Soldier's .223 complaints

Status
Not open for further replies.
I Agree with Tactical_Rubber_Duck that the real problem isn't the round or the rifle its being fired from but the combination of both. I've spent a good bit of time reading the Ammo Oracle and they make a pretty good argument about the velocities at which M855 and also M193 fragment - both generally have to be going at least 2700 fps or thereabouts to fragment, but coming out of that short 14.5" barrel, that velocity is bled off at only 45-50 meters - that means that, beyond 50m, you can't reliably expect the round to fragment and you get a .22cal wound. Alot of shooting in Iraq takes place beyond 50m, and even more in Afghanistan (by comparison, M193 fragments at about twice the range - 95-100m from the M4, and from the M16's 20" tube, M193 is still above 2700fps at 190-200m - a truly effective cartridge / rifle combination).

Of course, the real problem is that a 14.5" barrel is a real necessity in urban warfare, and is probably alot more useful than a longer 20" barrel, which can be a PITA to get around corners etc. So to me, that means that a new round should be introduced.

I like the Mk262 Mod 1 as a general-purpose round, retaining its fragmentation characteristics at proportionally lower velocities and, thus, longer ranges. I don't think it should be restricted only to SF operators and DMR shooters - I think it's a true solution to the problems in urban warfare, although it does trade off the penetration M855 has. Either way, people won't be happy about it.

This all sorta reminds me of the stories from Korea of the M1/M2 Carbine not penetrating the quilted coats of the Chinese, with 15-30 rounds going into one charging enemy without effect. I find that kind of hard to believe for a round with ballistics similar to .357Mag and close to .223 Rem out to 100m - I wonder if, heaven forbid I say it, the issuance of those fully-automatic M2s didn't cause the shooter to MISS 15-30 rounds? Of course that wouldn't happen today.... Every shot those complaining soldiers fire is a good COM hit, without any question or doubt...

This is all just my opinion, of course, but it seems reasonable to me.
 
Maybe a new load should be developed for the 14.5" M4 that will burn all powder in said barrel length and allow the 5.56mm projectile to perform "as advertised".
Click to expand...

Isn't that what the new 5.56 brown tip does?
 
Thanks BlackHawk2000!

Its alot more fun to actually contribute to these threads than just read them silently all the time ;)
 
I can't get access to the news article about the brown tip ammo but it sounds like a decent solution. Have you guys seen the Knight's Armament PDW? It has some funky little 6mm cartridge optimized for short barrels and it has more energy at 300m than a round fired from an M4 at the same range. The brown tip sounds like the same sort of solution. Of course they could go back to an 18 or 20" bbl and get some velocity back.
 
Eyesac said:
No expanding, hollow points, or fragible ammo can be used in warfare according to the Geneva Convention
Click to expand...
Where did we agree on that?
Click to expand...
It's the Hague Convention of 1899 that forbids the use of hollow-point ammunition. Not Geneva.

For what it's worth, there are no treaties that say we must use jacketed bullets. Just can't use hollow-points.


-T.
 
Thernlund said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyesac
Quote:
No expanding, hollow points, or fragible ammo can be used in warfare according to the Geneva Convention

Where did we agree on that?

It's the Hague Convention of 1899 that forbids the use of hollow-point ammunition. Not Geneva.

For what it's worth, there are no treaties that say we must use jacketed bullets. Just can't use hollow-points.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

IIRC we aren't a signatory to the Hague Convention ... or atleast that part of it that forbids hollowpoints. We do, however, adhere to the proscription as a matter of ... well, convention ... since we are, after all, the "good guys.":D:rolleyes:
 
Seems like the new Red Chinese rifle + ammo does a good job of balancing weight, terminal effectiveness, and range. I would suggest the 6mm/.223. All that has to change is the barrel. If the core fills all but the tip of the jacket, the hollow tip will deform and casuse the bullet to yaw upon impact. Wait a minute- when did Al Queda sign the Hague Convention? 6mm/.223 HP are great flesh rippers. Maybe the hollow points can be filled with bacon fat. No virgins, no nothing. They died befouled by pork. Are pork chop bullets banned?
 
There was an article concerning this in our local newspaper. An Army sniper was quoted as saying that he was very thankfull he got to carry the .308 caliber M-14, he doesn't like the M-4/223 combo.

Given the choice, in tight urban combat scenario's, where the range is seldom beyond 200 yards, I'll take the 7.62x39, which has proven its effectiveness in these environments.
 
You decide:
223Rem_x_762Russian.JPG
Click to expand...

I'd take the one that damages the most tissue and as far as military rounds go 7.62x39 often has lousy terminal performance.
RussianWP.jpg
I don't see why I'd look at the rounds sitting next to each other to determine which to use.

I'm also not sure how great the trajectory of 7.62x39 would be for our troops.
 
You left out a graphic: 5.56x45 M855

m855.gif


It's interesting to note that most of the complaints about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56 are coming from non-combat arms MOSes, and people with little or no experience in close combat.

That is not to say that 5.56 doesn't have issues, particularly from short barrel M4s. You need a certain velocity to get the terminal effects show above, which means fragmentation is rare at ranges greater than 150 meters.

Here's an older report (from 2003) but the observations are still worth noting:

http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm

The relevant section:

Lethality:

It is apparent that the close range lethality deficiency of the 5.56mm (M855) is more a matter of perception rather than fact, but there were some exceptions. The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced or desired “better knock-down power” or a larger caliber bullet did not have actual close engagements. Those that had close engagements and applied Close Quarters Battle (CQB) tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) – controlled pairs in the lethal areas: chest and head and good shot placement, defeated the target without issue. Most that had to engage a target repeatedly remarked that they hit the target in non-vital areas such as the extremities. Some targets were reportedly hit in the chest numerous times, but required at least one shot to the head to defeat it. No lethality issues were voiced with targets engaged at 200 meters and beyond. It is apparent that with proper shot placement and marksmanship training, the M855 ammunition is lethal in close and long range.
 
Troops don't always know a lot about their weapons, other than how to break them down.

I remember sitting clearning my G1 (FAL-type) rifle in my company CP, back in early 2003. Almost every soldier who came by, said, Why can't we have one of those (instead of M4)?

Truth is, when you've got a squad backing you up, for almost all purposes, I'd prefer the M4. "Battle rifle" cartridges excel when you don't have as much support, IMO.

John
 
I thought M855 was a tumble-and-fragment-on-contact bullet, as long as you've got it going fast enough - which is hard to do with a short barreled M4.
Click to expand...
DING!

Give the man a gold star. That IS the issue. The 5.56 round is lethal because at sufficient velocity to tumbles and fragments upon impact. A 14-1/2" barrel M4 compared to a 20" barrel M16 is at a severe disadvantage. The 20" barrel fires the round fast enough to maintain critical velocity out to around 190 or 200 meters. A 16" civilian carbine maintains the required minimum velocity only out to around 90 meters, IIRC. An M4 is even shorter.

However, even in close quarters the M4 has proven ineffective. There have been reports in room clearing operations of insurgents absorbing multiple hits and still staying in the fight.
 
The irony is that a solution was largely found some time ago with the Mk262 round.

From the "Q. What about Mk262 or Mk262 Mod1?" section on http://ammo.ar15.com :

>>>>>>>>

"Due to the poor performance of M855 ammunition, particularly in short-barreled carbines of 10.5-14.5" in length, Navy SEALs, and eventually other SOCOM units, began experimenting with using loads originally designed for marksmanship units for combat. It was soon discovered that while these loads were both very accurate and had excellent terminal ballistics even from short barrels, the loads weren't quite ideal for combat. The target bullets had no cannelure, and the bullets weren't crimped in place, which could allow bullet set-back during feeding and raise chamber pressures to dangerous levels. Further, most loads were of somewhat mild velocities, as the load was chosen with accuracy, not terminal ballistics, in mind.

Sierra was asked to produce a bullet cannelured version, but they intially refused.

Nosler did not have any problems putting a cannelure on their 77 gr bullet. Black Hills Ammunition was approached to make a slightly modified version of these loads for combat use. A cannelure was specified, the bullets were to be crimped, and the load was to be up to military chamber pressures, with maximum safe velocity being desired. The primers were to be crimped and sealed, and of course, overall length had allow for loading in standard magazines.

The Marines (in conjunction with a large Federal LE agency) did extensive testing of this large experimental batch of BH loaded Nosler 77 gr cannelured OTM's in the Fall of 2002. It offered outstanding terminal performance out to the maximum test distance of 300 yards. They then ordered 1.1 million rounds of cannelured 77 gr OTM's via the existing Mk262 SOCOM contract (which did not specify a manufacturer) administered through Crane. The cannelured 77 gr load was designated Mk262 Mod 1, and the orginal Mk262 was re-designated Mk262 Mod 0.


...............As of April 2004, Mk 262 Mod1 has seen extensive use in Afghanistan and Iraq, in carbines with barrels as short as 10.5", and has proven to be very effective at ranges that M855 is woefully inadequate from the same weapons. It is also commonly used in the Army's "Special Purpose Rifles" (SPRs), which are accurized 18"-barreled rifles used by soldiers with additional combat marksmanship training in a squad sharp-shooter role."

>>>>>>>>>>




So right now the problem is just that the military is only issuing Mk 262 ammo to special forces troops (Green Berets, SEALS, etc.) and some DMs (Designated Marksmen), rather than making it general issue ammo to anyone using an M4. Most regular army units who have the M4 are still using the M855 round which is significantly less effective (i.e. doesn't tumble and fragment at the lower velocities the M4 allows) out of the M4 than the Mk 262 round is. Hopefully sometime soon the military leadership will correct this and start issuing Mk 262 ammo to all M4 users.
 
Mk262 sounds like the bee's knees in 5.56 but isn't it all made by Black Hills? I doubt they have the manufacturing capacity to pump out enough of it to be a general issue round. Maybe Lake City could retool enough to start producing it since it doesn't sound like the military wants to switch from the M16 platform (or at least 5.56) soon.
I do like the idea of stuffing it with pork products. 77gr OTH (open tip ham-filled) Match.
 
Maybe a new load should be developed for the 14.5" M4 that will burn all powder in said barrel length
Click to expand...

MYTH BUSTERS TIME


All of the powder that is going to burn in a rifle will do so in the first 3 or 4 inches. 9 times in 10 the fastest load for a 20bbl will still be be the fastest in a much shorter bbl. Don't believe me? Just look up load data for TC Encore handguns chambered for rifle rounds. The only way to get the same velocity from a shorter bbl is to ramp up pressures
 
As stated in the other thread, there are a few problems with M855 as a round.

One issue is that the bullet construction is more complex than normal FMJ because of the steel penetrator insert - so you gets lots that have good terminal ballistics and poor terminal ballistics. The M855 photo that GunTech linked too shows what happens when M855 yaws and fragments early; but some lots demonstrate yawing much later than that (or not at all).

A second problem is what is being called "fleet yaw." Dr. Gary Roberts just briefed this at this year's NDIA in Dallas and has discussed it online previously. "Fleet yaw" is the term used to describe how the actual individual rifle affects the yaw of the round. It turns out (after further study), that two soldiers can be shooting the same batch of M855 and get different terminal performance (one yaws and fragments while one doesn't) because they are using two different M4s.

So not only is M855 inconsistent from batch to batch; but each individual rifle also has an affect on how likely a bullet is to yaw and M855 is more susceptible to that as well.

One of the goals from the latest conference is to design ammunition that is not sensitive to barriers (doesn't break up on auto glass for example) and also minimizes the affects of fleet yaw to ensure consistent performance.
 
Of course part of the problem is that the our soldiers have been trained by the media to expect people to flip head over heels when shot, which no reasonable combat cartridge will do.

I sit next to a guy that has shot a few folks with .300 win mag at 2-300 yards. Most of them dropped, but more than a few took 30-40 seconds to lie down and die, and that's with a 190 grain bullet with a~2950fps MV
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Soldiers Lack New Body Armor
Replies
0
Views
628
Mark Tyson
M
F
  • Locked
US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
zulu6
Z
D
  • Locked
Many Iraqi soldiers wounded by own guns
Replies
13
Views
1K
Crosshair
C
W
  • Locked
Associated press article on 5.56 cartridge
Replies
17
Views
933
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Mainsail
  • Locked
"Somehow it went off"
Replies
24
Views
2K
91Bravo
9
Back
Top