Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/11/2005 10:09:59 PM EDT
Not trying to start a debate or argument/flame war, but wasnt the lack of killing ability the whole point when the US and NATO adopted the round? I always was taught that their mindset and "Battle Strategy" was to inflict wounds causing the soldier to not only be out of the battle but another comrad to drag him away, doctors to stitch him up, resources of the army to be drained in patching him up etc etc, so instead of just simply killing 1 man, you have in fact taken down 2, plus crucial resources. Or was I learned wrong?
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 10:21:05 PM EDT
So far in my research I have never found anything to support the "intended to wound, not kill" hypthesis. I suspect that it is another "urban legend" or a product of over imaginative gun writers and commentators, like the vaporous term, "main battle rifle".

What happened was that elements in the military considered the actual data collected from battlefields and decided that the 5.56 mm round was sufficiently lethal. It was merely the taking of the results of German and Russian studies on the ideal caliber for automatic rifles to their logical conclusion.

Link Posted: 9/11/2005 10:21:14 PM EDT
Their logic is more bullets and less weight. The 5.56 nato round is effective at close range and the rifle is much lighter than the wood battle rifles of the past. Firepower and weight thats the answer.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 10:22:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RRA223:
Their logic is more bullets and less weight. The 5.56 nato round is effective at close range and the rifle is much lighter than the wood battle rifles of the past. Firepower and weight thats the answer.



Oh ok...sweet...well...sweet to know that...
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 5:33:37 AM EDT
That whole line of BS also assumes that the opfor will A: care about their wounded, B: have medical staff present to do so, and C: all the other guys around the now wounded troop stop and take the time to evac him in the middle of a fight.
A lot of the people who spout this are also members of the 30 cal mafia, and bitch that that's why the poodle shooter is anaemic. Well, if that's what is desired, why bitch about it?
If you want to go with that line of thought, we should just issue orders to the first unit in contact (and the bigger the better as you will see) to just surrender. That would tie up way more than two guys per friendly to detain, search, process, and transport. The opfor would rapidly have their fighting ability diminished due to being overloaded. At that point, we shove in a follow on unit to whack the distracted opfor. Easy.
Of course, just like the "shoot to wound" BS reality would seem to dictate otherwise.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 5:43:25 AM EDT
this uran legend needs to be addressed on snopes.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 6:16:31 AM EDT
I foresee a VERY heated arguement about this.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 6:57:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By m24shooter:
That whole line of BS also assumes that the opfor will A: care about their wounded, B: have medical staff present to do so, and C: all the other guys around the now wounded troop stop and take the time to evac him in the middle of a fight.
A lot of the people who spout this are also members of the 30 cal mafia, and bitch that that's why the poodle shooter is anaemic. Well, if that's what is desired, why bitch about it?
If you want to go with that line of thought, we should just issue orders to the first unit in contact (and the bigger the better as you will see) to just surrender. That would tie up way more than two guys per friendly to detain, search, process, and transport. The opfor would rapidly have their fighting ability diminished due to being overloaded. At that point, we shove in a follow on unit to whack the distracted opfor. Easy.
Of course, just like the "shoot to wound" BS reality would seem to dictate otherwise.



+1
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 7:06:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2005 7:11:19 AM EDT by FUZ1ON]
I know and am willing to share this on the subject.....as a former U.S. Marine circa '78 P.I. Graduate we spent 2 of our 12 weeks of training at the Rifle Range....one entire day was dedicated to gluing Able, Baker & Charlie targets to their canvas backers...now one might argue "That's Only Paper & Canvas!!!" but lemme tell you....1/2 of us worked the target pits while the other 1/2 shot at 200, 300 and 500 yards...my position in the target pits was behind a cement walled berum with my head about 3' below the bottom of the target...and when the boys shot at 500 yards the little 5.56 was pretty freaking amazing as...the first thing you'd hear is the bullet hit the target...and when it went through that paper and canvas?...it sounded like a freaking firecracker going off with white fuzzies drifting down from backside of the hole it made....and then about a second later came the deeeelayed "booooohhhhmm" sound of the rifle that delivered that shot...from 500yds away....a fairly awesome experience but what was more astounding to me was that the poorly placed shots would whistle right through the 2X4 wood uprights that held those targets up...at 500yrds.......I felt it pretty impressive performance for such a diminuitive bullet/cartridge.

I always wondered about how much enegy they were carrying at that distance and just a few years later picked up an annual version copy of guns and ammo...just to review the comprehensive ballistics charts...and if I recall correctly?....the heavier 62gr bullet of a 5.56mm at 500yds had the equivilent energy of me walking up to place my muzzle directly against the target and pulling the trigger of a 6" Barrled .22 WMR pistol....I can work with that....especially when it's easy to pack in a thousand or more rounds of "THAT" with you.

Point being...there's plenty there...if you're marksmen enough to make good use of it.

JMHO & Experiences & L8R, Bill.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 7:10:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FUZ1ON:
I know and am willing to share this on the subject.....as a former U.S. Marine circa '78 P.I. Graduate we spent 2 of our 12 weeks of training at the Rifle Range....one entire day was dedicated to gluing Able, Baker & Charlie targets to their canvas backers...now one might argue "That's Only Paper & Canvas!!!" but lemme tell you....1/2 of us worked the target pits while the other 1/2 shot at 200, 300 and 500 yards...my position in the target pits was behind a cement walled berum with my head about 3' below the bottom of the target...and when the boys shot at 500 yards the little 5.56 was freaking amazing as...the first thing you'd hear is the bullet hit the target...and when itv went through that paper and canvas?...it sounded like a freaking firecracker going off with white fuzzies drifting down from the hole it made....and then about a second later the "booooohhhhmm" sound arrived...from 500yds away....a fairly awesome experience but what was more astounding to me was that poorly placed shots would whistle right through the 2X4 wood uprights...prety impressive for such a diminuitive bullet/cartridge.

I always wondered about how much enegy they were carrying at that distance and just a few years later picked up an annual version copy of guns and ammo...and if I recall correctly?....the heavier 62gr bullet of a 5.56mm at 500yds had the equivilent energy of me walking up to place my muzzle directly against the target and pulling the trigger of a 6" Barrled .22 WMR pistol....I can work with that....especially when it's easy to pack in a thousand or more rounds of "THAT" with you.

Point being...there's plenty there...if you're marksmen enough to make good use of it.

JMHO & Experiences & L8R, Bill.



Thats awesome man, thanks for sharing!
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 7:23:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 7:24:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2005 7:24:29 AM EDT by KevinB]
Repetative Argument - Take it to Ammo, Brouhaha will entertain you :)
Top Top