to aluminum or polymer AR mags.

Not that I don't love my M1A, favorite deer rifle, though I only pack about 30 rounds into the field, still complain (mostly to myself) about the weight and usually only ever shoot one... at best.

gr is grain
gm is gram

After all this is a gun forum and we deal in grains all the time.

FlSwampRat said:

Kinda funny looking back at the packs the infantrymen carried back in WWII and what the men carry today. Heck, it was a lot less when I was in back in the '70's. Nowadays they're dang near carrying a HumVee on their backs.

Click to expand...

One of my maxims while still in was "EVERYTHING is lighter, but we carry more of everything." One of the lightest loads I ever carried was doing a "fun" weeklong hiking trip up a mountain chain. No helmet, body armor, rifle, and can take off the blouse top and cover while moving. My personal pack was a relative lightweight 62 pounds.

A young guy at my church (well at 35 he's half my age - lol) who was in the SandBox for two deployments said he carried as much weight in batteries as he did ammo. It is the electronic/digital age after all.

Dave