I will solve my .223 doubts by using a long barreled bolt-action to squeeze plenty of velocity out of slow-burning powder.  Then I won't worry about it.

-------
"Wider is better."

Based upon the published account, they certainly were "kids", and some of them let their fear overcome their training.



I hear that they were not using M-4s, but short CAR-15s. But I did not read that in [i]Blackhawk Down{/i], and you could be correct.



Why not?



The mission did not achieve its goal. It did get a number of Americans killed, it did result in our pullout from Somolia, and it gave the Islamic radicals a very low opinion of America's willingness to accept losses. Of course, this was the political fallout, and not the direct fault of the operators involved. But you can't call it a success--it wasn't a success in any sense.

The mission was to capture two of Aidid's top men. They were able to get these guys as well as a another important player in Aidid's organization, and scores of his peons. The mission certainatly did not go well, but how exactly was it a failure?

Kyle

BTW the current leader in Somalia is the son of Aidid, and a former U.S. Marine.

My understanding was that they were trying to get Adid himself. In any case, the mission resulted in our pullout from Somolia.

DonS, the U.S Army Rangers of Task Force Ranger might have been young, but they sure as hell performed well in those conditions, one can not expect from a 19 year old Ranger that he should fight as a 35 year old D operator.

The M16 carbines with 14.5" barrels had existed for quite some time, and the M4 type weapons was well in use in various special operations units at the time. Following picture from Mike Horan´s site

[img]http://www.megapass.co.kr/%7Ehoranjoh/mikesoap.jpg[/img]



We are now talking about the Oct.3 raid, not the whole mission to Somalia, so the men succeeded in their objectives, to capture the clan leaders, despite heavy casualties.

Despite the various training levels of the men there, i´ll say the men of TFR performed as well as any unit could have. The body count on the other side was a hell of a lot more than that of the U.S forces.

I hope the upcoming movies does the men of TFR tribute.

In regards to the Rangers being "scared kids", I did not mean to imply that the Rangers did not fight well.  They certainly held their own and then some, and I doubt anybody else could have done better.  But they were for the most part very young.  And, from what I have read, some of them were pretty scared and a little paralyzed.  But that is natural in combat; they did very well for fairly green troops who were surrounded and heavily outnumbered.

Plus, it can be damned hard to hit anything, even at short ranges, when the adrenalin is pumping and you are shooting offhand.

During the initial planning for the raid there was a unconfirmed that Aidid might have been in the target house, but it came from a questionable source, and the information didn't pan out. The overall mission of Task Force Ranger was to capture Aidid, his advisors, and milita leaders. This mission focused on the latter two.

Kyle

Who exactly of the Rangers ultimately was paralyzed, im pretty damn sure almost all were scared on one point, they just dealt with it and drove on.

The twist rate of the barrel--1 in 12 vs. 1 in 7--appears to have little effect on the wound channels. Fackler says:

"The longer 5.56mm bullets (M866, SS109) need a higher rotational velocity to maintain stabilisation in air. FN claimed that this faster rotation also causes the SS109 to have a significantly longer path in tissue before marked yaw occurs, thus producing wounds of less severity. This is simply untrue (compare Fig. 6 with Fig. 6). Additional rotation beyond that needed to keep the bullet straight in air appears to have little or no effect on the projectile's behaviour in tissue. "

[url]http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html[/url]

Well worth reading.

The thing that dominates terminal ballistics appears to be velocity, at least for the bullets that Fackler studied. If they go fast enough they fragment; if not, they don't. The rate at which they begin to yaw appears to not depend very much on the twist rate. My guess is that that's largely determined by the change in Reynolds number going from air to meat. It's possible that a different bullet type would fragment at lower velocities, though I suspect the yaw rate is pretty much set for a given bullet weight and shape.

I've often heard the guys in Mog had 10.5" carbines, but have never seen enough photos or accounts to determine this for myself.

Keyholing is very bad. That means the bullet isn't stabilized in air, which results in lousy accuracy and the bullet tumbles end over end. If anyone sees keyholing it's indicative of a broken rifle or a bad rifle/ammo combination.

My guess is that everyone just has unrealistic expectations for how quickly someone will go down after being shot. Animals are pretty resilient in the face of damage, and unless you blow out the CNS or a major chest artery, the victim will still be able to function to some extent. No death rays. (shoot them twice.)

Interesting numbers on barrel length, ammo, and distance to 2700 fps, Troy. (Probably screwed up due to proportional fonts, but)

Distance to 2700 fps

Barrel Length 20"     16"    14.5"  11.5"
M193 (55 gr)  195m    145m   100m    45m
M855 (62 gr)  145m    95m    50m     15m

the numbers on m855 with a 14.5" barrel are kinda disturbing. fifty meters is mighty close. I can see where in an urban environment like Mog and even with a 14.5" barrel you wouldn't get reliable fragmentation with the M855. And the 11.5" barrel performance is downright grotesque.

The extra inch and a half of barrel buys you another 50 meters of range with both types of ammo. And the 55gr bullets buys you another 50 meters on top of that.

No SBR or 14.5" barrel with a flash hider permanently attached for me. And I think I'll stick with the South African 55gr, since I don't plan on shooting any APCs.

This is true.
I recently watched an old video that I made at SFAUC at Bragg. (CQB school) I filmed our first range day for us to get familiar with the different weapons.

The video has day/month/year in the lower corner and it was in Aug 93.  I looked close and we were shooting M4's in this course and our unit (7th SF) didn't even have them yet. The instructor said "This is the basic CAR 15 no explanation needed" so we just took his word for it.

I didn't know what an M4 actually was until I left AD and joined 20th SFG(A) in Alabama. Everybody made a big deal when we got them. If I remember correctly it was 96/97 before we got them in 20th. After the AD SF guys.

Doorkicker paints it right again. until this year if you said something about an M4 to a Marine he wouldnt know what you were talking about unless he was Force, or RR, ANGLICO etc. i STILL havent seen a flattop or RAS in the Corps. only time ive used them is when ive been tasked to the Army. a lot of old salts call them "CAR-15s" i dont believe for a minute that anyone had 11.5 or 10inch barrels in mog. thats rediculous. aside from being nearly useless they are too unreliable.

Jeez!   Why use the 62gr ??

I was kind of sold on the M855 but after seeing those numbers I dunno!
 

Certainly, based upon what I read the older D guys (and the SEALs) performed better. Of course, I'd expect that. Some of the Rangers performed very well, others didn't.



I know that the M-4 was in use, the question is what weapons were used by the Rangers who had problems dropping their enemies.




The whole mission to Somolia was changed due to the raid. That in turn lead to a poor view of American resolve among Islamic radicals. This, of course, isn't the fault of the Rangers, but the fault of their political leaders and possibly some of their military leaders. Bill Clinton bears the prime responsibility.

In the online version of Blackhawk Down, there is mention of at least one Ranger--maybe more--hiding in the vehicles rather than fighting. Certainly, some performed well, other did not.

It is common to loose your front sight under pressure, and no doubt many did so--and missed, when they thought they were hitting. This is something even the most battle hardened troops do in a fight, so I don't mean it as a slam.

Really, this just muddies the water. They may have had M-4s. They may have had M-4s and called them CAR-15s. They may have had XM-177s and called them CAR-15s. They may have had some mix of arms. I don't think we should assume they had M-4s just because XM-177s offer inferior ballistics and reliability. We have sent off troops to fight with lousy weapons before, and we no doubt will again. Furthermore, I doubt the Rangers were aware of the poor terminal ballistics of the CAR-15 (XM-177).

If they had XM-177s, they would help explain some of the poor balistic performance. Even M-4s, as we have seen, have a short range for maximum effect. M-4s would explain poor performance at greater than 50 m. XM-177s at greater than 15 m.

The 62gr was intended to improve the long range performance of the SAW. It will also improve the long range performance of the M-16A2. Obviously, the 55 gr retains some advantages.

The first M4 purchased for the Marine Corps, back in 98 or so were all SOPMOD M4 (only Force and base SRT got them), with flat tops and RIS.  By the time M4 were bought for testing for 3/2 and issue for locked on MEU BNs in 2000 they were all flat tops (long after the 1st and 2nd ANGLICOs were deactivated).  Almost every M4 in the Marine Corps has a RAS on it. That was one of the complaints about them, the RAS didn't handle heat as well.  

DonS, the complaints of the ammo came mainly from SFC Howe(the only person cleared officialy to talk, this explains the strong precence of him in the text).

I do not recall the Rangers having issues with the M855 ammo, since most had M16A2s, there were carbines though with some Rangers.

One complaint came from Specialist Nelson who had an M60 which judging from the text had AP   ammunition, not sure what the mix between ball and AP was, 1:5? EDIT: Just looked up the part of the incident where he tried to shoot an older man with the M60, the text did not mention direct hits, Nelson fired two 12 round bursts, then a long burst when the man was behind a tree.

The following pictures are from the page of Ranger RM Cash.

[img]http://www.bravo57.com/images/weapons.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.bravo57.com/images/weapons2.jpg[/img]

From the rather limited sources a civilian has, my take is that the most or all carbines had 14.5" barrels.

I think the common error that they used AP ammo comes from the descriptions in the book, somewhere along the line the M855 was thought as true AP ammo.

The most scathing comments about the performance issues with the M855 were from SFC Howe specifically, and IIRC the other Delta guys and SEALS thought the same. These were the guys with the most combat experience, and probably the least likely to miss in the heat of combat. There are specific mentions of bad guys going down pronto at close range (across the street), but further out was iffy with torso shots.

[Edited to say that TUUKKA beat me to it]

And this SLAP round would be a M??? designation?  SLAP was never standardized/ Type classified and was definitely NOT carried by any fighting force.  Besides, why would they have anti-armor rounds when the Somalis were unarmored?  

I am surprised by the armchair generals posting who have never been in combat and only judge the effectiveness of rounds based on their limited field use.  Even hunters who have taken game will attest to the variability of hit reactions.  I've personally seen deer chest shot with .300 magnum 150 gr softpoints run 50 yards.  

Another fallacy is the dimensions used in energy metrics for rounds.  If minds wouldn't be colored by the weight dimension (pounds), they wouldn't think 3000 ft*lbs could knock a man down like a runaway automobile.

Energy does NOT equate to lethality, otherwise a broadhead from my 75 pound pull compound would be legally limited to harvesting squirrels and the like.  Damage is lethality.  Overpenetration is wasted energy and ergo, wasted damage.  A high velocity bullet creates more damage as its power (rate of change in energy)can be higher.

It depends on the mission. Everything from the .22cb cap to the .50 BMG is usefull.

I think more like why use short barrels?  I never had any problems swinging an A2 even though I was in a heavy engineering unit and had to operate heavy equipment etc.  To me, the M16A1 was a small enough rifle.

Back when I had the A1 (yes, I was in a while back)and the A2 was issued (1985?), I couldn't wait for the TO&E to be modified for its issue.  Then I had to wait another 5 years for our ASP's to stock M855.  My last qualification was with M855. IIRC, M193 was being issued for most non-infantry units until 1990 and most CONUS ASP's stock it for NG/Res unit qual.

SLAP was accepted for the .50 cal but not the 7.62.

The 7.62 uses M993 full caliber tungstin cored AP.

Not sure wether it was the results of Somalia or because of trials when there was at least one case of premature sabot seperation with the .30 cal that canned the SLAP.

M993/M995 are supposed to have similar terminal ballistics to M80/M855. They are constructed in the same manner as M855, just that the core in the AP rounds is tungstin instead of mild steel.

URL? Those are interesting pics, there appears to be quite a lot of blood on that one M-4/M-16A2. They seem to suggest A2s or M-4s. No XM-177s in sight.

As I recall the M-60 incident, the shooter (Nelson) claimed hits on the old man from his bursts, but it has been a while since I read it . . . I know that some claim that SLAP was used (a neat argument to slam 5.56 while letting 7.62 get by . . .), but I haven't seen any direct indications of this, and like other posters wonder why it would be used in this situation. 7.62 NATO AP has existed for some time.

Another issue is that we seem to have a limited number of accounts slamming 5.56 M855 . . . the question is, what were these specific operators using?

SLAP specifically w/Nelson M60, p.51Signet paperback,

SFC Howep. 252, "...and he was using the Army's (sic)new 5.56mm green-tip round." goes on to describe the tungsten penetrator, and how at closer range the sammy's shirt would pluck out, but the rounds passed right through. Described hits like punching holes with an icepick, only heart and spine hits were instant stops. He comments thatShugart's penchant for carrying the M14 made him the smartest guy in the unit, as despite being heavier with greater recoil, would drop someone in their tracks.

p.284, another incident at across the street distance, hosed down 3 sammies, 2 get up and drag off the third. Again disgusted with the new ammo.

DonS, I think the complaints were few, since SFC Howe was, as i said, the only D operator cleared to talk about the mission and that many of the Rangers had M16A2s with 20" barrels, so the fragmentation range was longer.


[url]www.bravo57.com[/url] the site where i linked the last photos.

Check this site and the forums if you want to talk with various veterans, both regular and special operations, Ranger Cash is an Admin there.

[url]http://www.cinemayhem.com/blackhawkdown/index.htm[/url]

I guess I wrote that wrong.
M993 is also constructed like a "big" M855, neither perform exactly like M855, becuase the heavy tungstin doesn't behave [i]quite[/i] like M855, there is a greater tendancy to keep going straight. There is a bigger air gap in the nose where the ogive jacket is drawn over the true cone shaped nose of the tungstin penetrator to try and counteract this (cribbed from 5.45?). It is considered close enough "for government work".
M993 has the same knock down effect as M80, I guess what [i]really[/i] happens in flesh is similar to the super hot, thin jacket Hertinburger 7.62 FMJ. Hollow nose deforms, bullet yaws, splits at cannalure. So the mechanism is different, but you should drop as many people using it as with M80, which apparently was not the case with the SLAP rounds they tried.

I just recently join a club that has a shotting range that's really kinda' weak, only a hundred yards tops. Anyway I was up there today shooting my AR, and this old dude with a 50 cal. muzzleloader comes up there and is like "Uh, you know your not supposed to be shooting that gun here don't ya?" and I was like no I didn't? why's that? and he say's in a dumbass hillbilly type way "Uh? just cause they don't like those kind of guns up here." I'm like what that's stupid, here he is with a big ol' 50 cal. and telling me I can't shoot a .223 LMAO! What's up with these Davy Crockett wannabee's?