5.56x45 Nato not an "effective" round?

[pyro3k2]

I've been watching this thread for a while now and could not help myself.

1. The "If it's so bad I would like to see you get shot by it" defense is really a cop-out and bull**** to be honest. 22LR isn't ideal for combat but regardless I would not want to be shot by it.

2. The "my buddy in the military says..." defense also doesn't work well. Light weight "assault rifles" or intermediate rifles are either a hit or miss with the troops. It really depends on the type of war being fought, the rifle that preformed best in Iraq will be one of the worst in Afghanistan and visa-versa.

My deployment (truth be told) was extremely boring, thankfully. If I were to condense all the fighting, it was maybe 6 hours of combat and the rest of it was us fighting bordom. What I do know however is that gear gets very heavy very quickly, and that if a piece of equipment can justify it's weight it WILL get carried. In all of our fire fights the 50's were the most effective so naturally we made room for more 50bmg ammo. I'm not saying that all firearms should be chambered in 50bmg but in our situations it was our best option.

The real answer is that 5.56x45 is effective in it's intended role. Make sure you are taking the right gun to the gun fight. A lesson the military has learned, but not the Government

[Funbaby]

I'll just leave this here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British

[Boltz]

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331

Here's a link to an Army report - "Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer."

Regards,
Crunch

I think everyone involved in this discussion should read this report - it's a pretty good read about a multipronged approach to improving the lethality of our infantry. Meaning not just moving to a 6.5-7 mm sized round, but also improving marksmanship training. It doesn't matter how large a round you use if you can't hit your target.

I don't know how much range time infantry units get, but in my engineer unit, all the range time most Soldiers got was doing their rifle or machine gun qual before deployment. And there were plenty of Soldiers who struggled with that because they never got any other range time. I hope that wasn't an indication of how the rest of the Army trained.

I was pretty sure you were (why I posted what I did) but after that boolit comment anything is possible.

I carried my M4 and M14 EBR with much more than a basic combat load for both, along with a few hundred rounds for my SAW gunner all at once. Guys hump SAWs and 240s just as much as rifleman carrying M4s do. With big boy caliber rifles and ammo riflemen still won't have as much weight as a machine gunner so your argument is invalid.

Just curious Scuba Steve, why didn't you just carry the M14? It sounds like the M14 was much more useful, so dropping the M4 and loading up on more 7.62 instead would've been a win/win right?

[Noonanda]

You obviously don't like to read much as that article said the 250k rounds was not only rounds fired in combat but fired at all to include training. And concrete and cinder block? Clearly you've never been to Afghanistan.

Hell those Mud walls surrounding the compounds will stop 7.62 Nato and sometimes even .50 Cal.

Now the Houses in Iraq that had the Rocks covered with the Cement Facade were no Joke either. Called in an Airstrike on a half finished house with some IEDs in it, it took 2 500 lb Bombs to flatten it

here is a link since I cant seem to embed the video

http://www.facebook.com/v/2320117409808

<object width="400" height="224" >
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" />
<param name="movie" value="http://www.facebook.com/v/2320117409808" />
<embed src="http://www.facebook.com/v/2320117409808" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="224">
</embed>
</object>

[Scuba Steve33]

I think everyone involved in this discussion should read this report - it's a pretty good read about a multipronged approach to improving the lethality of our infantry. Meaning not just moving to a 6.5-7 mm sized round, but also improving marksmanship training. It doesn't matter how large a round you use if you can't hit your target.

I don't know how much range time infantry units get, but in my engineer unit, all the range time most Soldiers got was doing their rifle or machine gun qual before deployment. And there were plenty of Soldiers who struggled with that because they never got any other range time. I hope that wasn't an indication of how the rest of the Army trained.

As both of us know every MOS and unit has different training schedules and depending on your battalion command you'll do more or less of certain things. The few battalion commanders I had while at Drum were exceptional leaders and always had us training (both unfortunate at the time but fortunate when it mattered). If it wasn't some form of live fire (regular ranges to kill houses to live fire exercises) we were out doing battle drills. The marksmanship of our unit was never an issue and at least with infantry units I don't think it is. Even with live fires and stress shoots it's still not the same as when those target are shooting back obviously. We actually qualified less than most non-infantry units because as you said that's most of the range time you guys get. We simply spent more time on more practical range time than qualifying with 40 rounds.

Just curious Scuba Steve, why didn't you just carry the M14? It sounds like the M14 was much more useful, so dropping the M4 and loading up on more 7.62 instead would've been a win/win right?

Depending on the mission (METTC) I would. If we were headed out for a good amount it'd be both. There were also times I only took my M4. When it was both the M14 was usually slung on my back as that initial moment of contact is crucial to have as much fire down range as possible and it was much easier to do that with the M4 than M14. Usually after the mad minute and my team in place I'd switch, just depends how much fire we were taking. If I was the trail team I sometimes switched to carrying the M14 just depends on the current situation.

I also carried a 240 for a couple missions and that is not much fun. No M1 and ammo is weighing more than a gunner's kit, the argument that it weighs too much is not realistic.

Hell those Mud walls surrounding the compounds will stop 7.62 Nato and sometimes even .50 Cal.

Now the Houses in Iraq that had the Rocks covered with the Cement Facade were no Joke either. Called in an Airstrike on a half finished house with some IEDs in it, it took 2 500 lb Bombs to flatten it

We loved and hated those ****ing walls. Awesome when we were taking cover but a ***** when they utilized them. Never been to Iraq but buddies said the same thing.

[Kokopelli]

After watching this, I don't think 250,000 rounds is unreasonable...

[Subotai]

I'll just leave this here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British

The Brits were right with this one, and we'll know it when the 6.8 is adopted. The 5.56 is good, I just think the 6.8 is better.

[WordVirus]

he would have done better if he actually aimed his weapon. there is a large difference between laying down suppressive fire and actually shooting at your target.

[SoCalXD]

I see this has turned into the usual name calling and "I was there, you werent" war stories from loud mouth vets with fragile egos.

The same lame mutually exclusive arguements are made about 60mm vs 81mm morters, bradley vs UA HUMMERS, midsize vs fullsize trucks, SLR vs Superzoom cameras, and Craftsman vs. Huskey hand tools. These are not mutually exclusive choices, so stop acting like little girls on a playground and accept the fact that the mission, inventory and skillsets will dictate the choice of tools.

[Dave07997S]

Keep in mind everytime the Army finds ways to save weight for the warfighter, they just make you carry more mission essential items. I remember when I was with the 25th ID, they popped your cherry *** by making you the AG for the M60 (later the 240) when you first arrive. Carrying a tripod, T&E, along with 400 rounds of 7.62mm plus your own gear (M16A1 initially), ammo, NVDs, ets...you were still darn near 100lbs. Not to mention when the mortar maggots were assigned with us and we had to help carry their 81mm mortar rounds. Those were the days.

Thanks the Lord I served when there wasn't any combat. However, I still had to hump that stuff all over Korea up and down those Yamas.

Dave

[Jonathan Doe]

The most common bullets I receive at my office, coming from the coroner's office after autopsies, are 22LR, 38 SPL LRN, 9mm Luger FMJ. Ask those dead people if those rounds are not effective.

I also have seen a suspect who was shot with a 223Rem. 55gr soft point in the forehead. The bullet traveled under the skin around the skull and exited at the opposite side. It was shot at less than 50 yards.

Another incident: a guy was shot in the chin with an AR 223Rem. The round took out pretty much the entire lower jaw. He survived for a few minutes and tried to get away. He finally collapsed due to loss of blood.

It doesn't matter which cartridge you shoot. Even a woman survived from a 50 BMG round, because she was not hit in critical area. The discussion of which cartridge is more effective is a pointless argument. If the shot was placed in the same area, obviously the bigger and faster round will deliver more energy. That is about it in my opinion.

[Scuba Steve33]

I see this has turned into the usual name calling and "I was there, you werent" war stories from loud mouth vets with fragile egos.

The same lame mutually exclusive arguements are made about 60mm vs 81mm morters, bradley vs UA HUMMERS, midsize vs fullsize trucks, SLR vs Superzoom cameras, and Craftsman vs. Huskey hand tools. These are not mutually exclusive choices, so stop acting like little girls on a playground and accept the fact that the mission, inventory and skillsets will dictate the choice of tools.

Are you reading a different thread?

Keep in mind everytime the Army finds ways to save weight for the warfighter, they just make you carry more mission essential items. I remember when I was with the 25th ID, they popped your cherry *** by making you the AG for the M60 (later the 240) when you first arrive. Carrying a tripod, T&E, along with 400 rounds of 7.62mm plus your own gear (M16A1 initially), ammo, NVDs, ets...you were still darn near 100lbs. Not to mention when the mortar maggots were assigned with us and we had to help carry their 81mm mortar rounds. Those were the days.

Thanks the Lord I served when there wasn't any combat. However, I still had to hump that stuff all over Korea up and down those Yamas.

Dave

Haha you got that right. We got a bunch of new 240Ls which is about 5 pounds lighter. That just meant an additional 6 pounds of ammo haha.

[Subotai]

These stories are too funny, my bro was in the Army and was 6'3" 220 lbs. Guess who had to carry the recoilless rifle on his back? LOL.

[56Chevy]

250,000 rounds per enemy soldier is actually a good deal. At $0.20 per round that's $50,000 per enemy soldier. It would cost more to keep them in prison for a year!

After watching this, I don't think 250,000 rounds is unreasonable...

[Dave07997S]

These stories are too funny, my bro was in the Army and was 6'3" 220 lbs. Guess who had to carry the recoilless rifle on his back? LOL.

You know, it was the big guys that had the hardest time. When you are humping 30-40 clicks a day and you are humping 100lbs on your sorry arse, it takes a toll on you. You would think the big guys had it easier, but not really. As they had to lug their own body weight around in addition to all the gear...

We had a saying..."walk light, freeze at night."

I think topgun7 pretty much nailed it on the head.

Troops always wish they had the magic bullet that can kill with one shot and go through any barrier, a utopia for combat if you will. It just doesn't exist..