US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war

Alpha, I shoot highpower matches locally. We have a few ranges that are 100 meters and a few that are 200 meters. For the 200 meter ranges I use a Sierra 68gr BTHP out of my Fulton Armory 20" NM A-2. Prone slow fire I can shoot groups the size of the bottom of a soup can. I would say the structural integrity of the 5.56mm round at range is acceptable.
I shoot a 62gr BTHP at 100 meters and it performs incredibly well.

 

I know this is off subject and not a rifle round but I,ve been looking for something with a little more in my 9mm glock 26. If you havn't tried them try the Hornady Critical Defense round. I was very please and that will be my new CC amo

 

http://www.survivalmonkey.com/forum...-articles-terminal-ballistics-wounds-pdf.html

There isn't any need to go that far.

Dr ML Fackler is the man who did the research everyone else quotes. It comes down to a choice between yaw and large permanent cavity.

I spent some time once shooting ice, Kevlar, steel, junked cars etc with 30 Cal, 7.62N, 5.56, 5.45, 7.62x39 and all seemed to get it done. IMO, almost anything issued since WWII ought to be more than adequate.

 

Bullets like the .224 Hornet 45-grain (They're also made in .223 for older chamberings) are very lightly jacketed, and can be pushed pretty fast. I've seen them turn into "smoke" halfway to a target due to centrifugal force, but I don't think anything specifically made for the .223 Rem. or 5.56 is anywhere near that sensitive.

 

Folks, the U.S. military has gone green. Now normally, I would be very offended and would resist anything that has the word "green", but in this case, it seems like it might be okay. (Caveat, I have not used these against anything but paper bad guys). The M855A1 replaced the lead with steel. So now the standard 5.56mm ammo has a steel penetrator instead of lead. It supposedly penetrates .25 inch steel plate at 300 meters with ease.

Okay, now we get back to the question of whether this round is worth a crap for CQB. No. It. Isn't. It is probably even worse now that it has a steel penetrator. Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF): It will zip right through the bad guys at close (and probably mid) ranges. If it will penetrate .25 inch steel at 300 meters, it will probably go right through a person at 25 meters without even slowing down. I know, it will slow down. It's a figure of speech. I haven't had a chance to get my hands on some in an environment where it was relatively likely that I could squirrel some away without getting in serious trouble. If I do, I will be sure to weigh it and probably shoot it to see what the specs are. My best guess? It will be decent for shooting thin-skinned vehicles (of which our likely enemies [including you and me] will have many), but will suck a fat baby's richard on people.

 

Oh gee.... where do I start....

As Pax Mentis said, we haven't talked. The vast majority i've served with(I'd estimate 90%+) are happy with their gov't issued caliber and weapon.

I've seen a ton of people and animals killed with both 7.62 rounds and 5.56 rounds. I have to say that the caliber means nothing in how the person dies. One-stop-flying-off-your-feet-backwards shots are more prevalent in Hollywood than in real life. As other have said, shot placement matters. Once in the boiler room stops a fight... in time. Nothing is certain. People react differently.

Unfortunately, tactics and technology have changed since 1919. We don't do frontal assaults on vast open fields. Its close and fast. It would take one close, action packed reload at a 50 yd battle to realize that maybe you should have brought a semi-auto, box magazine fed weapon. "They'll never get that close" is a non-method I like to call "hope". Plan for contingencies and worst cases. 5.56 or 7.62 your choice, either will do for the already mentioned reasons^.

I won't disagree that there aren't better projectiles we could use. I would like us to retain the M855 projectile and add another to the inventory- more of a Tap round for COIN/stability operations. JMHO. M855 has it's place. Just not shooting unarmored, lightly clothed insurgents.

 

I've looked at a couple 7.62x39 I think one was a bush master and the other was a Stag I think don't hold me to the makers but they were built on the AR platform. Wich I still think that if the goverment would look at some of the other rounds for close up like the Hornady red tip in the 5.56 the soldier's can keep the benifit of more ammo, less weight and get a good round that will do the job. We have good preformance with them at all different distances. Which they can't afford to worry about the grunts and bullets when they have to pay $1000.00 for a toilet seats, $700.00 for a shovel to do one ground breaking or $500.00 for sissors to cut the ribbon.

 

Agree. The 855 was accompanied by a 1:7 twist in the rifle it is shot in, due to the need for stabilizing a longer projectile.

The fast twist combined with a 193 probably helps fragment the bullet on impact... a serendipitous combination.

 

Velocity causes the fragmentation.

The 5.56 has a rearward center of gravity and it is spinning very fast. When it strikes as the yaw begins the centrifugal forces cause it to explode. A bullet is intended to fly straight with it's mass rotating about an axis. Hitting flesh forces the bullet to deviate and it cannot take the the force so it flies apart. The cannelure adds to this effect.

It's simple physics: the faster the bullet is moving, the greater the forces. When velocity drops below a certain speed the 5,56 yaws but does not fragment. Even slower and it doesn't yaw.

Not this one; nor any of the ones I know.

Did you watch the movie "We were soldiers"?

If the M16 was as half as bad as the internet portrays it; the movie would have had a much different ending.

 

well, as someone who likes to shoot varmints at long ranges, my vote is for something like a TNT bullet or a varmint grenade. they litterally cause ground squirls and rockchucks to vaporize. perfect for up close and personal distances. they would cause a hell of a wound channel on a human size target, and they do stay together really well at high velocity (faster than the military would load for) so it would be a good bullet for loger range too. keep the AP rounds for punching armor.

 

I've been loading 55gr SinterFire sintered bullets to practice with lately. I got them a little cheaper than pulled m855's when you factor shipping in.

They are supposed to be good for shooting steel up close, with no spalling. When I shoot 1/4" plate at 50 yards, it darn near goes through, and leave a pretty good dent. I can't find any bullet fragments, as they supposedly turn back to powder after hitting a hard object.

I can only imagine what they would do to a person; probably not return to powder like shooting steel, but I bet they would fragment- and do it quickly.

 

Velocity causes the fragmentation.

The 5.56 has a rearward center of gravity and it is spinning very fast. When it strikes as the yaw begins the centrifugal forces cause it to explode. A bullet is intended to fly straight with it's mass rotating about an axis. Hitting flesh forces the bullet to deviate and it cannot take the the force so it flies apart. The cannelure adds to this effect.

I said the increased rotational speed (rifling twist) HELPS... so did you.

 

Maybe we should switch to a bull pup design that would add several hundred feet per/sec and still have a gun the same length as the m4.

 

Tikka, I'll agree with you to a point. During the Viet Nam era we are talking about a whole different bullet and barrel twist.

If you keep it within it's envelope it will work well. However (IMO) they have over stabilize and made the bullet to heavy.

The AR/M16 hasn't really improved as much as the lubrication technology has.

I can make an AR/M16 run. But I'm just not a 5.56 fan. I'm happy with my 7.62x39. But to each their own. The key is drop the hyperbole, understand that ALL weapons platforms have strong and weak points, and to train accordingly.

 

If you shoot the lighter stuff like 45gr., 40gr., or smaller out of a tight twist like 1:7 or even 1:9 then you could see that. I have been able to recreate the same thing with my Fulton Armory NM A-2 with a 1:8 twist and using Varget powder (I dont recall the grain charge now but it was within normal limits) shooting a 40gr Hornaday bullet.
If I shoot that same round out of my Remington 700 with a 1:14 twist, I can kill woodchucks all day long at good range.
For the tighter twist I like to use stuff 62gr. or larger. I will use 55gr. for playing but when the shot has to count I use heavier stuff and make sure it is target or hunting grade.

 

You mentioned the 1:7 yet the original was 1:14. They were the ones which key holed which is quite nasty on meat.

 

Talk about ! But not consistently... I've seen 5.56-wounded VC who looked like they had been punched, entry and exit, with an icepick. Mostly extremity wounds, which didn't give the bullet much to work on.

 

My experience was M193 and 1:14 which was very consistent at typical ROE 's. 5,56 is a lot messier than 7.62x39 which was all that mattered at the time.

I carried an M60 mostly.

 

IIRC the original rifling on the AR/M16 was 1n14, but prior to adoption it was changed to 1n12. This was done because of issues with the 1n14 in arctic temperatures.

Most if not all the issued M16 in Nam were 1n12. This twist toned down some of the violent bullet upset that was seen with the 1n14. Still if kept within it's it's envelope 2800 FPS and under 200 meters it worked.