Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/19/2003 7:19:16 PM EDT
Just to stir things up a bit....

This was posted on the AK side, but it does appear to be from Dr. Fackler. I also read within the past year or two an article by Fackler arguing against the effectiveness of the current crop of PDW rounds like the FN 5.7mm and the HK 4.8mm. In it, he made a similar comment about how the 5.56mm won't even reliably take a deer sized animal (human) but that the 7.62x51mm will.

Anyway.......my NOMEX gear is fully on....

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=4&f=54&t=58596
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 7:38:46 PM EDT
No flames, you didn't write it! [beer] Someone might have some comments on Dr Fackler's heritage though! [heavy]
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 7:44:30 PM EDT
Here's the body of the original post... Peter, > > I delayed commenting on purported "Combat Failures of 5.56mm Ammunition" > because I wanted to show it to John Hall (recently retired FBI lawyer and > former head of the Firearms Training Unit at Quantico) with whom I was > sharing the stage at a Deadly Force Training Seminar at MacDill AFB last > week. I asked him to read the document and give me his evaluation as to its > value as evidence. His unhesitating answer agreed with mine: it is > essentially useless. Huge uncertainty and propensity for error plagues all > such reports by the persons involved. "Gunshot hits were THOUGHT to have > been scored on the enemy" Some evidence! We know that more often than not > what those involved in deadly force incidents "thought," was, in fact, in > error. > > Unfortunately, "close inspection of the enemy's corpse" by those untrained > in human anatomy and pathophysiology, is also problematic. A detailed > autopsy by an MD well versed in wound ballistics is needed before any > rational conclusions can be drawn. I had a case in LA recently in which a > person was struck by eleven police HP 40 S&W bullets and wasn't even slowed > down -- until a half-hour later when he was struck, almost simultaneously, > by one sniper's 5.56 SP in the head and one from another sniper in the > heart. > > The complaint that soldiers are being furnished equipment that "is not the > best equipment our country could give them with which which to defend > themselves." is literally true. But, unfortunately, our government follows > the rules set down in the Hague Convention of 1899 -- which prohibits > expanding bullets. We were smart enough not to sign that ridiculous > document -- but still abide by it (for political reasons I suppose). > > I also, am no fan of the 5.56: but must admit it has some advantages -- > soldiers can carry more ammo, and the light recoil makes it easier to train > soldiers to shoot it accurately. > > But we must not forget, the 5.56 is essentially a groundhog cartridge -- > never meant for shooting deer sized animals (e.g., homo sapiens). With the > 5.56, there is no margin for error. With the the .308 you can knock off 800 > ft/sec and still have a man killer -- but with the 5.56, such a velocity > loss will affect performance very adversely. > > Ordnance engineers missed a great chance to add some margin, and increase > the wounding capacity of the 5.56, when the A2 was introduced. They should > have changed the chamber to an .223 Ackley Improved. That would have: 1) > increased the muzzle velocity, 2) allowed the A1 bullets to be fired in the > new chamber (fire-forming them into new Ackley Improved cases), but have > prevented the larger A2 cartridge from entering the chamber of the old A1. > Many police groups use surplus A1s, with a 1 in 12" twist. One of these > days, the police are going to shoot somebody using an A2 or some other > too-long-bullet in the 1 in 12" twist barrel. This is likely to cause a very > large stellate entrance wound when it hits going sideways: and I cringe to > imagine what our firearm illiterate press will do with the "inhumane bullet" > accusations. > > Later, ordnance engineers chopped off 5 1/2 inches from the A2 barrel to > make the M4. The degree of wound ballistics illiteracy demonstrated by doing > this astounds me. But, based on my contact with our highly-trained special > military groups, I must opine that the blame is not entirely with the > engineers. Understandably, we tend to modify equipment based on the requests > from members of these highly dedicated and well trained special forces. > Also, understandably, they want the most compact rifle they can get. Our > system gave them what they wanted. Unfortunately, no matter how strong, > well-trained, brave, and "special" the members of these forces are -- they > are essentially wound ballistics illiterates. Allowed to choose what they > wanted, they chose barrels too short to provide the needed velocity -- and, > at that time, there was no safeguard built into our system to prevent such > idiocy. The wound ballistics lab at the Presidio closed in 1991 -- and has > not been replaced. > > Fortunately, about 18 months ago, a Tri-Service Wound Ballistics Team was > formed at Picatinny Arsenal. I am one of the core members, and was involved > with the formation of the team from the beginning. I was able to convince > the engineers to assign two additional highly firearm literate, combat > experienced MDs as core members (Dick Mason [Pathologist], and Paul > Dougherty [Orthopedic Surgeon]). > > Currently, it appears that we are stuck with the 5.56. In that caliber, > however, if we changed the chamber to an Ackley Improved, and put it in a 24 > inch barrel, we could get performance close to that of the 22-250. If such a > long barrel is too inconvenient in the M 16 configuration -- put it in a > bullpup. > > Marty The article that Fackler wrote about the current crop of PDW rounds was in Small Arms Review about a year or two ago, and was well written and well thought out.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 8:49:22 PM EDT
1) Is there any proof that this was written by Dr. Fackler ? 2) Quote: "They should have changed the chamber to an .223 Ackley Improved. That would have: 1) increased the muzzle velocity " I find this strange. He's never been a large advocate of increased muzzle velocity in any of his research. Why now ? 3) Quote: "With the 5.56, there is no margin for error. With the the .308 you can knock off 800ft/sec and still have a man killer -- but with the 5.56, such a velocity loss will affect performance very adversely." Again, this is contradictory to a lot of his research, especially the article which debunked the killing power of the 7.62x39 in assault weapon shootings. The 7.62x51 FMJ performs no better than the 7.62x39 (ballistically speaking), the same cartridge he derided. 4) Going back to the .223 Ackley improved - what exactly would make that a better round aside from the increased velocity ? It's still a .223, right? M193 and M855 already meet his criteria of 12" minimum penetration, with a large permanent wound channel. Weird. I'd like to see this more information about this article.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 4:05:24 AM EDT
[b]1) Is there any proof that this was written by Dr. Fackler ?[/b] The source is personally known to me and you can bet the deed to your house that it came from Fackler. It was not an article but, a personal e-mail; thus the incomplete referrences to certain calibers; an understanding already existing between the two parties. Luck, SD
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 4:20:30 AM EDT
The confusion about an "article" probably came from me. I mentioned that Fackler wrote a decent article blasting the new breed of PDW rounds in Small Arms Review "recently", and in it he also professed his misgivings with the 5.56mm cartridge, using the same "won't kill deer sized animals reliably" argument. That was what I based my belief in the reality of the email on.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:34:35 AM EDT
I dont agree, you can send a 30-06 through the stomach of a deer and it'll go and go and go. Especially if it was fmj. One time my cousin shot a deer with a 12 gauge in the guts and it took us two hours to get the thing. I still think shot placement is key even with bigger rounds. And try and shoot a .308 on auto in a rifle (not machine gun).
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 12:57:55 PM EDT
Shot placement is absolutely key. The letter wasn't really about deer hunting though....
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 2:25:30 PM EDT
OK, lets talk about the Ackley improved round. I know the difference, and I realize there is no reason or expectation to change to it, but is there any reason that this round would not be serviceable in a military gas rifle? Would preasure be a problem, case failures?
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 3:21:46 PM EDT
Shot placement is unattainable in combat. Sniping and hunting, fer sure, but no one is shooting back. A analysis of wound location from rifle caliber bullets done after WW2 shows the pattern to match what would be random. Unless we think the enemy forces weren't aiming, shot placement is merely an elusive goal. Shoot center of mass, the CNS is there. The letter reads like Fackler, judging from his previously published articles in the IBWA Journal. Remember 5.56mm was based on the flawed minimum kenetic energy needed in inflict a disabling wound criteria. The startling terminal ballistics effect of 5.56mm at normal combat ranges, into deep enough targets is pure accident, not design. I'm glad it works, though. -- Chuck
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 3:23:29 PM EDT
Wouldn't the ackley round possibly not feed as well? The angle's are alot more sharp and less steep if I'm not mistaken? Templar, I thought it specifically mentioned how the 5.56 wont take deer sized animals. "but we must not forget, the 5.56 is essentially a groundhog cartridge -- never meant for shooting deer sized animals (e.g. homo sapiens)" Also, concerning the killing power of the 5.56, I posted this in another thread. I read an article in SOF (soldier of fortune) about new spr rifles outfitted for sniping that I think the marines are using. They used the new 77 grain 5.56 cartridge, made for the military by black hills, Much like the one the guys have spec'd on this sight and are selling through Georgia Precision, and have confirmed kills out to 600 meters in afghanastan. The spr rifle had a 20" barrel. If you don't believe me go on their website and try and find the article. I will do the same. It was about 6 or 7 months ago. Maybe 8. But it's there. I urge anyone interested in this to read it. Maybe their full of crap but, some of these guys act like if you hit an enemy in the knee with the 7.62 they immediately fall down and die and I just don't see it. I do however agree that obviously the shorter barrel on the M4 may hinder the round, but I thought that gun was designed for cqb. It would be much better than a pistol in my opinion for that use. That's my opinion if anyone cares.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 4:05:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2003 4:24:53 PM EDT by dewatters]
Originally Posted By obershutze916: OK, lets talk about the Ackley improved round. I know the difference, and I realize there is no reason or expectation to change to it, but is there any reason that this round would not be serviceable in a military gas rifle? Would preasure be a problem, case failures?
View Quote
For what its worth, P.O. Ackley once stated that the improved versions of the .222 Remington, the .222 Remington Magnum, and the .233 Remington did not offer a worthwhile improvement over the base cartridges. In his opinion, the cases were already close to an "improved" configuration straight from the box. Changing the shoulder angle and removing the remaining body taper simply didn't offer a useful increase in case capacity. Folks who make claims of major velocity gains with "improved" variants of most modern cartridges are often guilty of exceeding the original cartridge's SAAMI maximums for loaded over-all length and/or chamber pressure. You may get away with this in a single-shot or a bolt action, but you're likely to play havoc with a gas-operated autoloader. Since the AR15/M16 magazine limits your cartridge OAL, the only other alternative is to infringe upon the pressure specs. The early history of the AR15/M16 gives us plenty of examples of what happens when one attempts to blithely ignore the effects of changing the pressure levels at either the chamber and the gas port. Ironically, the new 6.8x43mm SPC case is pretty close to the same dimensions as Winchester's experimental .224E4 and .224E5 cartridges. (Based upon modified .25 Remington cases shortened to the same length as the .223 Remington, the .224E5 Win case possessed a rebated rim, while the .224E4 Win case did not.) These cartridges were reportedly created around the same time that folks discovered that the XM193's velocity specs couldn't be met with IMR 4475 while reliably maintaining the maximum pressure specs. The larger cases of the .224E4 and .224E5 Winchester allowed for the use of more powder to meet the desired velocity and pressure specs (at the chamber). One wonders what pressure levels were recorded at the gas port with these experimental cartridges. After all, this was one of the major problems encountered when WC846 was approved for use in loading M193 Ball.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 4:38:09 PM EDT
"Letter from Fackler....NOT a fan of the 5.56mm and NOT a fan of the M4" Were it not for Dr Fackler, I would still only have 7.62mm battlerifles for my SHTF rifles. Maybe he is not a fan, but he was the first one to prove to me that a 5.56mm round was effective against enemy soldiers. It was a comfort when I was in the Army to know that my M16 was effective and why it was effective, dispite all the negative things I had read about it. Dr Fackler restored confidence in the M16 at a time when almost everyone loathed them. Robert
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 6:24:09 PM EDT
What does being a "fan" have to do with science? The 5.56 has limitiations, I don't think anyone would dispute that. It won't matter what cartridge, or platform, gets selected you will find someone, someplace, with a well founded dislike for them.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 10:31:02 PM EDT
Is it just me or has Dr. Fackler's tone regarding the 5.56mm changed over the years? I don't know how much creedence I'd put into an old article. Dr. Fackler has much more information to base his opinions on than he did years ago. Today, I believe atleast, that he very much likes the 5.56mm cartrige. He doesn't think it's the end-all-be-all of cartriges obviously, but I wouldn't be suprised if it was his first selection for a 0-300m battle rifle (not counting the elusive 6.8mm round). Regardless of what anyone thinks, I have the data in my own hands and can draw my own conclusions.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 11:52:24 AM EDT
I did a little research and I am sure this will get beaten up on, but from snipercentral.com I got this: "The best estimate as to the average amount of rounds expended per kill in the Vietnam Conflict (For U.S. Army Soldiers) is 200,000. The average rounds expended per kill by U.S. Army snipers in Vietnam was 1.3" Other sources quote 50,000 rounds Damn... Some of the websources use the 50,000 round number for WW2, which seems a bit more feasible. Now consider that nearly all frontline soldiers had semi auto or even bolt guns in WW2 and in Vietnam that had changed to full auto or burst. Plus another factor being vegetation density. On a personal level, give me more rounds. 80% of engagements happen under 300m and in jungle terrain such as Vietnam, much much MUCH less. I want to end up being alive with 100 rounds left then dead with an empty gun. Nothing is a perfect all situation round. Nothing mechanical can do everything everyone wants. All-in-one electronics do everything mediocre. Notice that Nascar is not running Chevy Suburbans around the track, and your wife and kids are not driving the #8 car. My "all-in-one" remote? HA! From the numbers I found online it is obvious that a good percent of shooting done is spray and pray. Training helps, but when getting shot at...you never know. More ammo = more times the enemy stands to get hit.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 12:35:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By phatmax: I did a little research and I am sure this will get beaten up on, but from snipercentral.com I got this: "The best estimate as to the average amount of rounds expended per kill in the Vietnam Conflict (For U.S. Army Soldiers) is 200,000. The average rounds expended per kill by U.S. Army snipers in Vietnam was 1.3" Other sources quote 50,000 rounds Damn... Some of the websources use the 50,000 round number for WW2, which seems a bit more feasible. Now consider that nearly all frontline soldiers had semi auto or even bolt guns in WW2 and in Vietnam that had changed to full auto or burst. Plus another factor being vegetation density. On a personal level, give me more rounds. 80% of engagements happen under 300m and in jungle terrain such as Vietnam, much much MUCH less. I want to end up being alive with 100 rounds left then dead with an empty gun. Nothing is a perfect all situation round. Nothing mechanical can do everything everyone wants. All-in-one electronics do everything mediocre. Notice that Nascar is not running Chevy Suburbans around the track, and your wife and kids are not driving the #8 car. My "all-in-one" remote? HA! From the numbers I found online it is obvious that a good percent of shooting done is spray and pray. Training helps, but when getting shot at...you never know. More ammo = more times the enemy stands to get hit.
View Quote
Those numbers are estimates, totally made up at best. No one really knows how many people were actually hit, number rounds fired or the number of rounds required to hit.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 4:02:55 PM EDT
wyv3rn, Dr. Fackler's views have not changed; he has never thought highly of the .223 as a LE or CQB cartridge and has always felt it was a compromise. Please read two quotes by Dr. Fackler that I posted at: [url]http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000558.html[/url]
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 5:36:15 PM EDT
Excellent post Doc!
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 7:18:28 PM EDT
OKAY, after all that, those who'd rather have a m4 shooting 30 rounds of nato loaded 77 grainers as opposed to a kimber lapd .45 with 8 rounds of ranger or whatever super duper .45 ammo there is say "I". "I"
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:23:41 AM EDT
Why would Dr. Fackler refer the the M855 as the "A2" round and the M193 as the "A1" round? He knows damn well what the names of these two cartridges are. Letter smells fishy.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:52:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DocGKR: wyv3rn, Dr. Fackler's views have not changed; he has never thought highly of the .223 as a LE or CQB cartridge and has always felt it was a compromise. Please read two quotes by Dr. Fackler that I posted at: [url]http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000558.html[/url]
View Quote
Well thank you for clearing that up. I didn't follow the link but I'll take your word for it. Personally, I'm glad I have the data in my own hands and I don't have to rely on whatever his recommendation may be. I can't think of ANY round I'd rather have in CQB or any engagement out to atleast 300m for that matter.
Top Top