PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Troops Want a Better Bullet



thedrifter
12-19-05, 07:15 AM
U.S. Troops Want a Better Bullet
Strategy Page

December 19, 2005: The U.S. Marine Corps, responding to reports from their troops, are investigating whether they should replace the current 66 grain bullet, used in the 5.56mm round fired by the M-16 and M-4 rifle, with a heavier bullet. Since last Summer, the marines have been making the heavier, 77 grain bullet (normally only issued to Force Recon and commando troops) available to commanders, to use in place of the rounds with the 66 grain bullet. However, only six percent of the 10.6 million 5,56mm rounds of ammo the marines have in Iraq and Afghanistan, are the heavier 77 grain version. The debate over the effectiveness of the NATO standard 66 grain bullet (and all 5.56mm) ammo has been going on for decades, and has only intensified since 2002 (when it was used a lot in Afghanistan). The marines and the army are working together on the problem, and will present their findings early next year.



Many in the U.S. Army are in favor of using a larger caliber bullet (7.62mm, as used in sniper rifles like the M-14), or a 6.8mm round. The problem with the 5.56mm round was that it was not designed to take down man sized targets (or animal equivalents like white tailed deer, or black bears), and is less effective in blasting through walls and vehicles during urban fighting. When first introduced, it was intended for use by draftees, who were often in need of automatic fire capability (because so few were marksmen). This meant troops had to be able to carry more ammo, thus the utility of the 5.56mm round. The 5.56mm bullet could wound, or kill with a head or torso shot. But a determined enemy was often not stopped by 5.56mm fire. Today, all the infantry are volunteers, much better trained to hit targets with single shots, and increasingly demanding a bigger bullet for doing that.

Ellie

yellowwing
12-21-05, 11:22 AM
The chorus of our shooters have been asking for something more lethal than the 5.56 rounds. This has been going on for DECADES.

Who and why in the military procurement process have prevented the migration to the long demanded extra firepower?

Nagalfar
12-21-05, 12:52 PM
Yellowwing.. I think I can answer that, during the cold war, the M16 was a symbol for America, thus equally the AK was a symbol of everything evil, almost anti-America if you will.. now the cold war is over, we are stuck with a rifle in MHO that is a TOTAL POS, always has been, and always will be, the round is too small and it craps where it eats, who wants a to carry a rifle like that? the .223 was designed as a varmit cartridge, never intended as a man stopper.. BUT, our all knowing, all seeing procuremment boys and girls would have to admit they were wrong, and that is not about to happen anytime soon, the proof they are wrong being, any Marine who has ever carried a M14, I feel safe saying would gladly try his current POS for an old fat, outdated heavy M14.. our current procurement system is a group of "whiz bang" people who for the most part couldnt find their own ass with both hands, a map, a flashlight and 2 congressional aids to help..

I have followed this process at length.. all I have seen is a bunch of whiz bang crap that dont belong in anyones AO.. the simple facts are WE KNOW, 7.62 works, and works very well, WE KNOW .45 works, and works very well.. its not that it is hard to understand.. its just no one seems to care.. a new simple and effective main battle rifle in not sexy, or news breaking unless its whiz bang sellable. Think about this.. we needed too and DID buy ammo abroad due to the fact we couldnt produce it at the rate needed during the first part of our war on Sadam, Israel did step up and tell us they would supply us, BUT, the administration thought it would offend Islamic nations, our brothers shooting arabs with bullets made in Israel.. wanna talk about a threat national security, we are dealing with people who are worried about what our enemies think about us, and less about what our own people need. ( I would have made it a point to get ALL AMMO from Israel, and make sure all bullets were marked MADE IN ISRAEL, warning, contains Pork products!)

jryanjack
12-21-05, 03:04 PM
I read a report on Military.com where they brought a round table of Sgt's and Cpl's together to do a lessons learned. One of their recommendations was to get rid of the 9mm pistol in favor of something heavier - not enough stopping power. Seems to me to be a common thread.

ggyoung
12-21-05, 03:49 PM
Nagalfer I agree with you. I had buddies on hill 861 and hill 881. When Stoner said to McNamare and his wiss kids that the m-16 had to have a "crome" chamber and to use a slow burring powder they did not lisson to Stoner. Look what happened. Very sad.

mrbsox
12-21-05, 09:26 PM
I've wondered for quite some time what would happen to the SHORT RANGE (50 yds) ballistics of the 5.56 if a set of nippers were taken to the tip. Maybe just enough to take the 6 grams off of the 66g, and open the jacket tip.

Long range accuracy would go to he!! in a hand basket, but we're talking across the room, or street, not down the block for this 'field expedient modification' .

Anybody got an AR to test with ??

greensideout
12-21-05, 09:46 PM
I was going to jump in and point out the obvious but Nagalfar covered it well.
Bigger is better. Back to the future. .30 cal rifle and .45 cal pistol. The boys and girls that haven't used them don't have a clue.

rb1651
12-21-05, 10:11 PM
I own both and AR-15 and a 1917 Springfield 30-06. When I go home to Minnesota to hunt deer, what do you think I use? The AR is okay for a rabbit, but if I want to drop large game, simple ballistics says LARGE ROUND.

Ron