Military Ammo Sucks?

[SPUSCG]

there was a quote on here once, forgot who said it, went like

"if a man uses a pointy stick and is trained on it, he will like it. If the pointy stick saves his bacon, he'll love it. he'll start to think the pointy stick is the ultimate combat weapon, he will believe this up until the day he is butchered by men with iron spears."

i believe htis is true with m16s, the people using them grow so used to it they dont see the advances in technology overshadowing this 40 year old system. Im pretty sure if i was trained on an m9 and m16 id eventually believe what im being told about its superiority or what not.

 

[TheManHimself]

Again, you're ignoring (or failing to see) the real issue. Nobody is saying the M4/5.56mm combo can't be improved upon. It's just that there is nothing out there now that would be a far superior general issue infantry rifle or cartridge for the way wars are fought today. The only "advances in technology" on the market today are in the minds of HK's marketing team, armchair generals who think we're still fighting WWII and should bring back the .308 battle rifle for clearing buildings in Iraq, and armchair commandos who have never actually been in combat.

 

[ComradeBurg]

I also feel ignoring the treaties and using jacketed hollow points would solves the problem of bullets zipping right through a target. I'm a huge M14 fan but honestly there is nothing wrong with the 5.54 bullet. If our soldiers were regularly engaging targets at extreme ranges (let's say 500 to 600 yards) I'd say we should deploy them with larger caliber guns. But the fact of the matter is they were fighting in tight urban environments.

Shotguns would probably be ideal as long as the enemy wasn't wearing body armor. But I think the M4 is a good general purpose weapon, it's just the type of bullets our soldiers are deployed with is lacking.

 

[Maximus856]

SPUSCG,

Your saying what you would do, based on what you havent done. You say you wouldn't mind carrying the extra weight. A SAW is all of maybe 15 lbs more, which doesnt seem like a lot. You will be able to tell the difference after 15k in heat that makes it seem like your in hell. Have you ever cleared a room? Ok so *maybe* YOU have. Have you ever done it with 3 others? What about more then 3 others? An m14 is not something you want in a confined area with 3 others.

Guess what happens with something has a more recoil. It lengthens your follow through. That takes away precious time that you or your team doesnt have. Better ammo; yes. Better weapon; Id prefer to see that money put elsewhere.

 

[Crosshair]

I think the 6x35 cartridge has potential. Knight's Armament Company PDW

The issue we have is that the FMJ 5.56 that the military uses relies on fragmentation for it's lethality. Out of a 20" barrel this works reasonably well. Shorten the barrel to 14.5" and suddenly you are loosing a significant amount of velocity and turning it into noise. Suddenly the round doesn't fragment as reliably.

Why do handguns generally have large bores? Because a small bullet at handguns velocities generally doesn't do the job so you compensate by increasing bullet diameter/mass.

The .223 was designed for ~20" barrels. Yes I know it will "work" out of a 14.5" barrel, the same way my 4-banger Ford Contour will "work" towing a 20" boat.

You are not going to get that velocity out of a 14" barrel no matter what you do. So your only option is to increase bullet diameter/mass. You don't have to increase it allot, just enough. You can also make the case shorter since you don't need as much powder, meaning more compact weapons. The 6x35 seems to do this well. Providing a balance of power and controlability without the earsplitting muzzle blast you get from a hack-sawed M-16.

Looking at the KAC PDW it is hard to see a reason why it wouldn't be more suitable than the M4 for urban combat. The cartridge itself at least deserves consideration. People who take the side of the M-16/M4 love to trot out the "versatility" aspect of the design. A feature the military seems reluctant to even acknowledge for some bizarre reason.

 

[kraigwy]

"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.

Somewhere in the pile of mags and other assorted junk in my shop is that survey. The way I read it, all the end users, or the people surveyed were Grunts. Not REMF.

I've seen this debate several times on serveral differant sites, it all boils down to that those who have used the M16/A4s in combat like them, those who didnt, don't. For the most part anyway.

This debate has been going on forever. I suppose it will be going on long after I'm gone. I'm a grunt (or was) I liked the M16a1 in SE Asia, what I didn't like about it was the sights, thats been fixed with the A2.

But it boils down to what the infantryman likes. The one who has to use it. They like the M16/M4, so it gets my vote.

As a side note, some where in my collection of junk, I have an INFANTRY MAG. from 1976 that reports that by the spring of '76, the army will start fielding M16 in a 6 mm cal. I wouldnt put a lot of stock into rumors, regardless of where they are coming from.

 

[SPUSCG]

good article on chuck hawks about using 243 as a combat cartridge, sounds interesting but i heard it willl burn barrels too quick

 

[Crosshair]

good article on chuck hawks about using 243 as a combat cartridge, sounds interesting but i heard it willl burn barrels too quick

The 6mm deserves a look, but the .243 is too overbore. It would be like replacing the .223 with the 22-250.

I like the 6.5 Grendel, but can see some of the drawbacks.

This whole issue would be moot if the military used SP instead of FMJ

 

[SPUSCG]

true, didn't the hauge convention (which we didnt sighn) only cover uniformed combatants of a countrie's military, we could easily use jhp or jsp on terrorists even if we did sighn the treaties

 

[FyredUp]

SPUSCG...

I give up on you. You rail on and on and come up with comments about this weapon and that caliber after admitting you have NO ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with the M16/M4 or combat of any kind. I read a lot of gun magazines too, and I have a been a shooter all of my adult life, and golly I know veterans of WWII, Korea, Viet Nam and both Iraq wars and Afghanistan...But the one thing I would never presume is to think I had the knowledge to tell them what weapon and in what caliber they should use. I would prefer to listen to people here were actually in Iraq or Afghanistan tell me there experiences than have someone tell me what they were told by some unknown person.

 

[SPUSCG]

ive given up on the if the military uses it it must be good crowd too. i know several vets who are like "its okay did the job" and some who say ".223 is weak" and "don't bring an m16 to a gunfight" I did here from a range instructor that the 5.56 was desighned for m16s and doidnt wrk well out of m4s, but it looks like they made a new 77gr. round to fix that. Hopefully it works well in the field. Good jsp ammo would be nice, maybe send some hornady TAP 75 grain too.

 

[FyredUp]

I would believe the word of a veteran before I would believe the word of someone second hand. I also would take the word of a combat veteran over someone whose combat weapon experience is deer hunting.

The problem with so many experts today is they only know what they believe is right. Even if they don't have one second of practical experience with the topic at hand.

 

[SPUSCG]

i do take the word of veterans, and they dont think its the end all great weapon like the guys up in the rifle forum who own 4 ar builds, but they dont think its a jam-o-matic inferior to the ak like the people i know who get there gun knowlege from counterstrike and watching history channel re-runs on an ak special. They see it as a tool, able to do the job, bot not the best for it. I think soldiers should have the best, but the m16 will be around forever because no politicans want to buy a SCAR or something along those lines

 

[FyredUp]

SPUSCG...

Have you noticed that nowhere have I voiced an opinion on the weapon the military should use? Do you understand why that is? It really is simple. I have never been in the military, never been in combat, never had to point a firearm at anyone, let alone shoot them. So my opinion would be based on conjecture, heresay, and some crap I read somewhere. None of which lead to an opinion worth the time it took to give.

The only thing I can say for sure about military weapons is my Dad was a WWII vet and when the military went to 3 round burst for the M16 his only comment was "Sometimes full auto wasn't enough when the Japs were Banzai charging you."

 

[Double J]

The 5.56 was designed to wound, not kill. Nice idea if we ever get to fight a war with an enemy that is concerned about their own wounded.
Seems we are trying to be nice to people who's dream is to get in our face and detonate themselves and there are times we definately need a bullet that is a positive show-stopper.

 

[overkill556x45]

The afghans sometimes hauled their dead and wounded away. And our 5.56s did the wounding and killing.

Again, you're ignoring (or failing to see) the real issue. Nobody is saying the M4/5.56mm combo can't be improved upon. It's just that there is nothing out there now that would be a far superior general issue infantry rifle or cartridge for the way wars are fought today. The only "advances in technology" on the market today are in the minds of HK's marketing team, armchair generals who think we're still fighting WWII and should bring back the .308 battle rifle for clearing buildings in Iraq, and armchair commandos who have never actually been in combat.

Couldn't have put it better (or more politely) myself.

I am not Rambo, but I've pulled the trigger in combat before. That doesn't make me an expert, but it does give me the ability to say with confidence that the 5.56 is indeed a lethal round. It is not perfect, but it works pretty well. The rather large number of commies and terrorists who were killed by it seems to be ignored for some reason. I bet the 7.62x51 and all the magic new intermediate rounds do not kill any deader than a 5.56x45. Since most folks are not in the military, you are therefore not confined to the 5.56 round. If you do not like it, do not buy it. But don't tell me it won't kill bad guys. You weren't there man, you don't know!

 

[SPUSCG]

okay how bo the saying i cant have a take since im not in the military, like that somehow says i dont know enough to know that 5.56fmj sucks, compared to say, jhp? jsp? no civilian in their right mind would load a hd gun with fmjs because "the military does"

 

[FyredUp]

SPUSCG...

You can have any opinion you want. It becomes a problem when you state it like you know what will actually occur in combat when you shoot someone with the 5.56mm M16 or M4 or M249. When in reality you have no more experience at that than I do. You plain and simple don't know crap about its use in the real world. You take a couple of stories you heard or read and spin it into you being an expert on what works and what doesn't.

There is really only 3 reaqsons for acting like you know something you have no way of knowing:

1) Immaturity.
2) You take second hand info as gospel, whether written or spoken stories.
3) You like to stir the pot and sound important.

 

[Al Thompson]

Fyred, I improved my blood pressue and enjoyment of this site immensely when I added SPUSCG to my ignore list.

 

[SPUSCG]

if eitheof you are glock fans ignore me in the pistol forum too