Big Bullet Blues (5.56 inadequate stopping power)

Status
Not open for further replies.

50centbmg

member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
3
Big Bullet Blues

February 2, 2007: Troops from the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are still complaining about the "inadequate stopping power" of the 5.56mm round used in the M-16 family of assault rifles. Last year, the army did a study of current 5.56mm M855 round, in response to complaints. Troops reported many reports 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. Marines got the same advice from their commanders. But infantrymen in the army and marines both continue to insist that the problem is not with their marksmanship, but with the 5.56mm bullet. Marines say they have used captured AK-47 rifles in combat, and found that the lower velocity, and larger, 7.62mm bullets fired by these weapons were more effective in taking down enemy troops.

The army 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 army report was not well received by the troops, and there is still much grumbling in the ranks over the issue.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20070202.aspx
 
Are you asking a question or just kind of trolling? fmj 5.56's big claim on wound creation is through fragmentation. When you chop the barrel down you lose velocity and increased distance from the target will also cause a velocity drop by impact. Out of an 14.5" barrel m855 is below reliable fragmentation velocity after 50m, if you use an 11.5" barrel, you get 12-15m. M193 would move these distance to 100m and 45m respectively. Inside 100 meters m193 will generally yaw and fragment earlier and more completely than m855 as well.

Quite simply M855 out of a short barreled rifle isn't the best choice going.

Now for those of us talking defense it doesn't matter anyway because we aren't restricted to fmj ammo only as the military is nor are we likely to be shooting skinny people from great distances from an 11.5" barreled gun.

Despite all the webpages of people saying how most of the troops hate their rifles and they're all picking up AK's, I've yet to actually hear that from someone who was there.
 
Ain't that why the M16's got burst/FA mode on it? Or is the "fun switch" just there for looks? I don't see anybody standing if you empty a 30rd mag into 'em.

This is bogus. It's a conspiracy by Jenny Craig - more people buy her junk, 'cause they get a better chance of surviving. :neener:
 
What Soybomb said. For 5.56mm full metal jacket military ammo, like M193 and M855, their primary wounding mechanism is fragmentation, and a critical minimum velocity is required to guarantee fragmentation. So at a certain distance (as velocity drops) a military issue 5.56mm FMJ bullet will not reliably fragment when it hits, which of course significantly reduces its wounding capacity and stopping power. The range at which this occurs depends on muzzle velocity, which in turn depends primarily on barrel length. So rifles with shorter barrels have a lower muzzle velocity, which means a shorter fragmentation range, giving them poorer stopping power than longer barreled rifles. Though this is only the case at ranges where the bullets fired from shorter barreled rifles are no longer fragmenting, while the bullets from longer barreled rifles still are.

The military has already found a solution to increasing fragmentation range with the Mk262 round. This uses a heavier, and more importantly, a longer bullet than the M193 or M855 rounds. At the same velocity a longer bullet undergoes more longitudinal stress when tumbling through a medium than a shorter bullet does. Since it is the stress exceeding the material strength of the bullet during tumbling that causes a bullet to break apart and fragment, longer bullets will fragment at lower velocities than shorter bullets (assuming similar bullet construction of course). So the Mk262 round has a longer fragmentation range than the M855 round. However, the Mk262 round is currently only being issued to select units, and most regular soldiers are still using the M855 round.

If you want more detail, go to this website (http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm).


Section on stopping power issues at longer ranges for M855 round.
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm#m855yaw

Section on velocity as the critical component of wound profile.
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm#velocity

Section on the ranges at which M193 and M855 will fragment (depending on barrel length).
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm#fragrange

Section on how impact velocity (and bullet construction) is critical to achieve tumbling/fragmentation (for M855 and M193 rounds) .
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm#2700

Section on the mk262 round.
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm#mk262

Section on heavier/longer bullets for self defense.
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm#heavier

Section on how barrel twist rate does not affect fragmentation.
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm#twistduh
 
I'd be interested in reading the Army report. Why doesn't the article source it? Anyone know what the title is and when it was published?

Also, not to nitpick, but what's with the awful writing? StrategyPage really needs a good editor to look over their articles before they post them. :uhoh:
 
Isn't it about time to ditch the archaic Hague Accord rules (or whatever antiquated agreement it was) and start using modern ammo in combat? Couldn't NATO make a good argument that there would be less collateral damage using hollow-point ammo? Hell, the state of Minnesota won't let us hunt Coyotes with FMJ because it's inhumane, yet for some reason there is a dumb-a$$ rule that says FMJ is the only thing you can use to hunt humans.
 
We are not bound in this little war by the Hague accords because the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, doesn't have the usual state sanctions, etc. We could execute every one we catch immediately. We probably should.

The 5.56 has two wounding mechanisms: yaw, as in planform passage of the bullet through the target, and fragmentation caused by the severe yaw.
The yaw doesn't develop until the bullet has passed through about 4 inches of body. Lower velocity of short barrels also hurts.

The short M193 bullets yawed quicker and fragmented more easily. As we go up in weight and length, it takes longer in the body to yaw and fragment

Bottom line, the enemy is too small. The bullet passes through without yawing and fragmenting. Punches little holes that in soft tissue don't do that much damage.
 
Hence the reason we call the AR in 5.56 a poodle shooter; not much good for larger game.

And as we were taught in boot, bullet placement, bullet placement!
 
I have a simple solution: Just go back to good ol' .30/06! Nobody has ever had a problem with someone or something getting up after getting hit with an '06!
 
I have a simple solution: Just go back to good ol' .30/06! Nobody has ever had a problem with someone or something getting up after getting hit with an '06!

That's baloney. Life just isn't like that, friend. I'm aware of at least one failure to stop w/ 40mm grenade. President Teddy Roosevelt took an '06 (among other things) to Africa. He eventually went to a big double and a .405, since there were lots of things '06 wasn't enough for...
 
Because this is a bogus article. I've seen an Army report comparing the effectivess of various 5.56mm rounds, with substantial improvement shown by heavier bullets.
 
It is beyond my comprension as to why anyone tries to defend a round that apparently is not performing in real world conditions.

If the "troops" say they are not working, personally I will take their word for it. Not some stratition or non-combatant thousands and thousands of miles away. The 5.56 is a "weak" round in that it needs specific criteria for it perform it's feature's and then reap it's benefits. If the "troops" feel that 12 ga. autos would be more effective, I say lets get 'em some. If they go down because of THEIR choice, or because of THEIR perspective, it is THEIR right and THEIR life. Just do not defend a perspective by placing the ineffectiveness on the troops and then even imply that they need training to overcome an inadequacy of a tool that is forced upon them to defend their lives. This has happened time and time again in our military armaments, it happened to me personally in 'nam. The AK was a million times more effective than my issued weapon. The loss of confidence eventually will be turned on the troops as being "unmotivated", where in fact it is loss of feeling equally combatitive as the enemy. Thank God I managed to secure an old modified Remington 740 .30-06 with homemade twenty round clips! Lined 'em up right, take three, four of them backwards with one round and they did not get up.

Man...I hate people that know what is best for others, but do not practice it themselves.
 
I'm currently collaborating with my cousin on a project, and his current location is Fallujah, and his current employer is the USMC. He's staking his life on his M4 24/7, and he's had no complaints about lack of stopping power from his ammo. The weapon system he is using is a fair bit more effective than the P.O.S. you were issued in Vietnam, old timer.
 
Thank God I managed to secure an old modified Remington 740 .30-06 with homemade twenty round clips! Lined 'em up right, take three, four of them backwards with one round and they did not get up.

You could only kill three or four with one shot? Come on boy, this is the internet. In order to make your point you need to exaggerate a little.:evil:
 
Several soldiers that I shoot with have said they have no problems trusting their lives with 5.56. Some of them have been to the sandbox recently and seen a fair amount of action.
 
I don't have any combat experience and I've only ever killed deer. But I think if I were being sent into battle tomorrow I would choose something that shoots 7.62x51, specifically my Springfield Armory M1A in stead of my CMMG Ar15.

I could be wrong, but I know that I am not wrong when I say that the troops should get whatever they want no matter the expense as long as it is within reason (no hookers or cases of beer with my tax money :p )
 
Bigfoot, where did I say that they were killed? It is possible, but I generally did not wait around long enough to make sure. One thing that I am sure of, winging someone with a .30-06 has a hell of alot more effect on the target than the 5.56. I know, I know...you are not suppose to wing 'em, but if you have ever been in a fire fight, you really do not care where you hit 'em.
 
Where have the troops said that it wasn't working? Near as I can tell, we have more troops speaking out in this thread than were quoted in that entire strategypage.com article. And so far, all of them seem to be of the opinion that 5.56mm is doing the job.

OldTimeHunter said:
Thank God I managed to secure an old modified Remington 740 .30-06 with homemade twenty round clips! Lined 'em up right, take three, four of them backwards with one round and they did not get up.

Was that before or after you taught Carlos Hathcock how to shoot a rifle? ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top