Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 3/14/2006 9:19:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/14/2006 9:19:57 AM EDT by ColSanders]
My understanding is that only ONE soldier has gone on the record against the 5.56 saying it was a poor manstaopper in the fighting. As I understand, this one guy was very vocal and tried very hard to get his point across.

Why do we always hear about it being such a poor manstopper in that fight? I think it's just some kind of wierd internet myth.

Other than that one guy, I haven't heard any other folks who fought there express their displeasure with the 5.56.

Keep in mind, many of the delta guys had like 10.5" barrels.

Am I wrong? Can someone prove or disprove my theory. I want to know the truth (I can't handle the truth, I know) and I would like some facts to back it up.

Anyone want to weigh in??
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 9:31:56 AM EDT
My personal experience:

I have put down 15 targets in Iraq, eight of them with M855 and seven with 77gr SMKs. The M855s were fired out of a 14.7" M4 carbine and the SMKs were fired out of my 20" M16A4 Squad Designated Marksman Rifle. In all cases, I did not experience failures to stop. The SMK shots tended to be at ranges from 50-250m. Most close range shots with the M855 were approximately center-of-mass controlled pairs, except for one case where I hit the left arm as I was treversing, and then put the second center-of-mass, and a second case that was a reactive head shot. Longer range M855 shots were body hits. All M855 shots occurred within 150m.

I too believe that the ineffectiveness of M855 has been overhyped, and this problem is further exacerbated by people wearing the knowledge that "M855 is an inferior round" like a badge of honor.

And yes, for the love of God, I've read the ammo oracle, so pleeeease don't slap me with a link to it
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 9:44:23 AM EDT
The prob wasn't with 5.56, but rather the M855. Which is understandable because of the thin build of the somalian enemy.

M193 would probably have been more effective in my humble opinion.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 9:49:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/14/2006 10:14:21 AM EDT by ColSanders]

Originally Posted By Phoebus:
My personal experience:

I have put down 15 targets in Iraq, eight of them with M855 and seven with 77gr SMKs. The M855s were fired out of a 14.7" M4 carbine and the SMKs were fired out of my 20" M16A4 Squad Designated Marksman Rifle. In all cases, I did not experience failures to stop. The SMK shots tended to be at ranges from 50-250m. Most close range shots with the M855 were approximately center-of-mass controlled pairs, except for one case where I hit the left arm as I was treversing, and then put the second center-of-mass, and a second case that was a reactive head shot. Longer range M855 shots were body hits. All M855 shots occurred within 150m.

I too believe that the ineffectiveness of M855 has been overhyped, and this problem is further exacerbated by people wearing the knowledge that "M855 is an inferior round" like a badge of honor.

And yes, for the love of God, I've read the ammo oracle, so pleeeease don't slap me with a link to it



Thank you for your service for our country!

I just wanted to clear something up real quick though. Are you saying these were mostly all one shot drops (with a couple exceptions)?

OK, I just re-read your post and see that with the M855 they were in controlled pairs.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 10:20:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markm:
The prob wasn't with 5.56, but rather the M855. Which is understandable because of the thin build of the somalian enemy.

M193 would probably have been more effective in my humble opinion.



also somalian were in most of the cases under the effects of the drug
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 1:36:24 PM EDT
Hmm seems like we had the same arguement in the Korean war about the M1 Carbine. Sound familiar with the 45acp also.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 1:51:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JRandyH:
Hmm seems like we had the same arguement in the Korean war about the M1 Carbine. Sound familiar with the 45acp also.



and in the phillipines.....1890's that is.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 2:04:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/14/2006 2:04:42 PM EDT by ops144]

Originally Posted By ker2222:

Originally Posted By JRandyH:
Hmm seems like we had the same argument in the Korean war about the M1 Carbine. Sound familiar with the 45acp also.



and in the phillipines.....1890's that is.



the problem with the m1carbine in Korea wasnt the round but
the amount of clothing the Chinese where wearing that
the round had to pass through..

i dont worry about round type as long as they work in my ar reliably

if it takes more than one round thats why i have a 30 round mag......"well many"
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 2:09:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phoebus:
My personal experience:

I have put down 15 targets in Iraq, eight of them with M855 and seven with 77gr SMKs. The M855s were fired out of a 14.7" M4 carbine and the SMKs were fired out of my 20" M16A4 Squad Designated Marksman Rifle. In all cases, I did not experience failures to stop. The SMK shots tended to be at ranges from 50-250m. Most close range shots with the M855 were approximately center-of-mass controlled pairs, except for one case where I hit the left arm as I was treversing, and then put the second center-of-mass, and a second case that was a reactive head shot. Longer range M855 shots were body hits. All M855 shots occurred within 150m.

I too believe that the ineffectiveness of M855 has been overhyped, and this problem is further exacerbated by people wearing the knowledge that "M855 is an inferior round" like a badge of honor.

And yes, for the love of God, I've read the ammo oracle, so pleeeease don't slap me with a link to it



Nice shootin...and thanks for your service.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 2:20:27 PM EDT
Wasnt this disproved by the Box o' Truth?





the problem with the m1carbine in Korea wasnt the round but
the amount of clothing the Chinese where wearing that
the round had to pass through..

i dont worry about round type as long as they work in my ar reliably

if it takes more than one round thats why i have a 30 round mag......"well many"

Link Posted: 3/14/2006 2:28:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By justice23:

Originally Posted By Phoebus:
My personal experience:

I have put down 15 targets in Iraq, eight of them with M855 and seven with 77gr SMKs. The M855s were fired out of a 14.7" M4 carbine and the SMKs were fired out of my 20" M16A4 Squad Designated Marksman Rifle. In all cases, I did not experience failures to stop. The SMK shots tended to be at ranges from 50-250m. Most close range shots with the M855 were approximately center-of-mass controlled pairs, except for one case where I hit the left arm as I was treversing, and then put the second center-of-mass, and a second case that was a reactive head shot. Longer range M855 shots were body hits. All M855 shots occurred within 150m.

I too believe that the ineffectiveness of M855 has been overhyped, and this problem is further exacerbated by people wearing the knowledge that "M855 is an inferior round" like a badge of honor.

And yes, for the love of God, I've read the ammo oracle, so pleeeease don't slap me with a link to it



Nice shootin...and thanks for your service.



+1

15 bad guys - you have seen some stuff!
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 2:40:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phoebus:
My personal experience:

I have put down 15 targets in Iraq, eight of them with M855 and seven with 77gr SMKs. The M855s were fired out of a 14.7" M4 carbine and the SMKs were fired out of my 20" M16A4 Squad Designated Marksman Rifle. In all cases, I did not experience failures to stop. The SMK shots tended to be at ranges from 50-250m. Most close range shots with the M855 were approximately center-of-mass controlled pairs, except for one case where I hit the left arm as I was treversing, and then put the second center-of-mass, and a second case that was a reactive head shot. Longer range M855 shots were body hits. All M855 shots occurred within 150m.

I too believe that the ineffectiveness of M855 has been overhyped, and this problem is further exacerbated by people wearing the knowledge that "M855 is an inferior round" like a badge of honor.

And yes, for the love of God, I've read the ammo oracle, so pleeeease don't slap me with a link to it



Thanks for your service. Please continue on!
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 2:42:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phoebus:
My personal experience:

I have put down 15 targets in Iraq, eight of them with M855 and seven with 77gr SMKs. The M855s were fired out of a 14.7" M4 carbine and the SMKs were fired out of my 20" M16A4 Squad Designated Marksman Rifle. In all cases, I did not experience failures to stop. The SMK shots tended to be at ranges from 50-250m. Most close range shots with the M855 were approximately center-of-mass controlled pairs, except for one case where I hit the left arm as I was treversing, and then put the second center-of-mass, and a second case that was a reactive head shot. Longer range M855 shots were body hits. All M855 shots occurred within 150m.

I too believe that the ineffectiveness of M855 has been overhyped, and this problem is further exacerbated by people wearing the knowledge that "M855 is an inferior round" like a badge of honor.

And yes, for the love of God, I've read the ammo oracle, so pleeeease don't slap me with a link to it



Thank you and well done.


Link Posted: 3/14/2006 2:43:52 PM EDT
Phoebus,

First off, Thanks for your service.

Second off, I am glad you made it through your tour and are able to tell about it.

I would like to ask you a question based on your personal experiences, both of your engagements, and those you witnessed by yoru team mates.

If you were in a SHTF situation such as NOLA, ect (insert your favorite SHTF here), would you feel confortable armed with an AR if the ammunition was M855?

Yes I have also read the Ammo Orcacle, I am NOT trying to start a debate between the M855 vs. the M193 round.

Once again, From an old Beat Cop and Former Marine,

Thanks for your time in Iraq.

Link Posted: 3/14/2006 3:27:17 PM EDT
Technically, M855 should have superior fragmentation ability compared to M193. Concern was raised about the wounding ability against mal-nurished Somalian soldiers as the rounds would have exited the torso intact before having a chance to fragment. The M855 round was designed to penetrate chest rig/body armor of a well equipped/armed Warsaw military, not a "skinny". In its optimum environment, being fired out of a 20 inch weapon at soldiers wearing body armor, I think it would be revered and its performance celebrated. When fired out of a 14.5 inch carbine against skinny insurgents wearing t-shirts, its performance has been questioned. M855 is an effective

round, though it was designed for a Cold War type enemy, not for the War on Terror and this is the fundamental problem. Against China. Iran or DPRK*all eventualities IMO* M855 will be necessary to defeat the well equipped soliders of said countries. M193 would not offer much of a solution in this situation, IMO...though using M193 and 16 inch barrels would be a horrible idea.
I believe we need a second, standardized 5.56 round similar to the Mk262. The round could follow the concept of Wolf's 75grn Tactical .223 round in that it could offer the lethality of Mk262, but not the sub MOA accuracy capability which is wasted upon standard infantry weapons. A 70 something grain OTM/HP round which is less expensive than Mk262 could be an effective solution. Keep in mind, for every report I hear panning M855, I hear another praising it....DoD research shows 80% confidence in existing weapons/ammo*M4/M16A2 and M855* The biggest "problem weapon" of the war, isnt M855 but the M249. M855, like all 5.56 rounds are sufficiently lethal when used within thier respective envelopes. M855 was never intended to be fired out of a 10.5 inch weapon at an unarmored target with a torso less than 6 inches deep. Its not fair to "scapegoat" M855 as its an effective cartridge. Just like anything, when used improperly or outside of its intended use, results can be mixed.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 3:32:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 3:40:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stryfe:
Q. I heard that M855 has had serious stopping problems in Afghanistan, and earlier in Somalia. Is this true?




Originally Posted By Phoebus:

And yes, for the love of God, I've read the ammo oracle, so pleeeease don't slap me with a link to it




Link Posted: 3/14/2006 3:57:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/14/2006 3:58:52 PM EDT by Stryfe]

Originally Posted By anjan9:

Originally Posted By Stryfe:
Q. I heard that M855 has had serious stopping problems in Afghanistan, and earlier in Somalia. Is this true?



Originally Posted By Phoebus:
And yes, for the love of God, I've read the ammo oracle, so pleeeease don't slap me with a link to it





I was responding to the ColSanders, not slapping Phoebus with the link.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 3:58:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JRandyH:
Hmm seems like we had the same arguement in the Korean war about the M1 Carbine. Sound familiar with the 45acp also.



If people weren't dropping from .30 carbine it is because they werent being hit.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 4:52:40 PM EDT
People complain about the M-1 but from what I understand it was meant to be issued to some troops as a step up from a pistol. It was never meant to be a main battle rifle and should not be compared to one.

The guys in Somolia were on a drug high as already stated. In fact, that is how they were paid by their little gang leader (for lack of a better term) They chew this "khat" or "qat" all day and it gives them a pretty decent high which could give them the ability to keep moving when others would stop not to mention it made them even more fearless than they already were.

This could probably be compared to the stories we have all heard from cops about needing multiple people to take down one dude on PCP.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 5:01:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stryfe:
Q. I heard that M855 has had serious stopping problems in Afghanistan, and earlier in Somalia. Is this true?



Thank you.

I've read the oracle more times than I can count but I somehow missed that. It must be a somewhat new update...???
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 5:16:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ryno_the_wyno:
Technically, M855 should have superior fragmentation ability compared to M193. Concern was raised about the wounding ability against mal-nurished Somalian soldiers as the rounds would have exited the torso intact before having a chance to fragment. The M855 round was designed to penetrate chest rig/body armor of a well equipped/armed Warsaw military, not a "skinny". In its optimum environment, being fired out of a 20 inch weapon at soldiers wearing body armor, I think it would be revered and its performance celebrated. When fired out of a 14.5 inch carbine against skinny insurgents wearing t-shirts, its performance has been questioned. M855 is an effective

round, though it was designed for a Cold War type enemy, not for the War on Terror and this is the fundamental problem. Against China. Iran or DPRK*all eventualities IMO* M855 will be necessary to defeat the well equipped soliders of said countries. M193 would not offer much of a solution in this situation, IMO...though using M193 and 16 inch barrels would be a horrible idea.
I believe we need a second, standardized 5.56 round similar to the Mk262. The round could follow the concept of Wolf's 75grn Tactical .223 round in that it could offer the lethality of Mk262, but not the sub MOA accuracy capability which is wasted upon standard infantry weapons. A 70 something grain OTM/HP round which is less expensive than Mk262 could be an effective solution. Keep in mind, for every report I hear panning M855, I hear another praising it....DoD research shows 80% confidence in existing weapons/ammo*M4/M16A2 and M855* The biggest "problem weapon" of the war, isnt M855 but the M249. M855, like all 5.56 rounds are sufficiently lethal when used within thier respective envelopes. M855 was never intended to be fired out of a 10.5 inch weapon at an unarmored target with a torso less than 6 inches deep. Its not fair to "scapegoat" M855 as its an effective cartridge. Just like anything, when used improperly or outside of its intended use, results can be mixed.



Well put. I agree. I'm an M855 advocate. But I also like M193. I also like Mk262. I think MK262 is the best out of all of them for antipersonelle. I believe that this is a proven reality. Either way, there is no magic bullet. Even the bigger calibers in FMJ aren't necessarily more deadly. Especially if they just zoom right on through.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 12:24:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Phoebus:
My personal experience:

I have put down 15 targets in Iraq, eight of them with M855 and seven with 77gr SMKs. The M855s were fired out of a 14.7" M4 carbine and the SMKs were fired out of my 20" M16A4 Squad Designated Marksman Rifle.



You've got yourself fifteen free rounds of beer at any bar I ever step foot in .
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 12:53:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markm:
The prob wasn't with 5.56, but rather the M855. Which is understandable because of the thin build of the somalian enemy.

M193 would probably have been more effective in my humble opinion.


is that why they called them "skinnies"?
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 1:00:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By JRandyH:
Hmm seems like we had the same arguement in the Korean war about the M1 Carbine. Sound familiar with the 45acp also.



If people weren't dropping from .30 carbine it is because they werent being hit.



I had the opportunity to listen in on some Korean-Era infantrymen retell their war stories. They all were pretty much in agreement with their dislike of the M-1 Carbine. Enemy troops would wear make-shift body armor made out of bamboo & heavy clothing. The US vets said they would hit them, but it would only knock them down...then they'd get back up and continue. A couple mentioned that when they got back to base, they threw their carbines in a ditch, claimed to have lost them in battle...and requested to be re-issued M-1 Garands. They said the enemy did not get back up after being hit with the Garand.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 5:53:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ra2bach:

Originally Posted By markm:
The prob wasn't with 5.56, but rather the M855. Which is understandable because of the thin build of the somalian enemy.

M193 would probably have been more effective in my humble opinion.


is that why they called them "skinnies"?



Yep

Read - as well as watch, they're based on the same story but the movie is fictionalized at points - Black Hawk Down.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:00:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 8:06:46 AM EDT by Forest]

Originally Posted By GoVol98:
... Enemy troops would wear make-shift body armor made out of bamboo & heavy clothing. The US vets said they would hit them, but it would only knock them down...then they'd get back up and continue. ....



Ok when I read this kind of stuff I tend to call

.30 Carbine will penetrate modern body armor, are you going to tell me bamboo & heavy clothing is BETTER at stopping bullets than Kevlar?

Even if this miracle manchurian armor managed to stop the bullet, is a .30 carbine going to knock a soldier (who is comming at you) down? Physics says it won't. Countless shooting of people who were wearing body armor says it won't (even when hit with much more powerful rounds).

Between the bullet proof bamboo and "Knock them on their A$$" from suposedly 'underpowered ammo' I'm going to have to get my hip waders out.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:05:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By GoVol98:
... Enemy troops would wear make-shift body armor made out of bamboo & heavy clothing. The US vets said they would hit them, but it would only knock them down...then they'd get back up and continue. ....



Ok when I read this kind of stuff I tend to call

.30 Carbine will penetrate modern body armor, are you going to tell me bamboo & heavy clothing is BETTER at stopping bullets than Kevlar?

Even if this miracle manchurian armor managed to stop the bullet is a .30 carbine going to knock a soldier (who is comming at you) down? Phisics says it won't. Countless shooting of people who were wearing body armor says it won't (even when hit with much more powerful rounds).

Between the bullet proof bamboo and "Knock them on their A$$" from suposedly 'underpowered ammo' I'm going to have to get my hip waders out.



+1

I've watched a video of ballistic forensic expert Alexander Jason get shot at point blank range by a .308 from an FN FAL while wearing a rifle rated vest and he didn't fall down.
And he got shot twice. Once while balanced on one leg. It won't knock you down. Your reaction to the bullet might, but the impact of the bullet itself won't.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:06:02 AM EDT
Oh for those wanting to cite BHD, here are the references:
Black Hawk Down Weapon References
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 9:22:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 9:23:35 AM EDT by DoctorCheney223]

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

I've watched a video of ballistic forensic expert Alexander Jason get shot at point blank range by a .308 from an FN FAL while wearing a rifle rated vest and he didn't fall down.
And he got shot twice. Once while balanced on one leg. It won't knock you down. Your reaction to the bullet might, but the impact of the bullet itself won't.



WOW.... that's all I can say. I guess I am so conditioned from television and special effects that it seems hard to comprehend that. I know when I shoot my FAL it gives me a kick.. I couldn't imagine being on the receving end. The only thing I would have to say about this is the guy was expecting it, where as some soldier creeping around who got shot without a vest and not expecting it, would drop like a bag of beans.

thanks,
Ron
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 9:29:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 9:30:18 AM EDT by FALARAK]

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:
I've watched a video of ballistic forensic expert Alexander Jason get shot at point blank range by a .308 from an FN FAL while wearing a rifle rated vest and he didn't fall down.
And he got shot twice. Once while balanced on one leg. It won't knock you down. Your reaction to the bullet might, but the impact of the bullet itself won't.





I would LOVE to see that video. 150gr of lead moving 2600fps has to have a little "punch" one would think.

Wow.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 10:01:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By B-trash:
Phoebus,

First off, Thanks for your service.

Second off, I am glad you made it through your tour and are able to tell about it.

I would like to ask you a question based on your personal experiences, both of your engagements, and those you witnessed by yoru team mates.

If you were in a SHTF situation such as NOLA, ect (insert your favorite SHTF here), would you feel confortable armed with an AR if the ammunition was M855?

Yes I have also read the Ammo Orcacle, I am NOT trying to start a debate between the M855 vs. the M193 round.

Once again, From an old Beat Cop and Former Marine,

Thanks for your time in Iraq.




I would definitely feel comfortable with M855. It has saved my ass enough times that I would not hesitate to load up with those pretty green tips
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 10:08:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 10:09:21 AM EDT by gks452]
It seems to me that all the M855's problems could be solved in one of two ways.

A) Find out exactly what it is in the inconsistent batches that makes them less prone to yaw and fragment. Then tighten the specifications so all ammo will yaw and fragment like it should.

B) Make the jacket thinner. A big part of why the SMK is so good at fragmenting is the thin jacket. Just change the M855 to have a jacket of the same thickness. If the bullet is going to remain the same diameter something will have to take the place of the copper that was removed. So some other minor changes will be needed.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 10:10:20 AM EDT
If someone knows the acceleration of a M885 or any bullet for that matter we could figure out its force. Mr. Newton taught us that Mass * Acceleration equals Force.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 10:15:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 10:17:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ikor:

Originally Posted By FALARAK:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:
I've watched a video of ballistic forensic expert Alexander Jason get shot at point blank range by a .308 from an FN FAL while wearing a rifle rated vest and he didn't fall down.
And he got shot twice. Once while balanced on one leg. It won't knock you down. Your reaction to the bullet might, but the impact of the bullet itself won't.





I would LOVE to see that video. 150gr of lead moving 2600fps has to have a little "punch" one would think.

Wow.



I have seen it, too, many years ago. Also a photo series allegedly showing Chuck Taylor doing the same thing.

As I understand physics...and I am no expert...the physical push felt by the shooter is always a little more than that imparted to the target by the bullet or shot charge. The addition of stocks and other things allows the hand / arm / body to absorb that force but basically, if the gun will not "knock you down" when you shoot it, the bullet or charge will not knock down a similar sized target from physical force alone. Reaction via the nervous system or from fear, or from maybe being off balance when hit, are completely different things.



Was that also shown on one of the Modern Marvels (or similar) type shows on History Channel...? I seem to recall seeing a guy get shot in the abdomen with a rifle ... looked almost like he was on the deck of a ship during the demo...
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 10:18:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FALARAK:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:
I've watched a video of ballistic forensic expert Alexander Jason get shot at point blank range by a .308 from an FN FAL while wearing a rifle rated vest and he didn't fall down.
And he got shot twice. Once while balanced on one leg. It won't knock you down. Your reaction to the bullet might, but the impact of the bullet itself won't.





I would LOVE to see that video. 150gr of lead moving 2600fps has to have a little "punch" one would think.

Wow.



I believe I've seen it. He does move a little. It's the same force that goes into your shoulder as you fire more or less.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 10:21:40 AM EDT
Thanks, everyone, for your support. I can always count on the people here at arfcom to understand the mentality of what it is we're doing over here. I've only got about six weeks left!

I've run into a lot of engagements because we keep getting moved around to hot spots. I started running operations in and around Abu Ghraib (the suburb, not the prison, although the prison is right near there), and one we had that hot spot cooled off, they moved us to Al Muammadia (my approximation, I don't actually know how to spell it), and then after we had caches cleared up there we moved on out to run ops in Ramadi and Fallujah. Before anyone jumps in to tell me how much I'm violating OPSEC by writing those names, let me tell you that our commander has authorized us to post that information.

Anyway, back to the topic of M855 effectiveness. My M855 kills occured all in two actions, before I was assigned as SDM and changed to the 77gr SMKs (I'm not sure if they are Mk. 262 or not, my unit armorer hooked me up with them in a big baggie, about 250 rounds, clean, shiny, and new, and told me they were 77gr SMKs. I think maybe he couldn't get his hands on Mk. 262 and somehow managed to get his hands on the next best thing, the BH 77gr SMK .223). One of those actions was in a house, and the M855 performed very well at close range (but then, I expect most 5.56/.223 except complete non-fragmenting rounds would do pretty well at 5-10ft from the muzzle). The longest M855 was at 150m, and I believe the target was hit at least three times by various shooters, as he entered the engagement zone of several people at once. Again, no problems putting him down, altough three hits certainly isn't a "one-shot-stop" test.

Speaking of one-shot-stops, I just would like to point out a couple of things. One is that OSS don't matter that much militarily, because you have lots of ammo and are not worried about seeming overzealous in your actions. I know I never put less than two bullets downrange at an enemy, and usually at least three unless we're indoors. And second, while OSS does matter somewhat in a self-defense situation because you want to keep your attacker from continuing his actions, this is more a concern with pistols, as they are generally less effective and tend to be used at very close ranges, in a reactive capacity. For SHTF, I have the feeling that if you are toting around your AR-15, you are already pretty alert to the danger, and should have time to put several rounds into an attacker starting immediately when they enter the zone endangering you.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 10:26:05 AM EDT
Phoebus

Thanks for the info and for your service. Come home safe.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 10:31:17 AM EDT
One thing I forgot to mention:

As much of an M855 apologist as I obviously am, I do have to say that from informal examination of bodies (we have to put our downed targets into body bags, if you can believe that), or how violent hits appeared to be, I'd say the 77gr SMKs are more effective than M855, and given the choice I would definitely use those (and now I do, so I guess it worked out!). But then, y'all already knew that
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:11:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NightWatchman:

Originally Posted By FALARAK:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:
I've watched a video of ballistic forensic expert Alexander Jason get shot at point blank range by a .308 from an FN FAL while wearing a rifle rated vest and he didn't fall down.
And he got shot twice. Once while balanced on one leg. It won't knock you down. Your reaction to the bullet might, but the impact of the bullet itself won't.





I would LOVE to see that video. 150gr of lead moving 2600fps has to have a little "punch" one would think.

Wow.



I believe I've seen it. He does move a little. It's the same force that goes into your shoulder as you fire more or less.



How about the video here??

www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-976420.php
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:16:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ColSanders:

Originally Posted By NightWatchman:

Originally Posted By FALARAK:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:
I've watched a video of ballistic forensic expert Alexander Jason get shot at point blank range by a .308 from an FN FAL while wearing a rifle rated vest and he didn't fall down.
And he got shot twice. Once while balanced on one leg. It won't knock you down. Your reaction to the bullet might, but the impact of the bullet itself won't.





I would LOVE to see that video. 150gr of lead moving 2600fps has to have a little "punch" one would think.

Wow.



I believe I've seen it. He does move a little. It's the same force that goes into your shoulder as you fire more or less.



How about the video here??

www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-976420.php



Yeah, that would be his reaction to the hit (as opposed to the kinetic energy delivered by the projectile).

If it was a Korean running right at you it would probably be different (assuming he had the armor to block the penetration and blunt trauma as was suggested in the original post saying they got knocked down).
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:18:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FALARAK:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:
I've watched a video of ballistic forensic expert Alexander Jason get shot at point blank range by a .308 from an FN FAL while wearing a rifle rated vest and he didn't fall down.
And he got shot twice. Once while balanced on one leg. It won't knock you down. Your reaction to the bullet might, but the impact of the bullet itself won't.





I would LOVE to see that video. 150gr of lead moving 2600fps has to have a little "punch" one would think.

Wow.



It is in the video "Deadly Weapons: Firearms and Firepower". The video is an awesome "must-see" for anyone who like to discuss firearms beyond punching paper or hunting. It dispels a lot of Hollywood/TV myths.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:22:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 11:24:47 AM EDT by ColSanders]
The article says he "was knocked to the ground from the impact".

The press release on the video says "Tschiderer was knocked to the ground from the sudden impact of the sniper's bullet."
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:23:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoctorCheney223:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

I've watched a video of ballistic forensic expert Alexander Jason get shot at point blank range by a .308 from an FN FAL while wearing a rifle rated vest and he didn't fall down.
And he got shot twice. Once while balanced on one leg. It won't knock you down. Your reaction to the bullet might, but the impact of the bullet itself won't.



WOW.... that's all I can say. I guess I am so conditioned from television and special effects that it seems hard to comprehend that. I know when I shoot my FAL it gives me a kick.. I couldn't imagine being on the receving end. The only thing I would have to say about this is the guy was expecting it, where as some soldier creeping around who got shot without a vest and not expecting it, would drop like a bag of beans.

thanks,
Ron



Yeah, totally. Expecting it must be part of it.
Although, given the "equal and opposite reaction" part of physics the hit on the receiving end is going to be about like the kick you feel shooting the rifle. If it was spread out over a vest it really wouldn't be that bad. You could put the butt up to your chest and shoot away from you to get an idea I guess.
Not enough to knock you down or off your feet. Maybe off balance if you weren't expecting it or had your weight distributed so you were ready to go over anyway.

Without the vest it's the damage, surprise, pain, shock etc that are going to drop you.

If you want to see it "Deadly Weapons: Firearms and Firepower" is worth the money.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:25:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 11:26:47 AM EDT by IAMLEGEND]

Originally Posted By ColSanders:
The article says he "was knocked to the ground from the impact".



It probably fits better in the article than going into a lengthy explanation of kinetic energy transfer and 'equal and opposite reaction' etc.

ETA: It's not accurate...it doesn't work like that.

Knocked him off balance maybe. Startled him. If it had enough energy to knock him down it would do the same thing to the shooter every time they fired a shot.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:27:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 11:27:53 AM EDT by ColSanders]
So, if the transfer of energy is totally equal on both ends, how come the shooter suffers no damaging effects, yet the guy wearing armor can have anything from serious bruising, broken ribs, blunt trauma even WITH armor????
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:28:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ColSanders:
So, if the transfer of energy is totally equal on both ends, how come the shooter suffers no damaging effects, yet the guy wearing armor can have anything from serious bruising, broken ribs, blunt trauma???



If you attached a 7mm diameter stub of metal to the buttstock, pushed it against your ribs and fired it might do some bruising/broken ribs too.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:30:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 11:34:23 AM EDT by Phoebus]

Originally Posted By ColSanders:
So, if the transfer of energy is totally equal on both ends, how come the shooter suffers no damaging effects, yet the guy wearing armor can have anything from serious bruising, broken ribs, blunt trauma even WITH armor????



Because the transfer of energer at shooter's end happens over a longer period of time, decreasing the peak force. This is called impulse, the change in momentum. The near-instantaneous deceleration against the target is what provides the blunt trauma.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:30:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By ColSanders:
So, if the transfer of energy is totally equal on both ends, how come the shooter suffers no damaging effects, yet the guy wearing armor can have anything from serious bruising, broken ribs, blunt trauma???



If you attached a 7mm diameter stub of metal to the buttstock, pushed it against your ribs and fired it might do some bruising/broken ribs too.



But I thought the vest was supposed to distribute the blow so that not all the energy and power is in the same spot. That is how armor works.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:31:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Phoebus:

Originally Posted By ColSanders:
So, if the transfer of energy is totally equal on both ends, how come the shooter suffers no damaging effects, yet the guy wearing armor can have anything from serious bruising, broken ribs, blunt trauma even WITH armor????



Because the transfer of energer at shooter's end happens over a longer period of time, decreasing the peak force. This is called impulse. The near-instantaneous deceleration against the target is what provides the blunt trauma.



I was thinking it was 'moment' but I guess it is 'impulse', isn't it?

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top