Big Bullet Blues (5.56 inadequate stopping power)

[ogivemeplat]

Poodle shooter

I think the poodles might be safe from this one.
Guys out on mission night before last shot a dog.
Between the two of them, they had to shoot it nine times to kill it.
Stood up and wandered around after the first two or three.
Was still on its feet up until the last one.
(M16 and M4)
Both guys know how to shoot.
Not sure which I like least, the round or the platform it's offered in!

Certainly, this is not a difinitive test. But equally, why would we continue to
have as standard issue, a round and delivery platform that are clearly not confidence inspiring.

It'd be a fun question to pose to those in the service who are knowledgeable about firearms.
"Who would trade their M16 for an AK, given the chance?"
Think you'd find a LOT of takers for that one.
AK is not the be-all and end-all, but it's better than what we get.
And we're supposed to have the superior weaponry, not the bad guys

 

[mattw]

Was that before or after you taught Carlos Hathcock how to shoot a rifle?

I think that was around the same time that the army taught him to call magazines "clips".

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I don't shoot dogs, but I've shot a whitetail through the heart with a .30-06 and watched it run 200 yards before dropping dead. I did not interpret this to mean that the '06 was an inadequate round.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Shot placement always trumps fragmentation and bullet size.

People survive shots from 7.62's all the time, just depends on where it hits them.

There was a guy in WWII who survived 8 shots from 8mm. Shot placement is the number one determining factor.

 

[alucard0822]

you could always think outside the box, send Sally Struthers and the world food bank fund in there and fatten em up a little, then we wouldn't have to worry about changing ammo or equipment.

 

[Old Time Hunter]

Carlos was just slightly ahead of my time. When did they start calling clips, "magazines"? Back in the day, my DI would have made a comment of having too much time in the commode, a magazine was somthing you read.

 

[loki.fish]

I've yet to run into anybody that was in Iraq or Afghanistan that actually shot their rifles. They all said the majority of the fighting is done by special forces. Two of which said they never fired their gun the entire year they were over there except at targets to make sure it still worked. But hey, what do I know. I'm just an armchair commando that's never been in the military listening to people that were "supposedly" in the sandbox.

 

[billp]

I am not a lawyer. I do not have a legal degree. I am not licensed to practice law

Thank goodness.

 

[billp]

I've yet to run into anybody that was in Iraq or Afghanistan that actually shot their

 

[billp]

chukar hunting

chuckar experience.

 

[JShirley]

Most of the ODA in the camp I'm in not only don't bitch about the 5.56 (and they could carry anything they want), but have 11.5" barrels, too!

Two days ago, I was talking to some of our ANA guys for most of an hour. They prefer the M4 to their AKMs...so, you want anecdotal evidence? Got some. And dogs shot in my neck of the woods (there are a lot of wild dogs in A-stan) usually go down with one decently aimed round of 5.56mm.

A magazine is a container which stores ammunition. Clips hold rounds in place outside, and sometimes, inside magazines. Rounds for our M16/M4s, for instance, come on clips. The rounds are stripped off into the magazine. The M1 Garand used an "en block" clip which was ejected from the magazine when empty.

John

 

[DMK]

If the problem was as bad as everyone safe at home makes it out to be, I'd think that the boys "over there" would have made a lot of noise by now. The guys in SEA voiced they opinions and when the chain of command didn't do anything about it, they wrote the papers, they wrote their congressmen. The problems got fixed. Cleaning kits were added, chrome chambers and chrome barrels were added.

The current wars over there have been going on for a long time now. A lot of guys have rotated home. I've met and talked to a lot of ex-soldiers who've done their tour and are now in the civilian world. I think almost everyone has by now. I've never heard anyone of them complain about their weapons. Food and kit yes. Weapons no.

Talk to enough 'Nam vet about weapons and you'll hear complaints though. Soldiers and ex-soldiers don't typically keep quiet about dissatisfactions.

 

[RNB65]

Search the net and you'll find many references to this alleged Army study, yet no one has ever produced an actual copy of the mysterious study.

Hmmmm....

 

[Byron]

I was a grunt in nam,D Co,3/8th Inf,4th Inf Div 68-69.We had the M193 round. It did what it was suppose to. I have complete confidence in that round and the 16 I carried. Keep in mind our 16's had the bugs out as proper powder was used and we had LSA oil. I kept my 16 clean. Byron

 

[telomerase]

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

What they want is to be fighting the guys that ordered 9-11 (who are probably living on the Riviera, but certainly aren't in Iraq), not working as mercs for Halliburton.

As far as the round goes, every study since 1930 seems to choose a caliber around 6mm for humans (although as an earlier poster pointed out, if you're fighting people from the MacDonald's part of the world you need deeper penetration to blow through the [trans] fat).

The Chinese experimented with 5.8, 6, and 6.something; they chose 5.8mm with a 64 grain for short range and a heavier bullet for long range. And their main concern is shooting Chinese who complain about having their land stolen, not big foreign soldiers. Although they do have some very nice repeating grenade launchers for that.

Why does this round fragment and make little varmints explode, yet when going through humans who are too skinny it simply punches a .22 hole?

I don't think the Army is using Hornady varmint bullets...

Looking ahead to the next war against a real opponent, the question is how to get through ceramic body armor at a decent range. Has any work been done on AP for the 6.5 Grendel?

 

[dispatch55126]

Not sure if its true or not, but while I was stationed in Germany (Rhein-Main), I heard that special forces and anyone who was a marksman was "encouraged" and instructed to aim for the pevis of the Taliban. The reason being that a center section shot would be absorbed and they would keep coming. I broken pelvis, however, is a broken pelvis and you could drop them until you could get a kill shot. The important thing, regardless if this is true or not, is to understand the mentality of religious velots. We, in general, are not reserved to openly die for some belief. We'll go above and beyond for our comrades but if we're hit, we'll at least take cover and patch ourselves up. When you accept you will die today, a bullet wound will not stop you until you are physically unable due to fracture or death. A .22LR will kill a human if put in the right place. That's not the issue. The issue is a 5.56 will not knock someone off their feet like a 7.62x51. Right or wrong, that is the current thinking.


FYI-the 5.56 was chosen due to reduced recoil and increased combat load. That allows for a greater range of people to accomplish a mission effectively.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

I've yet to run into anybody that was in Iraq or Afghanistan that actually shot their rifles. They all said the majority of the fighting is done by special forces. Two of which said they never fired their gun the entire year they were over there except at targets to make sure it still worked. But hey, what do I know. I'm just an armchair commando that's never been in the military listening to people that were "supposedly" in the sandbox.

Interesting.

I've yet to run into anybody that was in Iraq or Afghanistan that actually HADN'T shot their rifle!!

 

[____hoot____]

Simple solution is to decrease the twist rate. Maybe some 1 in 10 inch barrels. That's how they made the round work in Nam.

 

[jerkface11]

The only solution to the 5.56 "problem" is to build a time machine go back to the 1950's and convince Mr. Stoner to build his little rifle around .250 savage. This would of course create the perfect world where you can buy milsurp ammo packs for a quarter bore.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Stoners rifle was built around the 7.62x51 and he went to the 5.56 because that was closer to what the military wanted.

 

[boomstik45]

I think if 5.56 was truly such a problem, then law enforcement wouldn't use it either. And law enforecement isn't limited to FMJ. So what's the big deal? Personally, I like bigger bullets like the .308, but don't want to get shot with 5.56 at the same time. I'm sure a well-placed or couple of well-placed shots would put me out of commission.

 

[Cosmoline]

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?

Long past time. All FMJ bullets are poor substitutes for proper SP's. But the brass are hidebound idiots with little knowledge of firearms and the politicians are terrified that the Europeans will call us brutes for switching to bullets that actually work. Basically, a combination of ignorance and fear. And it kills a lot of American soldiers and Marines.

Looking ahead to the next war against a real opponent, the question is how to get through ceramic body armor at a decent range.

Yeah, the "next war." Odd that we've been waiting for this "next real war" for sixty years now. In the mean damned time we keep sending our boys out to fight against fast and light enemies who never wear armor and have an annoying tendency to disregard .22" holes in their bodies.

Bottom line: If you have any serious knowledge about bullet performance you know perfectly well that in small caliber, high-powered rifles, a HP bullet will perform better on medium size game than an FMJ. It's not only stupid to try to kill something the size of a deer or larger with FMJ's, it's illegal in fifty states. This is not a subject for serious debate. It's been established for over a century. The only ones who haven't come to terms with this reality are our pointy-headed friends over in the DOD.

I don't care if our guys have .223's or .308's or .30'06's. With the right bullets any one of those will work. They'll rip the target's chest completely apart and blow his face through the back of his head before he can detonate. So let's DO IT!

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

HI,

The 5.56 is a poodle-shooting varmint round that is completely useless against human targets.

The soldiers hate it, the leaders hate it, the media hates it, and we hate it. The only people who haven't expressed hate for it is the enemy. They like it because they're bigger than raccoons and prairie dogs. The internet told me that insurgents need to be shot 9 times before they go down. The internet always tells the truth.

The reason the US military uses it is a 40-year long conspiracy to save money and to make logistics easier. Save weight on transports and have more bullets. It is also easier for these youngster shooters who aren't trained to be 1000m iron sight snipers like the soldiers who used the M1 and M-14 were back in the good ole days. It was just a political disaster in the 1960's which for some reason we have never corrected.

We should go back to .308 and the M-14 because that is a real battle rifle. No one needs select fire except for the police and SWAT. Firepower is a myth in modern warfare. Those dumb Russians are proof of that with their foolish AK-47 design. Shot placement means everything. Every soldier should learn to hit a man-sized target at 1000m with iron sights so we can win battles. It's all about physics you see. Once you hit that magic plateau of .30 caliber, the body instantly recognizes this diameter and suffers from some type of massive hydrostatic shock that causes instantaneous death.


Now, all of you: Stop buying AR's and .223 so the prices will come down. I'll take care of all this inadequate ammunition. I don't mind being under gunned. I like being under gunned with this poodle shooter because the internet told me that if I use 5.56 ammo, I can save the lives of my neighbors when a blood-thirsty homicidal manic is trying to slaughter my family. That's because the 5.56 doesn't go through drywall and won't endanger my neighbors or people in other rooms. It's all about priorities you know.

 

[JShirley]

So...was there anything true in that post?

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Sarcasm aside...

One thing I think that needs to be addressed and is commonly misunderstood is the 5.56 and drywall thing...

The 5.56 goes through drywall just fine. The reason that people applaud the 5.56 in urban settings is because it is less likely to hurt others as badly as many other rounds would because the drywall will slow the bullet down below frag threshold velocities...

It's still lethal (esspecially if it hits a vital area), just less lethal in general is all.