Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets

[moot]

Yes rabbits would produce a differant result than humans, but you miss my point. Notice in my initial post I state that I was using 55 GR. ball ammo.

The biggest difference is that the military are being issued armor piercing rounds (M855). If they were issued standard ball ammo (M193) The wounds would be far more traumatic, and would not just pass through. As the original post stated.

You would however still have the issue of stopping power. Something the 5.56 has had difficulty with since it's introduction some forty-odd years ago.

I would also like to correct my statement in the previous thread: The use of anything other than ball or fully jacketed ammo is illegal per the Geneva convention. I don't want some of you more liberal types screaming that we are breaking international law by using steel jacketed armor piercing rounds.

I meant that the scale of hydroshock etc may give different results, even if you scaled everything to equal proportions, the same way scale models of aircraft used for wind tunnel testing don't work if they're too small.  Just curious.

[SIK1]

I don't know.

I have seen some pics from the Vietnam era of wounds received by enemy soldiers with 5.56 rounds, and they are traumatic to say the least.

It was the same type of effect I saw on the rabbits. A small entrance wound with a large exit wound.

[Slash27]

M-14

How about a M1A?

[lazs2]

I have never understood how we can have lead pellets and slugs in 12 ga.  shotgun but not in pistols..

I like at least a 45 for a handgun or back up to the .357 mag.   

I would like the striker or alley sweeper revolver type shotgun in tense situations.   

Not a big fan of subguns.

I think the 6.8 would be a big improvement but I would rather shoot 55 grain bullets in the m4 instead of the 62's

M14 is great for most things... a tad heavy and long.   

I love my garand... I wouldn't feel badly armed with one on any field.   

lazs

[Maverick]

I'm not suggesting that each infantry man have 4 different weapons he can choose from everytime he goes on a mission.  I'm talking about going back to a WW2 / Korea type squad fit out.

Please explain what you mean by this. You are not being clear at all.

[Motherland]

Please explain what you mean by this. You are not being clear at all.

I think he's talking about each soldier having a role specific weapon with a certain job. By WWII style squad I think he means a squad with riflemen, with Garands keeping with the WWII example, someone with a BAR, someone with a Thompson, etc.

[Hornet33]

That's pretty much how it is now. Nothing has really changed with squad setups other than the weapons being issued now. M-16/M-4's for most of the guys, a couple of SAW's, and a couple M-203 grenade launchers. Might have a couple of guys with shotguns. Still have the heavy weapons platoons in most infantry companies with the M-240 .30 cal machine guns. M-2 .50-BMG's, mortars. Sniper teams within the companies and battalions.

[lasersailor184]

That's pretty much how it is now. Nothing has really changed with squad setups other than the weapons being issued now. M-16/M-4's for most of the guys, a couple of SAW's, and a couple M-203 grenade launchers. Might have a couple of guys with shotguns. Still have the heavy weapons platoons in most infantry companies with the M-240 .30 cal machine guns. M-2 .50-BMG's, mortars. Sniper teams within the companies and battalions.

But the point of what I was talking about was to distance the soldiers from using 5.56 as a jack of all trades, and giving the troops ammo types that are specifically meant for a role. 

I.E. A .45 SMG can definitely outperform the M16 at ranges under 100 yards.  A .308 Battle Rifle can definitely outperform the M16 at ranges over 100 yards.

The problem with those rounds however is weight. They are heavy and you can't carry as much ammo as you can with the 5.56mm. Also the problem isn't so much with the caliber of the 5.56 as it is with the type of bullet used. The Army still insists on using light weight armor piercing rounds when the 5.56 would be much more effective with a heavier hollow point round.

This assumption stands true if and only if the each types are equal round for round.  They are not.

The 5.56 was designed to cause trauma, and iirc the biggest gripe against the M-16 in VietNam was that it would jam when it was needed most. Of course they were initially issued with out cleaning kits, because they didn't need to be cleaned, according to the Pentagon at the time.

The problem with the first versions of the M16 were design flaws and stupid decisions in redesigning the AR15.  The round's actual application effectiveness is debatable, but all of the problems were caused by the gun.

[lasersailor184]

Is there a significant advantage to Garands over M14s?

Most of the differences are debatable as to which is better.  Sure the M14 has a higher mag capacity, but the Garand is one of the fastest reloading weapons in the world.  As to an aside, regardless of what people have said, it is relatively easy to reload a Garand Clip in gun up to 7 bullets.  It's an acquired skill to load the clip to 8 bullets out of the gun in a decently quick manner.

The M14 does have Automatic Fire.  But since it is lighter, most except the bigger guys will have difficulty controlling it.  The Garand is heavier.


Both incredibly reliable weapons, really accurate, and pleasant to shoot.

[dunnrite]

no, they just need one of these:

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

Oh hell ya

[Nefarious]

Just please give me something other than an M4.  I'm tired of the problems.  There are better types out there.

You said you confiscated a '53 Tula the other day, What is stopping you from grabbing a Maadi AK and leaving the M4 at your base?

[CHECKERS]

 
 Close combat .... same as other wars,   hard to beat a BAR 30/06,  same as my Dad used at  Guadalcanal .in WW2...
 

 CHECKERS
 
   

[Rich46yo]

The Garand and BAR are yesterdays news. Yes they were great but you couldnt compare the firepower of todays rifle companies with yesterdays. The amount of firepower a modern rifle company can lay out on an enemy is awsome.

[Saxman]

Both incredibly reliable weapons, really accurate, and pleasant to shoot.

Besides, you gotta love the "Pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-TING!" of that clip ejecting.

[wrongwayric]

Bring back the Thompson and B.A.R. for urban assault/building clearing! Then your squad can have long range weapons specialist to use the less effective far range weapons to pick off the runners. Tommy gun and B.A.R are 2 of the most deadly close in combination weapons you can find for in close fighting other than a shotgun IMO.