[URL]http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTINF.HTM[/URL]

May 14, 2003: In Iraq, there was a lot of infantry fighting, and reports are coming back about the performance of various infantry weapons. The 5.56mm round used by most coalition infantry rifles had no trouble knocking down enemy troops, especially if they were hit in the head or chest. Hits in arms and legs were less likely to stop the bad guys, but this has always been the case with infantry rifles. Some troops asked for the heavier, 77 grain, 5.56mm bullet, rather than the current 62 grain bullet in the NATO standard SS-109 5.56mm round. Debate over adopting the 77 grain bullet has been going on for some time. Some Special Forces troops are thought to have been obtaining 5.56mm ammo with 77 grain bullets for their M-4 rifles and using it in Afghan and Iraqi operations. The heavier bullet is supposed to be more likely to knock down men it hits.

MORE...

*****
So, troops pissed at the unwieldiness of the standard rifle, most engagement at roughly 30 meters, larger grain bullets needed, M9 = turd...

Thoughts???

the whole Phrase "knocking down" just makes me think they don't have it right.

I don't think a 556 is going to knock anyone down they might go down because they are dead but its not the force of the round dropping people.

Not to bad overall:

The M16 wasn't having a problem dropping the enemy like the M4 did in Somalia

It was a bit long for urban environment, no big surprise, most infantry rifles are not made for urban environments (thats starting to change these days)

The M249 thing is a bit disturbing, sounds like its time to buy some new ones, our guys shouldn't have to worry about their weapons falling apart.

The M9 sucks, bring back the 1911

As regards the 77gr bullet---apparently the purported effectiveness of it is not due to it being heavier and able to penetrate more. It is due to the fact that in 5.56mm, a 77gr bullet is very long. This means it is more likely to fragment when it begins to tumble base-forward, despite it's lower muzzle velocity. The length of the bullet cannot withstand the forces against it when it turns broadside,and therefore is more likely to fragment even at extended ranges. Not a lecture, guys, but I've been looking into the 77gr hypothesis.

(that whole paragraph actually, but that just means that troops are pretty desperate for weapon better fit for urban combat)

Perhaps a Bullpup is in order?
Theyre considerably shorter, more stable and controlable. Also, they tend to have longer barrels. Although reloading might be more clumsy for those who arent used to them.

Something similar to the L85? or the Steyr AUG? A military version of the Bushmaster M17s possibly (It's based on the AR15 design, so it should be easier to master for soldiers used to the AR15)?


As for the M9's, I would suggest giving troops choice of 1911 or M9 as each has its advantages. Same would go for rifle choices.

Using enemy weapons in combat is not a good idea. The AK makes a distinctive sound and can result in you being popped by a fellow soldier who thinks you're the enemy.

Using enemy weapons in combat is not a good idea. The AK makes a distinctive sound and can result in you being popped by a fellow soldier who thinks you're the enemy.

Is it like the Ruskie 5.45 round, with a hollow air pocket at the tip?

IIRC, Delta used XM177s with 10.5" or 11.5" bbls in Somolia. Rangers used 'A2s.

You sure? No M4's? I could have sworn some were using M4s.

Oh well, maybe I'm wrong... theres a first time for everything[;D]

Those are excerpts from a Marine Corps Systems Command report Ive read the full text of.  Very interesting stuff.

No major complaints on 5.56mm power and the ACOG equiped M16A4 was a hit.