Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/27/2004 10:56:49 AM EST
If true, this says a lot....


Guest Column: Test Confirm Inferior Bullet



By Anthony F. Milavic



Recent U.S. Army laboratory tests have confirmed almost 40 years of demonstrated inferior lethality by the 5.56mm cartridge.



Since 1965, Americans have reported that enemy soldiers continued to fire their weapons after suffering multiple hits by 5.56mm bullets. Most recently, the Interim Report of these tests observes that “less than optimal” performance of the 62-grain 5.56mm M855 cartridge in Somalia and Afghanistan prompted many Special Operations Forces (SOF) units to switch to the heavier 77-grain 5.56mm MK262 ammunition.



Those events prompted the testing and comparison of the 5.56mm M855 against four other cartridges: 110-grain 6.8mm Special Purpose Cartridge (SPC), 149-grain NATO 7.62mm M80 ball cartridge, 77-grain 5.56mm MK262 MatchKing, and 5.56mm (unspecified projectile weight) Le Mas (AKA: RBCD).



U. S. Army ARDEC, AETC conducted ballistics gelatin tests of these cartridges and published the results in, “Interim Report, Engineering Study ES-1A-9001, Soft Target Terminal Ballistics Evaluation Of The M855 5.56mm Projectile,” dated Sept. 1, 2004. Summaries of some of the results and judgments contained in that Interim Report are presented below in their order of assessed relative performance:



Baseline: The 5.56mm M855 was the base cartridge against which the other four were compared and it was the best performer “when viewing steel plate penetration.” However, this bullet contains a steel penetrator and the others in this test do not.



* “The 6.8mm SPC is far and above, the best performing ammunition, in gelatin” in these tests. It was not tested for steel penetration.



* “The NATO 7.62mm M80 ball observed in this test had the highest impact energy of those tested. Additionally, the total quantity of damage done to the gelatin block was greater than any of the other systems in this test. However, the location of that damage was deeper than optimally desired …. The overall ranking of this system came in second only to the 6.8mm SPC system.” The report did not mention if this round was tested against steel plates.



* In general the 5,56mm MK262 “outperformed” the 5.56mm M855 in gelatin. Also, it performed “better than expected” in steel penetration tests but was “inferior” to the M855 in those same tests.



* The 5.56mm Le Mas (AKA: RBCD) ammunition “demonstrated inadequate penetration, small fracture diameter, and shorter fracture lengths at all tested ranges. It is noted, based upon their configuration, that these rounds would be very unlikely to pass the legal review necessary to allow usage by the U. S. Military.”



An Army Times article on Dec. 1, 2003 described the Le Mas by saying, “this 5.56mm round has all the stopping power you need.” That assertion was based, in great measure, on the report by a Mr. Ben Thomas who, while in Iraq, said he hit a man with one Le Mas bullet with explosive results: “It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart.” And, the “round appeared to kill the assailant instantly.” The above Interim Report reinforces the results of ballistics gelatin tests observed by Lt Cmdr. Gary Roberts USNR in March 2002 that performance claims by Le Mas, “were not shown to have merit.” Mr. Thomas’ reported explosive effects of the Le Mas bullet remain unconfirmed by laboratory tests.



All three 5.56mm bullets – 62-grain M855, 77-grain Mk262, and the Le Mas bullets – were inferior to the larger 110-grain 6.8mm and 149-grain 7.62mm bullets in gelatin performance tests. Although the 6.8mm round received the highest overall rating, it is the 7.62mm that “had the highest impact energy of those tested.”



This translates into, “knockdown power” and it is one-round knockdown power that is critical to the warrior’s survival. This is due to the fact that in combat, a warrior frequently gets only one shot; and in other situations, the time between the first and second shot is long enough for the enemy to kill him with one shot.



The demonstrated combat performance of even the largest 5.56mm bullet tested above is sorely inferior to this requirement; for example, on Sept. 12, 2003, after being hit by seven 77-grain 5.56mm bullets, an Iraqi insurgent killed both Master Sgt. Kevin N. Morehead and Sgt. 1st Class William M. Bennett with his 7.62mm Kalashnikov.



Then, Staff Sgt. Robert E Springer threw aside his 5.56mm M-4 carbine and knocked the insurgent down dead with one .45 cal. pistol bullet. If the 2004 Interim Report doesn’t prompt the replacement of the 5.56mm cartridge, it is time to ask the Department of Defense: How many tombstones will be added to those of Master Sgt. Morehead and Sgt. 1st Class Bennett before you provide our warriors with one-round knockdown power?



Guest Contributor Anthony F. Milavic is a retired Marine Corps major who writes frequently on military firearms and ammunition issues. He can be reached at MAJUSMCRET@aol.com.

www.sftt.org
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:00:28 AM EST

Our military needs to go to the blended metal technology bullet. It's against the Geneva Convention, but that would take care of the 5.56 ammo selection issues.

Besides, expecting a armor percing round to fragment into a man stopper on the first round is stupid.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:02:52 AM EST
Nothing to new there.

I'd LOVE to see them adopt the 6.8mm round in the M-16 platform.....
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:12:19 AM EST
i thought the FBI said "knockdown power" was bunk
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:12:50 AM EST
Expanding bullets are the way to go. HP, JPH, BT & SP
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:19:48 AM EST
During WW II we used a battle rifle made out of wood and steel that fired a 30 cal. bullet that killed the enemy. Then, in Vietnam, we adopted a rifle made from plastic and aluminum that fired a .22 cal. bullet that wounded the enemy. Don't get me wrong, I love my Black Rifles, but TimJ has a good point about adopting the 6.8mm round in the M-16 platform.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:19:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Expanding bullets are the way to go. HP, JPH, BT & SP



+1
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:22:58 AM EST
While there are some valid testing results in this piece, most of it is complete bunk!

KE = Knockdown power? Gimme a break!

Nothing short of a 20mm will give a soldier a "one shot stop" holy grail of ammunition capability.

5.56x45 ammo has not proven itself to be an inferior round. Sorry, it hasn't.

Some of the bad reports come from soldiers using M855 ammo and shooting rifles with barrels as short as 14.5 inches long. This results in a tremendous drop in muzzle velocity and a corresponding drop in lethality range. Skinny drugged up targets don't help the equasion either.

Pure Crap!

Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:25:25 AM EST
The 77 gr NATO pressure OTM load is about as good as 5.56mm ammo can get. Once armed with that load, it's all about placement. There is no such thing as a magic bullet. Shots that miss the vitals aren't always effective. Sometimes shots that hit vitals aren't always immediately effective. It takes a while to bleed out.

The problem here is and has always been more about unrealistic expectations than anything else. That one fella stated "we want a round that will stop a guy instantly". Well, I've got news for him. Unless he can make a CNS shot every time, there is no guarantee ANYTHING will offer that type of performance. Not even a .50 BMG chambered weapon. But the NATO pressure 77 gr OTM performs well enough as to about as effective as anything that can be launched in that caliber. If placed right, it will do the job. But nobody can claim it will always be 100% effective, instantly. No ammo can guarantee that rate of success. Again, many people have unrealistic expectations when it comes to ammo performance.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:26:31 AM EST
Aren't expanding bullets also banned by the Geneva Convention? They'd also be hella-expensive compared to ball, I would think. Of course, once they decided to crank out millions of rounds, the price per round would drop.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:32:13 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:38:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
Aren't expanding bullets also banned by the Geneva Convention? They'd also be hella-expensive compared to ball, I would think. Of course, once they decided to crank out millions of rounds, the price per round would drop.

No. It's the Hague Conventions, which the U.S. is not a signatory to, but which we follow anyway.

One thing's for sure, we need a bigger, heavier bullet. The 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel look to be ideal as real "intermediate" cartridges between the "deer-rifle" 7.62NATO and the "varmint rifle" 5.56NATO.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:47:23 AM EST
These statements alone

....the 7.62mm that “had the highest impact energy of those tested.”



This translates into, “knockdown power” and it is one-round knockdown power that is critical to the warrior’s survival....



Are reason enought to completely disregard the article. The author clearly doesnt know a thing about terminal effects.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:50:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
These statements alone

....the 7.62mm that “had the highest impact energy of those tested.”



This translates into, “knockdown power” and it is one-round knockdown power that is critical to the warrior’s survival....



Are reason enought to completely disregard the article. The author clearly doesnt know a thing about terminal effects.




+1 Good call.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:54:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By lippo:
Our military needs to go to the blended metal technology bullet.


Oh gosh no - not the Blended Metal B.S. again...




Besides, expecting a armor percing round to fragment into a man stopper on the first round is stupid.


Initially it fragmented better than M193.

The problem is it's a round that is difficult to manufacture consistantly - if the jacket is too thick (which has been happening lately) the rounds ability to fragment is diminished.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:54:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:
...“less than optimal” performance of the 62-grain 5.56mm M855 cartridge in Somalia...


groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/bhdweaponreferences.msnw does a good job of commenting on this subject.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:01:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 12:02:25 PM EST by wedge1082]
I think that I will stick with my 55gr 5.56mm xm193 from my 20".

We don't need to look into a different caliber, we need to put those rifle barrels back up to 16"-20" and give them the 55gr ammo back.

A history of 40 years of killing AK-47 packing commies, and thugs while maintaining relatively low causalities is good enough for me.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:02:34 PM EST

Maybe off topic, but what about frangible bullets? I have heard some good things about them lately, and I know they are available in 5.56mm. How do they compare to other 5.56mm rounds?

Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:04:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By AvengeR15:
Maybe off topic, but what about frangible bullets? I have heard some good things about them lately, and I know they are available in 5.56mm. How do they compare to other 5.56mm rounds?




Generally they are sorely lacking in penetration.

www.ammo-oracle.com
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:08:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 12:12:04 PM EST by Rocketman]
I usually keep my mouth shut on threads like these cause I'm no expert. I don't even pretend to be an expert. I am however, a former Marine that qualifed "expert" and carried an M-16 in the mid 70's.

I never once heard any of the Vietnam Combat vets in my company bitch about the lack of 5.56mm knock down power out of a 20" M-16 A1. Everyone I talked to said it would bust the gooks like ripe mellon all day long if it was kept reasonably clean and sighted in.

That said I was taught that the first thing that happens in combat is that everything goes to shit and you just have to deal with it. I'd be really uncomfortable betting my life on a round (or a weapon system etc) that "works well under optimum conditions".

OK .....well lets just engage the enemy when we have "optimum conditions". Either that or use a weapon system that does the job in "less than optimum conditions". 5.56mm out of a 20" barrel or something larger and faster out of a shorter barrel.

Seems pretty simple to me but then I'm just an old grunt.

(edited to say you da man wedge)
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:12:33 PM EST



Then, Staff Sgt. Robert E Springer threw aside his 5.56mm M-4 carbine and knocked the insurgent down dead with one .45 cal. pistol bullet. If the 2004 Interim Report doesn’t prompt the replacement of the 5.56mm cartridge, it is time to ask the Department of Defense: How many tombstones will be added to those of Master Sgt. Morehead and Sgt. 1st Class Bennett before you provide our warriors with one-round knockdown power?



A .223/5.56 has the same energy at 600 yards as the .45ACP does at the muzzle
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:14:10 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:16:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 12:18:51 PM EST by wedge1082]

Originally Posted By Rocketman:
I usually keep my mouth shut on threads like these cause I'm no expert. I don't even pretend to be an expert. I am however, a former Marine that qualifed "expert" and carried an M-16 in the mid 70's.

I never once heard any of the Vietnam Combat vets in my company bitch about the lack of 5.56mm knock down power out of a 20" M-16 A1. Everyone I talked to said it would bust the gooks like ripe mellon all day long if it was kept reasonably clean and sighted in.

That said I was taught that the first thing that happens in combat is that everything goes to shit and you just have to deal with it. I'd be really uncomfortable betting my life on a round (or a weapon system etc) that "works well under optimum conditions".

OK .....well lets just engage the enemy when we have "optimum conditions". Either that or use a weapon system that does the job in "less than optimum conditions". 5.56mm out of a 20" barrel or something larger and faster out of a shorter barrel.

Seems pretty simple to me but then I'm just an old grunt.

(edited to say you da man wedge)



Nope you the man, I just talk the talk, you walked the walk.

eta- You may just be a "former Marine", but your statement there should be shown to whoever is conducting these "tests". Give our boys back the 16 and 20 inch rifles and the 55gr. 5.56mm.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:29:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 12:49:05 PM EST by Lumpy196]
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:41:29 PM EST
I'm glad the Marines have resisted the move to shorter barrels. That's what you'd expect thought. It was the same with the 03A3, the Garand and the M14. If it works don't change it until something better comes along.

I'm happy with my 20in AR's and 55g 5.56. I guess that's what I'll pick up if I ever see another shit storm just because it's handy and for the most part does the job. My FAL's and the M1A will always be there if needed. Something every US fighting man should be able to say.

Troy's right though. Barrels will continue to get shorter and eventually they are going to have to come up with a round that works in a short barrel. Physics is physics.......

If my son dies in combat shooting a man for the 8th time that should have been dead already I promise it will make the news.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:43:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 12:46:09 PM EST by lostdog]
First-.308 has more "killing power" at ranges beyond 100yd than 5.56....just go shoot some deer and see.

Second- RBCD blended metal bulltes are not jacketed. That is the total fragment bullet TFSP.
These bullets are CQB bullets, and are good at thier purpose, falling between m193 and m855 in
AP perfomance, and fragmenting violently....but they are QCB bullets......I'd stick under 200yd.


My problem with test like this is that there is no "all-around" 5.56 bullet/load. The round is to small to handle this wide a range of circunstances. The 77gr is greatvfor long range, good for CQB, the .55gr was great in veitnam and is stiil good for civilian use-but it does not break up below 2700fps, the .62gr is a compromise that semms to work okay......but it is just that: a compromise.


I think we forget that the military minset is not to kill, but to effect the enemy the greatest way possible: hump a lot of ammo, wound people. The thought process is that if you kill a man you only decrease by one, but if you wound him you tie up his friends, medicts....ect. I'm not saying that this works, just that that was the thinking prevelant during the developement of the current military armament. With us now fighting in dessert with it's long range, we are stretching the 5.56, shoting beyond its stopping range. Mabey we need to rethink things.

PS: my personal vote is an FAL with 168gr OTM bullets.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:49:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 12:52:43 PM EST
I'd like to see this "don't kill him wound him" doctrine written down some where. I've heard that too but NEVER was taught it.

If I shoot the fucker I want him dead. Not wounded...... ever
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 1:03:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rocketman:
I'd like to see this "don't kill him wound him" doctrine written down some where. I've heard that too but NEVER was taught it.

If I shoot the fucker I want him dead. Not wounded...... ever


I think the wounding part is a crock of shit too.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 1:17:41 PM EST
From one of our own:

LTC Chuck Santose on why the 5.56 was NOT "Designed to Wound"

The US military is smart enough to realize our enemies and potential enemies don't bother with combat medics and are not going to spend any troop resources during a fight to carry wounded off the field. US Forces may to this, but anyone think the PAVN, Russians, or Taliban bother? There has never been a US weapon designed to "wound" not kill.

Bullets have been getting smaller ever since the US Army used captured .75 caliber Tower Muskets during the Revolution.

The small caliber studies of the early 1950s (notably the Hall Study), originally used commercial .222, and determined there was much higher probability of hit and that each hit had the same probability of lethality as .30 M2 Ball (.30-06). Before WW2 only the depression kept US forces armed with .30. The M1 Rifle was designed for .27x Caliber (x = "something") with a 10 shot clip. Only the inability to manufacture .27x ammunition and new rifles kept the P13 out of UK service before WW1. In those days lethality was thought to be a direct function of striking energy and 60 foot pounds was the lower threshold.

Energy as a lethality measurement is bogus, but it's still a common misconception. Potential lethality is directly proportional to the size of the wound and the damage to the target. 5.56mm Ball creates 6" diameter wounds in center of mass shots; 7.62mm NATO and .30-06 create .3" wounds. 5.56mm performs no worse than .30 in non torso strikes. Even if we could get 7.62mm NATO to produce 6" wounds (and there are some military bullets which will) we'd still have to lug around heavier rifles and heavier ammo. Light recoil ot 5.56mm improves hit potential. Flat trajectory (high velocity) improves hit hit potential.

Studies of combat casualties done by the UK, Germany, and the US long ago determined that the more than half of the rifle bullet strikes occur less than 100 meters from the rifle, that is to say, the average range where a bullet strike will likely happen is less than 100 meters. Call this "normal combat range." Strikes are rare at 300 meters. This is not a Vietnam discovery. It's verified as long as the Spanish American war and includes both World Wars, Korea, and various mini wars since Vietnam. Drop to the prone in your backyard and note how far you can detect targets without cover, then remember the enemy uses cover just like we do.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Repeating a long standing myth about small bullets which was first noted about those evil Japs during WW2. They were using a bullet less powerful than .30 so there must be something evil about it. There's no basis of truth in "wound, not kill." Not in WW2. Not today.

First there's no combat reason to wound and not kill.

Why anyone would think an enemy force would care enough about their wounded to have two soldiers, or even one, carry him off the battlefield is beyond me. Hardly anybody cares about their wounded but us. No one we've fought in the last century, starting with the Spanish and Moros and ending with whoever you want in the 1990s bothered about their wounded in battle.

Medics? What medics? US Forces have medics as do most western armies, but we're not fighting western armies. Most armies don't bother with medics until after the battle is done.

Second the bullets meet all "criteria" to inflict lethal wounds well beyond combat ranges.

Military bullets like M193 or M855 Ball were designed based on the minimum amount of kinetic energy considered to cause a fatal wound. [A flawed theory continued by glossy gun magazines who continue to quote muzzle or striking energy as if it had any meaning. We know (since the early 1980s) the important criteria is the size and placement of the wound, not the energy expended creating it.]

The Army had determined before WW2 that 60 foot-pounds of energy was needed to inflict a disabling wound (shoot to wound) and that 108 foot-pounds was necessary to inflict a lethal wound (shoot to kill).

5.56mm Ball meets the "lethal wound" criteria at 1000 yards and the "disabling wound" criteria beyond 1300 yards where my ballistic tables finally give up. If the cartridge was "designed" to wound or maim the design criteria of the day would allow much less kinetic energy (KE) on the bullet, trying to keep it below 108 foot-pounds at combat ranges. That would assure it wounded and not killed. As we know there was no such attempt to keep KE levels low and there was, in fact, a push for higher velocity which influences KE by the power of two.

These energy numbers are just interesting, not definitive of anything, but that's what folks thought in those days, and many folks still believe today.

The performance of the bullet speaks for itself, of course, and it's quite a nice killing bullet at combat ranges. As good as 7.62mm or .30-06. Oh the KE levels are half that of the .30s, but so what?

Still have to strike a vital area of the body to do more than wound anyway. Bullet strikes are essentially random strikes around the aiming point, so even a good hold at center of mass won't assure a incapacitating bullet strike. But the law of averages is on the side of CoM shots.



As posted onwww.MD-AR15.com
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 1:55:48 PM EST
If we are fighting the well armed soldier with body armor and the like where armor piercing or penetration is needed, stay put. However, if we are running patrols in communities where armed thugs are running around with RPGs and Aks and penetration is not a factor, we should be using rapidly expanding varmint rounds. That should take care of the vermin.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 3:41:38 PM EST
I call BS.

Civilian LE in this country is getting in the high 90th percentile first-shot-stops with 5.56mm systems using a variety of off-the-shelf ammunition types.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 8:38:04 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 8:58:35 PM EST
Guns and Ammo had an article about two months ago that said we didnt have to use ammo that conformed to Hague convention requirements in this war since the people we are fighting didnt sign the Hague convention. I dont see any sense in using armor defeating ammo against people that dont use body armor. Use the M193. I have hit prarie dogs with this ammo and they are not that large a target but depending on the amount of dog you hit the results are impressive. Some looks like they were hit with a hollow point.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 9:03:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 9:10:18 PM EST by Bostonterrier97]

Originally Posted By lippo:
Our military needs to go to the blended metal technology bullet. It's against the Geneva Convention, but that would take care of the 5.56 ammo selection issues.

Besides, expecting a armor percing round to fragment into a man stopper on the first round is stupid.



That would be the Hague Convention in which the United States is not a signatory nation, though as a matter of policy the US Government complies with its rules on using Full Metal Jacketed Ammunition.

Interestingly enough, the rule of using Full Metal Jacketed Ammunition only applies to uniformed military forces (ie. Lawful combatants) it does not apply to Civilians (unlawful combatants).

Either way, our military is from an international law standpoint: free to use hunting ammunition against insurgent and terrorist forces.

The more I research terminal ballistics, the more I think that the Swedes had it right over a hundred years ago when they adopted the 6.5x55mm cartridge.



Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:16:45 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:30:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 11:38:32 PM EST by M4-CQBR]
any idea where some good 77gr 5.56mm ammo can be picked up? other than the most expensive BH in HP or BTHP. . . what brands are available to civies?
what are the going prices to pay for this ammo?
sounds like something worth trying in comparison to the 62gr I shoot
Also like the 75gr Hornady TAP round but can never find that. . .?
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:24:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By M4-CQBR:
any idea where some good 77gr 5.56mm ammo can be picked up? other than the most expensive BH in HP or BTHP. . . what brands are available to civies?
what are the going prices to pay for this ammo?
sounds like something worth trying in comparison to the 62gr I shoot
Also like the 75gr Hornady TAP round but can never find that. . .?



The cheapest you'll find 75 or 77gr is the Black Hills "remanufactured" in the blue boxes. A good price is around $15 per box of 50, or $300 - $330 out the door for a case of 1000.

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:30:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:
The more I research terminal ballistics, the more I think that the Swedes had it right over a hundred years ago when they adopted the 6.5x55mm cartridge.



Modern 6.5mm bullets aren't so great for combat vs. humans. They take far too long to begin yawing, so they do relatively little damage to the body most of the time. They work better on larger creatures due to their additional penetration, and they're VERY accurate.

As it turns out, .277 (6.8mm) and .280 .284 (7mm) bullets fit the ideal wound profile for combat VERY well.

-Troy

Sorry, couldn't resist
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:32:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By TimJ:


I'd LOVE to see them adopt the 6.8mm round in the M-16 platform.....

+1
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:41:15 AM EST
Most of the problems they had was with troops using the M-4. The 5.56 round depends on it's velocity for killing power. When a rifle with a full 20 inch barrel is used most of the problems seem to go away.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 6:46:43 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:00:09 AM EST
Seems to me the obvious answer to the velocity:barrel length problem is to simply use a faster burning powder; much like Winchester used in the development of the .300WSM, .223WSSM, etc..
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:45:17 AM EST
To quote Jim Sullivan, "Any energy remaining after the bullet exits is wasted."

As far as the Le Mas anecdote... it is not wise to base a decision on ammo selection on what one fellow says he observed from ONE round fired at ONE enemy combatant. It is just that, an anecdote.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 10:45:30 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 10:56:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
To quote Jim Sullivan, "Any energy remaining after the bullet exits is wasted."



And some of the energy expanded in the target is wasted. Specifically, the energy that resulted in the temporary cavity. That's why "energy dump" or "energy transfer" can't be used to determine bullet effectiveness.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 10:57:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 11:07:23 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Kazimir:
i thought the FBI said "knockdown power" was bunk



Knockdown power IS bunk...

But that doesn't stop uninformed writers from translating 'kenetic energy' into 'knockdown paower'...

The real 'conclusion' of the 7.62mm results is what everyone allready knows: 7.62x51 ball makes a 30cal hole & goes flying out the other side...

In the end, 30 rounds of 77gr 5.56mm gives you a far better chance of that much-needed vital hit than 25rds of 6.8.

That, and NATO logistics make 77gr 5.56mm the 'way to go'...
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:01:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:

The demonstrated combat performance of even the largest 5.56mm bullet tested above is sorely inferior to this requirement; for example, on Sept. 12, 2003, after being hit by seven 77-grain 5.56mm bullets, an Iraqi insurgent killed both Master Sgt. Kevin N. Morehead and Sgt. 1st Class William M. Bennett with his 7.62mm Kalashnikov.


Then, Staff Sgt. Robert E Springer threw aside his 5.56mm M-4 carbine and knocked the insurgent down dead with one .45 cal. pistol bullet. If the 2004 Interim Report doesn’t prompt the replacement of the 5.56mm cartridge, it is time to ask the Department of Defense: How many tombstones will be added to those of Master Sgt. Morehead and Sgt. 1st Class Bennett before you provide our warriors with one-round knockdown power?








Same old shit... "5.56mm sucks, but one .45 will knock a man dead if it hits him in the thumb!"




Then, Staff Sgt. Robert E Springer threw aside his 5.56mm M-4 carbine and knocked the insurgent down dead with one .45 cal. pistol bullet, plus seven high-velocity rifle bullets prior to that.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:05:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By M4-CQBR:
any idea where some good 77gr 5.56mm ammo can be picked up? other than the most expensive BH in HP or BTHP. . . what brands are available to civies?
what are the going prices to pay for this ammo?
sounds like something worth trying in comparison to the 62gr I shoot
Also like the 75gr Hornady TAP round but can never find that. . .?



All of the commercial 77gr SMK ammo is match grade, Black Hills is CHEAP (very good ammo, but still on the low end of the cost spectrum) in that department...
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:07:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By uncle_frank:
Most of the problems they had was with troops using the M-4. The 5.56 round depends on it's velocity for killing power. When a rifle with a full 20 inch barrel is used most of the problems seem to go away.



Which is exactly what I said above. But the reality is that the military is NOT going to go back to longer barrels, especially with our need to fight out of vehicles. So, if we aren't going to change the weapon, we need to change the ammo.

Note that 6.8mm SPC is still fragmenting beyond 100m out of 12" barrels (think: XM8). Compare that to <5m using M855.



Exactly. I haven't read much about the new calibers, but it isn't too hard to figure out that taking rounds designed around 20+ inch barrels and shooting them out of barrels as short as 9 inches (in the XM8 carbine) is going to cause problems.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:09:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By napalm:

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:

The demonstrated combat performance of even the largest 5.56mm bullet tested above is sorely inferior to this requirement; for example, on Sept. 12, 2003, after being hit by seven 77-grain 5.56mm bullets, an Iraqi insurgent killed both Master Sgt. Kevin N. Morehead and Sgt. 1st Class William M. Bennett with his 7.62mm Kalashnikov.


Then, Staff Sgt. Robert E Springer threw aside his 5.56mm M-4 carbine and knocked the insurgent down dead with one .45 cal. pistol bullet. If the 2004 Interim Report doesn’t prompt the replacement of the 5.56mm cartridge, it is time to ask the Department of Defense: How many tombstones will be added to those of Master Sgt. Morehead and Sgt. 1st Class Bennett before you provide our warriors with one-round knockdown power?








Same old shit... "5.56mm sucks, but one .45 will knock a man dead if it hits him in the thumb!"




Then, Staff Sgt. Robert E Springer threw aside his 5.56mm M-4 carbine and knocked the insurgent down dead with one .45 cal. pistol bullet, plus seven high-velocity rifle bullets prior to that.



That story has been changed several times. Versions have been circulated where it was 55gr, 62gr and now 77gr...

And a whole 30rd mag to the wrong places won't kill you 'right-then-and-there'...

A .45 to the head at close range is worth more than 7 5.56 to the legs/arms/etc at a distance...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top