Big Bullet Blues (5.56 inadequate stopping power)

[jeepmor]

I like mine

Army reports. Just reading the first thread already provides me with a huge dose of doubt. It sounds like it was written by bureaucrats, and we all know bureaucrats always uphold the highest ethics and integrity.

When bureaucrats are involved, truth is immaterial, follow up the chain of command and find the boss who profits from the decisions. If you don't find him, keep moving up, it's about money, nothing more. Logistically, a ton of 5.56 ammo provides a lot more trigger time than a ton of 30.06 ammo.

I hunt coyotes and varmints with soft points or hollow points. Easier to identify a hit that way.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Due disclosure: I am, in fact, a soldier. An 11B (Infantryman), no less. In Baghdad. However, I'm the colonel's driver, so I'm basically an 88M. And I haven't fired my weapon yet.


For all the people saying "The soldiers should get WHATEVER WEAPON SYSTEM THEY WANT" think about this. You personally can easily transition to another weapon system or cartridge. You go out and spend some cash on a rifle, buy a few cases of ammo, maybe an optic and you are good to go. Total price, maybe $1000.

For the Army to transition is a major undertaking. A new rifle has to be designed. Even things like the SAW, which I believe is basically an off the shelf design, will be customized to the Army's specficiations. Then the tooling needs to be produced. Hundreds of thousands of rifles need to be replaced. And that's just for the Active Army. That doesn't count the other branches of service or reserves. And billions of rounds of ammunition need to be procured and stockpiled. Finally, everyone in the Army (many of whom aren't gun people) needs to be retrained on the weapon.

This is obviously a process of years and billions of dollars. So any new round should at least provide some real improvement. The new .224 What Have You isn't a big enough difference to be worth bothering with.


Also, consider that the rifle is part of the equation. Any time we have troops in contact here in Baghdad you immediately have the closest patrols rushing to help. Which means HMMWVs or Strykers w/ crew served weapons at a minimum. Possibly Brads w/ 25mm or Abrams. Then you've got Apaches on station and possibly fixed wing from the Air Force. The rifle is the first line of defense but, unlike in your personal house, it is not the only one.


Ditto what JShirley said about the ODA guys carrying M4s too.

 

[JShirley]

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...

Well, it's actually true that 5.56 is less likely to overpenetrate a body than many handgun rounds. 5.56 will also tend to penetrate less drywall than 9mm. I've never actually heard what you just described.

John

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Phantom, are you with the MN national guard? My cousin is in Bravo Company, 2-136 Infantry, fighting with Col. Bristol's Marine troops in Fallujah.

Take care of yourself.

 

[SaMx]

I disagree
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm
9mm- 8 boards
.45 - 7 boards
.223- > 12 boards

 

[JShirley]

RockyMtn, according to this article, you are indeed correct- .223 just tend to be less dangerous after being slowed down by some walls.

I'm sure I'll be wrong again, too.

John

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I ask again, has there ever been a recorded case of overpenetration causing physical harm in a legitimate home-defense shooting?

I understand no one wants to take a chance on something like this, but anyone who is serious about home defense is going to use a 12-gauge. The rest of us are just blowing smoke up our own (and most likely our spouses') behinds. But when you get into heated arguments about a scenario that appears to never have happened except in your own feverish imagination, you have bought into your own propaganda. Another way of describing this state of mind is "delusional."

Any rifle is a less-than-ideal home-defense tool. You can pick up a good, reliable tactical 12-gauge pump for under $350 if you are serious about home defense.

One fellow on another thread kept yammering about how he has to defend his property from critters. I pointed out that this is not home defense; this is hunting. If you need to hunt something outside your house, hunt it with a rifle. If you need to defend the inside of your house from intruders, whether those intruders are two-leggeds or aggressive black bears bursting through your screen door to eat your kitchen garbage, you'll want a tactical 12-gauge.

 

[JShirley]

Any rifle is a less-than-ideal home-defense tool.

Rubbish. A rifle almost identical to the one issued to me would be my first choice for home defense. If shotguns were really the be and end-all of CQB, you'd see a lot more of them in use by US troops, instead of them being relegated almost exclusively to breaching roles.

John

 

[Chris Rhines]

JShirley, this part was true:

Shot placement means everything.

- Chris

 

[Byron]

J Shirley, I just noted your in Afganastan. Thank You for what you are doing. As indicated I was an 11B with the 4th Infantry 68-69. Byron

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Rubbish. A rifle almost identical to the one issued to me would be my first choice for home defense. If shotguns were really the be and end-all of CQB, you'd see a lot more of them in use by US troops, instead of them being relegated almost exclusively to breaching roles.

CQB and home defense are entirely different animals. Combatants in CQB situations are fighting other combatants, which is why they call it combat. In home defense, you're surprised by an invader into your home, putting you in a defensive stance, most likely in low-light situations. You will need to respond as quickly as possible with overwhelming force if you have any chance of survival. There won't be time for a lot of aiming, just point, shoot, game over. It will be more like shooting a clay pigeon than shooting a deer or an enemy combatant. Yes, in combat you want a rifle, even CQB. But would you want to shoot trap with a rifle?

Breaching is probably closer to home defense than CQB, so it makes sense that the military uses shotguns in this role.

 

[alucard0822]

normal trap ranges are at least 25yds, unless you live in a mansion, home defense ranges are likely to be less than 5. at that range even shot would have to be aimed, the pattern would be around 3", might as well use a slug, and followup shots are much slower than with an m4, even without selectable fire control. There is no doubt a 12ga is effective in knocking someone down and keeping them there, but ultimately he who gets the first COM hit with decent bullet energy and wounding mechanics normally walks away. You can argue AK vs AR all day, but superior training, tactics and technology are what makes our military the best in the world, not just what rifle they hold in their hands.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

If I can shoot a 3-inch disk flying through the air 25 yards away, I have no doubt I can point-and-shoot through the chest cavity of any human being at 3 yards or less in a heartbeat.

A 12-gauge with birdshot will spread out 3 or 4 inches across a large room. That's not much, but it's a heck of a lot broader pattern than a .223, 30 caliber, or .454 Casull a that same range, and everything that the shot comes in contact with will be hamburger.

Granted, I could see the value of having an AR with three-round-burst capabilities, but since I can't legally have that, I'll stick with my Mossberg 500 for home defense.

 

[Soybomb]

There won't be time for a lot of aiming

Man this isn't even a shotgun thread and its come down to the old "you don't even have to aim with a shotgun" thing?

I hear the sound of one being pumped is enough to make grown men fill their pants too

 

[Malamute]

"If I can shoot a 3-inch disk flying through the air 25 yards away, I have no doubt I can point-and-shoot through the chest cavity of any human being at 3 yards or less in a heartbeat."


If you can do that with your shotgun, you can point and shoot with the same speed with a rifle at inside the house distances. Running rabbits point and shoot with an AR aren't that difficult with a little practice.


I've never been much of a shotgun fan, for anything, other than clay birds, and those birds that require their use for hunting.

 

[HorseSoldier]

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.

Strategy Page tends to be a pretty craptacular source for what "the troops" really think on any given issue.

Being one of the troops, and spending my work days around various other troops, most of whom have taken M4s downrange . . . I don't know who's doing the complaining.

 

[CDignition]

I think we have a bunch of guys trying to make hits at extended ranges, and finding it doesn't work out so well...They are allowed to put optics on their service rifles and taking much longer shots than they should be.

I sure as hell know I don't wanna get shot with 5.56, and anyone that thinks it sux, let me take a shot at ya at say 200 yards....it wont hurt ya, right??..

 

[Byron]

L Boy, No one argues that a shotgun isn't effective. I am comfortable with a rifle,it is more natural to me base on the type of fighting I did in the Central Highlands of Nam. You seemed to have had combat experience. I Thank You for that time you did in defending our Nation. I prefer the M193 and others of newer eras prefer other rounds.
Other comments from others have referred to differrent rifles and cartridges.
All rifles used in combat are battlerifles. I trained on the 14 in Basic and only of recent have I heard the term battlerifle. I am glad I did not have to carry a 14 and it's ammo. My ruck weighed in at about 85+ pounds. Byron

 

[CZ223]

This debate has been going on

since before I was in the Army, 81-85, and will be going on as long the US military uses the 5.56. After that someone will undoubtedly complain about whichever round is chosen. Back when I was in, and no I never saw combat, half of the guys would have prefed the AK or at least a larger caliber like the 7.62x39 or the 7.62x51. I never liked the round or the gun very much back then. I now own 2 AR-15s and they are very accurate and dependable. I do think that a larger caliber bullet is probably a good idea but I would not feel undergunned with an AR in my hands.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I am comfortable with a rifle,it is more natural to me base on the type of fighting I did in the Central Highlands of Nam.

I admit my opinion is based on my own comfort with a shotgun when drawing on and shooting a moving target quickly. I've got a lot of experience shooting fast-moving ducks, geese, pheasants, partridge, and grouse, as well as clay pigeons. I've only shot one running deer; the rest have all been stopped. Not that I haven't tried to shoot running deer, mind you. I just miss them a lot more often than I miss birds.

I recently read "Marine Sniper," the biography of Carlos Hathcock, and he couldn't shoot a shotgun, but he could do things with rifles that the rest of us can only dream of. For him, and for others who are adept at shooting fast-moving targets with rifles, I can see a rifle being a better home defense tool. But I also think average people can put a shotgun bead on a target more quickly than they can crosshairs or iron sights.

No combat experience, BTW, but I have hunted for nearly 40 years. I also have some close friends and relatives with much combat experience. A good friend and business associate was working as a sniper in Laos on the very day Richard Nixon went on national television and said we didn't have any combat troops in Laos.

 

[JShirley]

After having used a shotgun (almost all small game) from the age of five growing up, I was active originally from Nov '01 to '03. I was assigned to the second Stryker Brigade, and we spent a lot of range time- in fact, for months, we marched out to the range every other week, and spent the week out there doing nothing but close-range "Stressfire" drills. I got a lot of trigger time, despite the fact I'm an 11C, not B.

After that experience, I found I could shoot trap pretty well, even though my MOUT- taught stance while using a purty O/U baffled those around me!

With a shotgun, I only use slugs on deer now. And the first deer I took after I got out of AD was a running shot through heavy brush; I shot her just behind the head, because her head and upper neck were all I could see.

Now, what you learn- if you study it- is that at very close range with a carbine, you don't take a precise aim. You swing your weapon up and put the front sight on the target and squeeze, reaquire, and squeeze again. For those of you who think you "only have to shoot once" with a 12-gauge, you've just been badly trained. Seriously.

Buckshot isn't the great eliminator many of you seem to think it is. The forte of the shotgun is its versatility. If you have the advantage of having a choice, a dedicated home defense carbine is a much better choice.

John

 

[JShirley]

Combatants in CQB situations are fighting other combatants, which is why they call it combat. In home defense, you're surprised by an invader into your home, putting you in a defensive stance, most likely in low-light situations. You will need to respond as quickly as possible with overwhelming force

So- what's useful for combat won't be the same thing you'd want for "overwhelming force"?!

It will be more like shooting a clay pigeon than shooting a deer or an enemy combatant.

How so? There's a threat in my house, but it's more like a clay than an enemy?!

But would you want to shoot trap with a rifle?

What does this have to do with anything? Trap is a relaxed activity usually fired with expensive 12-gauge toys.

Breaching is probably closer to home defense than CQB, so it makes sense that the military uses shotguns in this role.

You really don't understand breaching, do you? How is a shot from contact or near contact distance at an unmoving object anything like shooting trap or home defense?

J

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

for months, we marched out to the range every other week, and spent the week out there doing nothing but close-range "Stressfire" drills.

What you say is probably true... for those who have trained with a carbine for months on end. Otherwise the closest thing to this kind of training most people will have is trap shooting.

As for getting off just one shot, I'm not using Grandpa's old single shot. I can rack a shell and get off a second shot with my Mossberg 500 almost as fast as I can with my Benellie SBE II.

Now, what you learn- if you study it- is that at very close range with a carbine, you don't take a precise aim. You swing your weapon up and put the front sight on the target

True, but as I pointed out above, your average citizen doesn't have a reason to study it. The closest thing to this kind of practice most people get is trap shooting. They have practice aiming a shotgun in this manner, and they are more effective at it.

The method outlined above is very similar to how I practice drawing and shooting my 642 from my pocket holster. I agree it is pretty effective when you practice it. I can bang a four-inch spinner on the first shot at 10 yards most of the time.

 

[buzz_knox]

True, but as I pointed out above, your average citizen doesn't have a reason to study it. The closest thing to this kind of practice most people get is trap shooting. They have practice aiming a shotgun in this manner, and they are more effective at it.

At most trap distances, the shot will be spreading out. At the distances most home defense situations will occur, the shot will not spread out significantly. That's one of the reasons that Louis Awerbuck, one of the most respected shotgun instructors, recommends using slugs over buck.

I've gone through shotgun training and carbine training. Shotgun work requires as much, if not more, discipline than with the carbine. You have to keep in mind the distance to the target in order to adjust your aiming point. With a pistol or carbine, moving in allows for more rapid fire as missing is more difficult. With a shotgun, by contrast, you have to slow down.

 

[JShirley]

Study, as in pay attention to, learn about, etc.

You've just been told enough to know it- others may have to do a wee bit of research.

Part of the point I was making about all the carbine training, was that, after exposure to both, it is obvious which is more effective. After all the carbine training, I can shoot a shotgun much better than I could growing up...but I know enough to use a carbine.