Posted: 5/26/2008 6:59:21 PM EDT
|
Huh? US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 45 minutes ago http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/battling_over_bullets WASHINGTON - As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor, a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies.  As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry. "Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice," says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. "It just has more stopping power." Strange as it sounds, nearly seven years into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bullets are a controversial subject for the U.S. The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews. Designed decades ago to puncture a Soviet soldier's helmet hundreds of yards away, the M855 rounds are being used for very different targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of today's fighting takes place in close quarters; narrow streets, stairways and rooftops are today's battlefield. Legions of armor-clad Russians marching through the Fulda Gap in Germany have given way to insurgents and terrorists who hit and run. Fired at short range, the M855 round is prone to pass through a body like a needle through fabric. That does not mean being shot is a pain-free experience. But unless the bullet strikes a vital organ or the spine, the adrenaline-fueled enemy may have the strength to keep on fighting and even live to fight another day. In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets. Yet the Army is not changing. The answer is better aim, not bigger bullets, officials say. "If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn't matter what you shoot him with," said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small arms division at Fort Benning, Ga., home to the Army's infantry school. At about 33 cents each, bullets do not get a lot of public attention in Washington, where the size of the debate is usually measured by how much a piece of equipment costs. But billions of M855 rounds have been produced, and Congress is preparing to pay for many more. The defense request for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 seeks $88 million for 267 million M855s, each one about the size of a AAA battery. None of the M855's shortcomings is surprising, said Don Alexander, a retired Army chief warrant officer with combat tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Somalia. "The bullet does exactly what it was designed to do. It just doesn't do very well at close ranges against smaller-statured people that are lightly equipped and clothed," says Alexander, who spent most of his 26-year military career with the 5th Special Forces Group. Paul Howe was part of a U.S. military task force 15 years ago in Mogadishu, Somalia's slum-choked capital, when he saw a Somali fighter hit in the back from about a dozen feet away with an M855 round. "I saw it poof out the other side through his shirt," says Howe, a retired master sergeant and a former member of the Army's elite Delta Force. "The guy just spun around and looked at where the round came from. He got shot a couple more times, but the first round didn't faze him." With the M855, troops have to hit their targets with more rounds, said Howe, who owns a combat shooting school in Texas. That can be tough to do under high-stress conditions when one shot is all a soldier might get. "The bullet is just not big enough," he says. "If I'm going into a room against somebody that's determined to kill me, I want to put him down as fast as possible." Dr. Martin Fackler, a former combat surgeon and a leading authority on bullet injuries, said the problem is the gun, not the bullet. The M4 rifle has a 14.5 inch barrel — too short to create the velocity needed for an M855 bullet to do maximum damage to the body. "The faster a bullet hits the tissue, the more it's going to fragment," says Fackler. "Bullets that go faster cause more damage. It's that simple." Rules of war limit the type of ammunition conventional military units can shoot. The Hague Convention of 1899 bars hollow point bullets that expand in the body and cause injuries that someone is less likely to survive. The United States was not a party to that agreement. Yet, as most countries do, it adheres to the treaty, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Hague restrictions do not apply to law enforcement agencies, however. Ballistics expert Gary Roberts said that is an inconsistency that needs to be remedied, particularly at a time when so many other types of destructive ordnance are allowed in combat. "It is time to update this antiquated idea and allow U.S. military personnel to use the same proven ammunition," Roberts says. In response to complaints from troops about the M855, the Army's Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey assigned a team of soldiers, scientists, doctors and engineers to examine the round's effectiveness. The team's findings, announced in May 2006, concluded there were no commercially available rounds of similar size better than the M855. But Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Corps major, said the Army buried the study's most important conclusion: that larger-caliber bullets are more potent. "It was manipulated," says Milavic, a Vietnam veteran who manages an online military affairs forum called MILINET. "Everybody knows there are bullets out there that are better." Officials at Picatinny Arsenal declined to be interviewed. In an e-mailed response to questions, they called the M855 "an overall good performer." Studies are being conducted to see if it can be made more lethal without violating the Hague Convention, they said. Larger rounds are not necessarily better, they also said. Other factors such as the weather, the amount of light and the bullet's angle of entry also figure into how lethal a single shot may be. Heavier rounds also mean more weight for soldiers to carry, as well as more recoil — the backward kick created when a round is fired. That long has been a serious issue for the military, which has troops of varied size and strength. The M14 rifle used by Joe Higgins was once destined to be the weapon of choice for all U.S. military personnel. When switched to the automatic fire mode, the M14 could shoot several hundred rounds a minute. But most soldiers could not control the gun, and in the mid-1960s it gave way to the M16 and its smaller cartridge. The few remaining M14s are used by snipers and marksman. U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., is buying a carbine called the SCAR Heavy for its commandos, and it shoots the same round as the M14. The regular Army, though, has invested heavily in M4 and M16 rifles and has no plans to get rid of them. A change in expectations is needed more than a change in gear, said Col. Robert Radcliffe, chief of combat developments at Fort Benning. Soldiers go through training believing that simply hitting a part of their target is enough to kill it. On a training range, getting close to the bulls-eye counts. But in actual combat, nicking the edges isn't enough. "Where you hit is essential to the equation," Radcliffe says. "I think the expectations are a little bit off in terms of combat performance against target range performance. And part of that is our fault for allowing that expectation to grow when it's really not there at all." The arguments over larger calibers, Radcliffe says, are normal in military circles where emotions over guns and bullets can run high. "One of the things I've discovered in guns is that damned near everyone is an expert," he says. "And they all have opinions." ___ On the Net: Army's Picatinny Arsenal: http://tinyurl.com/6vlwm |
|
So out of 2500 troops, 20% say they want bigger rounds? Only thing shocking is that it wasn't 100%. That's like asking a pilot if he wants his airplane to go faster. If only 20% of pilots will tell you they want a faster airplane, that tells you you've got a pretty damn fast airplane! I'd be willing to bet if you asked 2500 troops in EVERY DAMN WAR WE EVER FOUGHT IN, you'd get 20% or more who wished they could fire bigger bullets at the enemy. |
I want a fully automatic 60mm rifle with no recoil but a 12" barrel while still being able to have sub-MOA accuracy at 5km. The rounds must be able to detonate with fuze settings of "impact", "proximity", and "delay", set with a control switch built into the receiver of the carbine. It must have a 500x variable/adjustable zoom reticle with FLIR capabilities. The weapon, when loaded with a 50 round drum magazine, must weigh less than 11 lbs. Gimme. |
This is the easiest and best solution. For one thing, it wouldn't be hard to set the current ammo producers up on it. Most importanly it wouldn't TOTALLY fuck up the current logistics chain. As nice as say, switching to 6.8 would be it would totally fuck up the entire current supply line. Mass produced Mk262 spec would do nicely. |
yes, but doesn't Mk262 need a 1:7 twist to get much mileage out of it above and beyond current M855 performance? correct me if I'm wrong, because I honestly don't know a whole lot about the subject |
The only 1:12" in inventory is the M231 |
True. CNS shots with 7.62 kill much faster than CNS shots with 5.56. 
|
The "ultimate" do-everything standard issue GI rifle cartridge would be along the lines of the .276 Pedersen, .280 British (for the EM-2) or the 7x46 mm. The closest we've got that will work in current 5.56 action lengths is the 6.8 mm SPC, though the 6.5 mm Grendel is superior to the 6.8 mm SPC at long range. The published ballistics charts make this very clear. Though I'd have to admit, an AR10 chambered in a .308 cartridge necked down to .270 or 7 mm (like 7 mm-08) would be pretty close to an "ideal" cartridge/weapon combo. This combination (AR10 and 7 mm-08) wouldn't be exactly perfect, but close, with magazine capacity and weight/bulk being the key factors making the system imperfect. It's been known since at least 1945 that a 7mm cartridge would be ballistically ideal for a service rifle. |
Hit them with the SAW or many times bullets is cheap so is third world life given the choice I want my fireteam to have more to throw w/o resupply as opposed to less "bigger" ETA: Mortarman indirect fire FTW 
|
Product-improved M14's with lightened stocks and shortened barrels, chambered in a cartridge that recoils less than 7.62 mm and allows multiple controlled shots to be fired with accuracy. A 16" or 18" barrel would be about ideal based on how we fight, IMO. Basically, think of an M14 in 7 mm-08 with a selector switch, 30 round magazine, shortened barrel and a plastic stock. |
Springfield Armory Inc, SEI, and others could easily produce such a weapon. Base it on the SOCOM16, or Scout sized M1A and you're in business. It doesn't even need a selector switch really... M14s are semi only these days anyway. |
That would be ideal. Someone Email the army and tell them to get right on it. |
You're right. Doctrine calls for controlled semi-auto pairs. I was just promoting the selector lever so no misinformed fools cry that I am advocating issuing our troops an "inferior" or "obsolete" non-automatic weapon. Because some guy will inevitably come by and say "umm, huh, so like, if it doesn't have a selector, how is it better than the M1 Garand ?!" |
The only tracer in inventory is M856 and that bullet needs the 1:7" twist rate. The only reason the M231 is still on the books is there are still two firing ports on the rear of the Bradley. The M231 when firing M855 is no less accurate as it is only for 100 meter and less ranges. Plus dumping that 30 rounder in something like 2 seconds isn't precision fire. They don't use them much. It was originally designed for M196 tracer, 100% as the firing ports do not have provision for sights, only a window and it is operated as a tracer hose. |
|
NT, short answer: No. Everything is 1:7.  And fuck that noise about bringing back the M14. Heavier, less ammo, more recoil, and no increase in lethality at most combat distances. |
Thanks, that's the kind of answer i was looking for. And don't kill my dreams of being issued an M14 one day... i've got a hardon for that rifle that borders on priapism. |
Of course you do, you wouldn't have to carry it or the ammo! 
|
Just don't even think about dragging one.... |
Only a person totally ignorant of firearms would even bring that up. That is "RATE of fire". No, the rifle could not shoot several hundred rounds a minute because the soldier cannot load mags that fast. And if we are talking just rate, the M16 can fire 800 rounds a minute, which is a bigger number than "several hundred" and equally meaningless. This article, while he may have quoted others accurately, is written by a dufus. Don't take any of it seriously. |
Your personal experiences mean nothing. I demand a link to a questionable and obscure website written by a 12-year old, which references an e-mail his uncle forwarded him from some Marine that says he was in Iraq. |
I don't want 7.62 at all, and an AR10 would still be bigger and heavier than an M16, which is not the direction I think we should be going. IF we were to switch (not justified IMO) 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel would be as large as I would want to go. |
Good to hear from someone who has BTDT and can add firsthand experience. BTW thanks for your service. |