Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets

[Saxman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/battling_over_bullets

It seems that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are complaining that the rounds fired by the M16 and M4 rifles that form the bulk of the individual weaponry issued to soldiers in the combat zone are inadequate for the nature of combat in these areas. The rounds were designed to penetrate the steel helmets and types of body armor typically worn by modern armies on a major battlefield. However against lightly-armed targets at the short ranges of urban combat, the rounds have a tendency to pass through the target, and lack the hitting power and lethality to drop an enemy combatant unless a major organ is hit.

IIRC this is the same situation as occurred when the US Military and local police forces switched over to the 9mm in preference over the larger M1911 and related .45cal sidearms.

[SteveBailey]

M14's for everyone!

[Strip]

6.8 SPC and new barrels....

Or jacketed tungsten rounds for the .223 with double the impact energy past 500 yards compared to normal ball ammo.

Strip

[Swoop]

Funny, I've been saying 5.56 sucks ever since they took the SLR (7.62) away from the British Army.   And I was about 12 when that happened.....

[Saxman]

Strip,

The problem pointed out in the article is not the impact energy at long distance, but the close ranges of the type of urban combat being faced by troops. Doubling impact energy outside 500yds is of no use if combat is taking place under that distance.

[lazs2]

I think they mean that things that get hit with .30 caliber bullets stay down.

lazs

[captain1ma]

no, they just need one of these:

http://www.youtube.com/v/p4ebtj1jR7c&hl=en

[soda72]

I'll take 10 of those...

 

[Chairboy]

What about mixed loadouts that included frangible/hollowpoint/etc rounds?  It seems that it'd be cheaper, easier to roll out fast, wouldn't require re-quals, and could be done with existing infrastructure.

[wrongwayric]

Yep that is one sweet shotgun. That was the first weapon that jumped into my head when i read the post. When i pulled guard duty tours in the Marines they issued us semi-auto shotguns with double aut buckshot rounds and extended tubes that would hold 10 rounds. Since we did flight line patrols on the airfield we were taught to aim at the concrete directly in front of someone to disable them and avoid as much possible damage to planes and things as possible. Actually shooting directly at someone was to be a last resort.

[Dowding]

I was talking to a marine who was showing me the SA-80 and he said the NATO 5.56mm bullet fragments inside the target, leaving a huge exit wound. AK-47 ammo leaves clean wounds that are more survivable (according to him).

[Swoop]

Dowd mate.....the 5.56mm is supposed to fragment.  In reality at short ranges it generally just goes straight through.

A 7.62mm will go straight through as well.....but it'll usually take a 6" wide lump with it when it does. 

[sluggish]

When I was in basic training we heard a lecture from the guys who put on the US weapons demonstration about the M16 to address everyone's concern about a 5.56 steel bullet's lack of knock-down power.  They said that the M16 was designed to wound the enemy not kill him.  It takes more resources for the enemy to care for a wounded soldier than a dead soldier.

I didn't buy it then and I'm not buying it now.

[bj229r]

Ive read stories of S.F. guys lugging around Vietnam era M14's for that reason--the 2 guys who were awarded the MOH at Mogadishu come to mind

[Nefarious]

Put down the M4 and grab an AK.