Military Ammo Sucks?
- Thread starter homefires
- Start date
"In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets."
I wonder how many of those folks were ground pounders....I'd like to see what a survey of 2600 0311's (or their equiv.) would have to say.
I wonder how many of those folks were ground pounders....I'd like to see what a survey of 2600 0311's (or their equiv.) would have to say.
Rich Miranda
New member
IANAE but I saw this TV show where the a soldier was talking about the benefits of their current caliber. He seemed truly convinced that they had what they needed.
Back to my armchair.
Back to my armchair.
Rant Casey
New member
I never felt as if the 5.56 was inadequate, especially after engaging someone who was "armed" with a .22 rifle with sights so bent he could have barely hit a human target at 10 yards, with luck on his side.
The idea of carrying an m14 all day in the heat with full battle pack doesn't sound like much fun to me, but in turn, neither was carrying an m4. The increased firepower would be nice but there's a a tool for every job and for me ie. Room clearing etc.., it certainly wasn't the m14. If givin the option, I would still opt for the m4 100x. In fact, i would scrap the 368 mm barrel for a 260 mm barrel but hey, I guess that's a lot to ask for, considering my rifle worked about 3/4 of the time
You can't have your cake and eat it too I guess.
The idea of carrying an m14 all day in the heat with full battle pack doesn't sound like much fun to me, but in turn, neither was carrying an m4. The increased firepower would be nice but there's a a tool for every job and for me ie. Room clearing etc.., it certainly wasn't the m14. If givin the option, I would still opt for the m4 100x. In fact, i would scrap the 368 mm barrel for a 260 mm barrel but hey, I guess that's a lot to ask for, considering my rifle worked about 3/4 of the time
You can't have your cake and eat it too I guess.
ThreeStepsAhead
New member
I bet those 20% were in a way worse spot than the 80% who were chillin' on the FOB complaining about having to take their M4 to coffee shop en route to the pool.
id never bring a 223 to battle, i know people will say its all about shot placement and engagements are under 100 yards, but i seriously doubt anybody would carry a 10/22 intpo battle and with the prior philosophy it would do just as well. A g36 or sig 55x series in 6.5 grendel would be nice, bigger round, controllable full auto, more reliable platform, ect.
As a life long civilian I can state clearly I have no combat experience with either the M16, M4, or the M-14. I would ask that those of you stating opinions like they are gospel please state whether you have actually ever used any of them in combat. By used, I mean actually engaged the enemy.
If you have never used it in combat, and never engaged the enemy with any of them, your opinion is nothing more than an opinion and really sorry if I offend you here, meaningless in a real world sense.
If you have never used it in combat, and never engaged the enemy with any of them, your opinion is nothing more than an opinion and really sorry if I offend you here, meaningless in a real world sense.
i never used it, get about equally mixed reports from people i do know. my signature lines a quote from an iraq vet. another said he likes his m16, since its lightweight and he rarely uses it anyway. ive heard soldiers say "its a good weapon, i shoot it well" and even "cant shoot through cover for s*** but never heard anyone praise it like its the weapon god himself brought down upon the world like the ar fans here though
Rest assured it's the latter.
Everyone's got the armchair take on the issue. I am sure the insurgents bitch about how 7.62x39 just doesn't get the job done and how they wish they had something better. It's always a compromise. The 5.56 is not underpowered if you're hitting your target effectively.
SPUSCG:
I guess my point was simply this. I asked about actual combat experience using the weapons. You said you didn't have any and yet based on someone else's opinion that what the military uses is inadequate. You also have picked other weapons to replace them with. What is your experience with them?
I don't mean to pick on you but if you have no experience using the weapons how can you have a valid, worthwhile opinion?
I guess my point was simply this. I asked about actual combat experience using the weapons. You said you didn't have any and yet based on someone else's opinion that what the military uses is inadequate. You also have picked other weapons to replace them with. What is your experience with them?
I don't mean to pick on you but if you have no experience using the weapons how can you have a valid, worthwhile opinion?
Maximus856
New member
Im glad I had my m4 when getting chased by a truck with a gunner in the back. Sure, I could of plopped down hit the B button on my controller and switched to the 240G and lit the truck up, but thats not an actual option over here.
I'm all for a larger round, because why not?! However, a heart, a brain, a kidney, the pelvis, and other critical areas on the body *probably* have a hard time telling the difference between 2mm and a few grains. Its give and take when it comes to gear for the military. Our flaks were light and comfy, but offered inadequate protection. Now they're heavy but your whole torso is pretty much protected. Our trucks where maneuverable and versatile, now they'll protect you from a IED but get stuck in moondust. Our pistols offered a heavy punch with limited rounds, now we have higher capacity but 'lighter punch.'
Our rifles were downsized to add mobility, and yet still seem to take down the badguys, though it sometimes needs another bullet. For some reason, my fellow Marines and I have much larger concerns about other equipment then our rifles. For example, why doesn't my Bn. have enough peq2's/15's for us, even though we do the majority of our work at night? Why isnt that a larger concern for the general public? Cant shoot if you can't aim!
TheManHimself
New member
As I've said before, sitting in a tree stand with a heavy rifle and 5 rounds of ammunition waiting for a deer to walk by has nothing to do with warfare. Period. Anyone who thinks it does has never been in a position where they carried a rifle daily for the purpose of taking human lives.
As for this gem:
The XM8 was discontinued because it melted during sustained fire trials. Seriously. Look it up.
The HK416 offers zero real-world performance advantage on unsuppressed weapons with 14.5"+ barrels. It does, however, offer increased price and make for a more nose-heavy (read: slower to maneuver in CQB) rifle. In suppressed applications and extremely short barreled weapons, it has an advantage, but then the go-fast types using shorties and suppressors have access to whatever weapons they need anyway, so general issue of the 416 would just be a massive waste of funding that could be better used on things that actually do need replacing.
A short, fat round like the Grendel will never be used in a military automatic weapon because of feed reliability issues with that case design.
Since the 77gr Mk. 262 round provides virtually identical terminal performance to 6.8SPC out of 14.5" and up barrels, systemwide conversion would again be rather pointless, and again the go-fast types with a need can get the 6.8 when they need it already.
If you have no experience killing people with the M4/5.56mm combo on a regular basis, and get your information from the internet, HK's marketing department, and deer hunting, you have no business trying to tell the military what weapons they need to issue to front-line troops. Period.
As for this gem:
The XM8 was discontinued because it melted during sustained fire trials. Seriously. Look it up.
The HK416 offers zero real-world performance advantage on unsuppressed weapons with 14.5"+ barrels. It does, however, offer increased price and make for a more nose-heavy (read: slower to maneuver in CQB) rifle. In suppressed applications and extremely short barreled weapons, it has an advantage, but then the go-fast types using shorties and suppressors have access to whatever weapons they need anyway, so general issue of the 416 would just be a massive waste of funding that could be better used on things that actually do need replacing.
A short, fat round like the Grendel will never be used in a military automatic weapon because of feed reliability issues with that case design.
Since the 77gr Mk. 262 round provides virtually identical terminal performance to 6.8SPC out of 14.5" and up barrels, systemwide conversion would again be rather pointless, and again the go-fast types with a need can get the 6.8 when they need it already.
If you have no experience killing people with the M4/5.56mm combo on a regular basis, and get your information from the internet, HK's marketing department, and deer hunting, you have no business trying to tell the military what weapons they need to issue to front-line troops. Period.
So, let me see if I have this right...your combat experience and what you are basing your recommendations on for a main battle rifle is from deer hunting? Really? Is that what you are saying? Because the last I knew deer don't arm themselves and shoot back. Poachers in my state have been known to take deer with a suppressed .22LR rifles. So by your qualifications maybe the military should switch to suppressed .22 LR combat arms. That would be really convenient since they could have a battle rifle and pistol of the same caliber....(Guys I am being entirely facetious here about the .22LR)
See, I have no combat experience. I was never in the military. I would never presume to tell the military and its soldiers what works and what doesn't without having first hand knowledge myself.
Last edited:
by the we need to carry a light rifle that holds a lot of ammo and size doesnt matter philosophy your logic would be 22 rifles. I dont mind recoil, will lug a couple extra pounds around, ect if i need to. Better ballsitics and penetration through cover is what id prefer over less weight. m14s with synthetic stocks wouldnt be overly heavy anyway. 45 over 9, yes, never fired 9 before, but i can confortably fire 40 and 45, so why would i care about 9mm? I dont find ar 15s confortable to hold either, of course i dont like pistol grips much either. There will always be a debate, the people who love ars will defend them, i bet russians defended the m91/30 when they saw aks being made, I say we get the best and issue it. one side says 223 too weak one 308 too heavy, maybe a medium caliber is called for
TheManHimself
New member
You're setting up a strawman. Size doesn't matter, ballistic performance and penetration in flesh does. 5.56x45mm provides excellent exterior and terminal ballistics to kill human targets efficiently out to 300m, and adequate performance to do so to 500m. .22lr does neither.
A bigger round is counterproductive when we already have something that kills people out to 99% of typical combat ranges. You can't kill someone more dead than dead, but you can kill more bad guys in less time when you have less recoil throwing your sight picture around.
Weight, recoil, and ammunition weight may not matter to your deer hunting trips, but it does matter in combat. A more fatigued soldier, carrying less ammo, and requiring more time to re-acquire sight picture during rapid semi-automatic fire (which wins most firefights) due to more recoil, is a less effective soldier, period.
A bigger round is counterproductive when we already have something that kills people out to 99% of typical combat ranges. You can't kill someone more dead than dead, but you can kill more bad guys in less time when you have less recoil throwing your sight picture around.
Weight, recoil, and ammunition weight may not matter to your deer hunting trips, but it does matter in combat. A more fatigued soldier, carrying less ammo, and requiring more time to re-acquire sight picture during rapid semi-automatic fire (which wins most firefights) due to more recoil, is a less effective soldier, period.
Last edited:
SPUSCG:
Dude, seriously you have NO combat experience. Why do you keep talking about this like you know what will and won't work when you never did it?
Pssst...here's the definition of Facetious:
1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : waggish <just being facetious>
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark>
Dude, seriously you have NO combat experience. Why do you keep talking about this like you know what will and won't work when you never did it?
Pssst...here's the definition of Facetious:
1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : waggish <just being facetious>
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark>
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Going to HPS would solve a lot of these problems. Maybe one mag of steel core for shooting at guys behind cover. We aren't fighting people who signed let alone follow the Hague accords/Geneva convention, so why do we follow them?
Deer handle pain a lot better than people do.
I wouldn't want to be in that 1% of situations where my rifle absolutely can not do the job.
Deer handle pain a lot better than people do.
I wouldn't want to be in that 1% of situations where my rifle absolutely can not do the job.