Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/30/2002 4:16:54 PM EDT
Has anyone other than myself heard any negative feedback about the M-4's and M-16's in service right now in Afghanistan. I have heard from more than one person who has contact with our soldiers and have gotten the same response from each one of them and that is that our troops are having problems with the functioning of their guns due to the sand and dirt. Also, they seem to have little respect for the penetration of the round on it's intended target. This bothered me to hear it as I am just as big a fan of this gun as anyone else here. Am I the only one who has heard this ?
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 4:43:57 PM EDT
From what little I have heard they are having the same problem with knock down with the M-4 as usual. Don't know how much of it is true though.

On the other hand, have you noticed all this pictures on TV with the Marines carrying POST-ban M-1A's! Must be buying them up pretty fast and taking anything they can get.

Just my opinion.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 4:49:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2002 4:50:01 PM EDT by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By obershutze916:
On the other hand, have you noticed all this pictures on TV with the Marines carrying POST-ban M-1A's



No, I havent. Gotta link to a pic? Are you perhaps confusing the M14 DMR rifle, which has a muzzle brake instead of a flash supressor, with a postban M1A?
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 5:26:41 PM EDT
I have seen a mix of different M-14 revamped as DMR's, some have the old flash suppressor, others had a short, almost AK like brake, and others have had a very long flash suppressor/silencer of some sort.

The Seal's seem to refer to theirs as the XM-25, and again I've seen a mix of stuff attached to the end of the muzzle.

There are still quite a few M-14's in storage, which I think can be had for cheap by all the branches of the military from Crane.

I'm just happy to see it out there, whether it's an XM-25, DMR, or whatever, to me it's an M-14 and I'm glad to see a few guys carrying them.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 5:53:08 PM EDT
Sorry, no link, it was either CNN or Fox news on the TV, I don't remember which.

I have heard that the Marines were putting a "designated marksman" in each platoon ( I think its platoon level), this might be how they are filling the need for the rifles by buying civilian rifles intil they can fill their own orders. Again, just a guess.

I could be confusing the rifles too, it was TV and they weren't really trying to show off the rifle.
I think I saw something in SOF magazine a few months back about this too, I will lok it up in the moring.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 6:31:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2002 6:36:41 PM EDT by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By ED_P:
I have seen a mix of different M-14 revamped as DMR's, some have the old flash suppressor, others had a short, almost AK like brake,



I believe that is the OPS brake, also seen on the SPR.

USMC DMR with OPS brake


Same rifle with OPS Supressor

Link Posted: 8/30/2002 6:40:25 PM EDT
ED_P, I saw a picture of this and the AK like brake is an OPS flash suppressor which is used in conjuction with an OPS silencer. This combo is also used on the SPR rifle. The can in the second picture is identical to the one used on the SPR.






Link Posted: 8/30/2002 8:37:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2002 8:37:51 PM EDT by PvtJoker]
Dumb question

What kind of scope is that?

Looks Expensive!


-Jared
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 8:42:33 PM EDT
Well, from what I hear through my brother in the Army, the only problems have been with the short length of the M4 barrel and the inability of our guys to get the bullets to the targets. I think the M4 will shine if we invade Iraq, but in the long distance/mountain engagements, its a dudd. I guess that's why you'll see the M-1a's out there.

As far as reliability, you're definately thinking about the British army and their shitty gun. That thing has not been able to hold up at all in the sandy desert conditions.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 9:40:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Balzac72:
Well, from what I hear through my brother in the Army, the only problems have been with the short length of the M4 barrel and the inability of our guys to get the bullets to the targets. I think the M4 will shine if we invade Iraq, but in the long distance/mountain engagements, its a dudd. I guess that's why you'll see the M-1a's out there.

As far as reliability, you're definately thinking about the British army and their shitty gun. That thing has not been able to hold up at all in the sandy desert conditions.


Uhhhhhhhh Have you been to Iraq??? Pretty wide open area, there arent even contour lines on the map for most of the shit heel of a country....
Semper Fi....
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 5:58:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USMC8541:

Originally Posted By Balzac72:
Well, from what I hear through my brother in the Army, the only problems have been with the short length of the M4 barrel and the inability of our guys to get the bullets to the targets. I think the M4 will shine if we invade Iraq, but in the long distance/mountain engagements, its a dudd. I guess that's why you'll see the M-1a's out there.

As far as reliability, you're definately thinking about the British army and their shitty gun. That thing has not been able to hold up at all in the sandy desert conditions.


Uhhhhhhhh Have you been to Iraq??? Pretty wide open area, there arent even contour lines on the map for most of the shit heel of a country....
Semper Fi....



From what I've heard, Iraq's leadership wants to bring the war to the cities. They can't beat us militarily, but if enough civilian deaths occur, they're hoping to get other countries against us while flying that "attack on islam" flag. They also know that city fights would incur most of the US casualties, since their army is no match for us in the desert. (Remember the highway of death, bunker surrenders, 100% tank kills....)

So, my point is that the M4 is a city gun, which shouldn't be news. I'm positive Saddam won't fight another war like last time. He wants to neutralize the threat our air force is, while making maryrs of his people and praying for a vietnam like ending for the US.

Personally, I hope we daisy cut Bagdad back to your topographical map flatness, we don't need any middle east muslims in this world.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 6:03:28 AM EDT
Amen Ballsack (oops, i meant Balzac)
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 7:05:49 AM EDT
yea why don't they field Ar10's? I understand about surplus M14's.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 7:21:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By IAM_NAKID:
yea why don't they field Ar10's? I understand about surplus M14's.



I believe that is the XM-25 that ED_P is mentioning. The Knights Arms rifle. They are pretty simular to the AR10 execept for a few minor differences and a big ass RAS or RIS rail all the way down. They look cool and supposidly tested well.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 6:54:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 9:05:03 PM EDT
I'm betting any problems with the M16/M4s in Afghanistan are related to the usual over-penatration associated with a lot of those military 5.56mm rounds. I believe from what I've heard the military tends to over-issue AP-type rounds which are notorious for making pin-holes in enemy soldiers that neither bring them down or even stun them much upon impact. I'm sure many of the troops over there wish they could use civilian SP and JHP rounds in their rifles.
Link Posted: 8/31/2002 9:09:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 5:01:23 AM EDT
The scope is an AN/PVS-10. By day its a regular mil-dot, at night hit a button and it is a night vision mil-dot. I think the Gov't pays something like $12k for one.
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 9:36:32 AM EDT
Seeing all the new toys coming on line almost makes me want to go back on active duty.

Almost......
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 10:17:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Raptor22:
The can in the second picture is identical to the one used on the SPR.



Except for the fact that the SPR is 5.56 and the DMR is 7.62.

Link Posted: 9/1/2002 10:46:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2002 2:45:38 PM EDT by clinth]
Not to disagree with Troy but the M4 is an effective "shooters" platform. But it must be used within its limits. By adding the 20" barrel and a couple of pounds you’re losing all advantages of the M4 in MOUT environment and gain a 50m or so of solid fragmentation. The shooters I have talked to aren't complaining about the M4 but they aren't using the M855 allot of them are using the 75gr taps or the 77 Sierra match. I do think if you planning on setting 300m+ away from the target you need a different round not rifle. My humble experience show that most people can’t make solid hit at 300m. That’s also a problem. You can give someone a 300win mag, ultra super custom rifle if they can't make the hits it does no good and is deemed ineffective.

Just my thoughts
Clinth
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 2:15:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
The Ammo FAQ covers the problem as well as the solutions currently being tested:

www.ammo-oracle.com

Of course, if anyone were to ask me, I'd remind them that the M4 is a specialty weapon, and is wrongly being issued and used as a general purpose weapon. Most of the troops should be carrying M16A3s and not M4s.

-Troy



Would that specialty be that they are a great close quarter gun, but a horrible distance/mountain/plains gun?

I defer to the pro on this one, but it sounds like he's saying what I'm saying.

CLINTH, although it would be nice to just teach our guys to just shoot better, I don't believe that to be the case. Even under a no stress environment, I was watching my father (60YO) take shots out to ~350 and hit with no problems and regular surplus ammo. Shots were prone and my girlfriend was also able to do it. The target was a lid from a spackle can, figure it was roughly the width of a man's chest or less.

DOGGONIT, come on buddy! Balzac was a French philosopher, didn't you know!? Coming to the next Calverton shoot this month?
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 2:40:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Balzac72:
Would that specialty be that they are a great close quarter gun, but a horrible distance/mountain/plains gun?



I always thought it was hilarious when people talk about weapons for shooting great distances. Life ain't a KD course, your ability to hit targets at more than 100-200 m's is pretty low in the real world, because the targets attempt not to silhouette themselves, actually move, don't allow you to adjust your sights and often try to suppress your fire also.
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 3:19:17 PM EDT
DMR = Dispicable Misuse of Resources.

$10-13K for AN/PV10s

$400-$1000 for tuned surplus M14s

Of course a AR10T or other weapon at $2500 or a Barrett .338L autoloader at $5000 is WAY TOO EXPENSIVE.

I love M1As, but don't mount a 12 thousand dollar sight on an old battle rifle.

-just a rant.
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 5:09:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 10:25:18 PM EDT
The DMR was a not a waste. The only thing probably left from the old M-14 is the receiver and maybe the op rod. It was more cheaper to use M-14s, plus less red tape then going out and buying a SR-25. Also, the M-14 is already in the system as a standard weapon. I have played with the AN/PVS-10 on some Army SR-25s and M-24s, and it is a great sight.
Link Posted: 9/1/2002 11:13:16 PM EDT
Sorry to jump in late but I must correct some errors in the various posts. Here's what I understand from quite a bit of reading lately. The DMR is a reworked original m14, and is used almost exclusively by Marine EOD for detonating smaller ordnance from a good distance. The guns are accurate but require too much maintanence for regular field use. Also most of them us a standard scope, not the night vision stuff. Secondly, The M-25 is quite different from the DMR. The main difference is in the reciever, which uses an extra lug to mount it more rigidly to the metal pillars in the stock. Some recievers have integral scope mounts some uses standard mounts. The m-25s are built from the ground up and most sources say no two are exactly alike. Its used exclusively by the SEALS. I'd go into more detail but I'm tired and dont have the articles at hand right now. Hope this clarifies a few things.
Link Posted: 9/2/2002 12:39:13 AM EDT
My understanding is that the M-25 is used only by the Army. Rumor has it that the "M-14" carried by Randy Shugart in Somalia was actually an M-25.

SEALs use the M14-S which is hand built for them in the Match shop at NSWC Crane, IN.

It is double lugged, with a heavy Match barrel and NM iron sights.

It has a McMillian stock and is bedded with Marine-tex.

The weapon is topped with a 10X fixed power scope (usually a Bausch & Lomb tactical model or maybe a Mk 4 or even an older M1 Ultra Leupold) on a Brookfield mount.

JAW
Link Posted: 9/4/2002 12:27:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By Balzac72:
Would that specialty be that they are a great close quarter gun, but a horrible distance/mountain/plains gun?



Bingo.

The M4 is probably the best CQB/MOUT gun around, but it is NOT the best option for the largely open ranges of Afghanistan, where even in the mountain areas, you can often see for miles. Use of the 77gr SMK Black Hills load is a BIG improvement over M855, of course, but I'd still recommend the M16 for MOST of the troops there. The difference is weight is a single pound.

Plenty of CQB has been done over the years with M16s. Heck, they used to do it with M1 Garands! But there isn't much of that actually going on. Most of the fighting is "outdoors".

-Troy



Actualy the M16 is not a good choice for anyone except those in the rifle squads. Thats 21 men (the 7 men in each squad not carrying a SAW) x 81 platoons (9 battalion light division)= 1701.

Thats 1701 men in a 10,000 man division who might be better off with a M16 than a M4. And this is only in Afganistan. Everybody else is operating some kind of equipment or crew served weapon that requires the use of their hands at least part of the time. Which favors the M4.

Since the end of Anaconda most of what has been going on has been searching cave and tunnel complexes and villages and a whole lot of rock climbing. The short carbine is easier to climb with, its also easier to jump in and out of vheicles with. The only open field combat was during the first few days of Anaconda back in March. The few encounters since then have been at fairly close range. They have taken place either in villages, while stopping people on roads, and the odd attempted ambush.

And to top it off-the enemy almost universally carries Kalashnikov rifles. Which have a even shorter effective range than our M4's

Its obvious that the 20" barrel rifles have better ballistic performance. But there are a lot of other things a service rifle has to do besides deliver good balistic performance. The M4's ability to be carried slung in such a convinent manner, all day, every day, regardless of what you have do do with your hands and yet be quickly into action when the need arises is a big, big, positive.
Link Posted: 9/4/2002 1:31:16 AM EDT
Has anyone heard that the DOD is going to issue a 72grain 5.56 round for use in Afghanistan? Will issuing the heavier bullet help?
Link Posted: 9/4/2002 4:15:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2002 4:26:59 AM EDT by DavidCrane]
Well, wombraider, if you stopped by my site from time to time, you might have read this article, which, as it happens, I wrote:

www.defensereview.com/article.php?sid=216&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

I'd be interested in everyone's opinions on it.

I haven't heard anything from my contacts about a 72gr round, but I know they've been using a 77gr round in the SPR's. From what I've been told, it's still not doing the job they'd like. I think it may be time to equip everyone with M14's(preferably with pistol grips) again. FAL's(made by DSA) fitted with bolts featuring sand cuts(required in that environment) and Knight's Armament SR-25K's would also probably be worthwile additions to the inventory.

By the way, if you decide to visit my site, please don't be afraid to sign up if you like what you see over there. We're still growing it.

Link Posted: 9/4/2002 4:37:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garr:
Has anyone heard that the DOD is going to issue a 72grain 5.56 round for use in Afghanistan? Will issuing the heavier bullet help?



Not a 72gr but I do know there are 77gr, and 75gr used in the M4 and report good results but nothing about a 72gr.

Clinth
Link Posted: 9/4/2002 3:32:19 PM EDT
This from AK47.net thread on this topic:

Soldiers Report Gun Glitches
Defense Week | September 3, 2002 | By Nathan Hodge



Shortly after the close of Operation Anaconda in March, the Army's small-arms experts saw a surge in e-mail traffic from soldiers critiquing the performance of their weapons.

According to troops returning from combat, key weapons such as the M4 carbine, M9 pistol and M246 Squad Automatic Weapon did not always perform up to spec. Soldiers reported jams and misfires, and complained that, in high-altitude mountain warfare, they wanted weapons with larger rounds that could "drop a man with one shot."

The Army is now evaluating the lessons learned in Afghanistan. In mid-March, U.S. Central Command dispatched a team of experts to Afghanistan to survey soldiers about the quality of their weapons and gear.

The team, led by Lt. Col. Charlie Dean of the Natick Soldier Center in Massachusetts, the Army's main laboratory for developing soldiers' equipment, found that U.S. soldiers were generally satisfied with their gear. But the Natick team found problems with important items: body armor, boots and some of the rifles and pistols.

According to Lt. Col. Robert Carpenter, Army product manager for small arms, that survey prompted Army specialists to take a closer look and see if it they could identify the cause of those problems.

"We took that as an opportunity to go back and talk to those same soldiers," he said. "When we looked at [Dean's] report, we said, `Hey, this is great, this is an opportunity to go and see if there's truly some problems out there.' "

Carpenter's group interviewed soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division and 101st Airborne Division who took part in Operation Anaconda. While his group found that soldiers were generally confident in their weapons, it found that key weapons—such as the M4 Carbine—did indeed suffer from jams and "misfeeds" in combat. Soldiers also complained that standard ammunition, designed during the Cold War for use against Soviet troops wearing body armor, was not always suited for use against an unconventional enemy.

No silver bullet

Some of Carpenter's most interesting findings have to do with lethality of the ammunition issued to U.S. troops. According to some reports from the field, the M855 round—a 5.56 mm cartridge used interchangeably in the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), the M16 and the M4—had a tendency to "overpenetrate." In other words, it could pass right through a person without causing lethal damage.

Carpenter said there were cases where "where you shot right through the guy—and it wasn't stopping him, and they kept coming."

However, Carpenter said most of the evidence of "overpenetration" was anecdotal and unsubstantiated.

"The 855 round is a great all-around round," he said. "What we heard in e-mail traffic and some comments was—very few substantiated, I'll tell you—I shot right through the guy. With any type of round at high velocities and certain ranges, unless you hit something on that person's body that's going to cause that bullet to begin to yaw or deform, you may get overpenetration. Basically, you're going to punch a hole right through the guy."

However, the Army is doing a lethality study on the issue. The 5.56 mm cartridge has evolved since Vietnam to create a NATO-standard round that is compatible with the SAW; its higher-velocity bullet has a slightly faster rate of twist and a steel penetrator.

"That's a great round for punching through body armor, based on that [Soviet] threat that we were facing during the 1970s and 1980s," said Carpenter, who noted that few al Qaeda or Taliban soldiers had body armor.

Asked about the main lesson for the Army, Carpenter added: "Overall, our stuff works, and our soldiers do very well with it, and they adapt our weapons to every environment. And they learn rapidly on how to take care of the weapon in every unique environment."

Desert dust-ups

Part of the problem, Carpenter said, was that Afghanistan posed some "unique" environmental problems that made weapons maintenance a real headache. The country's fine dust, in particular, seems to seep into everything, he said.

"This is different sand than we saw during Desert Storm, and all those things have a unique effect on weapons," he said.

For instance, 54 percent of the soldiers polled by Natick on the performance of the SAW reported problems cleaning and maintaining the weapon. Roughly the same proportion of soldiers reported rust and corrosion problems in the M9 Pistol barrel.

The Army's typical solution: Apply a lot of elbow grease.

"We tell guys, `Clean your weapons,'" Carpenter said, adding: "But sometimes, you don't have all the time it takes to do that."

However, soldiers didn't always have everything in their kits to make the task of cleaning easier. As the Natick report noted, soldiers had to supplement their cleaning kits by paying out of pocket for extra items such as barber brushes and dental picks that can serve as weapons-cleaning tools.

Jammed up

Some of the problems could be traced to the equipment itself, not just to the environment.

The M4 Carbine—a shorter-barreled version of the Army's 5.56 mm M16 assault rifle series—was widely used in Afghanistan. It has a light, modular design that allows for interchangeable weapons sights and other additions.

The Natick survey said 20 percent of soldiers reported double feeding; 15 percent reported feeding jams. Carpenter said that this was a subject of concern.

"Overall, the M4 is a great weapon, but we heard we had some stoppages with it, so we've got to drill down and find out ... what's causing those stoppages," he said. "Is it the performance of the weapon itself? Or is it something else?"

According to Carpenter's survey, the majority of the stoppages were caused by aging magazines. Some magazines had worn lips and feeders; sand would seep in, and as rounds stacked in the magazine start to get flattened out, they would begin to bind up.

"That's where we find the majority of the problems," said Carpenter. "The problem wasn't the weapon, the performance of the weapon itself, it was the magazine. So we're right now looking at ways that we can get the word out to the field to inspect the magazines. Sometimes, we just don't throw things out, and perhaps we've kept some of the magazines around too long."

A similar problem affected the M9 pistol. The Natick report said: "Soldiers had problems with the magazine springs becoming too slack."

Carpenter said the Army would look into ways to inspect magazines to make sure soldiers are not issued old or worn ones. And he said he was working closely with Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois to come up with a document or slip of paper to send out to the field so platoon leaders can instruct troops on what to do to make sure their magazines work.



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

09-03-2002 09:13 AM



AvtomatKalashnikova
Top Member - I'm One of the Good Guys!

Online
Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Washington
Posts: 2773




Link Posted: 9/4/2002 4:32:49 PM EDT
Brooks: sense this came from Ak47-net if we were using AK's these problems would not accur! .
Link Posted: 9/5/2002 12:06:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brooks:
This from AK47.net thread on this topic:

Soldiers Report Gun Glitches
Defense Week | September 3, 2002 | By Nathan Hodge


According to Carpenter's survey, the majority of the stoppages were caused by aging magazines. Some magazines had worn lips and feeders; sand would seep in, and as rounds stacked in the magazine start to get flattened out, they would begin to bind up.

"That's where we find the majority of the problems," said Carpenter. "The problem wasn't the weapon, the performance of the weapon itself, it was the magazine. So we're right now looking at ways that we can get the word out to the field to inspect the magazines. Sometimes, we just don't throw things out, and perhaps we've kept some of the magazines around too long."

A similar problem affected the M9 pistol. The Natick report said: "Soldiers had problems with the magazine springs becoming too slack."

Carpenter said the Army would look into ways to inspect magazines to make sure soldiers are not issued old or worn ones. And he said he was working closely with Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois to come up with a document or slip of paper to send out to the field so platoon leaders can instruct troops on what to do to make sure their magazines work.



This matches with what I've seen in the units I've been assigned to, that magazines weren't maintained in the same meticulous manner as the weapons themselves, and were in fact really abused.

We just purchased 600 new magazines to replace 100+ old and unreliable 20 rounders which the armorer kept on taking out to our ranges.

He was instructed to trash the 20 rounders to ensure that they were not taken to the range again.


Chris
Link Posted: 9/5/2002 12:59:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2002 1:31:42 AM EDT by tatjana]

Originally Posted By DavidCrane:
Well, wombraider, if you stopped by my site from time to time, you might have read this article, which, as it happens, I wrote:

www.defensereview.com/article.php?sid=216&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

I'd be interested in everyone's opinions on it.

I haven't heard anything from my contacts about a 72gr round, but I know they've been using a 77gr round in the SPR's. From what I've been told, it's still not doing the job they'd like. I think it may be time to equip everyone with M14's(preferably with pistol grips) again. FAL's(made by DSA) fitted with bolts featuring sand cuts(required in that environment) and Knight's Armament SR-25K's would also probably be worthwile additions to the inventory.



Sorry, you lost me within two paragraphs with this:


Here's a question: What if we were to issue our Special Operations forces the latest Russian AKM's, at least on a temporary basis, since both the 5.45x39mm and 7.62x39mm rounds have better stopping power than our own 5.56x45mm? I mean, let’s face it—the Russian rounds certainly can’t do any worse.


Unfortunately, just not true.

Please peruse www.ammo-oracle.com. We do our best to base ammo discussion there on fact, ballistic research, (our own and those of researchers in the field) some of it cutting edge. We try to avoid rumor, urban legends about ammo and wives tales AND we include lots of cool pictures.

Take a gander.

You might be particularly interested in:

Q. I heard that M855 has had serious stopping problems in Afghanistan. Is this true?

Q. Why did the U.S. Military adopt M855 for the M16?

Q. Isn't 7.62 NATO much better for long range penetration than 5.56 anyhow? Why would I want to use 5.56 when I could send 7.62 downrange instead? (Note the sidebar discussing 7.62x39- which has absolutely ABYSMAL wounding properties.

STOCKTON -- THE FACTS by Martin L. Fackler, MD (More on the poor wounding of the 7.62x39 rounds).

Even the 5.45 rounds don't impress. Consider this report on Swiss testing of the round:


In the mid '60s, the Soviet Union began efforts to develop a small-bore assault rifle cartridge along the lines of the US 5.56x45mm. Starting with the .220 Russian target cartridge, the diameter of the case was reduced to nearly the same diameter as the 5.56x45mm. The projectile was designed with an air pocket between the front of the core and the nose of the jacket, creating a relatively long bullet for its weight. This design would have a high ballistic coefficient, giving a relatively flat trajectory, but it also meant that the bullet would destabilize quickly upon striking flesh, earlier than even the then US issue M193 projectile. However, the 5.45x39mm projectile typically remains intact in flesh, and thus does not exhibit the severe wounds caused by the fragmentation of 5.56x45mm projectiles.


This is borne out by Fackler's testing. Consider this wound profile of 5.45x39:



Not impressive. The wound profile of the 5.45 projectile is also flat, shaped like a keyhole profile of the bullet. No thanks.

Of course, then there is the common rumor about M855 that comes up every week in a discussion forum. "In Black Hawk Down they complained about the ammo over and over again." Uh, no. See: Black Hawk Down Weapon References

There is definately room for improvement on the M855. They are working on it and indeed 77 grain rounds are among the prospects. See: Q. So are heavier rounds dead for self-defense purposes?
Link Posted: 9/5/2002 8:38:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2002 8:49:54 AM EDT by AKADave]

Originally Posted By AJjer_Bullets:
I'm betting any problems with the M16/M4s in Afghanistan are related to the usual over-penatration associated with a lot of those military 5.56mm rounds. I believe from what I've heard the military tends to over-issue AP-type rounds which are notorious for making pin-holes in enemy soldiers that neither bring them down or even stun them much upon impact. I'm sure many of the troops over there wish they could use civilian SP and JHP rounds in their rifles.



The problem is not overpenetration, on the contrary, the 5.56 is not very good at penetrating cover so its a soft target only round. The 55gr. M193 (not used much now) does its work at +2700FPS where it creates the biggest wound channel and is basically frangible inside the body. I believe that NATO has gone to the 69 gr bullet or something like that I forget but it doesnt have the same wound cavity creating capability as the 55 gr FMJ. It just makes a nice .22 caliber hole in the ragheads which gives them time to finish a mag or toss a grenade or shit themselves...probably all of the above.
Link Posted: 9/5/2002 8:58:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2002 8:59:09 AM EDT by brouhaha]

Originally Posted By AKADave:
The problem is not overpenetration, on the contrary, the 5.56 is not very good at penetrating cover so its a soft target only round. The 55gr. M193 (not used much now) does its work at +2700FPS where it creates the biggest wound channel and is basically frangible inside the body. I believe that NATO has gone to the 69 gr bullet or something like that I forget but it doesnt have the same wound cavity creating capability as the 55 gr FMJ. It just makes a nice .22 caliber hole in the ragheads which gives them time to finish a mag or toss a grenade or shit themselves...probably all of the above.



Well, yes and no. First of all, it's a 62 gr (M855) round. Secondly, it still fragments quite nicely...as long as it's within the same fragmentation threshold (or thereabouts) of the M193. Any of the NATO 5.56 will effectively create a icepick effect if it doesn't have the velocity to fragment.

The M855 is no different...it's just heavier, and it's used with 14.5" barrels that don't give it a lot of velocity to begin with, meaning it's fragmentation range has been greatly decreased over the 55gr M193.

BTW, please watch the "raghead" comments.
Link Posted: 9/5/2002 9:09:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By brouhaha:

Originally Posted By AKADave:
The problem is not overpenetration, on the contrary, the 5.56 is not very good at penetrating cover so its a soft target only round. The 55gr. M193 (not used much now) does its work at +2700FPS where it creates the biggest wound channel and is basically frangible inside the body. I believe that NATO has gone to the 69 gr bullet or something like that I forget but it doesnt have the same wound cavity creating capability as the 55 gr FMJ. It just makes a nice .22 caliber hole in the ragheads which gives them time to finish a mag or toss a grenade or shit themselves...probably all of the above.



Well, yes and no. First of all, it's a 62 gr (M855) round. Secondly, it still fragments quite nicely...as long as it's within the same fragmentation threshold (or thereabouts) of the M193. Any of the NATO 5.56 will effectively create a icepick effect if it doesn't have the velocity to fragment.

The M855 is no different...it's just heavier, and it's used with 14.5" barrels that don't give it a lot of velocity to begin with, meaning it's fragmentation range has been greatly decreased over the 55gr M193.

BTW, please watch the "raghead" comments.



Hmmm how do you refer to them when you dont have anything nice to say....how about "Cloth Craniums"?
Link Posted: 9/5/2002 9:27:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AKADave:

Originally Posted By brouhaha:

Originally Posted By AKADave:
The problem is not overpenetration, on the contrary, the 5.56 is not very good at penetrating cover so its a soft target only round. The 55gr. M193 (not used much now) does its work at +2700FPS where it creates the biggest wound channel and is basically frangible inside the body. I believe that NATO has gone to the 69 gr bullet or something like that I forget but it doesnt have the same wound cavity creating capability as the 55 gr FMJ. It just makes a nice .22 caliber hole in the ragheads which gives them time to finish a mag or toss a grenade or shit themselves...probably all of the above.



Well, yes and no. First of all, it's a 62 gr (M855) round. Secondly, it still fragments quite nicely...as long as it's within the same fragmentation threshold (or thereabouts) of the M193. Any of the NATO 5.56 will effectively create a icepick effect if it doesn't have the velocity to fragment.

The M855 is no different...it's just heavier, and it's used with 14.5" barrels that don't give it a lot of velocity to begin with, meaning it's fragmentation range has been greatly decreased over the 55gr M193.

BTW, please watch the "raghead" comments.



Hmmm how do you refer to them when you dont have anything nice to say....how about "Cloth Craniums"?



Don't be silly. Just keep the blatently racist comments down. Lots of people wear turbins that don't dream all day about killing Americans.
Link Posted: 9/5/2002 9:28:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
Of course, if anyone were to ask me, I'd remind them that the M4 is a specialty weapon, and is wrongly being issued and used as a general purpose weapon. Most of the troops should be carrying M16A3s and not M4s.
-Troy



Gotta agree with you there, Troy. Although, on the one hand most combat shooting is what, <200 yards, on the other hand in the mountains I personally wouldn't want a short barrel.

The army made the same mistake in WWII. My father was in the 10th Mountain Division and fought all through the mountains of Italy. He was issued an M-1 Carbine (did I get the designation right? the .30 cal pistol ammo shooting one). He hated the thing; said you couldn't hit anything at any real distance...
Link Posted: 9/5/2002 6:42:28 PM EDT
You know there is something wrong with this nation, when although we are trying to kill them we cannot insult them. No wonder most in this nation are now gutless, we must never make anyone feel bad. I bet everyone who says is wrong to insult your enemy also complain about PC crap like gun control.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 1:15:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STLRN:
You know there is something wrong with this nation, when although we are trying to kill them we cannot insult them. No wonder most in this nation are now gutless, we must never make anyone feel bad. I bet everyone who says is wrong to insult your enemy also complain about PC crap like gun control.



Right on! We can kill them, But not insult them!
Most Americans do not want to belive that there are people out there that hate us so much that this very minute they are plotting our doom!
If they had the means we would all be dead already!
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 1:53:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STLRN:
You know there is something wrong with this nation, when although we are trying to kill them we cannot insult them. No wonder most in this nation are now gutless, we must never make anyone feel bad. I bet everyone who says is wrong to insult your enemy also complain about PC crap like gun control.



I truly hope that you are not calling me gutless.

There is a BIG difference between hurling insults at our enemies and making blanket racist remarks like the one above. If you want to make fun of Al Queada and the Taliban, that's fine with me. The slur above may have been directed at our enemies, but it also includes MANY others, including friends of mine who are NOT muslim and live in the US.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 2:26:20 PM EDT
Those that attacked us are not the type that wear turbans, but a form of rag, the Shemagh. What would you have us call them? Shemagh heads? Or we can refer to them as Arabs, but no we cannot do that because that is stereo typing. Kind of like why Arab men in the age group that committed the attacks are less likely to get searched at airports than 90 year old medal of honor recipients. Because to search them would be stereotyping and raciest. Sorry but the attitude you show is the same feckless PC attitude that is dragging the nation down.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 3:46:42 PM EDT
How about Swarthy little Camel Jockys? OR maybe Allah's little boogers...or........
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 3:50:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STLRN:
Those that attacked us are not the type that wear turbans, but a form of rag, the Shemagh. What would you have us call them? Shemagh heads? Or we can refer to them as Arabs, but no we cannot do that because that is stereo typing. Kind of like why Arab men in the age group that committed the attacks are less likely to get searched at airports than 90 year old medal of honor recipients. Because to search them would be stereotyping and raciest. Sorry but the attitude you show is the same feckless PC attitude that is dragging the nation down.



I agree 100%. This PC thing is going to be our undoing. Profiling is a highly useful techniiqe that has worked very well in the past. I have spoken to law officials and they still do it but they dont call it that. I hear all this crap that this percentage of a blacks are in jail becuase of profiling or that percentage of latinos etc. The fact remains that 99.9% are in jail because....THEY DID IT!
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 9:12:40 PM EDT
From what I understand in the ammoFAQ, real military .223 is going to become scarce. If IMI is not allowed to sell their .223 here in the US (import ban), then we're screwed.

I suppose Winchester would step up their .223 ammo production for us subjects citizens?
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 10:11:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2002 10:20:01 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
The last act of a frustrated person is either to "let it go"(for their own sake), or get violent.
My AR is for those who get violent.

PC is not about politically correct but about mind control by subtle "peer/social pressure"; which includes but goes beyond chiding for saying "towel head". It is communal tyranny and I wont succumb to it.
Usually my convictions on matters of PC frustrate people. Of course, they should "let it go."


Link Posted: 9/6/2002 11:49:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DavidCrane:
Well, wombraider, if you stopped by my site from time to time, you might have read this article, which, as it happens, I wrote:

www.defensereview.com/article.php?sid=216&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

I'd be interested in everyone's opinions on it.

I haven't heard anything from my contacts about a 72gr round, but I know they've been using a 77gr round in the SPR's. From what I've been told, it's still not doing the job they'd like. I think it may be time to equip everyone with M14's(preferably with pistol grips) again. FAL's(made by DSA) fitted with bolts featuring sand cuts(required in that environment) and Knight's Armament SR-25K's would also probably be worthwile additions to the inventory.

By the way, if you decide to visit my site, please don't be afraid to sign up if you like what you see over there. We're still growing it.




My opinion, WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP!!

Why is it that everytime one negative comment is made on the M16/M4, someone comes up with the "get an AK, they are the best" story.

Being an educated man, I'd like to see some references on the information on the barrel heating up so much under full auto that it blows rounds out the side of the barrel.

Give me a brake!!

1) Can anyone really change magazines that fast as to cause such intense heat that the barrel blows up. If you can I bet you are out of magazines before the barrel blows!!

2) Do the troops carry 50 full clips so that they can cause this sort of failure.

3) What the hell are they guys with the SARs doing that the other troops need to have their weapons on full auto any how.

Please go and read an opinion that in my opinion counts!!

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m16vsak47.htm

Please read the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragarph.

YEAH RIGHT GET AN AK74 OR AN AK101 THAT WILL HELP IMPROVE THE LONG RANGE ACCURACY PROBLEMS THE M4 SUFFERS FROM!!

Do you really think that if the AK is functions better, you would want to shoot at 300 yd. targets with it.

From my personal experience in the USMC the M16 is as reliable as any AK, especially with the Bulgarian mags (Crap mags jam my AK constantly). Plus you can hit a 500 yard target with an M16, somthing an AK couldn't do on it's best day!!!

Come on the Vietnam War, and the first problem with the M16 was over 30 years ago. If the weapon was such a piece of crap don't you think that the United States Military would have scrapped it by now.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most are full of shit!!!


Top Top