PDA

View Full Version : Today’s Troops Need a Better Bullet



thedrifter
11-23-04, 05:57 AM
11-22-2004

Guest Column: Today’s Troops Need a Better Bullet



By Philip Quigley



In Vietnam, troops had to deal with a competent and highly adaptive enemy, disease, poor morale, worse weather, an overconfident command, and an unsupportive public and media. Another problem they had was their unproven rifle, the M-16A1, and its new experimental round, the .223 Remington, or as we know it today, the 5.56mm NATO.



Today’s soldiers and Marines are issued a similar rifle, the M-16A2, which still uses the 5.56mm. This round is light, you can carry many magazines or belts, but it has the same drawback it did forty years ago: It is ineffective.



In Iraq, similar to Vietnam, we are currently engaged in asymmetrical warfare with a highly adaptive, morally entrenched enemy. He mainly uses guerilla warfare and hit-and-run tactics, avoiding force-on-force confrontations.



To the common infantryman, this is what the Vietnamese used to call a “belt-buckle fight” – up close and personal – this time in an urban, usually densely populated environment. The enemy does this with the sole purpose of confusing us in the fog of war, amidst homes, markets and buildings. He hopes for us to create civilian casualties, making the Iraqi public increasingly hostile to American troops and the new Iraqi government.



Given the enemy’s resolve, we must give our soldiers and Marines the best weapon system and round available today. We must find a replacement for the 5.56mm NATO round.



As a Marine Lance Corporal, I served with 1st Platoon, Alpha Co., 1st LAR Battalion (a LAV-25 unit) during the invasion of Iraq and subsequent siege of Baghdad in April 2003. In one particularly fierce firefight at a place we Marines called the “O.K. Corral,” we found out just how ineffective the 5.56mm NATO round actually was.



My platoon leader, hoping for a fight with the Iraqi enemy, had volunteered my platoon to conduct a roadblock on the main thoroughfare of a known hostile town in the southern region of Baghdad. About three hours in, he got his wish. We called the fight, the “O.K. Corral”, not in honor of Wyatt Earp or Doc Holliday, but because that’s how far the enemy soldiers were from us. We were close enough to hear them talk with each other and to hear the metallic clank as they racked their AK-47 rifle bolts.



This is quite an unsettling thing, especially when LAR Marine scout teams operate in 3-4 man groups, and we were spread up and down this road.



I was on the third vehicle in my platoon, Red 3. To our left was a power station and open desert with little vegetation. To our right was the town. My vehicle was the closest to the town. All the scouts had a bad feeling about the assignment, since 2nd Platoon had been ambushed in the area the night before. The platoon scouts were dismounted outside the vehicle, and the crewmen were asleep in the vehicle, though they should have been on turret watch.



The fight started a little after my vehicle’s SAW gunner and I went on watch and noticed men down an alley passing out long, wrapped objects from a dumpster. The vehicle gunner, asleep at the time, didn’t notice the movement on the rooftops nearest us either.



Still concerned with the alleyway, I saw an IR flash signaling to a high-rise building to our rear. At that moment enemy personnel launched four infrared flares over each one of the vehicles in my platoon. The enemy was counting us. This immediately drowned out my PVS-7 night-vision goggles. I knew something was fishy, as did my SAW gunner. He saw the reddish dots coming down over us from the sky. We woke everyone. Then the enemy launched regular illumination over each of our vehicles and the fight was on.



My platoon members and I were pinned down from innumerable snipers in the town and enemies bounding on our position from the desert. We were being shot at with AK-47 and RPK light machine gun fire. It was scary how well the enemy knew our positions, undoubtedly being guided by the snipers in the high-rise building and the light from the illumination being launched from the mortars in the building.



My scout team took cover by a small sand berm facing the open desert area. Rounds were whizzing by our heads. I had an M-16A2 with PAC-4 thermal laser device. With my PVS-7 goggles, I saw nice outlines of targets. I put the laser center mass and pulled the trigger, averaging 2-5 shots on each target and emptying two 28-round magazines during the expanse of the fight (I never loaded a magazine with a full thirty to save the spring).



The SAW gunner sent out all of his love for our attackers in the form of a belt of 5.56mm ball and tracer. We didn’t count how many we got. We had no idea because after being hit, it seemed like they just got back up. They wouldn’t stay down.



After a while, the attack seemed to hit a lull, and then picked up again. The enemy was getting closer and the shots from the town were getting closer too. My vehicle commander, who didn’t do a thing during the fight, popped his head out of the VC hatch and yelled for us to get in. Thinking we were about to be overrun, I stood up first and laid down suppressive fire on burst mode, emptying another magazine quickly while the SAW gunner emptied half a belt in what seemed like a solid burst of fire. He then got up and pushed me into the scout compartment. As we pulled out, all we heard was the whine of the engine, squawk and static from the radio, and rounds ricocheting off and around the vehicle.



The engagement, though not a huge success on our end, was without further incident on our way back to Fort Apache, an abandoned Iraqi test site we converted into our Company base camp. Fortunately, by the grace of God, no one was injured or killed. Red Platoon made it out intact.



We had no firm estimates of how many enemies we killed. The best guess was 20-30, but there was no way to tell for sure. Patrols the next morning through the area found no bodies, weapons, spent brass or even blood. The only signs that an engagement in the area had even occurred were the bullet holes in the walls, the scorch marks left from exploded 40mm grenades, and a burnt-out marketplace. Battalion intelligence later confirmed to us that the soldiers that initiated contact with us were Syrian and had modern Russian equipment, including night vision with infrared capabilities.



But that encounter also confirmed in my mind how ineffective the 5.56mm NATO round actually was. All of my fellow scouts came to the same conclusion – the 5.56mm NATO just didn’t do its job.



Soldiers and Marines today need a round that will take the fight out of any opponent with no more than two center-mass hits. The Russians have had since the 1960s a similar round to the 5.56mm NATO, the 5.45x39R. Like the 5.56, the round is small-caliber, high velocity, but unlike the 5.56, upon impact with its target it creates a massive wound channel because of a hollow space in the nose of the round, which becomes unstable. The Russians widely touted their success with the round with stories from their Spetnaz teams in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It has been in existence for nearly 40 years and yet the Defense Department has made no attempt to duplicate this round for our 5.56mm weapons.



We need to get working on giving our soldiers and Marines the best round possible to do the job, even if we have to copy Russian technology to do so. It has worked for them, why not us?



That would be one concrete way that Congress and the administration could support our troops in harm’s way today.



Guest contributor Philip A. Quigley Jr. served as an enlisted Marine combat scout during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and is pursuing a post-military goal of writing about contemporary defense issues. He can be reached at HawkmanPQ@aol.com. *Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=696&rnd=116.92065561315002

Ellie

snipowsky
11-23-04, 07:30 AM
The 5.56mm NATO (.223) ammo is junk. You'd have better luck with a Red Rider BB gun in combat. I prefer the 7.62X39 or .308. Soldiers and Marines in Somalia had these same problems and the enemy knows this very clearly. They hit there enemy with deadly accuracy and they would just pop back up. This is totally unsatisfactory.

When is the Pentagon going to wake up and get rid of these junk weapons? Get something with some stopping power!

MillRatUSMC
11-23-04, 09:09 AM
First let me say I haven't seen a better description of Vietnam;



In Vietnam, troops had to deal with a competent and highly adaptive enemy, disease, poor morale, worse weather, an overconfident command, and an unsupportive public and media. Another problem they had was their unproven rifle, the M-16A1, and its new experimental round, the .223 Remington, or as we know it today, the 5.56mm NATO.

My note;
That competent enemy did make some mistakes and like other asians, once on a set course, they we not able to change.


From day one, we knew that .223 remington aka 5.56mm round wasn't doing the job.
In the bush we weren't seeing the result that was highly touted to the .223 cal round.
There much documented of what wrong with this round.
As in Vietnam, we're fighting an enemy with a larger caliber round than the 5.56mm Nato round.
Another problem that we went from a two round resupply 7.62mm and .45 caliber if we exclude the 40mm rounds.
To a three round resupply .223 caliber, 7.62mm and .45 caliber rounds.
There's plans for a better round for urban warfare.
It's not big enough to be use as a sniper round, which limits it's role in combat...

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi
Ricardo

kentmitchell
11-23-04, 04:47 PM
All they need to do is coat the current one with bacon drippings and let the word get out.
Get shot with a bacon-coated round and no Paradise, no 72 virgins. Just a sand nap.

greensideout
11-23-04, 05:40 PM
Bacon grease should work well---LOL!

How about "back to the future"? 7.62x56. That should work well also.

snipowsky
11-23-04, 05:42 PM
LMAO@GSO! I've heard some s**t in my days, but bacon grease? I prefer teflon personally!

greensideout
11-23-04, 06:21 PM
Does anyone here have the real history as to why the U.S. went to such a small round bullet?

We went from 45-70 to 30 cal. 1906 to .308 win. (smaller case) to the .223 cal. Some others along the way.

I have heard things like---"It weights less so more can be carried". (Really? It does less so MORE must be carried.)

I have also heard that---"We want to create wounds so others would have to care for them thereby taking more out of combat". (We have seen that the enemy doesn't respond as we planned.)

So what is the real reason, anyone know?

mrbsox
11-23-04, 08:35 PM
oNE THEORY i REMEMBER HEARING IS THAT YOU wound one soldier, and it takes two to carry him from the battle field.
In theory, this takes 3 men out of the fight.

I think we all know THEORY and REAL WORLD are 2 different things.

Personally,
we return to the 7.62 NATO, replace the M16/M4 to .308 (which is the AR10), return the M60, provide the reworked M14's to the designated marksman, we could streamline line the whole resupply process, to deliver only ONE round.

Terry

snipowsky
11-23-04, 10:31 PM
Mrbsox for President! I like your ideas except for the M60 part. What's wrong with the M240 or the Mk48 Mod 0?

http://www.fnmfg.com/products/m240/m240b-3_5-28-2003.gif

The M240 was adopted by the U.S. Military Armed Forces following a world-wide competition in search for a reliable 7.62 mm NATO machine gun suitable for use as a coaxial weapon for armored vehicle applications. The Coaxial version of the famous Belgian MAG 58, produced by FN Herstal, won this competition and the M240 is now being produced by its U.S. subsidiary, FN Manufacturing, Inc.

The reliability of this weapon, 26,000 Mean Rounds Between Failure (MRBF), makes it the world's most reliable machine gun. As a result of the outstanding performance of this weapon, other vehicle and infantry variants of the M240 are now in use by the U. S. Military.

http://www.fnmfg.com/products/mk48/mk48%205-28-2003.gif

The MK48 MOD 0 is a lightweight 7.62mm developed to meet a US Special Operations requirement for a lightweight variant of the M240 that would retain the intrinsic functionality and reliability of the standard model.

greensideout
11-23-04, 10:45 PM
Well I don't know about SOX becoming President,---lol.

A new weapon? Yes, got to agree and the MK-48 might be the choice. Yes, back to basics---7.62x56---worked before and will again.

TopFlight
11-24-04, 12:21 AM
I have heard of testing with the new .300win short mag in M-16's as well as the civilian AR-15's. Obviously a 30cal bullet with alot of power behind it. Doubtful that these weapons will be available in mass market or as service weapons any time soon but it would be a smart move to go to this caliber. And as for the 7.62x39, this is also a 30cal bullet but lacks power at greater distances and isnt ideal for longer range shooting. I dont think it would be wise to move to a 7.62x39 caliber.

mrbsox
11-24-04, 06:44 AM
snipowsky...

Not familiar with the 240 or Mk48. If they are as reliable as the M60, then by all means. There have obviously been a lot of changes since 1979.

As for the 7.62x39, the shorter case allows the action to travel a shorter distance during extraction and charging, thus the quicker rate of fire for the AKs and variants.
But as mentioned, it lacks the long range 'Umph' of the 7.62x52. it would be a trade off of knock down vs. 'volumn of lead'. Also, to put the .308 into a short barrel 'assault' weapon (necessary for urban type fighting), kills the accuracy anyway, so what's the trade off ??

INTERCHANGABLE BARRELS !!

Short, 16" or 14" for in close missions, jump to a 24" for the 'sprawl' area long range missions. Keep the lower receiver, swap the upper with it's sighting system attached, and you have a ready made weapons SYSTEM, that can be fielded before the XM8 ever falls off the table.

One (effective) shot per target, and you can engage more targets in a given amount of time, on 1 magazine. Reduced reloads, increased lethality = more effective unit missions.

But hey.... I'm just an old grunt. What would I know ??

Terry

snipowsky
11-24-04, 08:49 AM
Mrbsox you are definitely on to something. I'm not saying I don't approve of or like your ideas. I think it would be a good idea to just scrap any weapon system that uses the 5.56mm ammo. I never cared for them anyways. I've always thought the bigger rounds were much better for stopping power and range.

You should send a letter to HQMC explaining what you just did up above. You never know what kind of results might happen. I think when it comes to medium and heavy sized crew served weapons they are sticking to the big guns with bigger ammo. Ricardo aka USMCMillRat was saying if they did this with the smaller individual weapons to it would make resupply that much easier and logistically it wouldn't be such a headache.

I know what I'd do if I was the Commandant, but I'm not. I don't really understand why they ever got rid of the M-14's, but they did. I have a couple AK-47's in different variations (7.62X39) and an H&K G3A4 (7.62mm NATO (.308 win)). Those are plenty for me. The only thing I don't have that I'd like is a Barrett .50, but I'm not forking over 10 grand for a rifle. Not to mention I wouldn't have anywhere to shoot it in this crappy state. Only a few places I can shoot what I have now and those are slim pickings anymore.

Other then that I'm in total agreement with you about caliber sizes. If I wasn't, do you think I'd own what I own? I've had AR-15's in the past and to me they are just high powered BB guns with no stopping power at all!

Mike

mrbsox
11-24-04, 08:59 AM
M240G Medium Machine Gun
After extensive operational and technical tests, the US Army has selected and type classified the M240B 7.62mm medium machine gun produced by Fabrique Nationale as a replacement for the M60 Series machine gun. This is a ground mounted variant of the original M240/M240C/M240E1 coaxial/pintle mounted machine gun used on M2/M3 Series Bradley Fighting Vehicles, the M1 Series Abrams tank, and the U.S. Marine Corps LAV-Series of Light Armored Vehicles. While possessing many of the same basic characteristics as the M60 Series medium machine guns, the durability of the M240 system results in superior reliability and maintainability when compared to the M60.

The M240D 7.62mm machine gun is a left hand feed, gas operated, air cooled, fixed head space weapon. The M240D has two possible configurations: aircraft and egress (ground). In the aircraft configuration the M240D has a front and rear sight and a trigger group which accommodates the spade grip device. The ground configuration involves the installation of an Egress Package which is designed to provide downed aircrew personnel with increased fire power. The Egress Package contains a buttstock assembly, a buffer assembly, a bipod assembly, and a conventional trigger assembly. The M240D is issued for aircraft configuration. The barrel assembly contains a three position gas plug. The first gas plug position allows the weapon to cycle at 750 shots-per-minute (SPM). The two remaining ports increase the SPM by 100 each (I.E., gas port position 2 = 850 SPM; gas port position 3 = 950 SPM). The aircraft configured M240D weighs 25.6 lb. and is 42.3 inches long. The egress configuration weighs 26.2 lb. and is 49.0 inches long.

A similar version of the M240, the M240G, is the standard US Marine Corps medium machine gun. The Marine Corps is replacing the M60E3 with the M240G. The ground version of the M240 allows for a common medium machine gun throughout the Marine Corps. The M240G Machine Gun is the ground version of the original M240/M240E1, 7.62mm medium class weapon designed as a coaxial/pintle mounted machine gun for tanks and light armored vehicles. The rate of fire may be controlled by three different regulator settings. The M240G is modified for ground use by the installation of an "infantry modification kit," comprised of a flash suppressor, front sight, carrying handle for the barrel, a buttstock, infantry length pistol grip, bipod, and rear sight assembly.


Manufacturer: Fabrique Nationale Manufacturing, Inc.
Length: 47.5 inches (120.65 centimeters)
Weight: 24.2 pounds (10.99 kilograms)
Bore diameter: 7.62mm (.308 inches)
Maximum effective range: 1.1 miles (1.8 kilometers) on tripod mount
Maximum range: 2.31 miles (3.725 kilometers)
Rates of fire:
Cyclic: 650-950 rounds per minute
Rapid: 200 rounds per minute
Sustained: 100 rounds per minute
Unit Replacement Cost: $6,600

mrbsox
11-24-04, 09:07 AM
M60
The M60 Machine Gun has been the US Army's general purpose machine gun since 1950. It fires the standard NATO 7.62 mm round and is used as a general support crew-served weapon. It has a removable barrel which can be easily changed to prevent overheating. The weapon has an integral, folding bipod and can also be mounted on a folding tripod.


Length: 42.4 inches (107.70 centimeters)
Weight: 18.75 pounds (8.51 kilograms)
Bore diameter: 7.62mm (.308 inches)
Maximum effective range: 3609.1 feet (1100 meters)
Maximum range: 2.3 miles (3725 meters)
Muzzle velocity: 2800 feet (853 meters) per second
Rates of fire:
Cyclic: 550 rounds per minute
Rapid: 100 rounds per minute*
Sustained: 100 rounds per minute*
(* with barrel changes at each 100 rounds)
Unit Replacement Cost: $6,000



The M60E3 7.62mm machine gun is a lightweight, air-cooled, disintegrating metallic link-belt fed, portable or tripod mounted machine gun designed for ground operations like its predecessor, the M60. It is gas operated with fixed headspace and timing which permits rapid changing of barrels. (Associated components: mount, tripod, machine gun, 7.62mm, M122). Slightly different from its "parent," the M60, the M60E3 has a receiver-attached bipod which easily deploys for stability. It has an ambidextrous safety, universal sling attachments, a carrying handle on the barrel, and a simplified gas system that does not require safety wire to prevent loosening. However, the light weight barrel is not safe for overhead fire and is not capable of sustaining a rapid rate of fire of 200 rounds per minute without catastrophic failure of the barrel.


The M60E3 (light weight version of the parent M60) was fielded with the intention to reduce the load carried by the gunner. However, the reduction in weight resulted in firing limitations and a loss of reliability that severely restricts the use of the weapon in the Fleet Marine Force. Consequently, troop acceptance of the E3 has been very poor. This gun will be replaced by the M240G.


AMMUNITION

The preferred combat ammunition mix for the M60 is a four-ball (M80) and one-tracer (M62) mix. Again, the four-and-one mix allows the gunner to use the TOT method of adjusting fire to achieve target kill.


Type Use
M61 Armor-piercing Against lightly armored targets.
M62 Tracer For observation of fire, incendiary effects, signaling, and training.
M80 Ball Against light materiel targets and personnel, and for range training.
M63 Dummy During mechanical training.
M82 Blank During training when simulated live fire is desired (A blank firing attachment must be used to fire this ammunition).

mrbsox
11-24-04, 09:12 AM
T12 Demolition Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Twice the size of the 22,000-pound M110, this bomb was designed to create an earthquake effect by penetrating deep into the earth before exploding and thus causing the ground to heave up under the target. The bomb case is comprised of six separate sections welded together. The nose sections are extremely thick to permit deep penetration without deformation. The four tail fins are canted so as to impart a stabilizing spin to the bomb's trajectory. Only one plane in the US arsenal, the huge B36 "Peacemaker", could after a special modification to its bomb bay carry just two of these huge weapons.

The M-121, sometimes called the "Earthquake" bomb, was more often referred to as the "Grand Slam" bomb, a totally misleading nickname. Actually "Grand Slam" was the code name of a highly classified modification project strictly concerned with atomic matters. The "Grand Slam" modifications would allow the Convair B-36 to carry atomic bombs, which the Air Force believed might weigh more than 40,000 pounds. Since the 10,000-pound M-121, when properly dropped, could inflict the damage of a 40,000-pound bomb, curiosity and rumors most likely explained the ensuing confusion. As a matter of fact, the "Grand Slam" designation was also loosely applied to other conventional bombs of the M-121 category.


Specifications
Country USA
Manufacturer
Year Manufactured 1944
Weight: 44,000 LBS
Length: 200"
Diameter: 54"
Guidance: None
Control: None
Autopilot: None
Propulsion: None
Warhead:
Fuse:
Aircraft B-36

enviro
11-24-04, 11:03 AM
Below is an article in defense of the 5.56 NATO round. He brings up some good points - especially towards the end. The Marine Corps is currently field testing a new version of the M-14 (7.62mm) Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR).

Essentially, every rifle and every Marine in the squad have their purpose. A squad of M16A4 USMC Assault Rifles (the current weapon) is not going to be the ultimate answer. A .50 cal, M-240G, and a couple of M-203s mixed in provides the needed firepower.

Keep in mind it takes more than just a 5.56mm round and weapon system to be effective on the battle field.

__________________________________________________ _



In Defense of the 5.56mm NATO Cartridge

By "Jeff" (A retired infantryman)

An infantryman can carry a great deal more 5.56mm ammunition than he could 7.62mm NATO (.308 Win.) or .243 Winchester. Weight is the issue, and more rounds are always better if one becomes decisively engaged. When on patrol, my standard ammunition load was 20 thirty-round magazines, plus another 280 rounds in bandoleers or stripper clips. Try throwing 880 rounds of .243 ammo in a daypack and carrying it around for a day--you'll soon get the idea. Infantrymen armed with a .243 caliber rifle would be forced to carry less ammunition (although they probably could do more harm with the lesser amount). Also, more 5.56mm rounds can be carried per truck or helicopter load on re-supply runs.

To the Army, the cost of ammunition per round is important. While not significant in small numbers, it becomes apparent when you look at the big picture. One must include the cost of developing and maintaining proficiency with individual weapons. The 5.56mm gives the taxpayer more bangs for the buck.

Also consider the number of .243 cases that can be produced from 100 tons of brass versus the number of 5.56mm cases, and do the same for powder, lead, and gilding metal. While none of these are in short supply, they do cost money.

Battles are usually decided by maneuver. On the modern battlefield the lethality of one's rifle is of little concern. It is only one weapon of many available, and usually not the first choice. Much better to fix your enemy in place by launching grenades at him while you concentrate indirect fire (artillery/mortars) on his position. Rifles work better for clean up. Firing well aimed shots at enemy personnel is not quite the same as fire and maneuver up a hill into an enemy defensive position. The killing efficiency of an infantryman has much more to do with his training, leadership, personal equipment, available fire support, and his mental outlook than the caliber of his rifle.

One final point in favor of the 5.56mm--I can tell you from first hand experience that the round is considerably more lethal at close range (where end-game battle often winds up) than at long range. I would suffer a significant amount of inconvenience to avoid being hit with one at a range of less than 50 meters. A battle begun at 200 meters can turn into a 50 meter slugfest in as little as five minutes. Rather unnerving, but nonetheless it happens.

On the other hand, I agree more than you might think with the point of view expressed in the article New .243 Service Rifle Cartridge, A Proposal. The Army/USMC could benefit greatly from the addition of a 3-12x scoped M-14 type weapon chambered for the .243 cartridge (perhaps two per squad). I say the M-14 because it is already chambered for 7.62mm NATO, and the .243 case is simply the 7.62mm NATO necked down to .24 caliber. This conversion would only require re-barreling as the two cartridges operate at about the same pressure.

In service I had the opportunity to use the M-21 sniper system based on an accurized M-14 rifle, and found it to be a very fine weapon. Such a weapon would be quite handy in the hands of trained shooters, but probably not so much in the hands of the average grunt. A couple of trained shooters per squad with an effective .243 weapon would increase the combat capability of the squad.

greensideout
11-24-04, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by mrbsox
Also, to put the .308 into a short barrel 'assault' weapon (necessary for urban type fighting), kills the accuracy anyway, so what's the trade off ?

But hey.... I'm just an old grunt. What would I know ??

Terry

Well I'm not sure what you know but as a WINGER please allow me to correct you on the short barrel accuracy myth.

The length of the barrel doesn't effect accuracy. The sight radius is shortened however, which makes it more difficult for the shooter. This is overcome with optics so it has no real relevance.

The things that effect accuracy are: (Here are a few)

Barrel crown.

Size of the chamber.

Twist of the rifling. (Determined by the weight of the bullet)

Harmonics. (Controled by barrel thickness, flutes or steps)

Bedding or free floating barrel.

Bolt lock-up.

Trigger.

And of course the bullet size, shape and the load of the powder chosen for the appetite of the particular weapon.

Another thing to consider is that some rounds are inherently more accurate then others.

Examples are the .308 win, 6.5 Swiss, .222 rem to name a few.

So, go out and buy a short barrel knowing that the accuracy is there. The shot is up to you.


:marine:
GSO

kentmitchell
11-24-04, 05:57 PM
Bacon grease is from pigs. Pork. Get it?
A muslim touches pork (or it touches him) and he believes there will be no Paradise or 72 virgins. Just hearing a rumor would scare him so bad his wee wee would shrink to nothingness.

greensideout
11-24-04, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by enviro
Below is an article in defense of the 5.56 NATO round. He brings up some good points -

__________________________________________________ _



In Defense of the 5.56mm NATO Cartridge

By "Jeff" (A retired infantryman)

On the modern battlefield the lethality of one's rifle is of little concern.

HUH? It sure would be to me if I was the one using the rifle!