Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/14/2003 6:45:14 PM EDT
Hello all I am a new AR user and was wondering how the AR platform is performing over in afghanastan? Are the troops having any problems with them etc? And are they providing sufficient killing power? (Heard people that get shot run for a bit before hitting the floor and dying?)

Any imput or opinions welcomed?

josh
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 7:26:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 7:30:55 PM EDT
This has been a touchy subject. There were many posts about rifles under 20" having knockdown problems, which escallated into a large debate. Rather than rehash all that junk I would state that the optimal potency range of ANY AR is within 150 meters. once you go past that you will have not have proper fragmentation, which is what gives the 5.56 round its potency.
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 5:31:42 AM EDT
I've knocked deer on there ass with a 12 ga. slug, blown there heart and lungs to hell and gone, and seen them get back up and run 100 yards. Adrenaline is amazing stuff.
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 1:31:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1950styleline: Hello all I am a new AR user and was wondering how the AR platform is performing over in afghanastan? Are the troops having any problems with them etc? And are they providing sufficient killing power? (Heard people that get shot run for a bit before hitting the floor and dying?) Any imput or opinions welcomed? josh
View Quote
The M-4's did not deliver adequate knock-down or penetration. That problem has been (mostly) solved by going to a heavier bullet. Thankfully the military was already using 1:7 twist barrels.
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 2:13:31 PM EDT
I would be dubious of many of the "lack knock down" claims. The hits were often described were COM hits and often quite fatal. But the issue was that it took a few seconds for the target to secumb to their wounds. But those same things happened when people were shot by other weapons types also, so it may be a problem of a not having a frame of referance of how long it actually takes for a human to succumb to his wound, if the CNS is not destroyed.
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 2:20:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN: I would be dubious of many of the "lack knock down" claims.
View Quote
I don't want to get into a pissing contest re this subject but the information - lack of knock-down power and inadequate penetration - came from reading a couple of after-action reports generated at the E-6/E-7 level. Reports by individual enlisted soldiers before Generals get their hands on them I tend to believe. (I also believe reports from officers through the Army rank of Captain.)
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 2:26:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/15/2003 2:29:50 PM EDT by STLRN]
If a heart is equally destroyed be it from a 5.56 or another round, and it still takes X number of seconds of a person to stop functioning after that. What difference does it make if heart is destroyed with a 5.56 or anyother caliber? Until they stop shooting center mass and attacking the CNS, how is any round going to be any more effective? Two perfect cases, one I witnessed and one I was told about. The first being outside of Ad Dywania, an Iraqi Fedayeen had his leg removed with a 50 cal, he still crawled on a berm to shoot a RPG off at us, he was a able to get off the round after which he was chewed up with small arms and automatic cannon fire. The second was when 5th Marines took one of Saddam's Palaces in Baghdad one of the SSO guarding it was shot with a M203, that guy had the bottom of his torso blown off, yet he was still crawling away, as it was described almost movie style without a pelvis or legs. You shoot either of those two people with a 5.56 (heavy or light) 6.8, 7.62 or even a 50 cal your going have the same effect, he will probably have enough life in him to attempt to kill you. So yes I have personally witness men hit by many of the ordnance used by the US and it really didn't seem the 5.56 was any worse than the 7.62 or for that matter sometimes HE or 50 cals require several applications also.
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 2:36:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN: If a heart is equally destroyed be it from a 5.56 or another round, and it still takes X number of seconds of a person to stop functioning after that. What difference does it make if heart is destroyed with a 5.56 or anyother caliber? Until they stop shooting center mass and attacking the CNS, how is any round going to be any more effective? Two perfect cases, one I witnessed and one I was told about. The first being outside of Ad Dywania, an Iraqi Fedayeen had his leg removed with a 50 cal, he still crawled on a berm to shoot a RPG off at us, he was a able to get off the round after which he was chewed up with small arms and automatic cannon fire. The second was when 5th Marines took one of Saddam's Palaces in Baghdad one of the SSO guarding it was shot with a M203, that guy had the bottom of his torso blown off, yet he was still crawling away, as it was described almost movie style without a pelvis or legs. You shoot either of those two people with a 5.56 (heavy or light) 6.8, 7.62 or even a 50 cal your going have the same effect, he will probably have enough life in him to attempt to kill you. So yes I have personally witness men hit by many of the ordnance used by the US and it really didn't seem the 5.56 was any worse than the 7.62 or for that matter sometimes HE or 50 cals require several applications also.
View Quote
STLRN, a retired Army Special Forces E-9 owns a pawn shop in a large southern city. Bad guy came in, distracted the owner and hit him in the head with a piece of iron pipe, headed behind the counter to get the cash and then the owner managed to drag out his carry gun - a .25 Beretta. Shot the bad guy through the left eye. Probably dead before he hit the floor. Now I'm not that tough nor that good. I don't believe the average trooper is either.
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 2:40:43 PM EDT
Unfortunately, many in or military to include the Special Ops types have neither shot allot of people nor have are they from the back ground were they saw allot of human sized targets hit (hunting). So the only back ground they have is what they see in the movies and TV. Hence the cry for a round that stops them in their tracks, even some of the very large weapons out there will often kill an animal yet that animal will have the will and ability to run for quite the distance. If you translate to a man inside a building who has just been shot, of course even if is in effect dead he may be able to strike back at you.
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 6:06:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 6:27:52 PM EDT
Troy I honestly think allot of the complaint about long range effects come down to plan misses that are easier to explain as the round didn't stop them. Beyond a hundred or so meters it become pretty hard to hit a moving target and without optics your not going to be able to tell you hit someone in most cases. One of the article about Op Anaconda where two soldiers discuss where one of them spotted while the other shot about 10-15 rounds with his M4 to hit an Al Quada gunman at around 400-500 meters. Once he actual hit the guy, the guy was out of the fight and no longer shooting at them. Unless you are on drugs a 22 cal hole in your chest or guts will take most people out of the fight. There are always those few that can ignore the pain, but those few will be able to shrug off most pain.
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 11:53:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 3:30:15 AM EDT
The AARs are an interesting thing, in every one from the non-SOF community, the say the same things. Troops heard that the 5.56 had stopping problems. However the troops also said that in about ever case hits to the torso or head took the enemy out of the fight, but those same troops wanted the "heavier round." It is almost contridictory and in a way a cicular process, they heard it wouldn't do well, they saw it did do well despite this they wanted a another round because they heard that it would not work well. The AARs that talk about not being effective all are comming out of the SOF community who state at CQB ranges targets that have been shot (and in effect killed) still we able to cross room sized areas and fight back before succumbing to their wounds. So with SOCOM money they are trying to create a solution to an unsolvable problem, a small caliber projectile weapon that is capable to stopping a fight with something other than a CNS hit. My money is on if fighting the War on Terror continues for the next 10-20 years we will hear that another super round is required because in a few CQB gun fights guys who were shot with the new 6.8 were still able to resist for a while after getting shot.
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 6:52:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN: Unfortunately, many in or military to include the Special Ops types have neither shot allot of people nor have are they from the back ground were they saw allot of human sized targets hit (hunting). So the only back ground they have is what they see in the movies and TV. Hence the cry for a round that stops them in their tracks, even some of the very large weapons out there will often kill an animal yet that animal will have the will and ability to run for quite the distance. If you translate to a man inside a building who has just been shot, of course even if is in effect dead he may be able to strike back at you.
View Quote
This now retired E-9 Special Forces guy spent three years in Vietnam.
Top Top