U.S. Uses Bullets Ill-Suited To New Ways Of War

[Rob99VMI04]

5.56 is great. all we need is to get rid of that annoying burst limiter and train more.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!


IMHO....

The reasoning behind those perimters where a by product of what type of military we had. Then we had a military of people who where ordered to fight. Today we have a military that is 100% volunteer and want to fight and get better<---- therefore train them to be more effective because in actuality they want to be more effective. I'm not saying vietnam soldiers where a bunch of guys who didn't really want to fight. However, that was part of the make up of the military back then.

Teach them how to actually use and control full auto and I doubt you'll have these caliber issues at short ranges. Also, marksmanship is key. The M-16 is hands down easier to use, shoot, and faster to reload, and can be donewith much more economic motion, also it does give you more chances to pull the trigger.

I had a guy one time tell me he wanted to build a .308 AR. Basical turn it into a DM rifle with all the trimmings. US OPTICS, rail systems, stocks, kriegar barrel. Then I watched him shoot and he had a tough time holding a group with his very nice 5.56 AR rifle at 25 yards. His rifle was a custom built gun that had lots of stuff on it. I since came to the conclussion its no the equipment its the guy or gal pulling the trigger.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Hopyard]

This isn't news. It's the same old song and dance that has been going on for years. For close in urban fighting the .30 carbine may be just the ticket but then you get a situation where the troops are shooting across valleys (Afghanistan) or engaging bad guys out in the open desert at 300 yards and the press will be whining about the .30 carbines inadequacies. I guess what they want is for us to stockpile three different rifles and three different calibers of ammo for each soldier.

That's providing the right tool to match the task.

Is that really asking too much?

Doesn't the Airforce have more than one type of fighter plane? Don't they arm them with munitions suited to the task?

Don't most of us have 3, 4,5, 6 different personal weapons in various sizes, calibers, configurations, and ammo-structure?

It isn't unreasonable to train professional soldiers in more than one weapon.
It isn't unreasonable to provide different weaponry based on the mission.

[bobcat35]

That's providing the right tool to match the task.

Is that really asking too much?

Doesn't the Airforce have more than one type of fighter plane? Don't they arm them with munitions suited to the task?

Don't most of us have 3, 4,5, 6 different personal weapons in various sizes, calibers, configurations, and ammo-structure?

It isn't unreasonable to train professional soldiers in more than one weapon.
It isn't unreasonable to provide different weaponry based on the mission.

no offence intended but if you were to spend just one week helping a company armourer inventory and inspect just on weapon per soldier in the unit i think you'd realise how unreasonable and impractical that actualy is. even with four guys helping and assuming a very small company <100 troops its a difficult task. the throw in the logistics of feeding each of those systems and supplying spare parts for them. its better to stick with a round thats average in all areas rather than use a half dozen highly specialised rounds that exell in one arena but are crap in all others not to mention the fact that you may not know exactly what you'll encounter on a given day(just ask TF ranger circa 1993)

[Rob99VMI04]

no offence intended but if you were to spend just one week helping a company armourer inventory and inspect just on weapon per soldier in the unit i think you'd realise how unreasonable and impractical that actualy is. even with four guys helping and assuming a very small company <100 troops its a difficult task. the throw in the logistics of feeding each of those systems and supplying spare parts for them. its better to stick with a round thats average in all areas rather than use a half dozen highly specialised rounds that exell in one arena but are crap in all others not to mention the fact that you may not know exactly what you'll encounter on a given day(just ask TF ranger circa 1993)

+1

Amateurs talk tactics, Dilettantes talk strategy, but Professionals talk logistics

[farronwolf]

I disagree that a .223 round is average or even good in all if any applications. I think the .223 is subpar in just about every aspect, except for target shooting. I don't see anyone on this forum advocating we all start carrying .22mags for self defense over a 9mm or .40, or .45. Why?

The .243, and .270 are just two examples of rounds that stomp the snot out of the .223 round in just about every aspect. There are other mid caliber rounds that could be used and would give our troops much better results also.

Like most things the US military gets sold a bill of goods and then has to make what they were sold good enough for the troops to use. Way to much politics in my opinion when it comes to making our troops and ourselves safe.

[mcp1810]

That's providing the right tool to match the task.

Is that really asking too much?

Doesn't the Airforce have more than one type of fighter plane? Don't they arm them with munitions suited to the task?

Don't most of us have 3, 4,5, 6 different personal weapons in various sizes, calibers, configurations, and ammo-structure?

It isn't unreasonable to train professional soldiers in more than one weapon.
It isn't unreasonable to provide different weaponry based on the mission.

Actually it is. When you talk of equipping armies it is asking too much. When you figure in National Guard, Reserve, and allies that we would have to equip for interoperability we are talking literally millions of weapons in each configuration and caliber.

Yes the Air force does have more than one model of fighter in service currently but how many of them do they have? But the 20mm cannon on the F-16 takes the same ammo as the 20mm cannon on the F-15 doesn't it? And they can both use the same missiles and bombs. And the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps are all soon be adopting variations of the same airframe in the new " Joint Strike Fighter" ( Royal Navy too!)

As far as personal weaponry we are buying for ourselves, we are only buying for ourselves, not equipping multiple hundreds of thousands of people.
As far as training the troops, you could simplify it by using identical platforms but unless you want the Rangers carrying all three rifles with them at all times you are still going to end up with people carrying the "wrong" weapon for their current situation.

What happens when the "mountain" warriors come into a city? What if they get pinned down and need resupply but all that is available is "urban rifle" ammo? What does the Navy load up with to supply the Marines that are going on a six month float when there are no active hostilities? And where are we going to keep it all?

[rdoggsilva]

When I was in Nam we carried the M-1, M14 and for good measure the Tommy Sub Machine gun. Also the 1911. That is 3 calibers 30/06, 308 and 45acp. Believe me they did the job. I much preferred the M-1 and Tommy. Second trip over was issued the M-16, which I did not like. I felt the ammo was to light for the job. Just a old vets .02 cents worth.

[BAC]

I disagree that a .223 round is average or even good in all if any applications. I think the .223 is subpar in just about every aspect, except for target shooting. I don't see anyone on this forum advocating we all start carrying .22mags for self defense over a 9mm or .40, or .45. Why?

The .243, and .270 are just two examples of rounds that stomp the snot out of the .223 round in just about every aspect. There are other mid caliber rounds that could be used and would give our troops much better results also.

Like most things the US military gets sold a bill of goods and then has to make what they were sold good enough for the troops to use. Way to much politics in my opinion when it comes to making our troops and ourselves safe.

Have you ever seen lethality comparisons between various rifle calibers? The Russians copied our move to a smaller caliber when they saw that, all factors considered, the smaller caliber was superior. China made this switch as well when they went from the heavier calibers to the 5.8x42. The 5.56 is more appropriate (read: lethal) at the closer ranges we're increasingly seeing in modern warfare, considerably lighter and able to be carried in greater quantities, and is still deemed appropriate by the Hague Convention.

The .243 and .270 are excellent rounds, yes, but how Will they perform out of an assault-rifle? How controllable are they in rapid fire and full-auto fire? How will they perform when shackled by the Hague Convention? You couldn't use existing rifles, because both of the aforementioned calibers are considerably longer than the 5.56x45 (they're 6-7mm, if I recall). You have to remember that when you change calibers, you're not just changing guns and ammo, but you're changing the way an army fights as well; is the intermediate 6 to 7mm caliber more appropriate for modern combat?

Your pistol analogy is off and you know it. Pistols and rifles are entirely different animals, and that extra barrel length changes a lot, not to mention the logistics associated with equipping an army (who must carry all of this).


-B

[AgentX]

Professionals also think about how many rounds one man can carry--in some circumstances, like those in Iraq today, movements are mechanized/motorized and supply lines are almost entirely reliable. So, having smaller numbers of bigger/heavier rounds on your body doesn't sound disadvantageous.

When you're talking about humping the ammo through unknown circumstances, it makes sense to carry a lot of it. When I do a protection assignment in a dangerous, sandy place where I might have to ditch my vehicles and fight my way somewhere safe, I like having 15 mags of 30 5.56 rather than 7-8 mags of 7.62.

Smaller rounds were designed to be superior to SMG rounds ballistically, more controllable on auto-fire than a full-size round, and more numerous for a given weight.

This may not be the recipe for all things and all times, but the goals have been achieved. However, if you can increase the lethality of a 5.56, you probably should. You should optimize the lethality of whatever round you're using. Then again, "lethality" should also include accuracy, and in a strategic sense, being able to afford and distribute sufficient quantities for training, fighting, and transport to where it's needed. Can't kill someone with a theoretically superior round if you don't have it.

The soviets didn't copy 5.56 for ballistic reasons...they copied it because they wanted their guys to carry as much ammo as ours did.

[Redneck Repairs]

Gosh i seem to be confused since if my mission were to be a kill for a shot in an urban environment i would consider our current 7.62 round almost ideal for the ranges . If i were to be clearing buildings i would find the current m4/5.56 hard to beat and much superior to any pistol round/pistol combo in a military setting .
If i had to choose weapons for fellas under me ( a squad to a platoon ) most of them i would want armed with the short light weapon , one or two armed with a larger caliber to shoot way out there , and one or two to have a light fast belt fed auto . I want them to lay a beaten zone on demand to keep heads down while others advance . Hmm funny how an old redneck is not far off current doctrine lol .

[Paco]

During the Vietnam War the media thought the M16 was an unnecessarily brutal weapon.

If CNN was back during Biblical times they would have slammed David for his brutal weapon against Goliath.

I wonder if any of the reporters minds were changed when they rode along with the troops during the first part of the war, did their seeing things first hand make them realize what is going on and why?

[BAC]

The soviets didn't copy 5.56 for ballistic reasons...they copied it because they wanted their guys to carry as much ammo as ours did.

I'd always thought it was a two-fer. They viewed 'Nam as a learning opportunity and did, discovering several benefits to the smaller rounds (which included being able to carry as much ammunition as our guys did). In their subsequent armed conflicts (not the least of which included the failed invasion of Afghanistan), the round performed well.

So I get partial credit. Better than none at all.


-B

[AgentX]

Well, who really knows? Boris probably wanted a lighter round to carry more ammo per comrade, and Ivan probably thought the new light rounds were capitalist-pig slaying superweapons...and Vladimir probably wanted lighter recoil for better control on auto...

[packinnova]

At this point I think the media just needs to stay out of it and let the guys on the ground tell you what's working and what isn't.

Then again... If I had my way everytime our guys got into a firefight there'd be craters where the enemy positions used to be. You shoot at us...ok we drop moabs and daisy cutters. Enough of this caliber war nonsense. Thems the rules. You try to kill us... we kill you back and as well as your family, your friends, your neighbors, and flatten your neighborhood. Any questions?

I'm a simple guy. I like the KISS concept. Simple works, guaranteed. Why send 1000 guys with rifles to get shot at all so they can do what can be done with one plane and a bomb the size of a school bus? Oh wait...I hear the "humanitarian" crowd bleeting.

[Sig 210]

Have killed a lot of wild hogs with the .223 and 5.56mm M193 ball ammo: Most of them at ranges <150 yards. When hit right, the hog dies as if hit by lightning. Never had one go over 60 yards after being hit.

Most of my .223 guns have 24" and 26" barrels, so the velocity is a little higher than the M16. The 55 grain, M193 bullet clocks at an average of 3,325 from the barrel of my CZ 527.