Is Faulty Ammo Failing Troops?

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/07/cbsnews_investigates/main1692346.shtml

Is Faulty Ammo Failing Troops?
Field Report, Government Tests Raise Questions About Bullet For M-16 Rifle

June 7, 2006

(CBS) As American troop casualties in Iraq continue to mount, concern is growing they may be outgunned. That includes new questions about the stopping power of the ammunition that is used by the standard-issue M-16 rifle.

Shortly after the U.N. headquarters was bombed in Baghdad in August 2003, a Special Forces unit went to Ramadi to capture those responsible.

In a fierce exchange of gunfire, one insurgent was hit seven times by 5.56 mm bullets, reports CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian. It took a shot to the head with a pistol to finally bring him down. But before he died, he killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded seven more.

"The lack of the lethality of that bullet has caused United States soldiers to die," says Maj. Anthony Milavic.

Milavic is a retired Marine major who saw three tours of duty in Vietnam. He says the small-caliber 5.56, essentially a .22-caliber civilian bullet, is far better suited for shooting squirrels than the enemy, and contends that urban warfare in Iraq demands a bigger bullet. "A bullet that knocks the man down with one shot," he says. "And keeps him down."

Milavic is not alone. In a confidential report to Congress last year, active Marine commanders complained that: "5.56 was the most worthless round," "we were shooting them five times or so," and "torso shots were not lethal."

In last week's Marine Corps Times, a squad leader said his Marines carried and used "found" enemy AK-47s because that weapon's 7.62 mm bullets packed "more stopping power."

Bruce Jones is a mechanical engineer who helped design artillery, rifles and pistols for the Marines.

"I saw the tests that clearly showed how miserable the bullets really were in performance," he says. "But that's what we're arming our troops with. It's horrible, you know, it's unconscionable."

To demonstrate to CBS News, Jones fired the larger-caliber 7.62 bullet fired by AK-47s used by insurgents in Iraq into a block of glycerin. The hole cavity is 50 percent or more larger than that of the 5.56.

"You can't just go out and, you know, rig up a little block of Jello and shoot at it and prove anything," says Pierre Sprey, a former Pentagon weapons expert.

Since the early days of the Vietnam War, Sprey has been a champion of the 5.56, and believes it both lethal and light.

"The brilliant thing about that bullet is that it allowed the infantrymen to easily carry 300 rounds," Sprey says. "Whereas the old sharpshooter's heavy, slow round he could only carry 100."

In the chaos of war, the more bullets the better, he says, because bursts of automatic fire beat one big bullet at a time.

"There is no such thing as a well-aimed shot in combat, because combat is fought by scared 18-year-olds who haven't been trained enough and are in a place they've never seen before," Sprey says.

Here at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, the government's own engineers have done the most extensive testing on the 5.56 since 1990 and issued two draft reports.

In the first, dated 2004, the 5.56 ranked last in lethality out of three bullets tested.

A second draft, dated last month, confirmed that rating, ranking the 5.56 dead last in close-quarter combat.

The army issued a final report last week that concludes in essence that those test results are wrong and misleading. It argues the 5.56 has the "same potential effectiveness" of the 7.62 during the heat of battle.

Either way, there's no questions that if the Pentagon did have any questions about this bullet, it would face some very expensive modifications to the M-16.

 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
that's an interesting trade off between carrying more, weaker rounds or fewer, strong ones.
 

Theguynextdoor

Golden Member
Nov 17, 2004
1,118
0
71
Sprey is living in the Vietnam days, when spray and pray was the big deal and lots of ammo were necessary.

Nowadays our troops are actually trained for shot placement.

The troops are hitting their targets just fine.

It's your POS 5.56 bullet that's not doing it's job.
 

The Batt?sai

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2005
5,170
1
0
Originally posted by: OS
that's an interesting trade off between carrying more, weaker rounds or fewer, strong ones.

wounding/killing almost a dozen soliders before you are taken out. yup, good 5.56 bullet :p
 

biggestmuff

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2001
8,201
2
0
For the ATers with no knowledge of firearms, this is nothing new. The debate has been going on for over 30 years.
 

xSkyDrAx

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2003
7,706
1
0
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Originally posted by: Eeezee
I think I would prefer deadlier rounds over more ammunition

Being dead isn't enough? You need a tango to be deader than dead?

Deader than dead is fine by me. Just to make sure.
 

dbk

Lifer
Apr 23, 2004
17,685
10
81
burst > spray. On a serious note, this is pretty pathetic, imo.
 

xit2nowhere

Senior member
Sep 15, 2005
438
0
0
This topic kind of reminded me of a play a few months ago, at the Geffen Playhouse here in Westwood, about a manufacturer who had a contract with US Army for bullet proof vests. The thing was the vests had faults in them but nevertheless the manufacturing went on, because there were hundreds of million dollars at stake. As a result, the manufacturer's son died in Iraq while wearing that same bullet proof vest.
 

grrl

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
6,204
1
0
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
For the ATers with no knowledge of firearms, this is nothing new. The debate has been going on for over 30 years.

 

0

Golden Member
Jul 22, 2003
1,270
0
0
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
For the ATers with no knowledge of firearms, this is nothing new. The debate has been going on for over 30 years.

More than 30.

Even Kalashnikov was not happy when the Soviets went from a 7.62 round to a 5.45 round.

Here is a good picture of all three: http://www.gunsnet.net/Linx310/images/size.jpg

Deer hunters have used the 7.62x39 round for a long time, but it is illegal to use a 5.56 round because it isn't leathal to deer.

The point is, do you want one shot one kill, or many more wounding rounds? The military gods who picked the M-16 in VietNam picked the latter.



 

Babbles

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2001
8,253
14
81
Originally posted by: 0
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
For the ATers with no knowledge of firearms, this is nothing new. The debate has been going on for over 30 years.

More than 30.

Even Kalashnikov was not happy when the Soviets went from a 7.62 round to a 5.45 round.

Here is a good picture of all three: http://www.gunsnet.net/Linx310/images/size.jpg

Deer hunters have used the 7.62x39 round for a long time, but it is illegal to use a 5.56 round because it isn't leathal to deer.

The point is, do you want one shot one kill, or many more wounding rounds? The military gods who picked the M-16 in VietNam picked the latter.

Just wanted to point out that there is indeed the theory that wounding people is better than killing them because, in theory, if you wound your opponent you may actually be taking more resources out of play. That is with the assumption that the other guys buddies are going to go and grab the wounded guy and move him to the rear, then he will be treated medically and so forth. So in essence wounding one guy may take four other guys out of play. If you just kill one person then only one person is taken out of play.

In theory.
 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,518
223
106
The title is misleading, though -- sounds like the ammo isn't faulty..just not big enough.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
The article is just more "Bash <something>" from the news. The military interviews the soldiers every so often and by and large they are happy with the performance of the 5.56 cartridge and the AR platform.
Its all about shot placement. NO firearm is a death ray. Even a 50 BMG. There was an article some time back about a soldier who was shot 3 times with a AK-47 and stil lived. Should we assume the 7.62x39mm is now a poor performer as well? The firearm, ANY firearm, is only as good as the guy using it.

Having said that, there are better calibers then the 5.56. Every caliber is in some way a compromise. Sure, a 50 BMG will be more forgiving of shot placement but you wont be carrying too many rounds of ammunition. A .22LR would let you carry more ammo then God but you wouldnt be killing very much.

The 5.56 is a good round, but personally I would like to see them transition to a 6.5 Grendel.
 

iamtrout

Diamond Member
Nov 21, 2001
3,001
1
0
I usually perform much better with the AK than the M4. AK IS A HEADSHOT MACHINE!!!
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Anyone remember the DC Snipers? Their weapon of choice was a single shot with the high velocity M-16 round.

10 dead, 3 severly wounded - each with a single .223 shot that's 77% kill ratio.
It ALWAYS has a 75%+ kill rate for any head, body, or shot above the Knee/Elbow
due to the damage from impact shock.

It blows out the circulatory system - cardiovascular damage and fragmentation of the projectile destroys lots of 'meat'.

Don't dismiss the M-16 round as ineffective, it killed well over 1 million VC combatants in the 60's & 70's.
Even OJ couldn't do that.

 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
I've not fired the M16/M4 in a long while, but I can tell you that burst fire from an AK is worthless. It has a surprising kick, and the barrel rises like crazy when firing on automatic. It's a nice, reliable, and simple weapon with a good round, but it's not the best weapon in the world by a longshot, despite the experience of CS experts. One thing the 5.56 does that the AK round does not is penetrate armor very well.

They do need to switch the round to recognize that everyone carrying them is an expert marksman these days, but the latest study issued by the military says they are sticking with the current calibre, probably partially because retooling everything would be so expensive and time consuming during wartime (who would hang for troops dying because of a new round in Iraq like they did in Vietnam?).

Special ops troops have been using a 6.8mm round and have given very positive reviews from what I remember. I haven't seen anything lately though.
 

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,234
4
81
Yep... for all of the technological might of the US it sucks this is happening.

I was reading Black Hawk Down and there was a lot of mention that the special forces units disliked the rounds. THey were apperantly coated in teflon or something like that for more AP properties. Problem is the rounds pretty much went right through them. The Delta Force soldiers know how to aim to say the least, so when they could take a shot or two they wanted the enemy DOWN. THere was tons of reports of DF soldiers shooting guys 5-6 times only to watch them get up and run off, though they might die later due to little to no medical, but that wouldn't stop them from spraying off a few more clips to kill more US soldiers.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,886
46,793
136
This news is indeed about as old as the M16 itself. Since we are a NATO member it is very unlikely the caliber of our main battle rifle is going to change anytime soon.

The military has been hitting their stocks of M14s and turning out Designated Marksman rifles to give the troops some more punch/range when they need it.