Time to say goodbye to the M9 9mm pistol

[nrshida]

in Vietnam, with US and ARVN equipped with M16A1's the ratio was in the order of 100'000 rounds per enemy casualty

What kind of sights were they using? 

[danny76]

What kind of sights were they using? 

Predominantly iron sights, but this was the result of giving guys who, no disprespect to them, were minimally trained conscripts, a lot of rounds and a fully automatic rifle. They had previously had the M14 but it was effectively uncontrollable on full auto. This coupled with the fact that the previous conflict in Korea had seen experienced combat vets with semi auto M1's.

Probably

[Gman]

Danny, I have dozens of books and vids on the Falklands as well, my major interest of military history for many of the same reasons.

So much interesting stuff.  The lack of a larger carrier with longer ranged fighters than the Harrier, and no proper AEW/AWACS capability meaning a determined air force was being engaged at very close range to the ships being defended being offset by the skill of the British pilots, the capability of the Harrier albeit having short range, and the incredible performance of the Aim9L, the first really decent all aspect IR missile for the Western nations used in combat.

Much bravery, on both sides at times, and like you said, some very vicious small unit actions in pretty daunting conditions.  Amphibious landings and assaults, serious naval engagements of all kinds.  The first use of a NATO/Western Nuc sub doing what it is built to do, sink threat ships and sea control.  The Argies Sub San Luis possibly got in torpedo attacks but there was malfunctions with the weapons - some supposition and theories about this, but interesting info nonetheless.  

My former boss Alan Bell told me about an assault by the SAS on a position garrisoned with very good Argentine troops.  Their intel had missed a minefield, and they hit them in the dark, and ran right through it unknowingly, a large unit of SAS soldiers.  To their surprise, the Argies incredibly ran up the white flag and surrendered before they closed to a distance where they had picked to engage them.  Afterwards they asked the Argentine officer in command why he had chosen to give up so easily.  He responded that he had heard many things about the SAS, but when he saw them run through the minefield and nobody blowing up, he then knew they must be supermen of some kind, and feared his men, of whom there were a great many more than the British, wouldn't stand a chance.  Pure dumb luck that averted a lot of people dying on both sides that day.


I agree regarding a 30 cal rifle being a better option for troops in many cases.  There is a constant discussion and argument about that, just like the constant argument about pistol calibers.  The SCAR 762 rifle is working pretty well, I don't think we'll ever see the US or other forces go back to 30 cal as a primary issued rifle, but it would be nice if they did, and the SCAR with a bit more time and tweaks would be a perfectly acceptable way to go IMO.

[nrshida]

Predominantly iron sights

  No I was joking. Pretty much looking over your shoulder shooting backwards with a vanity mirror would have got a higher hit percentage. I assume a lot of it was mad minutes into the jungle.

[GScholz]

Norway and Canada had very close ties during the cold war.  Canada was supposed to reenforce Norway during Reforger /Soviet attack and help protect Nato's northern flank.  Many of my family and friends who were before my time operated with Norway's army during exercises in the 80's and before.  The always had great things to say about Norway's troops and the people there.

Yup... Our whole defense was designed to last three days against the Soviets. Just enough time for NATO reinforcements to arrive. This is from a NATO exercise in the late '70s or early '80s with US Marines playing the role of an attacking force:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vioI7bV3Y1E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mNT34ylnMg

Despite the silly "White Death Ski Troops" title they're actually just reservists, having been mobilized for a two-week refresher exercise. Back then every able-bodied man was called back to service for an exercise every 2-5 years to refresh their basic soldier skills. I assure you that our English has significantly improved since then!

[GScholz]

No I was joking. Pretty much looking over your shoulder shooting backwards with a vanity mirror would have got a higher hit percentage. I assume a lot of it was mad minutes into the jungle.

What consumes most of the ammunition in war is suppressive fire. A unit will suppress the enemy and pin them down by laying down heavy fire against their position, forcing them to take cover. This allows you to maneuver elements of your unit into flanking positions, or into safety if they were exposed to fire from the enemy unit you're suppressing. In WWII the US Army expended 12,000 rounds per enemy soldier killed, but the vast majority of that was never meant to kill, only to scare/suppress/pin down.

[nrshida]

What consumes most of the ammunition in war is suppressive fire.

I know, I've watched Rambo! 

Actually 12,000 exceeded my expectation but 100,000 is incredible.

[GScholz]

Not really...

[craz07]

Man, probably a fortune in all that spent brass 

[DaveBB]

I don't have time to post all the data, but the M-16's 5.56mm round explosively fragments inside the human body at up to 100 meters.  It is a function of velocity.  Basically the round enters the body, rotates vertically 90 degrees, goes from a round to a flat shape, then breaks apart.  The reason the U.S. Army switched to the three round burst was a cost saving effort, and due to a study on the 5.56mm rounds lethality.  It was found in Vietnam that it normally took 2 rounds to kill a target immediately.  So, if two rounds will kill someone immediately, then three rounds must be even better.  Thus the three round burst was invented.

[danny76]

I don't have time to post all the data, but the M-16's 5.56mm round explosively fragments inside the human body at up to 100 meters.  It is a function of velocity.  Basically the round enters the body, rotates vertically 90 degrees, goes from a round to a flat shape, then breaks apart.  The reason the U.S. Army switched to the three round burst was a cost saving effort, and due to a study on the 5.56mm rounds lethality.  It was found in Vietnam that it normally took 2 rounds to kill a target immediately.  So, if two rounds will kill someone immediately, then three rounds must be even better.  Thus the three round burst was invented.

Novel concept, in actual fact the implementation of the 3 round burst was purely because a burst of 3 rounds will have left the barrel and be en route before recoil has pushed the muzzle off target. Automatic fire is relatively pointless exercise when using modern assault weapons, an experienced operator will be easily capable of firing 2-3 round bursts with the weapon set to automatic, just not when under combat stress.

We used to used 'deliberate' rate of fire for most suppression, i.e 10rpm. That still amounts to a platoon putting down a few hundred aimed shots per minute, not including LSW's, SAW's, GPMG's and sniper rounds. Plenty to keep most people heads down.

Full auto has applications, as already mentioned, for suppressing fire, and for FIBUA/FISH, when we were searching structures I had my weapon set to automatic, but other than that, and above a range of about 10m it is a worthless waste of ammo, even with squad belt fed weapons the rounds are all over the shop from recoil at a couple of hundred yards, useless unless they are employed in an area role. GPMG's are mounted on a Sustained Fire Tripod purely for this reason. I have fired GPMG in what is laughably called the 'light role' on a sling from the hip. Anything over a 10-15 rnd burst is effectively uncontrollable and I'm not exactly lightweight, 50 rnd bursts look as cool as hell, but nevertheless are fairly pointless.

It may have taken 2 rounds to kill, very few would have been immediate, if they were then the first or last round was a fatal shot anyway. It also takes 1 round to inflict mortal injuries in a lot of cases, sometime 15 don't do it.

The 3 round burst selection is certainly to reduce ammunition expenditure, but also to increase first shot hits, because there are 3 relatively well aimed rounds going down range, as opposed to 3 well aimed rounds and 27 morale boosting spray and pray rounds.

[Gman]

You're right DaveBB, but it didn't work out that well.

Larry Vickers (x Delta, now has his own gun show on YouTube and Television) just did a segment last month on the Russian AN94 over in Russia.  It fires 2 rounds impulse so quickly that the barrel essentially behaves like a single shot in terms of vibrations/accuracy etc.  It's a far better option than 3 round burst, as at 100m round number 3 is usually a non factor.  Unfortunately the system is very unreliable, even in the demo all the factory guns broke, and took several Russian factory armorers a long time to fix.  Very typical apparently for the An94.

Very close range CQB and room clearing where there is no friendlies in the rooms (hopefully) is where full auto has a good purpose for a shoulder supported weapon.  Even the suppression capability of the full auto rifle some clamor on about is dubious at best in my experience.  Like has been said, that is the purpose of the general purpose or squad belt fed weapons.  We used the Belgian made 249s that were highly modified with shorter barrels for use in vehicles, as well as usually a FN Mag58/240 from the rear of our trucks.  Using them dismounted on the range, I found using the "son-of-a-bish" mental count off while firing bursts, hitting typical figure 11 targets, I could get much of that burst on target, on the range, again, supported with a bipod.  They are a 3 MOA accurate belt fed at best in my experience shooting them, and I agree with Danny regarding the effectiveness of even these weapons with silly long bursts.

Ohio Ord in the USA is making a single shot trigger group for their accurized M240/Mag58s.  They shoot 1 MOA groups out to 300 and beyond on single, and hold that accuracy pretty well with proper bursts as well.  Using the Canadian made Elcan long eye relief optic, putting good bursts into point targets out to 3, 400, and even beyond is in the realm of the very possible for well trained troops with it.  A huge advancement in belt fed infantry weapons IMO in terms of capability when not being used in a fire beaten zone or the oft quoted "suppression" mode of firing. 

[Rich46yo]

Hmmmm, I always thought the 3 round burst was cause nobody could hit a dang thing spraying the rifle. I know I couldnt on full auto, tho I had enough sense to fire short bursts. But I'll never forget when they lined us up on targets about 25 yards away and told us to burn thru the 30 rnd mag anyway we wanted. Well a bunch of John Waynes let em rip, all 30, and not one of us boneheads hit a target.

Tho Ive carried them for years in both military and police Ive never used or seen used the M16 system. Ive only seen a few people shot by rifles so my only experience is with hunting where Ive shot many, many animals with different rounds. If a bullet doesnt hit something solid it isnt going to break apart, including a 5.56mm. What makes the round so lethal is its high velocity that displaces a massive amount of tissue causing so much trauma putting the victim in shock quickly.

Are the better MBR rounds? Probably. But when you look at the big picture are there really a better MBR round? Probably not. I know quite a few co-workers who have used it in defense, mostly military but we have used it on the street too. I wouldnt want to get hit by the damn thing. Mine is a Springfield I went all Historical with and basically turned it into an A1 we used in USAF. It has a 20" barrel, is extremely accurate, and follow up shots with the 5.56mm are a dream compared even to a 7.62x39.

Im no expert with the system but there must be some reason its been used longer then any MBR in our History.

[Gman]

I was going to reply about 556 fragmentation but didn't, and that's essentially correct.  There is a great table I can link that shows even with 20" barrel AR platform rifles, the odds of the 556 fragmenting at ranges of 100m or greater without striking something very hard like bone is pretty low.  If IRCC even at 60 yards the 14.5" and shorter barrel velocity makes fragmentation unlikely in the same circumstances.

What makes the round so lethal is its high velocity that displaces a massive amount of tissue causing so much trauma putting the victim in shock quickly.

This is absolutely correct, the high velocity cavitation and hydrostatic shock inside of body of tissue is usually what causes damage, and it is a function of mostly velocity, and lesser so the bullet size/weight/composition/etc.  The size of the round will form a permanent wound channel slightly larger than the actual projectile diameter depending on a few factors, but the temporary wound/stretch cavity is caused by that cavitation from the hydrostatic shock.  Like all things related to this as Rich pointed out earlier about handgun rounds lethality, there is much debate about what causes more damage or likelyhood of a "stop" to the threat, temp wound cavity or permanent wound channel, and IMO both play a part and have a factor, and has been stated, gunshot wounds are often pretty unpredictable by nature in many respects.

In fact, regarding 556, the most common NATO round being the SS109, and others like it, have a hardened steel penetrater that makes up a significant portion of the internal part of the bullet, and it is so hard that getting it to fragment would require hitting very hard steel plate, and even then...

That's not to say other parts of the round won't come apart under certain circumstances, but the idea often stated that 556 always, or even often, fragments when hitting soft tissue targets, isn't correct.

556 is still an excellent round when expectations are understood, most times in war, at least until a lot of the recent fights in the mountains in Afghanistan, the data the military has put out there is the engagement ranges are typically are less than 200 yards, even closer, like 100.  Ask Junky or anyone else that has seen it perform in action and you'll get an accurate accounting of it, same as with Rich and the handgun wounds that are often seen in his city.  Is there more effective rounds?  Of course, there is always something more lethal, but how does it balance vs a ton of other factors.  I prefer 762 myself, but never feel underequipped with a 5.56 rifle either.

[DaveBB]

Rich, you said if a bullet doesn't hit something, it doesn't break apart?  I just told you exactly how the 5.56mm breaks apart in soft tissue.  



Danny76, the 3 round burst came about exactly like I said.  Source: "Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War" by James F. Dunnigan, Albert A. Nofi.  They cite the study in the book.