# US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war



## MA-Caver (May 26, 2008)

> *
> US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war*
> 
> By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer Mon May 26, 8:10 PM ET
> ...


I don't know about anyone else but if I'm gonna be in an urban combat situation I want a hard hitting bullet so that when I put it in someone I don't have to worry too much about the guy getting back up and putting one in me. 



> "If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn't matter what you shoot him with," said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small arms division at Fort Benning, Ga., home to the Army's infantry school.


Somehow this doesn't make any sense... you can hit a person in the head, even between the eyes or directly in the heart even with a .22 and they could still conceivably survive... at least long enough to do the same to you. 

Read this sentence carefully will ya? 


> "The bullet does exactly what it was designed to do. It just _doesn't do very well _at close ranges against smaller-stature people that are lightly equipped and clothed," says Alexander, who spent most of his 26-year military career with the 5th Special Forces Group.


Is it me or is there something wrong with a bullet that doesn't do well at close range against someone wearing, say, a plain white cotton t-shirt? 

If we're going to keep our troops there in Iraq, fighting in probably one of the worse conditions that ANY combat soldier has to fight in (close-quarter urban combat or street to street fighting... in the enemy's hometown!!)... then at least give them the advantage of having superior firepower/ammunition no-matter what kind of gun they put in their hands.

And this I agree with. 





> With the M855, troops have to hit their targets with more rounds, said Howe, who owns a combat shooting school in Texas. That can be tough to do under high-stress conditions when one shot is all a soldier might get.
> "The bullet is just not big enough," he says. "If I'm going into a room against somebody that's determined to kill me, I want to put him down as fast as possible."


Shooting as few rounds as possible helps cut down on shooting possible friendlies... *and* children. 

Anyone else get this? I get the feeling that I might be missing something here.


----------



## Big Don (May 26, 2008)

Don't forget that the 9mm round is VASTLY inferior to the old reliable .45 cal round...
The purpose of war, a famous guy said, is to break things and kill people. The weapons our troops use must be effective.
While in a perfect world, we'd never have to kill, the world we live in is far from perfect and when lethal force is called for, too much power beats not enough every day of the week.


----------



## Steel Tiger (May 27, 2008)

The shift away from the heavier 7.62mm round to the 5.56mm one is rather interesting.  Initially it was done because of weight considerations.  A soldier would not be so encumbered with an equivalent amount of ammunition.  The British had wanted to go even smaller to 4.85mm with the EM2 (which eventually compromised into the L85A1).

The effectiveness the soldiers are talking about all has to do with energy transfer and the 5.56mm bullet does not do this very well.  We have seen a similar situation with the move from .45 and .455 to 9mm in pistols.  Those big old .45s were called "man-stoppers" for a reason.  When you got hit by the big bullet you stopped.  But the illusion that velocity is better has created the current situation.

Its great if you are up against an enemy wearing the same body armour as you are, but not so good when he is wearing shorts and a t-shirt.


All that being said, there is nothing at all wrong with the M-4.  It is an improvement on the M-16 while being essentially the same rifle.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 27, 2008)

You know they make hollowpoint rifle rounds nowadays in addition to hollowpoint pistol rounds which would get rid of this problem irrespective of caliber.

We seriously need to drop at least THAT part of the Geneva Convention. If I ever have to fight the Swiss, I'll obey the Geneva Convention(nobody bloody else does...)


----------



## Ahriman (May 27, 2008)

Andy: naaay, that'd reduce the number of bullets exiting on the opposite side towards some random location... Hey, random flying bullets are cool, aren't they? One effectively maimed a civilian when our brave and well-equipped policemen took down a bank robber recently.
...
Now seriously. An expansive round _(is it the proper English name?)_ does much more damage obviously, reducing time until death after being shot. This is more "humane" IMO... and it doesn't really over-penetrate, which reduces the chance of unintended hits, which is, again, more humane... thus I don't really get the humanitarian idea of this part of the GC.
While only seriously injuring an enemy fighter *may* be a good idea *if* his comrades are willing to help him_ (thus it'd remove 3 fighters theoretically from the fight)_, the irregular fighters don't really seem to follow this thinking.
...
"If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn't matter what you shoot him with" is true, but "right spot" needs clarifying. Vital organs, certain areas of the brain and the like have to be damaged to the greatest possible level. Now is it easier to hit and destroy them with a bigger bullet or with a smaller one if both bullets are FMJ? Just think about the difference between having an aorta cut halfway in and having the same aorta cut fully in two pieces...
...
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but human idiocy upsets me.


----------



## tkd1964 (May 27, 2008)

I was told awhile ago that the reason for the smaller round was so that a wounded enemy would have to be carried off by two or more enemy leaving fewer to fight. Isaid I would rather have that one dead  enemy instead of three more coming back another day and the one who was wounded would be like a pissed off dog looking to bite anyone. The only logic of war is that a dead enemy will not be back the next day to kill you.


----------



## mrhnau (May 27, 2008)

tkd1964 said:


> I was told awhile ago that the reason for the smaller round was so that a wounded enemy would have to be carried off by two or more enemy leaving fewer to fight. Isaid I would rather have that one dead  enemy instead of three more coming back another day and the one who was wounded would be like a pissed off dog looking to bite anyone. The only logic of war is that a dead enemy will not be back the next day to kill you.



Well, if you are facing a crazed attacker just waiting to self-detonate, you might want some stopping power, insuring he does not keep coming forward after being shot in the chest.

Dead enemies are not likely to self-detonate.

I think the concept of injuring someone rather than killing has its place though, just not in this kind of war. At least not for our side!


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 27, 2008)

Two thoughts on this: one, no duh. The Army is very conservative. It took a while before they admit that they might need something new (the precursor to the M16 lasted from pre WWII - beginnning of Vietnam).

Two, the M16 is being phased out in favor of the M4, which has a smaller round that has more power behind it.


----------



## Ahriman (May 27, 2008)

tkd1964: I mentioned this concept...  It might work where there's a regulation concerning retrieving injured ones, but even then it'd work only in that specific fight. Now irregulars are those who don't have regulations... and in the USA's case these opposing irregulars are fanatic enough to ignore losses according to what I hear and see in the news. 
...
mrnhau: "Dead enemies are not likely to self-detonate" - this is something I never understood. It's not that hard to make a bomb that blows up either when a button is pressed or when heartbeats stop. Ahwell, at least they aren't working at top efficiency... lucky for us.
"At least not for our side!" - don't give them ideas, AFAIK the USA doesn't really leave injured soldiers behind so yes, this concept would work very well against US troops in theory.
...
CoungNukha: having more kinetic energy is one thing... what matters here is the bullet's efficiency when it comes to sharing that kinetic energy with the target. Most FMJ rifle rounds will overpenetrate unarmoured targets, be it 0.223 or .50, so increasing the power has little use.


----------



## allenjp (May 27, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Two thoughts on this: one, no duh. The Army is very conservative. It took a while before they admit that they might need something new (the precursor to the M16 lasted from pre WWII - beginnning of Vietnam).
> 
> Two, the M16 is being phased out in favor of the M4, which has a smaller round that has more power behind it.


 
Uh...no. The M16 and the M4 fire exactly the same round. It is the 
5.56 mm, or what is referred to in the civilian world as the .223. The only difference between the M16 and the M4 is that the M4 is a smaller rifle with a shorter barrel. This gives the M4 certain tactical advantages over the M16 especially in urban situations and room/house/building clearing situations because it is easier to wield and turn quickly in tight quarters. The shorter barrel actually *reduces* muzzle velocity, in this case by quite a bit since the barrel is almost six inches shorter, thus making it a bit *less* powerful. But it is still the *same round*. This is a basic concept in firearms technology: longer barrel = higher muzzle velocity. 

Now that we got that lesson out of the way, I have talked to many veterans of the Iraq war and many of them have commented the same thing. They think this round just does not have enough stopping power, and they would like to see the military switch to the 7.62x39 mm, which is the round fired by the AK47 and the SKS, or even the .308(7.62x54 NATO round if my memory serves me correctly), which is what the M14 fires. In my opinion this would be a good idea, however we have to remember that shooting accurately is far more important than what size bullet you're firing. Which is why our soldiers are still killing far more of them than they are of our soldiers, even though they have the bigger bullets: those guys don't know how to shoot very well, and our soldiers are some of the best trained marksmen in the world. Give me a U.S. Marine or a U.S. soldier, or even a U.S. sailor with an M16 any day over an "insurgent" with his kalashnakov. Just my opinion.

All that said I would like to see them switch over, our guys (and gals) deserve to have the best available.


----------



## allenjp (May 27, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> You know they make hollowpoint rifle rounds nowadays in addition to hollowpoint pistol rounds which would get rid of this problem irrespective of caliber.
> 
> We seriously need to drop at least THAT part of the Geneva Convention. If I ever have to fight the Swiss, I'll obey the Geneva Convention(nobody bloody else does...)


 
The russians have been making hollowpoint rounds for years and years ad years...I used to buy russian made surplus hollowpoint rounds for my SKS all the time...this is not a new idea. The problem is that it is hard for a hollow point to go through body armor (not that our enemies are wearing it anyway though).


----------



## allenjp (May 27, 2008)

Steel Tiger said:


> The shift away from the heavier 7.62mm round to the 5.56mm one is rather interesting. Initially it was done because of weight considerations. A soldier would not be so encumbered with an equivalent amount of ammunition. The British had wanted to go even smaller to 4.85mm with the EM2 (which eventually compromised into the L85A1).
> 
> The effectiveness the soldiers are talking about all has to do with energy transfer and the 5.56mm bullet does not do this very well. We have seen a similar situation with the move from .45 and .455 to 9mm in pistols. Those big old .45s were called "man-stoppers" for a reason. When you got hit by the big bullet you stopped. But the illusion that velocity is better has created the current situation.
> 
> ...


 
Yep, I agree. This is the same old argument that has been going on in the civilian world with pistols for years now. The "lighter and higher velocity is better" crowd just won't go away. 

The problem is that if you look at the ballistic measurements, the smaller, higher velocity rounds actually create more energy than the bigger, slower ones. So in theory they are "more powerful". But when you take reality into account (energy transfer to the target, vital tissue damage, slugs not exiting the body,) the larger diameter rounds are (IMHO) more effective. Especially when your target is hopped up on khat.


----------



## theletch1 (May 27, 2008)

tkd1964 said:


> I was told awhile ago that the reason for the smaller round was so that a wounded enemy would have to be carried off by two or more enemy leaving fewer to fight. Isaid I would rather have that one dead enemy instead of three more coming back another day and the one who was wounded would be like a pissed off dog looking to bite anyone. The only logic of war is that a dead enemy will not be back the next day to kill you.


I believe what the person you were speaking to was referencing was one of the strategies of the NVA and VC during the Vietnam war.  Booby traps and shooting to wound are very effective force equalizers when faced with a higher tech enemy.



allenjp said:


> The russians have been making hollowpoint rounds for years and years ad years...I used to buy russian made surplus hollowpoint rounds for my SKS all the time...this is not a new idea. The problem is that it is hard for a hollow point to go through body armor (not that our enemies are wearing it anyway though).


I think his point (ha, ammo pun attack as Sukerkin would say) was that the Geneva convention doesn't allow for the use of hollow points not that they weren't around. (two puns in one sentence!)


----------



## theletch1 (May 27, 2008)

One more random thought.  With the 5.56mm round you get a good flat trajectory out to a good distance.  Eventually the round will tumble and cause greater damage when it hits.  Is it possible that the close ranges of urban warfare aren't giving the round enough time to tumble, thereby creating a "shootthrough" scenario?

As for not wearing body armor... The round is supposed to fragment (if my boot camp memories serve me) and the body armor would assist the round breaking up as it entered the body.  A slower velocity round would therefor be better suited to the task as the ranges are closer and the needed resistance to help with fragmentation of the 5.56 isn't there.


----------



## Grenadier (May 27, 2008)

Some good reading:

http://www.thegunzone.com/556faq.html


One important aspect of the 5.56 mm NATO round, is that with a thin copper jacket, the bullet will violently fragment in a gel-like medium (such as a human body).  This fragmentation, though, is dependent on there being at least a decent velocity upon impact.  M193 (55 grain), aka WInchester Q3131A, is actually a pretty good manstopper, at ranges where you don't go below the terminal velocity.  

As for soft body armor, almost any soft body armor can be defeated with almost any centerfire rifle cartridge, including the 5.56 mm NATO.  


On another note, the 5.56 mm NATO and the .223 Remington are very similar, and many arms chambered in the cartridge can safely use either, BUT...  

The SAAMI (.223 Remington) chamber has a shorter leade than the NATO (5.56) chamber does, and can lead to a dangerous pressure buildup in arms chambered specifically for the .223 Remington, when 5.56 mm NATO ammo is used.


----------



## badbart (May 27, 2008)

This is interesting info:

http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm#223


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 27, 2008)

This will answer all your questions about the 5.56 mm and what it can and cannot do.

http://www.ammo-oracle.com/

It's very detailed and very very factual. No guessing, no opinion, just facts.

And BTW, sure there are more powerful rounds that will get the job done, but there are trade offs with any system you use cause TANSTAAFL.

Deaf


----------



## Empty Hands (May 27, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> And BTW, sure there are more powerful rounds that will get the job done, but there are trade offs with any system you use cause TANSTAAFL.



QFT.  We would be saying the same things in reverse if the troops were equipped with hollow points or other man-stopping rounds and came upon an enemy that required AP rounds.  I don't know how realistic this would be, but perhaps each soldier should be equipped with both AP and man-stopping load outs?  Maybe a 5.56 hollow point wouldn't be as useful as a 7.65 or .45 in stopping power, but be an improvement over the current AP configuration?


----------



## KenpoTex (May 28, 2008)

Shot placement is critical...that said, I'm not generally a fan of the idea of using FMJ ammo in a combat context.  SP or HP would (IMO) perform better in the majority of cases (where you don't need AP capability).  

just my $0.02


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 28, 2008)

Problem is the Hauge Convention outlawed 'dum-dum' bullets. And that is why we use FMJ (abet with the cannenlur thinned so it breaks appart, and, of course, the bulllets tumble.)

That is why true JHPs are not used. Snipers do use match hollowpoints but these slugs are not made to expand or shatter. They just move the weight to the rear for better accuracy.

The Russians used a hollow cavity in their 5.45 round, and maybe that's a good idea. But the U.S. has always been a bit squemish about breaking agreements like the Hauge.

The advent of the EOT, ACOG, and the like have made accuracy much much easier to achive. Expect to see a M16/M4/AR that simpley has a very good trigger, no burst fire, and  maybe even a opt-rod gas action.

I have the EOT and I can say it's makes snap shots very very much faster than the old apenditure sights. And yes, accuracy is the most imporatant thing you need with any point defense weapon.

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (May 28, 2008)

Hey, at least the American troops HAVE bullets! some of our troops run out as there's not enough to go round!


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 28, 2008)

Whilst I agree with the logic of a hollowpoint round doing more damage and killing quicker, it is not an idea that sits well with those who write conventions.  We want to be able to treat casualties remember 

When we did away with the 7.62 SLR there was alot of argument about stopping power.  It still goes on today.  I'm told we went with 5.56mm to fit in with NATO.  The new weapon system is more accurate and far better to suited to operating in built up areas than the SLR.  

I dont agree with shot placement being an argument.  In a firefight, careful, control headshots arent really on the cards.  Point at the big square bit in the middle.

tkd1964, I've heard that story too.  I dont know how true it is, but I wouldnt bet on it.

I havent read everything on the ammo oracle site.  Very interesting that FN developed the M855 round, given that they made the SLR.

5.56 is man enough for the job.  Its gotta be said though that if we could have a 7.62 short (the preffered weapon of the enemy) in such an accurate weapon, it'd be worth looking at.  Its getting the balance, not all ops are in an urban environment.  The average range of a conventional infantry contact is 300m.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 28, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I don't know about anyone else but if I'm gonna be in an urban combat situation I want a hard hitting bullet so that when I put it in someone I don't have to worry too much about the guy getting back up and putting one in me.
> 
> 
> Somehow this doesn't make any sense... you can hit a person in the head, even between the eyes or directly in the heart even with a .22 and they could still conceivably survive... at least long enough to do the same to you.
> ...


Excuse me but an M-16 round can penetrate an engine block. How much more power is needed?
Sean


----------



## Steel Tiger (May 28, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> Excuse me but an M-16 round can penetrate an engine block. How much more power is needed?
> Sean


 
That is the essential problem.  The M-16 with the M855 round can penetrate an engine block, it doesn't transfer the energy to the target as well as a larger calibre, or expanding bullet, would.

The M855 round was developed with a certain type of situation envisioned.  That situation, fighting enemies with similar equipment, has not as yet eventuated, instead insurgents in everyday clothing are the adversary in the main.  Still the M855 round does a good enough job, some thought needs to be given to increasing energy transfer though.


----------



## KenpoTex (May 28, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> The average range of a conventional infantry contact is 300m.


any stats/info to back that up?  just curious...


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 28, 2008)

Actually ken that 300 m is about it.

Back in WW2 the Germans figured out that enguagments normaly didn't even start till inside 300 meters (*yes there are exceptions, but actually few as for rifle fire.*) Many were much much closer as the German 'GI's didn't want to reveal their positions early and also to make sure a good possibility of hits. 

So they developed the 7.92x33. It was a split between the 9x19 in the subguns and the 7.92x57 service round. 7.92 was selected cuse their machinery for rifle making was, of course, 7.92! The MP44 was the rifle of choice for this round (though they did make another that was kind of good if weird looking.)

The Russian 7.62x33 is a ripoff of the German round, just as the apperience of the AK-47 is a ripoff of the MP44 (but the insides are much different.) For them (the Ruskies that is) it was a split between the 7.62x25(Tokarev) and the 7.62x54R (Nagant.)


more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92_x_33_mm


----------



## KenpoTex (May 28, 2008)

I may not be communicating clearly.

are y'all saying that 300 yards/meters/whatever is the maximum distance for normal encounters?

I would imagine, given the type of conflict in which we've been involved in the last 50 years or so (urban, jungle, CQB) that <100 meters would be the more common distance.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 29, 2008)

The problem is that there are no perfect solutions.  Everything is a trade-off.


----------



## chinto (May 29, 2008)

OK in the interests of full disclosure I do not like the 5.56/.223 round for military use except in very special kinds of combat. for urban combat I would take an M14 or an M1 over an M16/M4 any day.. same for mountain fighting !  in both situations the 7.62X51 or earlier 7.62X63 ( 30-06) round is a 100 times better at penitration and or putting the threat down, especially at longer ranges. .. at 50 yards the .223/5.56mm round is very very nasty!! ( especially with the original 3000 fps rounds .. but the ball powder screwed the weapon up! )  the ss109 is about 2900 fps at 61grains and the old M14 round is 150 grains at 2800fps  and the old M1 30-06 is the same weight or heavier at 2900 to 2950 fps.   the physics say that it will hit a lot harder then the stupid supped up basically 22 cal weapon.
so if I have to go into combat, I want a .30 cal ( 7.62) round and in 308/7.62X 51 or slightly larger.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 29, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> I may not be communicating clearly.
> 
> are y'all saying that 300 yards/meters/whatever is the maximum distance for normal encounters?
> 
> I would imagine, given the type of conflict in which we've been involved in the last 50 years or so (urban, jungle, CQB) that <100 meters would be the more common distance.


 

The 300 yard mark is just what the M16 series was designed around.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 29, 2008)

I dont have any documents to back that up I'm afraid.  Just what I was taught.  Thats the average not the maximum.  The old light support weapon was effective out to 500m, and the GPMG (7.62) could be used for indirect fire over miles!

It depends on the kind of operation obviously, but your weapon needs to be balanced for all kinds of operation.  I bet during the invasion there were plenty of 300m contacts.  I accept that more recently they are more likely to be closer than that, but there will still be a long range requirment.  5.56mm isnt perfect, but its a pretty good balance.


----------



## allenjp (May 29, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Hey, at least the American troops HAVE bullets! some of our troops run out as there's not enough to go round!


 
Whoa! That sucks!


----------



## allenjp (May 29, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Actually ken that 300 m is about it.
> 
> Back in WW2 the Germans figured out that enguagments normaly didn't even start till inside 300 meters (*yes there are exceptions, but actually few as for rifle fire.*) Many were much much closer as the German 'GI's didn't want to reveal their positions early and also to make sure a good possibility of hits.
> 
> ...


 
Actually, if memory serves me correctly, the russian AK round is a 7.62x39


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 29, 2008)

Appoligies allenjp. Yes it is 39mm and not 33. Just crossed that up with the German round.

Deaf


----------

