U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate

[Journeyman]

..... while I deal with his friends. Or polish my boots.

I guess it's hard to escape spending one's formative years with the RCR  ;D

 

[paracowboy]

IMHO the CF should adopted the Mk262 round wholesale (as loaded by BlackHills in the short term and a IVI loading when they can get to capacity) use C77 for field training while stocks still exist.

concur. Steve? Gord? Rick? You guys listening?

I have Mk262  ;D  -- but then again I also get issued Hollow point handgun ammo.

sure. Rub it in. Ya jerk!  ;D

I guess it's hard to escape spending one's formative years with the RCR  ;D

you, I'm ignoring. nyaaah!

 

[HItorMiss]

I don't so much care if I have to put 15 rounds into a person so long as he stops moving when I'm done, but If I could have done it in 2 or 3 rounds with a  ammo selection well then I think somethings wrong.

Having now read this thread I know what my actions overseas will be, I'll be aiming upper chest with each round, seeing that I should strike bone and lung areas while my round fragments and hopefully strikes the heart, I'm fairly certain my rounds per target drop will be higher then anyone who aimed centre mass with the C77 ball ammo.

 

[a_majoor]

I will still advocate the best solution to this argument is not "bulletology" at all, but marksmanship training. "Centre of visible mass" is a useful training tool, since the shooter will be able to locate this quickly and even if the target moves you should still have a strike on target. In most situations I suspect you will find the centre of visible mass is indeed the upper chest and torso since the target is usually half hidden behind a car or looking out a window.

Unless you are trying something out of the movies (like using a pistol to engage a target 100m + away) this should give you the maximum results out of whatever ammunition you are using. I suggest the 25mm chain gun is a good choice.

 

[paracowboy]

I will still advocate the best solution to this argument is not "bulletology" at all, but marksmanship training. "Centre of visible mass" is a useful training tool, since the shooter will be able to locate this quickly and even if the target moves you should still have a strike on target. In most situations I suspect you will find the centre of visible mass is indeed the upper chest and torso since the target is usually half hidden behind a car or looking out a window.

Unless you are trying something out of the movies (like using a pistol to engage a target 100m + away) this should give you the maximum results out of whatever ammunition you are using. I suggest the 25mm chain gun is a good choice.

as shown, center hits do not guarantee stopping the bad guy. Multiple center hits do not. Maximum energy dump does.

Of course we all advocate marksmanship training. Kev and I LIVE for shootin'! (Which is kinda sad, really.) But bullet type matters as much as bullet placement.

 

[oyaguy]

Interesting topic. I don't often comment since I really don't know much about military topics in general.

One thing that did catch my eye though were comments about bullpup rifles. Whatever the merits of such a design, keeping bayonet fighting in mind when designing a rifle would just be dumb. Chance are, even in the bayonets heyday at the end of a Brownbess, the reason you died at the point of bayonet is because you got shot and were finished off by a bayonet because the guy wanted to loot your body. Another prime motive for the bayonet no longer exists as standing in a square to fight off cavalry would be pretty useless these days.

Whatever the calibre of catridge or the rifle design, a bayonet today is nothing but a weapon of  shock or last resort. Even as a last resort I bet a lot of soldiers would simply use their empty rifles as clubs.

 

[TCBF]

"like a 12 gage shotgun firing deer slugs or 00 magnum shot to "persuade" them to stay down with one shot."

- From a purely vascular damage point of view, No. 1 Shot beats buckshot.  More surface area balanced with muzzle energy. Best all-round, all-family HD load is a 20 guage firing a 1 oz load of No. 1. 
Slugs will overpenetrate the drywall, pink fiberglas and vinyl siding bewteen your muzzle and your neighbour's goldfish tank.

"The United States, with vast stocks of 7.62 X 51, was reluctant to dispose of it all and wasteall that money. Ultimately they persuaded NATO to adopt 7.62 as the standard, which was used in the FN series, M-14, G-3 etc. The EM-2 was not adaptable, so the project ended."

- The USA did not have ANY 7.62 mm yet.  It had yet to be adopted. They were using .30 Cal U.S. (.30-06) still.  Canada was the first country to adopt a 7.62 rifle ( though our GPMG would be .30 cal until 1970 - 15 years later.).  The USA insisted the new NATO calibre be as powerful as the .30 cal U.S. (.30-06, or 7.62 X 63).  With new propellants, they could do that in the T65E3 cartridge case, which was one-half inch shorter than the two and a half inch .30-06. The T65E3 was adopted by NATO as 7.62mm X 51mm NATO.

But before that - a stalemate.  The final meeting called was at Canada's request so somebody would at least make a decision.  They did.  The USA insisted and NATO obliged. We adopted the FN C1A1 in 1955.  Two years later, Colt delivers ten AR-15 s in .223 Rem (adopted as 5.56mm later) to the US Army Infantry Board, Fort Benning,  for testing.  Go figure.

The Brits were looking at a 7mm or so before WW1, but war came, and a war is no time to start changing calibers.  After WW1 the US looked at other options, but WW2 came, and a war is no time  ...  etc.

 

[Enzo]

I guess it's hard to escape spending one's formative years with the RCR  ;D

Between Para's comments and this gem above, I'm in a great mood. Thanks, needed that.  "Big Rock" ;D

 

[Armymatters]

- The USA did not have ANY 7.62 mm yet.  It had yet to be adopted. They were using .30 Cal U.S. (.30-06) still.  Canada was the first country to adopt a 7.62 rifle ( though our GPMG would be .30 cal until 1970 - 15 years later.).  The USA insisted the new NATO calibre be as powerful as the .30 cal U.S. (.30-06, or 7.62 X 63).  With new propellants, they could do that in the T65E3 cartridge case, which was one-half inch shorter than the two and a half inch .30-06. The T65E3 was adopted by NATO as 7.62mm X 51mm NATO.

But before that - a stalemate.  The final meeting called was at Canada's request so somebody would at least make a decision.  They did.  The USA insisted and NATO obliged. We adopted the FN C1A1 in 1955.  Two years later, Colt delivers ten AR-15 s in .223 Rem (adopted as 5.56mm later) to the US Army Infantry Board, Fort Benning,  for testing.  Go figure.

The Brits were looking at a 7mm or so before WW1, but war came, and a war is no time to start changing calibers.  After WW1 the US looked at other options, but WW2 came, and a war is no time  ...  etc.

Blame General Maxwell Taylor of the US Army for being so dead set against the lighter round. It was Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who discovered that the testers that were testing the M-14 vs. the AR-15 were biased towards the M-14, and ordered firstly a halt to M-14 production, and a new round of testing, which ruled in favour for the AR-15. In the 1970's, when the Americans announced that they were equipping the units in Europe with the M-16, the Brits were pissed off, as they knew they were right all along that the 7.62mm NATO was too heavy for automatic fire. So, after some testing in 1977, they settled on an updated version of the 5.56mm round, the Belgian SS109 round, for NATO standardisation.

 

[1feral1]

Interesting topic. I don't often comment since I really don't know much about military topics in general.

One thing that did catch my eye though were comments about bullpup rifles. Whatever the merits of such a design, keeping bayonet fighting in mind when designing a rifle would just be dumb.

Here we use the ADI licenced upgraded copy of the Austrian 5.56mm AUG, known as the F88 family here. The overall advantage is the SMG length yet will a 508mm bbl (20").

Only the 508mm bbl is fitted with a bayonet lug, while the shorter carbine bbl has the ability to have one attached (some SF units get approval to have them mounted) On my issued F88C (carbine) and in my regiment, no bayonet lugs, yet we have the Buck and Lan-Kay M9 for use as a knife. 508mm bbls fitted with the M203PI GLA also have the bayonet lug removed (it screws on the threaded part of the bbl).

Here is a pic of the current ADI F88S (this one 1998 manufacture), 508mm bbl w/ Picatinny rail and 1.5X ADI optics.

As for a bayonet lug, well in Iraq the Poms did a bayonet assault against the enemy with good effect, and although maybe perhaps outdated, well, better to have a bayonet lug and not need it, than need a bayonet lug and not have it!

My 2 cents,

Cheers,

Wes

 

[KevinB]

Lets keep in mind bayonet fighting does not mesh well with weapon mounted lights, IR Lasers, Supressors and Grenade launchers...

 

[Recce41]

I still love my 7.62. AAAAAh the FN. Even on those windy days in Petawawa it would hit centre.

 

[vonGarvin]

Lets keep in mind bayonet fighting does not mesh well with weapon mounted lights, IR Lasers, Supressors and Grenade launchers...

VERY good point.  Although bayonets still have uses to put holes into people (much like any knife), how much meat do we want on the end of the "rifle sandwich?"  I'm not that well versed with rifle balance, etc, but with M203, lasers (frickin' lasers, at that!) and so forth, does it throw off the "jump" associated with firing a round, thereby affecting accuracy?

 

[vonGarvin]

Interesting topic. I don't often comment since I really don't know much about military topics in general.

One thing that did catch my eye though were comments about bullpup rifles. Whatever the merits of such a design, keeping bayonet fighting in mind when designing a rifle would just be dumb. Chance are, even in the bayonets heyday at the end of a Brownbess, the reason you died at the point of bayonet is because you got shot and were finished off by a bayonet because the guy wanted to loot your body. Another prime motive for the bayonet no longer exists as standing in a square to fight off cavalry would be pretty useless these days.

Whatever the calibre of catridge or the rifle design, a bayonet today is nothing but a weapon of  shock or last resort. Even as a last resort I bet a lot of soldiers would simply use their empty rifles as clubs.

You start your post by highlighting your level of knowledge of military topics in general, and then come off as an expert in the bayonet.  I disagree with your argument (my previous post notwithstanding about the "rifle sandwich").  Don't overlook or underplay the value of shock as a weapon.  In some situations, a bayonet fixed and pointing at your throat is sometimes enough to freeze you.  A barrel can be stared down, but an aggressive posture with a pointy knife aimed at your head is a bit different.  And the bayonets of today have no use for cavalry charges.  Just because something was invented for one reason doesn't mean it doesn't still have its use.  Check out the internet, designed to share US data between computers in the event of nuclear war with the USSR.  Alas, we are using it in so many ways these days, including: porn, information warfare, information sharing, crime detection and prevention, entertainment, etc etc.

 

[vonGarvin]

I suggest the 25mm chain gun is a good choice.

Ah, a man after my very heart.  God bless the 25mm

 

[paracowboy]

I don't often comment since I really don't know much about military topics in general.

good policy. Should have followed it here.

While I personally don't have much use for bayonet fighting (I prefer to have one hand free to grab, deflect, eye-gouge, etc) for the average troopie with 10 minute's worth of hand-to-gland, it's a good idea. And if he's actually at the point of fixing, he probably doesn't give a rat's about the state of his PAQ-4 or Surefire, 'cause he got no mo' bullets.

 

[KevinB]

Agreed and bayonets still have uses.  I dont personally beleive they belong as standard warfighting kit on the infantryman anymore (I'd rather see more pistols and suppressed carbines...)  BUT they do have roles - specifically crowd control ops. 

Back to 5.56mm -- given the SS109 round was chosen back when we contemplated fighting it out with opponents in PBA - it made some sense.  However it has been eclipsed in performance (range, accuracy and terminal performance by the heavier OTM rounds -- this is an area where I would suggest the Lethality Lab in Valcartier do some research.

 

[vonGarvin]

Back to 5.56mm -- given the SS109 round was chosen back when we contemplated fighting it out with opponents in PBA - it made some sense. 

Forgive my ignorance, but what (who?) is PBA?

Anyway, you make some very excellent points re: effects on targets at closer ranges.  Specifically the fact that at longer ranges than 100m, it matters little that dude will survive 8-10 seconds after being hit.  When dude is at 5-10 metres, he can still pose a threat before blood loss, shock, whatever, overtakes his adrenaline high.  So, one "quick" fix is multiple shots with existing ammo, hopefully in the upper thorax, throat and head.  Now, please don't think of me as a heretic, but does the 9mm smg still have a niche in such an environment?  I am NOT suggesting that we bring back the C1 SMG, but MP5?  Something similar?

 

[HItorMiss]

VG

Now your getting into how much does one section need to carry? and if you suggest even say 1 guy carry just an MP5 then unless your engagement range starts at 25m then you have a soldier out of the firefight till it reaches that range, I have been having this argument in the context of C6 gunners but that's another discussion really.

No I agree with I6 on this we need to start looking at a new round or at least an updated version of the 5.56mm.

 

[vonGarvin]

VG

Now your getting into how much does one section need to carry? and if you suggest even say 1 guy carry just an MP5 then unless your engagement range starts at 25m then you have a soldier out of the firefight till it reaches that range, I have been having this argument in the context of C6 gunners but that's another discussion really.

No I agree with I6 on this we need to start looking at a new round or at least an updated version of the 5.56mm.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting for one minute that we add more meat to the section sandwich (I need to find a new metaphor).  I'm just throwing it out there to see if it's a viable tool to have in the toolbox.  Perhaps if an "element" finds itself in an urban setting, expecting trouble, then would, hypothetically, the 9mm be of use?
As an historical context, when the German Army came across to Stalingrad, they lost their advantage.  Some of the obvious were the loss of the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe (ah, the Luftwaffe, the Washington Generals of the History Channel!), but one big advantage for the soviets was the prevalence of SMGs in the hands of the young soldiers of the Red Army.  They were utterly useless on the Steppes, but in the close confines of a city, they reigned supreme.

Now, another one to throw out there for the 5.56mm.  Would a blunted round assist, at short range, to stop someone with one to two shots?