Is Faulty Ammo Failing Troops?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
The 5.56 isn't a great round without expanding bullets. Since the military isn't allowed to use such bullets, they should get a bigger bullet.

It's that simple.

Why? :confused:

If the 5.56 wont do it, the 7.62 wont do it.

SHOT PLACEMENT.

You can shoot someone in the hand with a .50 BMG and hes not going to fall over dead.

SHOT PLACEMENT.

The 5.56 simply needs good bullets. The caliber is fine, it'll do everything the 7.62 will do within reason. A lethal shot from a 7.62 will also be lethal from a 5.56. A non lethal shot from a 5.56 will also be a non lethal shot from a 7.62.

SHOT PLACEMENT.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: ryan256
Originally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: GalvanizedYankee
For a first hand account on firearms in Iraq, please read in total.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051121-093501-9601r.htm


...Galvanized

Great article!

Very good. Pretty much confirms what I've been speculating regarding things over there.

Amazing. Then not only is the author wrong, his son an idiot but your wrong as well.

I suggest you read the military surveys and reports and talk FIRST HAND to those who've been there and dont take the word of a liberal journalist whos most likely liberal America hating son served.
 

GalvanizedYankee

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2003
6,986
0
0

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: GalvanizedYankee
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: GalvanizedYankee
For a first hand account on firearms in Iraq, please read in total.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051121-093501-9601r.htm


...Galvanized

That article is short on facts and long on opinion to be sure.


BWAHAHAHAHA

The opinion of a Maine that did his tour over there, Mr.Exspirt (stain on the sheets from the night before)


...Galvanized

Right. Do a poll if everyone likes the M3 on this board. You'll find someone who doesnt.
You can find SOMEONE SOMEWHERE who doesnt like about anything you could possibly name.

By and large the 5.56 gets the job done and the guys who use it are happy with it. I'm thinking our "hero" here is long on stories and short on fact. He musta been in the rear with the gear and made ****** up to feel good.

Again I say talk FIRST HAND to those who served, oir read the Army's reports on the weapons. But for fvcks sake dont take the opinion of a liberal journalist who took the opinion of someone else!
 

MoPHo

Platinum Member
Dec 16, 2003
2,978
2
0
Did anyone else read this comment by Sprey?

"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.

cuuuuz thats a real pat on the back to the U.S. Military...
 

AlienCraft

Lifer
Nov 23, 2002
10,539
0
0
Originally posted by: Svnla
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.
The ammo is no less a failure than the "plan".
That a 5.56 is "less" lethal than a 7.62 is not news. What is news is that after 30 years, we're still debateing this topic. If there were the correct number of troops in theatre, there would be more than enough 5.56 in the air to make up whatever mass difference there is between calibers.

 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106
"The big advantage of the 5.56 is its low recoil and lightweight rifle and ammunition. The major drawbacks for the 5.56 are the lack of penetration and poor long-range effectiveness. Some of this was originally addressed with the slower rifling twist of the early AR-15, which marginally stabilized the bullet in flight and often caused the bullet to tumble upon impact, increasing wounding ability. But as the years went by the rifling twist was increased, making the bullet more stable, more accurate, more lethal at greater range but, paradoxically, less effective as a casualty-producing weapon since the bullet no longer tumbled on impact, creating less tissue displacement. The M16A2 had rifling twist of 1 in 7" primarily to stabilize the longer tracer rounds, though 1 in 9" twist seems to be sufficient and is what, I believe, the current M4 carbine has. The rifling twist was slowed due to some concerns on increased wear/increased heat/reduced longevity of the 1 in 7" barrels under cyclic fire conditions."

"On the 5.56mm NATO's debit side are its low energy, small caliber wound channel, poor ballistic coefficient, and poor sectional density. The first two factors are responsible for its poor killing power; the last two factors contribute to excessive wind drift and poor penetration, especially at longer ranges. Except for its larger diameter bullet (.30"), the 7.62x39 Soviet cartridge has the same drawbacks as the 5.56mm, plus considerably lower velocity, which makes it very difficult to hit long range targets. "

Any bullet will kill its what they do,
the argument is if there are better choices.
Teenagers from the city aren't shot placers and under combat its been proven time and again accuracy takes the beating. its why I'm a proponent of the 5.56 case so a grunt can lay down a lot of fire without recoil but not so much the calibre choice.

 

Babbles

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2001
8,253
14
81
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: ryan256
Originally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: GalvanizedYankee
For a first hand account on firearms in Iraq, please read in total.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051121-093501-9601r.htm


...Galvanized

Great article!

Very good. Pretty much confirms what I've been speculating regarding things over there.

Amazing. Then not only is the author wrong, his son an idiot but your wrong as well.

I suggest you read the military surveys and reports and talk FIRST HAND to those who've been there and dont take the word of a liberal journalist whos most likely liberal America hating son served.

Not bother to read the article?

I quote:
There's nothing like word from the field to know what works, what doesn't and how the enemy's tactics are affecting our soldiers in battle. Below is one U.S. Marine's take on those questions, verified and relayed to us through his father, a retired Marine.

So the account of a Marine who served in Iraq isn't good enough for you?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: MoPHo
Did anyone else read this comment by Sprey?

"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.

cuuuuz thats a real pat on the back to the U.S. Military...

I think shunning him is a better response than replying to his post.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: ryan256
Originally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: GalvanizedYankee
For a first hand account on firearms in Iraq, please read in total.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051121-093501-9601r.htm


...Galvanized

Great article!

Very good. Pretty much confirms what I've been speculating regarding things over there.

Amazing. Then not only is the author wrong, his son an idiot but your wrong as well.

I suggest you read the military surveys and reports and talk FIRST HAND to those who've been there and dont take the word of a liberal journalist whos most likely liberal America hating son served.

Not bother to read the article?

I quote:
There's nothing like word from the field to know what works, what doesn't and how the enemy's tactics are affecting our soldiers in battle. Below is one U.S. Marine's take on those questions, verified and relayed to us through his father, a retired Marine.

So the account of a Marine who served in Iraq isn't good enough for you?

Nope. The account of ONE Marine is not good enough for me.
Theres people who like Humvees and dont, people who like Abrams and dont, people who like F-16's and people who dont, people who like M16's and people who dont.

The MAJORITY of the people who use M16's have no problem with it.

The whole article is more spin by the libtards trying to get ANYTHING to stick. Remember the whole "No armor for our troops" fiasco? Yep, they couldnt get that to stick, then it was Humvees arent armored, then this and that and finally they get around to complaining about the caliber used.
And guess what? IF the .mil did switch to the 7.62 then I gauren-damn-tee you next week you'd hear some poor sobbing mothers story about how her son was killed because he had to carry that damnedable heavy 7.62 and couldnt carry enough ammo and was overrun.

Its just more spin from the Left. Whats sad is that most of America is relatively uneducated and laps it up unquestionably.
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Nope. The account of ONE Marine is not good enough for me.
Theres people who like Humvees and dont, people who like Abrams and dont, people who like F-16's and people who dont, people who like M16's and people who dont.
I do kinda wonder about the jamming comments. Considering the experience that the military gained in 1991 about fighting in the Middle East and that they've probably been spending a lot of time prepping for more desert combat in the decade since, I would think that if the M16 performed substandard in desert environments that they would have made the appropriate modifications to the weapon by now.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Nebor
The 5.56 isn't a great round without expanding bullets. Since the military isn't allowed to use such bullets, they should get a bigger bullet.

It's that simple.

Why? :confused:

If the 5.56 wont do it, the 7.62 wont do it.

SHOT PLACEMENT.

You can shoot someone in the hand with a .50 BMG and hes not going to fall over dead.

SHOT PLACEMENT.

The 5.56 simply needs good bullets. The caliber is fine, it'll do everything the 7.62 will do within reason. A lethal shot from a 7.62 will also be lethal from a 5.56. A non lethal shot from a 5.56 will also be a non lethal shot from a 7.62.

SHOT PLACEMENT.

I'm a firearm collector and sometimes a hunter, and I can tell you, having shot deer with a 5.56 and a 7.62, the 7.62 is MUCH more powerful. I can tell you which one I'd rather be shot with.
 

drinkmorejava

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2004
3,567
7
81
M82 ftw. Who needs automatic fire when you can just take them out at 2000 yards.

lol what's the 50cal rnd supposed to do, something like two inches of steel armor at 2k yards.

Too bad, it's normally used for destroying unexploded artillerly. What's the standard issue, non custom sniper rifle these days, m24?
 

PurdueRy

Lifer
Nov 12, 2004
13,837
4
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: ryan256
Originally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: GalvanizedYankee
For a first hand account on firearms in Iraq, please read in total.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051121-093501-9601r.htm


...Galvanized

Great article!

Very good. Pretty much confirms what I've been speculating regarding things over there.

Amazing. Then not only is the author wrong, his son an idiot but your wrong as well.

I suggest you read the military surveys and reports and talk FIRST HAND to those who've been there and dont take the word of a liberal journalist whos most likely liberal America hating son served.

Not bother to read the article?

I quote:
There's nothing like word from the field to know what works, what doesn't and how the enemy's tactics are affecting our soldiers in battle. Below is one U.S. Marine's take on those questions, verified and relayed to us through his father, a retired Marine.

So the account of a Marine who served in Iraq isn't good enough for you?

Nope. The account of ONE Marine is not good enough for me.
Theres people who like Humvees and dont, people who like Abrams and dont, people who like F-16's and people who dont, people who like M16's and people who dont.

The MAJORITY of the people who use M16's have no problem with it.

The whole article is more spin by the libtards trying to get ANYTHING to stick. Remember the whole "No armor for our troops" fiasco? Yep, they couldnt get that to stick, then it was Humvees arent armored, then this and that and finally they get around to complaining about the caliber used.
And guess what? IF the .mil did switch to the 7.62 then I gauren-damn-tee you next week you'd hear some poor sobbing mothers story about how her son was killed because he had to carry that damnedable heavy 7.62 and couldnt carry enough ammo and was overrun.

Its just more spin from the Left. Whats sad is that most of America is relatively uneducated and laps it up unquestionably.

a Liberal article that says we're winning the war? That's a new one to me....
 

EyeMWing

Banned
Jun 13, 2003
15,670
1
0
Uhhh. You can't carry 300rds of 7.62?

Frankly, uh, no.

And if I were in Iraq right now, item #1 on the "Fvck standard kit" shopping list would be an AK47. To be honest, I'd rather be in close combat with a friggin' SKS than an M16 varient.
 

EyeMWing

Banned
Jun 13, 2003
15,670
1
0
Originally posted by: Babbles
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.

Because we're fighting a standing army.

I don't think the insurgency cares much about medically treating their wounded footsoldiers.
 

hg321

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2000
1,318
2
81
Originally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: ryan256
Originally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: GalvanizedYankee
For a first hand account on firearms in Iraq, please read in total.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051121-093501-9601r.htm


...Galvanized

Great article!

Very good. Pretty much confirms what I've been speculating regarding things over there.

Amazing. Then not only is the author wrong, his son an idiot but your wrong as well.

I suggest you read the military surveys and reports and talk FIRST HAND to those who've been there and dont take the word of a liberal journalist whos most likely liberal America hating son served.

Not bother to read the article?

I quote:
There's nothing like word from the field to know what works, what doesn't and how the enemy's tactics are affecting our soldiers in battle. Below is one U.S. Marine's take on those questions, verified and relayed to us through his father, a retired Marine.

So the account of a Marine who served in Iraq isn't good enough for you?

We have to be careful, he may be a LIBERAL Marine. If he's a good republican we'll believe him!

 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: Horus
The M-16 is a piece of crap. It's jammy, underpowered and fragile. In vietnam, half a platoon would be down cleaning their rifles because they jammed up.

The AK, on the other hand, is the most reliable weapon ever made. You can kick it, throw it, fill it with mud, run it over with a truck, and it WILL still work. And it's accurate, and it has stopping power.

WW2 engineering FTW!

AK47? ACCURATE??? LOL!
 

EyeMWing

Banned
Jun 13, 2003
15,670
1
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
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.

I'm fairly certain the snipers were using hollowpoint ammunition (my personal fave for shooting inanimate objects and living creatures alike. Unless the inanimate object has armor). Army issue is FMJ.