5.56x45 Nato not an "effective" round?

[babe]

If someone is charging at you from with in 200 yards and you hit him with 1 shot of 5.56. I think it will stop him and if it doesn't the 2nd shot will. Unless the target is coked out then you might need a few more. To say the 5.56 isn't effective, I don't buy it. Unless you have been shot by one and you can say it tickled you so much you couldn't stop laughing then I will have a change of heart about the 5.56.

Hahahaha...wonderful!

[Thatoneguy24]

Personally I run Hornady TAP rounds for any serious purpose (HD). From what I hear/see, those will put a hurting when it is needed. I wonder how many more times powerful it makes the round in terms of instant incapacitation though. I figure the advertised ft/lb energy is at 1300, so as long as it doesnt overpenetrate most of that should be deposited. If I run out of those for some reason I have American Tactical Varmint rounds, which I believe are almost the same as TAP, just with a different colored polymer tip. Even if its just a fragmenting round, at least the energy is deposited. Should penetrate satisfactorily as well.

[Dave07997S]

That's not even your BASIC combat load. Most load outs are twice that FYI.

BTW, what is a basic combat load nowadays. When I was a grunt it was 210 rounds of 5.56 plus and mission essential TOE. Not to mention if you were a 203 guy we had that damn vest with 40 rounds of M203 rounds.

I realize in a actually combat environment you would carry a lot more than what the basic load out would be.

Dave

[Scuba Steve33]

BTW, what is a basic combat load nowadays. When I was a grunt it was 210 rounds of 5.56 plus and mission essential TOE. Not to mention if you were a 203 guy we had that damn vest with 40 rounds of M203 rounds.

I realize in a actually combat environment you would carry a lot more than what the basic load out would be.

Dave

Basic load for M4 is still 210 but we carried much more than that and if we were doing a mission longer than usual or in a ****tier area we'd carry even more. It's nice being able to carry that many rounds but if you can carry slightly less rounds for something that has 60% more lethality than 5.56 (6.8) I'll take the more powerful round.

[starsnuffer]

It takes an average of 250,000 5.56 rounds fired to take down a single insurgent in Afghanistan. Troops need to be able to carry as much as they can.

-W

[barrage]

It takes an average of 250,000 5.56 rounds fired to take down a single insurgent in Afghanistan. Troops need to be able to carry as much as they can.

-W

Maybe they just need to aim better. Or stop trying to shoot through concrete and cinder block walls.

I have to say, if that number's correct, I'm not too pleased about the waste of money that suggests either.

[a1rfreshener]

the way i see it.... a gun is better than no gun... nd if i needed to defend my self for hd anything that can put distance between me and the potential assailant will keep me happy, and as the 250,000 rnd count for one insurgent. to be honest the distance these firefights are in Afghanistan are distances i cant even imagine engaging targets at more than 300 meters? they just need a heavier rnd to accurately lob that far.

[Cali-Shooter]

Basic load for M4 is still 210 but we carried much more than that and if we were doing a mission longer than usual or in a ****tier area we'd carry even more. It's nice being able to carry that many rounds but if you can carry slightly less rounds for something that has 60% more lethality than 5.56 (6.8) I'll take the more powerful round.

Yep, in an ideal world, all our troops would have 6.8 or 6.5, but the budget won't have it. I hear they've essentially stopped recruiting more servicemen and are barely holding onto active duty members as of now.

[Cali-Shooter]

Maybe they just need to aim better. Or stop trying to shoot through concrete and cinder block walls.

I have to say, if that number's correct, I'm not too pleased about the waste of money that suggests either.

Let's see if you would fare any better in a firefight in Iraq, Cowboy.

Talk is cheap, let alone Armchair commando nit-picking over the internet.

[Scuba Steve33]

the way i see it.... a gun is better than no gun... nd if i needed to defend my self for hd anything that can put distance between me and the potential assailant will keep me happy, and as the 250,000 rnd count for one insurgent. to be honest the distance these firefights are in Afghanistan are distances i cant even imagine engaging targets at more than 300 meters? they just need a heavier rnd to accurately lob that far.

Dude read the thread. Firefights in Afghanistan do not happen at great distances.

Yep, in an ideal world, all our troops would have 6.8 or 6.5, but the budget won't have it. I hear they've essentially stopped recruiting more servicemen and are barely holding onto active duty members as of now.

Exactly and it's sad. On the conventional level we have the best weapons and gear of any military but when you look at what is available it's sad.

Let's see if you would fare any better in a firefight in Iraq, Cowboy.

Talk is cheap, let alone Armchair commando nit-picking over the internet.

[Dave07997S]

Maybe they just need to aim better. Or stop trying to shoot through concrete and cinder block walls.

I have to say, if that number's correct, I'm not too pleased about the waste of money that suggests either.

You don't even want to know what the number was in Vietnam...spray and pray baby!!

I'm sure almost everyone here rembers the video of the MP during the Tet Offensive in 1968 just hanging his M16 over the wall and just spraying.

However, this is US doctrine when in a firefight. Achieve fire superiority as quickly as possible. When all that lead is flying it forces the bad guys to keep their heads down.

[barrage]

Let's see if you would fare any better in a firefight in Iraq, Cowboy.

Talk is cheap, let alone Armchair commando nit-picking over the internet.

Indeed, but I'm not being paraded around as a hero, either. Your response is sadly predictable though.

I'm not a hero worshiper buying the State's barrage of constant propaganda, but don't get me wrong here. I don't hate the military either.

You're telling me that 250k rounds per kill doesn't suggest a lack of discipline and training?

At any rate, given the fact that the guys our guys are shooting at all seem to like to hide inside concrete and cinder block buildings, maybe 5.56 isn't the greatest round to be using in that situation, which I thought was where this discussion had gone.

[Cali-Shooter]

At any rate, given the fact that the guys our guys are shooting at all seem to like to hide inside concrete and cinder block buildings, maybe 5.56 isn't the greatest round to be using in that situation, which I thought was where this discussion had gone.

They deserve better, such as 6.5 or 6.8, or more 7.62 DM's perhaps.

But once again, budget.

And it's getting worse, so they're cutting back more.

The latest development for the mil is the M855A1 round, which was to address issues of the M855 apparently not piercing car windshields, among other things. You can read the report here:

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010/06/u-s-army-issues-new-m855a1-ammo-to-troops-in-afghanistan/

The Army has had a history of biting off more than it can chew and opting to go for cheaper or outright cancelling too ambitious(and costly) projects.

Remember the OICW?

Remember the 'Land Warrior' system?

How about something even as simple as the XM8 project?

[Scuba Steve33]

Indeed, but I'm not being paraded around as a hero, either. Your response is sadly predictable though.

I'm not a hero worshiper buying the State's barrage of constant propaganda, but don't get me wrong here. I don't hate the military either.

You're telling me that 250k rounds per kill doesn't suggest a lack of discipline and training?

At any rate, given the fact that the guys our guys are shooting at all seem to like to hide inside concrete and cinder block buildings, maybe 5.56 isn't the greatest round to be using in that situation, which I thought was where this discussion had gone.

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.

[barrage]

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.

Ah, so I guess it's okay to omit certain details as long as it supports whatever argument you're trying to make by doing so.

"It takes an average of 250,000 5.56 rounds fired to take down a single insurgent in Afghanistan. Troops need to be able to carry as much as they can."

You guys need to start putting an asterix next to statements like this less they be taken as being disingenuous if, by Scuba Steve's account, that means an unknown number of the things we're talking about weren't actually used for the thing they were supposed to be used for.

Nope, haven't been to Afghanistan (why in the hell would I?), but I could very well be the guy who shot Osama Bin Laden for all anybody here knows.