Big Bullet Blues

[thedrifter]

Big Bullet Blues
Strategy page

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. Last year, the army did a study of current 5.56mm M855 round, in response to complaints. Troops reported many reports where enemy fighters were hit with one or more M855 rounds and kept coming. The study confirmed that this happened, and discovered why. If the M855 bullet hits slender people at the right angle, and does not hit a bone, it goes right through. That will do some soft tissue damage, but nothing immediately incapacitating. The study examined other military and commercial 5.56mm rounds and found that none of them did the job any better. The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away. The report recommended more weapons training for the troops, so they will be better able to put two 5.56mm bullets where they will do enough damage to stop oncoming enemy troops. Marines got the same advice from their commanders. But infantrymen in the army and marines both continue to insist that the problem is not with their marksmanship, but with the 5.56mm bullet. Marines say they have used captured AK-47 rifles in combat, and found that the lower velocity, and larger, 7.62mm bullets fired by these weapons were more effective in taking down enemy troops.

The army study did not address complaints about long range shots (over 100 meters), or the need for ammo that is better a blasting through doors and walls. The army had been considering a switch of a larger (6.8mm) round, and the Special Forces has been testing such a round in the field. But a switch is apparently off the table at the moment. The army report was not well received by the troops, and there is still much grumbling in the ranks over the issue.

Ellie

[bigdog43701]

Head Shots

[drumcorpssnare]

Interesting timing on this thread...
Just three days ago, I was "doodling" on a note pad, and decided to draw the profiles of various military bullets, for comparison's sake.
Included were, from smallest to largest,...
.223 (5.56mm)...M-16
.308 (7.62mm)...M-14
.50 (50 cal. )...M-2
1.00 (100 cal.)..Gatling gun

Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but how much more obvious can it be?
I can't remember how many times Vietnam veterans have told me about shooting the enemy with three, four, five rounds...and they kept coming!
Yet, in my studies of military history, the recollections of the massive tissue damage inflicted by the .76 cal "Brown Bess"...the .58 cal Minie ball....the 45-70 "Springfield".....the .50 cal "Ma- deuce". These are flesh-ripping, bone-crushing, harbingers of death! The 'hydro-static shock' alone...of these rounds, is often enough to kill or incapacitate the enemy.
In my humble opinion...any bullet calibre that starts with ".22" was made for shooting squirrels, gophers, and rabbits.
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

[thedrifter]

Interesting timing on this thread...
Just three days ago, I was "doodling" on a note pad, and decided to draw the profiles of various military bullets, for comparison's sake.
Included were, from smallest to largest,...
.223 (5.56mm)...M-16
.308 (7.62mm)...M-14
.50 (50 cal. )...M-2
1.00 (100 cal.)..Gatling gun

Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but how much more obvious can it be?
I can't remember how many times Vietnam veterans have told me about shooting the enemy with three, four, five rounds...and they kept coming!
Yet, in my studies of military history, the recollections of the massive tissue damage inflicted by the .76 cal "Brown Bess"...the .58 cal Minie ball....the 45-70 "Springfield".....the .50 cal "Ma- deuce". These are flesh-ripping, bone-crushing, harbingers of death! The 'hydro-static shock' alone...of these rounds, is often enough to kill or incapacitate the enemy.
In my humble opinion...any bullet calibre that starts with ".22" was made for shooting squirrels, gophers, and rabbits.
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

I can read Your minds ;) :D

Ellie

[bigdog43701]

the purpose of combat is to close with and DESTROY your enemy's will to fight...NOT pi#s him off. go back to 7.62 and bring back the M-14's.

[drumcorpssnare]

Maybe some of our little "diaper-headed" friends need a taste of the 106 recoilless "BEEHIVE" round. That would be SWEET!
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

[bigdog43701]

snare...stop it...i'm starting to get sexually excited!!!!!

[ggyoung]

Question_______________Do they still the beehive round in arty?

[drumcorpssnare]

ggyoung- Not sure. If it's not still in use, it should be. The topic brings back fond memories of when I commanded a 6-gun battery of black-powder front stuffers. We fired double canister at...

[thedrifter]

U.S. Marine Corps Designated Marksman Rifle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marine_Corps_Designated_Marksman_Rifle

Ellie

[Bozooka]

Bring back the M14 7.62 Full Metal Jacket. Best Rifle a Marine could carry!
Accurate at 500 yards without a scope! I had an M 14 when I first got to Viet-Nam, they made me trade it in for an M16. Worst mistake I ever made.

[bigdog43701]

hey snare...how about this...bring back the ONTOS. 6-106 with beehive for the "diaper heads".

[Bozooka]

hey snare...how about this...bring back the ONTOS. 6-106 with beehive for the "diaper heads".

Better yet! Lets start using Napalm again:D . I would love to see the diapers on their heads roast....:yes: They like blowing themselves up in
ah la's name. well let them go out in style...

[SkilletsUSMC]

Question_______________Do they still the beehive round in arty?

Yes they do...:D

[bigdog43701]

bazooka...i like how you think.

[kato811]

juast use hollow points

[iamcloudlander]

in 1967 prior to deploying to Vietnam we were given a lecture on the M-16 (but had to keep the M-14) and during this lecture the instructor told us that the 5.56 round was so light that if it hit a leaf it would change course, but it also tumbled and if it hit a person in the shoulder it would probably take his arm off. We were told that it had much more stopping power than the M-14. I only got to fire the M-16 for qualification one time.

[Zulu 36]

The 'hydro-static shock' alone...of these rounds, is often enough to kill or incapacitate the enemy.
In my humble opinion...any bullet calibre that starts with ".22" was made for shooting squirrels, gophers, and rabbits.
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

I won't argue with your point about uses of .22 caliber rounds, but I don't have to take issue with "hydro-static shock" in ballistics. Essentially, no such thing.

Bullets kill and wound through the destruction of tissue and tearing open of blood vessels. The wound severity and rapidity of incapacitation depends on the location of the impact, the size of the bullet, and the velocity (generally in that order). A .22 in the right spot can kill almost instantly. A .50 cal in a relatively unimportant location will not.

The depth of penetration is important, as most critical body parts are deep inside us. A larger, faster bullet usually does a better job of getting in there and tearing things up. Generally speaking, the bigger the bullet, the bigger the hole, the more bleeding, the faster the potential incapacitation (i.e., unconciousness or death).

There are enough combat vets on this forum who can verify that enemy soldiers shot with 7.62mm and bigger can and have still fought on. They just weren't shot in the most advantageous spot at the time (for any number of good and bad reasons). There are also guys who can verify enemy soldiers shot once with a 5.56mm went down deader than **** with one shot.

Primarily it is a matter of shot placement, followed by the size and number of holes causing massive bleeding or damage to the central nervous system.

I could expound for hours on permanent and temorary wound cavities caused by bullets, the mechanisms of tissue tearing and crushing by different bullets, what bullets DON'T do inside the body, along with the psychological aspects of being shot as it relates to incapacitation. But I won't. Never mind the difficulties of accurate shooting while under fire.

Basically, while size and velocity of a bullet helps a lot, shot placement is still the major player in killing somebody with a gun.

[ggyoung]

Hill 881S. How everyone wished they had the M-14 back. 7.62 all the way. Get reaid of 223 now and save lifes now.

[MotivatorOfTheGuard]

I'll take the M-1 Garand, smoothest rifle i have ever pulled to my shoulder.

[mrbsox]

This has also been bounced around on

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30451&highlight=terminal

I don't think ANYONE will deny that shot placement is more important than 'lead in the air'.
But...
shot for shot
hole for hole
wound for wound
MY MONEY is on the Marine with the .308, not the .223 !!

And my next 'toy' is most likely an AR10.

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Although "Every Marine a Rifleman" is tried and true, it's also damned difficult to hit a small target (the head) during CQB; only those that train, day in and day out, constantly (think Delta here, or some of the hostage rescue teams) can consistantly do this, every, single, time. And, even moreso, Marines are far better trained with the rifle than any other service!

Bottom line, the people that force Marines/Soldiers/etc to carry this crap (and it is crap, the 5.56 is only good for guarding flight lines and such, IMO) don't have to do it themselves. Same goes for the 100 percent worthless 9mm ball ammo that is only good for 'plinking'. Why do you think that MarSOC has custom made .45's done up for all it's operators? Because they are 'cool'? No. Knockdown power.

But, sad to say here, we are fighting the armchair generals and rear area pogues, as well as an industry geared to the worthless 5.56 and 9mm NATO standard junk, and it wouldn't be 'cost effective' to change to a new rifle/pistol, that would give us some effective knockdown (say, something in .30 cal) power. Too many oxes to get gored there.

I personally carry an M1911A1 as my off duty.

[Climbing off soapbox.....now]

[Camper51]

in 1967 prior to deploying to Vietnam we were given a lecture on the M-16 (but had to keep the M-14) and during this lecture the instructor told us that the 5.56 round was so light that if it hit a leaf it would change course, but it also tumbled and if it hit a person in the shoulder it would probably take his arm off. We were told that it had much more stopping power than the M-14. I only got to fire the M-16 for qualification one time.

Anyone who believes that the bullet fired from an M-16 tumbles is full of sh*t. The bullet ONLY tumbles AFTER striking another object, the SAME as any other bullet (listen to the whine) made. The M-16 round is very accurate out to 600 Meters and accuracy can NOT be obtained from a tumbling object, only from a properly SPINNING object. Kindly inform yourself properly before you make an outlandish claim such as this. In my years in the Corps I qualified with both the M-14 (Toilet seat) and with the M-16 (Wreath and crossed rifles) several times.

For accuracy, either weapon is very good, I just happened to be better with the M-16 than I was with the M-14, probably due to less recoil, however if I were to try and qualify today I would probably be an expert with either since I now regularly keep my shots under a 3-5" circle out to 300 yards and maybe a 8 to 10" circle at 500 yards with 7mm Mag's, .270's and 30-06's and a 30-30. I keep my shots at 100 yards under a 3" circle with my .50 cal smoke pole. It's probably the years of learning to shoot better that have helped me to this ability more than anything.

What I think would provide more knockdown power is notched hollow points, but then that is against the Geneva Convention, and being the nice law abiding country that we are, we use the ball ammo as specified in those conventions.

I do feel that we need a better combat rifle for TODAY'S wars which are being fought in closer quarters. This means a shorter rifle with knockdown at closer ranges. What we do NOT need is a long rifle like the M-14/M1. Those rifles are fine for longer range shooting. A shorter rifle allows the shooter to quickly bring the rifle about and place it on target. A larger round with a slower velocity can be very effective at closer range with plenty of knock down power (try killing an elk with a .50 cal smoke pole and you know it to be very true, or what about our favorite M1911A1 .45 cal pistol). Just remember we are not out shooting in today's combat at ranges of 3-500 yards, we are shooting at distances of under 100 yards for the most part, if not INSIDE buildings.

We still have need for longer range rifles for designated sharpshooters and snipers, just not for every rifleman in the unit who for now is fighting door to door and street to street...

[DWG]

[quote=Camper51]Anyone who believes that the bullet fired from an M-16 tumbles is full of sh*t. The bullet ONLY tumbles AFTER striking another object, the SAME as any other bullet (listen to the whine) made. The M-16 round is very accurate out to 600 Meters and accuracy can NOT be obtained from a tumbling object, only from a properly SPINNING object. Kindly inform yourself properly before you make an outlandish claim such as this. a{quote]

The statement that was wide spread back when the 16 came out was that "once the round made contact it would tumble, tear and richochet through the target body" leaving a wound much larger than the round would seem capable of. Light, high velocity rounds will be deflected by leaves, twigs, etc. The Armys' concept of "cubic lead" or "wall of fire" (recon by fire; empty the mag,etc)wasn't too affected by that thought. Jumping Jams' chit over a misstatement is so unlike you Camper!
:(

[FistFu68]

:evilgrin: PUT SOME NOSLER~PARTITION'S IN THEM RIFLE'S,SEND THEM TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS!THAT'S THE BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR,MEN!IT'S TOO LATE NOW;HOW MANY G.I.JANE'S DO 'YA KNOW! WHO CAN HANDLE A M-14 OR A .45ACP?:evilgrin: S/F :iwo:

[greensideout]

hey snare...how about this...bring back the ONTOS. 6-106 with beehive for the "diaper heads".


Sweet!

[yellowwing]

Now that's a Six Gun! :D

Seriously,where is the loader stationed on that big sucker?

[drumcorpssnare]

My dad was in a Reserve Tank Bn. in the '60s here in the Syracuse area. He used to talk about the Ontos. He always asked me, "Do you know what the word Ontos means?" My answer was always the same..."The thing!"

Question about the 106 Recoilless.....Did the recoilless rifle fire any rounds other than the dart filled flechette? Was there a "canister-round" comprised of round shot?

To answer the question about loading...I would guess the Ontos went into action loaded. They would need to retreat to a safe area to reload. Don't remember how many rounds it could carry. I think it was a total of 18.

Imagine if Custer woulda had about a half-dozen Ontos at the Little Bighorn...
:D
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

[The1stSgt]

They had some Ontos at K-Bay in the early sixties that ended up in Nam.

I'm not certain about this, but I believe the loader rode on the inside with the driver, and would have to get out of the vehicle and reload the guns as needed. That was one of the big downsides to the Ontos.

I believe the vehicle had a big block Chrysler engine in it (440) and would do 45 MPH.

I saw a fire power demo when all six 106's were fired at once. BIG BANG!

"There's no such thing as too much gun."