User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 12:40:04 PM EDT
[#1]
Now its interesting, but from all the pics I have seen, the one group of people who COULD carry whatever they wanted in Afghanistan, the various and sundry Special Operators, were all still carrying M4's even though they always have the option of switching to M16's.
And what would switching to 77gr ammo have to do with anything? Its even slower, unless someone has one really weird bullet in that weight, it is going to be even less likely to fragment and do serious wounding. Also the only people who could opt out of the standard ammo would be the above mentioned special operators, who could make a case they needed Match-grade ammo. At the engagement ranges you find in Afghanistan, hilltop to hilltop, neither a 14.5 or a 20 inch .223 is going to have enough juce to fragment. So something else is up here. The SEALS at least can choose to switch to a modern 7.62 in the SR-25/Mk11Mod0, although listed as a sniper rifle it has enough firepower to be used as a battle rifle and its rail forend will accept a M203. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 12:49:23 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: . Perhaps the military should re-examine their policy in frangible bullets. That would solve many of their problems. Uh, the "military's policy on frangible bullets" is based on international rules of war. Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 1:07:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Quoted: . Perhaps the military should re-examine their policy in frangible bullets. That would solve many of their problems. Uh, the "military's policy on frangible bullets" is based on international rules of war. Scott Did we actually sign that treaty? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 1:56:55 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Perhaps the military should re-examine their policy in frangible bullets. That would solve many of their problems. Uh, the "military's policy on frangible bullets" is based on international rules of war. Scott Did we actually sign that treaty? Well, actually no. The United States was not a party to the First Hague Peace Conference in July 1899, which is where that rule was drawn up at first. Specifically: Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868, Declare as follows: The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions. The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them. It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-contracting Power. Because the United States did not ratify it, and this was primarily because the U.S. was using expanding bullets against Philipinos they were "liberating" from the Spanish at the time, it had an interesting effect. To wit: the U.S. could use expanding bullets legally in all wars [b]AND[/b] as soon as the U.S. entered any conflict, all other parties in the conflict could use them as well. Oops! [edited for typos] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 1:58:17 PM EDT
[#5]
In 1907 the U.S. signed onto the Hague Convention IV of 1907. Specifically:
...it is especially forbidden - To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering..." It was widely interpreted that this prohibited expanding bullets. It's also unusually at odds with the doctrine, oft employed by the U.S. that it is better to wound an enemy than kill one so as to cause his fellows to waste time and effort pulling him off the field (which only the Rangers do for the dead ;) ). As an example, U.S. snipers used M118 rounds (7.62 X 51mm 173gr ball, boat tail). Starting in 1985 that changed. Chief Parks of JAG's International Law Branch released an opinion to the effect that: ...expanding point ammunition is legally permissible in counterterrorist operations not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State. Then in 1990 Parks penned this after inquiries by USSOCOM concluding that: The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. ... Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United States Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. (The Sierra #2200 BTHP) not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat. This opened the way for "Hollow point" use. Then, in 1993 Parks was at it again with an opinion that effectively let USSOC produce Winchester's 230-grain JHP Black Talon for issue with its H&K-manufactured Mk 23 Mod 0 pistol. All of this might go some way to explaining the contradiction noted by one poster: ArmdLbrl: Now its interesting, but from all the pics I have seen, the one group of people who COULD carry whatever they wanted in Afghanistan, the various and sundry Special Operators, were all still carrying M4's even though they always have the option of switching to M16's. Hopefully that clears things up. [edited to add the last points] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 2:18:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Tatjana,
Actually, Marines are taught to NEVER leave their dead and wounded behind, as well.... Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 2:21:36 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Tatjana, Actually, Marines are taught to NEVER leave their dead and wounded behind, as well.... Scott I suspected that my jest would rile up someone. Forgive me for spurring on interservice rivalry. I meant it as a gentle prod. I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 2:35:40 PM EDT
[#8]
Oy vey!! [rolleyes]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 2:55:05 PM EDT
[#9]
I dunno... I love my ARs, but when I pull a .30-06 out of a Garand clip and lay it down beside a .223, I have to wonder.
Tatjana, a quote for you from "Flags of Our Fathers", by James Bradley: Newsman Jim Lehrer would later write about the special Marine warrior pride ingrained into him in boot camp: "I learned that Marines never leave their dead and wounded behind, officers always eat last, the U.S. Army is chickenshit in combat, the Navy is worse, and the Air Force is barely even on our side." [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 3:17:00 PM EDT
[#10]
In the last month I posted a Mpeg which shows some Filipinos who didn't find the .223 underpowered.
[b]WARNING: Do not click link unless you want to see actual human beings being shot and killed[/b] [url]http://web.axelero.hu/szlejer/filipino.mpg[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 3:48:00 PM EDT
[#11]
Would it be feasible to put an airpocket in the tip of the 5.56mm like in the Soviet 5.45mm. Causeing the bullet to tumble instead of having to fragmentate?
inquiring lib |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 3:49:57 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Would it be feasible to put an airpocket in the tip of the 5.56mm like in the Soviet 5.45mm. Causeing the bullet to tumble instead of having to fragmentate? inquiring lib M193 and SS109/M855 both do tumble, and that's WHY they fragment. (Just about all pointed nose bullets tumble because their center of mass is behind their length center). And why wouldn't you want the M193/M855 to fragment? That's what constitutes the primary wounding mechanism for the 5.56 FMJs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 3:54:37 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Would it be feasible to put an airpocket in the tip of the 5.56mm like in the Soviet 5.45mm. Causeing the bullet to tumble instead of having to fragmentate? inquiring lib M193 and SS109/M855 both do tumble, and that's WHY they fragment. (Just about all pointed nose bullets tumble because their center of mass is behind their length center). And why wouldn't you want the M193/M855 to fragment? That's what constitutes the primary wounding mechanism for the 5.56 FMJs. Hmm...i thought the 5.45mm was designed to tumble instead of fragmentate, so it would be more reliable and expend its energy sooner then the 5.56mm. i dont know much about ballistics, but in a short barrel rifle that does not produce enough velocity to reliable fragmentate, then why not engineer a bullet that will tumble everytime by airpocket? tumbling lib |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:06:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: Would it be feasible to put an airpocket in the tip of the 5.56mm like in the Soviet 5.45mm. Causeing the bullet to tumble instead of having to fragmentate? inquiring lib M193 and SS109/M855 both do tumble, and that's WHY they fragment. (Just about all pointed nose bullets tumble because their center of mass is behind their length center). And why wouldn't you want the M193/M855 to fragment? That's what constitutes the primary wounding mechanism for the 5.56 FMJs. So the M193 and M855 tumble and are accurate? Or they employ some new law of physics and tumble "straight"? And then fragment? Care to elaborate? I thought you couldn't tumble as you fly and keep the accuracy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:10:17 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Would it be feasible to put an airpocket in the tip of the 5.56mm like in the Soviet 5.45mm. Causeing the bullet to tumble instead of having to fragmentate? inquiring lib M193 and SS109/M855 both do tumble, and that's WHY they fragment. (Just about all pointed nose bullets tumble because their center of mass is behind their length center). And why wouldn't you want the M193/M855 to fragment? That's what constitutes the primary wounding mechanism for the 5.56 FMJs. Hmm...i thought the 5.45mm was designed to tumble instead of fragmentate, so it would be more reliable and expend its energy sooner then the 5.56mm. i dont know much about ballistics, but in a short barrel rifle that does not produce enough velocity to reliable fragmentate, then why not engineer a bullet that will tumble everytime by airpocket? tumbling lib I'm not sure how you can expend the energy quicker than in explosive fragmentation. It's true that when you get much below 14.5" the velocity of M193 and particularly SS109/M855 gets worrysome and you start to have problems outside of 75-100 yards, but with 16" and 20" rifles you should have no problems out to 100-150. Most people will tell you that hollowpoints or softpoints will do a better job of wounding outside of fragmentation range and at lower velocities than "tumbling." Again, M193 and SS109 will still tumble outside of fragmentation range. The best of both worlds really if you're really into tumbling bullets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:13:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: I thought you couldn't tumble as you fly and keep the accuracy? They don't tumble while in flight (unless you're using the wrong barrel twist rate). They tumble after they strike flesh. While tumbling, they beging to break apart at the cannelure, transferring their energy to the fragments. The effect of breaking apart is pretty explosive. The bullet has usually disentegrated into the smallest pieces it will reach within about 4-5" of impact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:14:53 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Would it be feasible to put an airpocket in the tip of the 5.56mm like in the Soviet 5.45mm. Causeing the bullet to tumble instead of having to fragmentate? inquiring lib M193 and SS109/M855 both do tumble, and that's WHY they fragment. (Just about all pointed nose bullets tumble because their center of mass is behind their length center). And why wouldn't you want the M193/M855 to fragment? That's what constitutes the primary wounding mechanism for the 5.56 FMJs. So the M193 and M855 tumble and are accurate? Or they employ some new law of physics and tumble "straight"? And then fragment? Care to elaborate? I thought you couldn't tumble as you fly and keep the accuracy? They do not tumble in flight - in fact they are stabilized only by the spin imparted by the rifling in the barrel. However, as soon as the bullet contacts the target, it tumbles and fragments - sort of a delayed keyhole effect. Edited to add - brouhaha beat me to it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:19:45 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Would it be feasible to put an airpocket in the tip of the 5.56mm like in the Soviet 5.45mm. Causeing the bullet to tumble instead of having to fragmentate? inquiring lib M193 and SS109/M855 both do tumble, and that's WHY they fragment. (Just about all pointed nose bullets tumble because their center of mass is behind their length center). And why wouldn't you want the M193/M855 to fragment? That's what constitutes the primary wounding mechanism for the 5.56 FMJs. So the M193 and M855 tumble and are accurate? Or they employ some new law of physics and tumble "straight"? And then fragment? Care to elaborate? I thought you couldn't tumble as you fly and keep the accuracy? I should have clarified. M193 and M855/SS109 when properly stablilized (shot in a 1 in 7 - 1 in 12 rifle) will tumble IN TISSUE. In fact, M193 in particular will start yawing in tissue after about 3-5 centimeters. If they are moving fast enough they will then fragment rather violently at that point, because of the stresses of travelling through tissue at that velocity sideways, leaving a nice wound cavity with particularly nasty tissue damage. (Effectively a portion of the temporary wound cavity which would otherwise recede is torn open by the fragments). The yawing (tumbling) is an effect of the center of mass being behind the length center of the bullet, not an air bubble or anysuch. In the event the forces are not sufficient to break the bullet up it typically will do a 180 degree rotation and continue its path through tissue tail first until its energy is expended. (Tumbling). Tumbling in air is something different. That's when insufficient rotation is given to the round so it is not stable in air. It may hit tissue sideways and fairly instantly fragment if velocity is sufficient. Different animal. The 5.45 is designed (accidently or intentionally) to occasionally bend the nose a bit on impact and turn the bullet slightly curved (like a banana perhaps) so that it will flip around as it travels through tissue. The bubble also moves the center of mass farther back for a more pronounced yaw sooner. It's not REQUIRED for tumbling. It does help. 5.45 doesn't typically fragment though because of sturdy jacket construction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:19:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: So the M193 and M855 tumble and are accurate? Or they employ some new law of physics and tumble "straight"? And then fragment? Care to elaborate? I thought you couldn't tumble as you fly and keep the accuracy? Actually, the bullets DO NOT tumble in the air. The spin imparted by rifling is sufficient to maintain stable flight through the air. However, when the bullets strike flesh, which is 800+ times denser than air, they DO tumble. (This is because the center of gravity is behind the physical centerline of the bullet.) The heavier rear section tries to switch places with the nose. If the bullet is going over approx 2700 FPS (SEE FACKLER) when it tries to flip over, the bullet will fragment. This causes the temporarily wound cavity to be torn by fragments, causing a greatly enlarged PERMANENT wound cavity. This is what makes the 5.56MM round so effective, within the range where the bullet fragments...... Scott P.S. Tatjana & Troy: Did I cover it okay? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:20:29 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: I thought you couldn't tumble as you fly and keep the accuracy? They don't tumble while in flight (unless you're using the wrong barrel twist rate). They tumble after they strike flesh. While tumbling, they beging to break apart at the cannelure, transferring their energy to the fragments. The effect of breaking apart is pretty explosive. The bullet has usually disentegrated into the smallest pieces it will reach within about 4-5" of impact. This was apparently especially true of flesh. A 55 grain bullet striking flesh when only stabilized with a 1-14 twist, tumbled with devastating results, but it had a problem – it was only marginally accurate. Now it’s possible to have a bullet that is known to tumble, but if it won’t reliably hit the target at the maximum effective range you are in big trouble. After the initial test results (including some in Southeast Asia) were in, it was apparent that this WAS an effective round (assuming that a tumbling bullet was employed)! However, it also became obvious that this rifle wasn’t exactly a "tack driver" in terms of accuracy. Air Force cold weather tests in January 1963 showed definite "bullet wobble" around the projectile’s rotational axis causing unacceptable accuracy. As any good ordnance folks would do, they tightened the twist to 1-12 and the accuracy improved. The order to change the barrel twist was signed by Robert S. McNamara on the 26th of July 1963. The accuracy immediately improved, but the "magic bullet" quit tumbling! All of a sudden, we had a reasonably accurate round with a bullet that was essentially ineffective in terms of cleaving flesh with the much vaunted "meat ax effect". The round was now reasonably accurate, but much underpowered for its designed maximum effective range of 500 yds. Now this is older information. Links to newer data, please? TIA. In addition, does anyone have a link to the power charts for "newer" ammo such as the M855, specifically remaining energy at 500yrds? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:24:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: The 5.56 round was never intended to kill an enemy but to wound him with the theory that if an enemy soldier was wounded it would take 1 to 2 more of his own troops to carry him off the battlefield therefore reducing the number of enemy combatants you would have to face. Just had to pull this out from an otherwise excellent post. The 5.56 WAS and IS intended to kill. The stories of it being intended to wound are just flat false. The theory of tying up more soldiers removing the wounded is good reason to at least wound the enemy, but the 5.56 was not designed with that in mind! The real motivation for the developement of the SCHV 5.56 round was to replace the M1 carbine and all SMG's with one, more effective round. In comparison to those two, the 5.56 does its job well. The other secondary motivations were to make full auto fire a tad more controllable than it was with the M14, and to make it possible for a grunt to carry a LOT more ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:33:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Gee, I guess I wasn't the only one responding to the "tumbling in air" thread :D
Pdxshooter, Jim Sullivan has been quoted (by me) as saying that he felt the AR-15/XM16 with one in fourteen rifling was more effective, because of the tendency of the bullets to tumble an instant sooner. Fackler poo-poos this contention, saying it has no affect on bullet effectiveness. There is no corroborating scientific OBJECTIVE data to support the Ranger/GB SUBJECTIVE reports that 1/14 stabilized M193 ammo was more effective on slightly statured organic "targets", such as SouthEast Asians. (Today, some organic "targets" are SouthWest Asians, who also may be of slight build...) Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:42:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Presently we are also having this discussion at AssaultWeb.
[url]http://assaultweb.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/224294.html[/url] It would seem that the MOST lethal AR would have a 20 inch 1-12 twist barrel and shoot 55gr. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:53:17 PM EDT
[#24]
All,
There seems to be much debate over the relative virtues of carrying a 20" barreled M16/AR-15 over a 14.5" M4 (or semi-auto copy). Barrel length seems to be a big issue here, so I called a friend of mine...let's call him "Roadrunner." I met Roadrunner in college - he's a retired US Army Master Sergeant that did 25, got out, and decided to go to college. He and I met in a "designated smoking area" (I used to puff away in those days), and, with the Army in common, we struck up a friendship. Well, during the Vietnam War, he spent a lot of time running around in rain forests - the Laotian kind. As a member of CCN, he did a lot of recon work on the other side of the fence. His primary arm was an XM177, a select-fire M16 with a 11.5" barrel, a 4 or 5 inch "flash/sound suppressor," collapsible stock, and a sh!tload of 20-round magazines. He never had a single complaint about his rifle, or about the ammo that he fired through it. He had quite a few exciting days during the late 60's - up to and including being chased by roughly a battalion (600+) of soldiers that wanted him and his Recon Team captured and killed. He got involved in numerous running gunfights at various ranges - anywhere from 5 feet to 150 yards - and he serviced target after target each and every time. When asked if he would carry a full-size instead, he laughed and said, "Hell, would you? - I loved that little rifle, and there's no way I'd consider carrying anything else - well, maybe a Ma Deuce, if it weighed six pounds, and I could carry 600 rounds of ammo for the damn thing." His logic is plenty good enough for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:57:50 PM EDT
[#25]
This was apparently especially true of flesh. A 55 grain bullet striking flesh when only stabilized with a 1-14 twist, tumbled with devastating results, but it had a problem – it was only marginally accurate. Now it’s possible to have a bullet that is known to tumble, but if it won’t reliably hit the target at the maximum effective range you are in big trouble. After the initial test results (including some in Southeast Asia) were in, it was apparent that this WAS an effective round (assuming that a tumbling bullet was employed)! However, it also became obvious that this rifle wasn’t exactly a "tack driver" in terms of accuracy. Air Force cold weather tests in January 1963 showed definite "bullet wobble" around the projectile’s rotational axis causing unacceptable accuracy. As any good ordnance folks would do, they tightened the twist to 1-12 and the accuracy improved. The order to change the barrel twist was signed by Robert S. McNamara on the 26th of July 1963. The accuracy immediately improved, but the "magic bullet" quit tumbling! All of a sudden, we had a reasonably accurate round with a bullet that was essentially ineffective in terms of cleaving flesh with the much vaunted "meat ax effect". The round was now reasonably accurate, but much underpowered for its designed maximum effective range of 500 yds. As a point of interest, when the initial SCHV experiments and development at Aberdeen Proving Ground were concluded, they had settled on a 55gr bullet (their design was carried over into the final M193) fired from a 1 in 10" twist and with a range of up to 300 meters. The extended range requirement was piled on after the fact by Army types (Col Studler and his cronies) in an attempt to prevent the acceptance of the 5.56 round by Army Ordnance. The same is true of the change from 1 in 10" to 1 in 14". Both of these changes in the spec were made prior to the design competition to come up with a weapon to fire the new round. Studler was unabashedly opposed to the SCHV, as well as to non-internal weapons suppliers, because they threatened the internal suppliers (Springfield, for example). It was all politics. This all took place in the mid 1950's, long before Colt or Armalite was aware of the existance of the round, or the plan to replace the M1 Carbine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 5:16:09 PM EDT
[#26]
Geez. If you have an M4 just shoot Winchester 64gr Power Points.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 5:43:36 PM EDT
[#27]
Imbroglio,
I don't think our troops have the option of using Power Points..... Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 6:02:42 PM EDT
[#28]
Consider: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=108118[/url]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 6:09:33 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: rounds into him [from his M60]. They were "slap" rounds, plastic coated titanium bullets that could penetrate armor, Proof #1 that the info in the book is questionable at best. There is no titanium ammo for the M60, or any other small arm, because titanium would suck as a material in projectiles. out of view. It bugged him. His weapon was the most sophisticated infantry rifle in the world, a customized CAR-15 Proof #2. How could anybody who knows anything about military small arms consider the CAR-15, which was by this time a 25 year old design, to be the most sophisticated in the world? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 6:30:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Consider: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=108118[/url] Thanks Tatjana! Tyler |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 6:39:31 PM EDT
[#31]
Nice testing there, Tatjana & Brouhaha
Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 6:47:23 PM EDT
[#32]
SLAP is available in several forms, IIRC:
1) Regular M193-type slug in a plastic .30 caliber sabot 2) Wolfram slug in a plastic .30 caliber sabot 3) Depleted Uranium(?) in a plastic .30 caliber sabot I don't think titanium was ever used, as stated before. BTW, M193 projectiles fired using .30 caliber SLAP rounds would have MUCH higher muzzle velocity within most ranges than 7.62MM NATO. MUCH MORE likely to tumble and explosively fragment. The ultimate ammo, if feasible might be a M193 or M855 projectile in a .30 caliber sabot IN a .50 caliber sabot. What kind of muzzle velocity would that generate, if accuracy could be preserved by insuring smooth sabot seperation? Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 6:57:55 PM EDT
[#33]
By treaty, US servicemen cannot use hollow-point ammo in combat against organized military opponents. No such prohibition exists regarding action against terrorists. In fact, snipers and other specialized troops employed in anti-terrorist missions have the option of different bullet types.
For the regular troops, M193 or M855 (mixed with tracers) is about it. No doubt there are a host of training and logistics issues tied up with something as pervasive as small arms ammunition. Heard a rumor that the 855 was popularized in NATO due to its performance against body armor, helmets, etc. I'd imagine that Somalis and Taliban don't sport much of that. I would be interested in understanding the proliferation of M4's among troops doing basic infantry stuff. On the surface, it would seem that M-16's would be the preferred weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 7:15:01 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: By treaty, US servicemen cannot use hollow-point ammo in combat against organized military opponents. Could you provide a cite please, because it appears that JAG and General Counsel of the Army disagree. Consider my earlier post to this thread: Tatjana said: Then in 1990 Parks penned this after inquiries by USSOCOM concluding that: The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. ... Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United States Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. (The Sierra #2200 BTHP) not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat. MTweanie continues: No such prohibition exists regarding action against terrorists. In fact, snipers and other specialized troops employed in anti-terrorist missions have the option of different bullet types. As per Park, yes. For the regular troops, M193 or M855 (mixed with tracers) is about it. No doubt there are a host of training and logistics issues tied up with something as pervasive as small arms ammunition. c.f. Parks, as quoted above. Heard a rumor that the 855 was popularized in NATO due to its performance against body armor, helmets, etc. I'd imagine that Somalis and Taliban don't sport much of that. Almost, had more to do with the politics of standardizing on two calibres and the SAW. See the Ammo FAQ for more detailed answers here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 7:32:49 PM EDT
[#35]
>scratching head and with a confused look<
Ummm...so would the 5.45mm type bullet be a boon to the shorter barrels such as the 10.5" and 14.5"? or a waste of effort? Dense lib |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 7:45:33 PM EDT
[#36]
1. I do not know where the myth that the M14/M1 shooting USGI ball ammo is a great stopping round. USGI 30 caliber leaves a small hole and unless it hits a bone will not keep a target down. 7 times I have seen idiots deer hunting with 30 caliber ball ammo shoot deer and the deer not even know it has been shot and just keep walking. A good 30 caliber-expanding bullet is another story.
2. How many of you really believe the GI’s in Afghanistan are taking aim and seeing 4 or 5 rounds actually hitting the target, with open sights, at ranges of 100m+. Please… In perfect conditions most times you cannot see rifle hits at 50 yards with the naked eye much less 100+ with people shooting at you. 3. Unless you are shooting at ranges of 350m+ and have time, patience, and the balls to expose yourself for the several seconds needed to take aim with an M14 the M4 would be a better choice of weapon for 98% of GI’s in Afghanistan... for the simple reason that you can carry twice as much ammo. If you run out of ammo it don’t matter what rifle you have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 7:56:55 PM EDT
[#37]
Mike,
A M16A2/M16A3/M16A4 will also allow you to carry about twice as much ammo as a M14. And the 20" barrel will give you more effective range for the ammo. Simple science..... Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 9:11:52 PM EDT
[#38]
Its not all about caliber and bullet shape or weight! The two words here should be shot placement!!! an ice pick will take you out if put where it's needed!! bob cole
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 9:49:17 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Imbroglio, I don't think our troops have the option of using Power Points..... Scott Well there is nothing stopping everyone here from using them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2002 8:53:44 AM EDT
[#40]
Imbroglio,
That is true. I was just speaking to the original topic. Which is US military use of M4s in long-range combat. Of course we as civilians have a MUCH greater selection of ammo we can use. No offense was meant, Bra.... Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2002 2:29:44 PM EDT
[#41]
BRAVO TANGO TANGO
Troll Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2002 4:23:23 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: M16 HBARs (used as squad autos) should have 24" or 26" barrels, to extend their support range..... Scott That would only add about 100 or 150 fps over a 20". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2002 4:28:36 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: M16 HBARs (used as squad autos) should have 24" or 26" barrels, to extend their support range..... Scott That would only add about 100 or 150 fps over a 20". Rainier, But would GREATLY augment the striking power over the 14.5" barrels. If everyone were armed with M4s, except the support fire members, then those support fire members could reach out and touch targets further away than the M4s could reach..... Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2002 5:28:58 PM EDT
[#44]
26" barrel?? That would be one unwieldly rifle. Plus if they need to "reach out" most military units have SAW's, M-240's and M-203's readily available.
No weapon is going to "do it all". Part of the theory behind the M-4 is that it is handy, lightweight, good rate of fire, etc., etc. It isn't meant to do everything, and others will have more powerful weapons to use as "support" weapons. Pin'em down with an M-4 blow'em up with M-203. Distract them with aimed rifle fire so the M-240 gunner can line 'em up careful like...... Or keep their heads down with rifle fire so the tank doesn't have to worry about RPG fire....... then run'em over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2002 5:49:18 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: 26" barrel?? That would be one unwieldly rifle. Plus if they need to "reach out" most military units have SAW's, M-240's and M-203's readily available. No weapon is going to "do it all". Part of the theory behind the M-4 is that it is handy, lightweight, good rate of fire, etc., etc. It isn't meant to do everything, and others will have more powerful weapons to use as "support" weapons. Pin'em down with an M-4 blow'em up with M-203. Distract them with aimed rifle fire so the M-240 gunner can line 'em up careful like...... Or keep their heads down with rifle fire so the tank doesn't have to worry about RPG fire....... then run'em over. Excellent observations, OLY. Within its optimal envelope, the M4 is excellent for CQB and MOUT. Just falling short sometimes in Afghanistan when misapplied against targets WAY out yonder... Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2002 10:38:40 AM EDT
[#46]
Has this wonderful GUNRELATED discussion died out?
BRAVO TANGO TANGO Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2002 11:20:05 AM EDT
[#47]
Actually I cant find too much griping about the M4 in Afghanistan on the Internet (admittedly that may increase as units rotate home). Seems that while everyone understands that its not at its best there, its not enough to make them change. Remember, the enemy is armed primarily with the 16" barrled AKM and AK-74 or the Chinese equivilants, THEY have the same "problem".
Being able to strap your rifle to your body and always have it with you no matter what ready to use, with less of it snagging and banging on things as you try to exit your chopper or APC, and the reduced weight, seem to be a better attraction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2002 11:22:53 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Has this wonderful GUNRELATED discussion died out? BRAVO TANGO TANGO Scott If you only want to see GUNRELATED discussion please go to the GENERAL FIREARMS DISCUSSION board. That board is limited to firearms discussion ONLY. This one is plainly labled GENERAL DISCUSSION, clearly indicating that the topics are not limited to firearms. Whining about it is just wasting bandwith. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2002 11:25:55 AM EDT
[#49]
As long as everyone is referencing "Black Hawk Down", I'd like to start a thread where we reference "Blade II." Anecdotally, they're both equally valid: "Man, that Blade kicked some ass. I think chromed, modified Mac-10s are the sheeot. We should issue those instead of the M4. [;)]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2002 11:58:26 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: The only way to get rid of this problem is go to a bullpup with a 6mm or .270 design. Make sure that every kind of gadget can be mounted on the NEW AR. And the only people who currently do this is Armalite. Ben I rather like the 6.5/.308 (.260 Remington), myself. Splits the difference in diameter, bullet weight from 95 to 160 grains, with better selections in the 120-140 grain range. Mild recoil, too. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
