U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate

[HItorMiss]

However the typical M855/C77 lot has a 7" Neck in Gel -- before yawing and fragmentation at the cannelure occurs.

That's still half a foot is it not? so the round travels 6-7 inches before starting to reach optimal effects in soft tissue area. which by my math means that optimal effect occurs near the rear of the target closer to the exit wound then where want it which would be as near as we could get to the impact site.

Meaning by my interpretation that aiming centre of mass in the flesh area would have less then the desired effect, where as if we were to aim higher into the bone mass that makes up the chest cavity we would achieve near perfect effect on penetration given the likelyhood of hitting bone. which would cause the round to fragment and tumble almost on impact causing more vital organ damage then anywhere else on the body.

*Edits are for spelling*

 

[KevinB]

Yeah - hence why the search for better ammo...

  M855 works -- its just not ideal.  With Mk262 and a 2-3" neck you get quicker fragmentation and out to a longer range/lower velocity

 

[HItorMiss]

In which case your telling me that bureaucracy is keeping that round out of circulation

My next question is why?

 

[Journeyman]

However the typical M855/C77 lot has a 7" Neck in Gel -- before yawing and fragmentation at the cannelure occurs.

So it's an OK round for shooting fat people?  ???

 

[HItorMiss]

So it's an OK round for shooting fat people?  ???

Statistics would indicate yup that's what it is good at, glad I'm skinny ;D

 

[a_majoor]

Once again, there is an infinite number of possibilities to take into account. If the target is wearing soft body armour (i.e. you miss the strike plate), or you happen to hit something like a rucksack or radio backpack strap, then the bullet will expend some of its energy and deform before it passes into the target. If you are fighting against people who believe that drugs, alcohol, sorcerers and disguises will protect them from bullets, then it might be necessary to use something really hard hitting like a 12 gage shotgun firing deer slugs or 00 magnum shot to "persuade" them to stay down with one shot.

In general, proper application of the principles of marksmanship allied with constant practice will get the most out of any round, and like I said, 5.56 may not be ideal every time, but in the vast majority of situations it is "good enough".

 

[paracowboy]

Art,
"good enough" - ain't. If we're gonna stick with a round that has proven less than marvelous, why not upgrade it a bit? Go with the better cartridge, and save the crap stuff for training 'til it's all gone.

Better, why not go to a round that gives greater range/accuracy/energy dump, and is still controllable on full-auto? With modern gunfightin' drills and kit, even 7.62 is controllable now. 6.8 far more so.

 

[HItorMiss]

Once again, there is an infinite number of possibilities to take into account. If the target is wearing soft body armour (i.e. you miss the strike plate), or you happen to hit something like a rucksack or radio backpack strap, then the bullet will expend some of its energy and deform before it passes into the target.

I would argue that the few countries that wear body armour are more our allies then enemies, I would go so far as to say that as far back as just about any operation we have been on almost none of the "adversaries" had body armour on, not the Serbs or Croats or Turks or Somali's etc etc, so then why do we have a round that needs something to go through before it does it's job?

As for 7.62mm this excerpt from the article that I6 posted tells me it is also not the best round for what we need.

"The 7.62 mm NATO rifle cartridge is still used in sniper
rifles and machine guns. After about 16 cm of penetration,
this bullet yaws through 90° and then travels base forward.
A large temporary cavity is formed and occurs at the point
of maximum yaw"

7.62mm requires more flesh mass to penetrate then the 5.56mm thus making it great for shooting at person wearing body armour but again how often have we ever done that?

I think maybe the best solution is the Mk262 round that has been discussed as well as training to shoot to the upper to mid chest area with the 5.56 round to achieve maximum effect.

 

[a_majoor]

In effect, we are going to get into a political rather than a technical fight if "we" are advocating changing ammunition. The EM-2 adopted the .280 "ideal" round in the 1950s, and was being put into pre production.

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. In a similar fashion, the 6.5mm was identified back in the 1980's as the ideal LMG round, but logistical considerations led to the 5.56 round being universally applied to rifles and LMGs. 7.62 has advantages in penetration (especially for people hiding behind walls or cars), and a long range which is great for MGs.

If you are suggesting a better 5.56 round (different weight, charge, cross section, external shape) then it would be much much easier to get it in circulation; no one has to buy new rifles or upper receivers. I'm quite with you there. IF you are seriously advocating 6.5 or 6.8mm, then there will be many bunfights between advocates of each particular round, improved 5.56 and doing nothing, which is a lot of time and energy expended.

 

[Kirkhill]

Doesn't range to target have an impact on available energy at time of impact?  Just another of those variables that the Mayor was talking about.

The M16 with its original round was optimized for combat at ranges under 200m.   The M16A2 with the SS109, I believe was optimized for longer range shooting, so that it would be effective out to 800m.

The 7.62mm, or .308 is derivative of all those turn of the last century rounds which were intended to be used in weapons like the Lee Enfield (.303) that were equipped with sights out beyond 1200 yards.  Engaging targets at 400 yards in pre WW1 training was more the norm.

If engagements beyond 100m are now considered long range, then perhaps it is little wonder that all of the above rounds have passed clean through the target before either the round or the target notice the difference.

Is there, perhaps, an argument for a larger caliber, higher mass, lower velocity round for the Close Quarter Battle?  Perhaps the urban trooper is better equipped with something like the HK MP5 in a 0.40?

 

[mudgunner49]

It's all about kinetic energy.  Doubling a projectile's mass will double kinetic energy.  Doubling a projectile's velocity will quadruple kinetic energy.  So, the calibre isn't the only thing, but mass of the projectile.  (FYI: KE=1/2massxVelocity 2)  Given that a longer barrel will produce a higher muzzle velocity, perhaps the bullet is fine (I really don't know, just asking), but is there a way to increase barrel length without increasing overall weapon length? (eg: "Bullpup" design?)

Kinetic energy is not everything - or even MOST of everything.  In order for it to be a factor, the round MUST connect and the fact of the matter is that the majority of rounds fired in combat are not hits.  For that reason the concept of "rate over weight" makes much sense.  I am not advocating or endorsing the "spray and pray" theory here, however when part of your job is to fire enough rounds to keep the bad guys' head down while maneouvring into a position to put one in his pumpkin, you may not be able to carry enough 7.62 (esp in a TV ).

Read "Gunfighting 101" by Dwayne Dwyer for further elucidation on the topic and see whether your current arguement holds water when faced with cold hard reality...


have a great weekend,

blake

 

[vonGarvin]

Kinetic energy is not everything - or even MOST of everything.  In order for it to be a factor, the round MUST connect and the fact of the matter is that the majority of rounds fired in combat are not hits.  For that reason the concept of "rate over weight" makes much sense.  I am not advocating or endorsing the "spray and pray" theory here, however when part of your job is to fire enough rounds to keep the bad guys' head down while maneouvring into a position to put one in his pumpkin, you may not be able to carry enough 7.62 (esp in a TV ).

Read "Gunfighting 101" by Dwayne Dwyer for further elucidation on the topic and see whether your current arguement holds water when faced with cold hard reality...


have a great weekend,

blake

Hi Blake
Yes, I'll have a great weekend.  You too.
But, consider what "effect" you want.  If you wish to merely suppress, then you're right, you don't have to hit your target.  If you wish to actually hit him or her, then kinetic energy is what you need (combined with "behind armour effects", where "armour" equals "epidermis").  If all you wish to do is suppress, then a paint ball gun firing simunition may do the trick, UNLESS dude knows that he won't die if hit with said paint ball.  If you wish to pop one into him at *x* metres, then fire something that will take him or her down.

As for bullpup being too small, I am not advocating a reduction in overall weapon length, but rather lengthening the barrel without lengthening overall weapon.  So, imagine the current C7A2 gone bullpup, but instead of the barrel length being (whatever it is), but about 10 cm longer.  Muzzle velocity would then be increased.  Having said that, of course, you increase stressors on barrel (radial, hoop, linear, etc) and increase recoil UNLESS you put some sort of muzzle brake on it (!).

Cheers

 

[CDNBlackhawk]

I watched a show where they said that a 5.56 round actually does more damage then a 7.62 round, their reasoning behind this was that when the 5.56 round hits, its breaks up and its pieces bounce around through out the body, and the 7.62 round actually made a cleaner shot, They asked Doctors which would they would rather treat and they said 7.62 because it is a much cleaner wound and much easier to treat then the 5.56 round.

 

[HItorMiss]

*CDN* Blackhawk

We already have discussed why both rounds seem to be sub standard in terms of the doing the proper job at our engagement ranges, maybe you should ready the links put up by Infidel-6 they proved very enlightening to me.

*Edit: Because I got the name wrong, sorry CDN Blackshirt

 

[Armymedic]

Gentlemen,

The reason the 5.56 mm round is sufficent is that to kill a man, any man, it is not the size of the hole, but where it is and how much blood it will leak out. Penetrating trauma to the brain and heart will cause instantaneous death, regrdless of the cause. The rest is just bonus. The concept is as many holes as you can, perferably close to the shut off buttons of the body. It does not matter if the maker of those holes are a bullet or an ice pick...the holes will kill you the same.

 

[paracowboy]

Gentlemen,

The reason the 5.56 mm round is sufficent is that to kill a man, any man, it is not the size of the hole, but where it is and how much blood it will leak out. Penetrating trauma to the brain and heart will cause instantaneous death, regrdless of the cause. The rest is just bonus. The concept is as many holes as you can, perferably close to the shut off buttons of the body. It does not matter if the maker of those holes are a bullet or an ice pick...the holes will kill you the same.

not quite. You're ignoring some basic bullet-science stuff.

 

[Armymedic]

Not talking bullets at all...just things that make holes in people.

 

[KevinB]

The main advantage to 5.56mm is that it uses fragmentation as an additional method of injury - rather than just penetration.

For M193 and M855 the bullet will typically fragment at velocities over 2700 FPS (impact velocity) and redueced fragmentation down to 2500 fps.  Mk262 will fragment down to (typically) 2200 fps impact velocity.

Below those velocities it tends to act like most of the other boattailed designs - and yaws - but does not fragment - causing limited temporary and permanent cavity.


ArmyMedic is 100% correct on the dynamics of injury for incapcitation and death.  Either a CNS disruption or blood loss is required -- and CNS hits are the only way to shut down an opponent immediately. 

One of the problems in combat shooting - is 1) hitting the target 2) immediate incapcitation.
  One individual I know hit a tgt 11 times with C77 ball from a 10" C8CQB --- while the wounds where fatal the tgt was not stopped until it was headshot -- the distance was under 25m.

At longer ranges one is not as concerned about immediate incapacitation -- however in CQB distance without immediate (or next to immediate) incapcitation the tgt can still manage to perform actions (which will likely do you harm) in the time it take for the system to shutdown from blood loss.

In a recent event in Kabul 5 shooters held back a large attack -- all the defenders where wounded - but managed to stay in the fight sicne they did not suffer major incapcitating wounds -- even though one was shot COM.  (attackers where using AK-47/AKM with 7.62mmX39 M44 ball)


While I support the idea of adding a 7.62mm DM rifle to the rifle sections -- ideally it would be using the 175gr Sierra Match King - for both accuracy at range and the additional terminal effect over ball.  The 178gr Hornady TAP would be ideal -- however due to the ruling on ballistic tip ammunition it can only be used by units that have a Counter terrorist mandate and are not impreaded by rulings of the Hauge Convention.

 

[paracowboy]

AM's post was accurate, as far as it went. But he didn't include the other factors of gunfightin', like the fact that I really don't care if the bullet kills the dude, as long as it makes him lie down and stop shooting at me. I can always finish him off with a big rock later. Let him lie there and bleed out. It'll give him something to think about, and keep him busy while I deal with his friends. Or polish my boots. Whatever.

Lethality is not my over-riding concern. That's why I would prefer a larger round that penetrates less deeply. To deliver all its' energy inside the body shortly after penetration. I would also prefer that same round be more accurate out farther, just to give more options in deserts and mountains. If I can't have a bigger cartridge, I want a better one.

As for the Hague Conventions, if the gov't has the stones, it can withdraw from any it chooses. We never ratified the "No civvies over uniforms" clause, for instance. We can withdraw from the stupid ones involving "bulletology".

 

[KevinB]

Roger that.

Mk262 is fully JAG approved (US Col Park-Hayes ruling - that we have accepted previously on the 168gr and 175gr SMK's).

The US FBI "standard" for penetration in live tissue is a min of 12"   - pretty much any rifle round except the light polmer tipped varmit bullets will do this.

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.

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