Ammunition caliber discussion

[troyboy162]

theres a bunch of dffernt things figured in. all modern millitary rounds are small and fast moving. nato, china, russia... its light weight(both for transportation and soldier combat load), deadly and works well with the Geneva convention requirement of full metal jacket rounds. hunting rounds are lead tiped to kill things, FMJ are designed to only wound from the get go. but things get funny at 3100ish fps, because the the 5.56 will shrapnel more effectively and consistently then a slower moving FMJ round.

so you have flat tragetory (say easily aimed), low weight(soldiers can and do carry 210 rounds now), and fairly effective given that the first two requirments are met perfectly. and dont forget soldiers come in all sizes. in ww2 there was an alarming number of soldiers that were afraid of the recoil of there 30.06 rifle. personally 60 rounds of .308 can make my shoulder sore.

but that said, our rifle isnt perfect for combat, and our ammo isnt perfect for urban warfare. a new everything would be nice for the guys.

back on topic lets see some more rounds fired at the plates! 50 cal? release the BFG! lol

[CJM]

we really should get back to topic.. Hey can we get a separate thread for our caliber debate?

Anyways, imho the reason they need to carry so much is b/c they need to hit more to take the target down. A friend of mine is a Recon Marine, he served 2 TOD in Iraq, 1 in A-Stan and many other missions he cant really speak of other than say he has more missions.

At any rate he was issued the m4, he dropped it for an AK in Iraq both time and the AK he had looked like hell all rusted and junk but it ran with no issues unlike the m4 he had cleaned over and over and over. The targets didnt get back up and he wasnt the only one who swapped for an AK in his platoon.

In A-stan he finagled a way to get an M14 and never looked back. He took care of it like it was his baby and wouldnt let a soul touch it besides the armorer and he said if the US would go to using an 18" bbl M14 or even the sage system (basically a stock that collapses and is very light weight) they wouldnt need to carry more ammo or worry about the targets getting back up.

He now owns like 5 M1A's

[Good Times]

Thread separated.

Original thread on the steel targets is located here

[CJM]

Cool, ty Lance.

So now our topic continues.

I just dont like 5.56, to small a round to do enough damage. Get behind almost anything and the rounds dont penetrate. Forget cover when your being shot at with a .30 cal, it goes thru almost anything and into you.

[Bob98SR5]

One of the original reasons for the 5.56 in the military, was that it was thought that by killing an enemy combatant you have only taken one out of the fight, but badly wound a combatant and you've taken 4 out of the fight. (at least this is what we were told in the Marines)

That thinking doesn't work as much against the type of combatant they are faceing now though.

chris,

i read that too, but i the new enemies seem not to care about their wounded i saw a thing on the history channel where eugene stoner said that he believed the number of bullets down range mattered more than accurate placement or something to that effect. and that lowering the bullet's weight allowed a soldier to carry more.

personally, wouldnt it be better that the combatant you shot were dead? i mean, the person still could point out your position, right?

im just speculating like a numbchuck carrying internet warrior, i might add

[Bob98SR5]

oh yeah, i have a MAK-90 and purchased it b/c of the world renowned reliability, cheap cost, and availability of parts...though the later might change. i think its time to stock up on some key parts soon.

[CJM]

Bob, fire superiority is a big thing-specially in the Marines. If you can send enough lead to the enemy they usually give up. But if said lead doesnt do much harm do you really think they will give in? One well trained man with a good M14 can make an entire battalion of VC surrender-Carlos Hathcock did that in Nam. The men he shot didnt get back up.

The 5.56 vs everything else debate has been going on for eons. What is proven fact tho is our boys and girls over wherever they are are dying b/c thier rounds although hit-do not inflict enough damage to kill alot of the time. This is due mostly to the fact that the 5.56 usually doesnt fragment to well-it passes thru the enemy or in the rare case it does fragment it usually doesnt incapacitate its target to well. I mean I cant say from expierance b/c I never shot a person with it or wore combat boots. But plenty of friends tell me they would rather near anything else.

Biggest problem isnt the rounds really, they compound the problem of poor arms design. Stoner didnt design the M16 with its current problematic gas system (gasses from the burnt powder foul out its gas system the way its designed). He changed it per the military.

But the biggest issue with small arms today is there is near no development of them! People like Browning spent hours in his workshop perfecting a gun so that we would be fine. Cant do that today b/c you need a license to make anything substantial (well besides semi auto and those are strictly for personal use only as per the law). Brownings designs endure to this day-some 50+ years after being invented. If people could develop new weapons for trials with the military and actually get somewhere it would be nice too-many have come to do that and failed only b/c the military has so much vested in its wonderful M16/M4. Usually that vestement is held by a person who never saw combat at all and is an idiot.

Anyways enough about history lessons..

[reggie 00]

Another thing to keep in mind is not everyone carrying a rifle is a good shot.
The Marines train everyone to be a rifleman, but after basic how much do you shoot?

its pretty much a spray and pray. They just don't spend the time to keep proficient like say a special forces unit would. there is just no need, the regular guys have volume on their side.

.223 or a .30 i dont care who you are either one is going to hurt, bad.

I use to watch during quals as an assistant range master people hitting the railroad tie in front of them at the 3yd line. Marksmanship is not a concern.

One of the original reasons for the 5.56 in the military, was that it was thought that by killing an enemy combatant you have only taken one out of the fight, but badly wound a combatant and you've taken 4 out of the fight. (at least this is what we were told in the Marines)

That thinking doesn't work as much against the type of combatant they are faceing now though.

chris,

i read that too, but i the new enemies seem not to care about their wounded i saw a thing on the history channel where eugene stoner said that he believed the number of bullets down range mattered more than accurate placement or something to that effect. and that lowering the bullet's weight allowed a soldier to carry more.

personally, wouldnt it be better that the combatant you shot were dead? i mean, the person still could point out your position, right?

im just speculating like a numbchuck carrying internet warrior, i might add

[CJM]

Im with reggie on this one, all to many of them are horrible shots b/c they dont practice. We went from being pretty well trained in WWI, WWII, Korea to Nam where emphasis wasnt on shooting but simply spraying an enemy they couldnt see.

Honestly you, me and most of the people in this thread are better shots than most in the military and especially the police (most couldnt hit the broadside of a barn). Thats why I tell everyone I meet, the cops wont protect you in the event of whatever.

[slosurfer]

They practice way more than you think, especially the fighting units. Also, I know in the Marines, they get a lot of range time in work ups prior to going overseas and while overseas.

Another thing, I find it lame to say "all too many of them are horrible shots because they don't practice". Even if you go to the range and are a better shot than them, doesn't mean shit when you're being shot at and you have all your combat gear on and a pack. I know from experience that the best marksman on the range, doesn't even mean the best marksman with combat gear on. I for one was always marginal on the range (except at 500meters, I always kicked ass ), but was always top in the platoon with combat gear and fireing after running, etc..... There's also the "fog of war" to deal with. Yes, there are some that are bad shots, but even to quantify that "all too many are..." with no military experience yourself is offensive.

How many of you on here would be able to go 5+ out of 10 and hit a silhouete at 500yards with open sights with your AR15's? (many of the marginal shooters in the Marines will go 5 for 10) You want to know who always had the hardest time during range week/qualifying in bootcamp? It was the guys (like many on here) who had a lot of guns, trigger time, and were good shots backhome. Anyways, sorry for the rant, I don't care what you say about the equipment used, but to bag on the men and women fighting over there because you "think" you know what goes on with them will get me going.

Moving on, and back on track. I agree that it is time to move on to a bigger caliber, but it's going to take a lot of money to do so. It isn't just new weapons and ammunition, but equipment will have to be redesigned to work with whatever magazines the new ones are. Well, that, and the whole NATO, problem.