That said, the powers that be who outfitted the troops in Nam with the M16 in 1967 should be indicted brought to trial for murder for giving an unproven peice of s–t to the troops.

In most narratives of the Vietnam war, the protagonist cites that his M16 jams in the instant of need.

What is that in your picture, a Red Ryder BB gun? That’s all they allow civies to own in Svenskapoika.

Roosevelt said that soldiers shot in the brain, spine or heart died quickly, but soldiers who were hit in other places recovered quickly.

“Optimum” only has a practical meaning with respect to some optimizing function. If you have to carry your own bullets, optimum will be a smaller caliber. If you have someone else, or a vehicle, heavier makes more sense. If you don’t know the future, you guess, and hope that you can change your mind if it ends up being important. To the extend that you can control the future, you do so by selecting proper tactics.

Smart soldiers adapt their tactics to make the best use of the difference between their weapons and their enemys’ weapons. If you have a light bullet that doesn’t penetrate well, you keep up a steady fire to keep the enemys’ heads down, and maneuver around to shoot past their cover, or to use supporting fire. If you have a heavy round like the .50 BMG you can shoot through enemy cover, but maneuvering is slower, so you have to watch your own flanks more carefully.

1.The 7×46mm UIAC is a true intermediate cartridge in caliber, length, case diameter, and recoil. Performance envelope is 7×43mm and 7×50mm circa 1950, but in a smaller package by using the Pedersen/M43 base instead of the Mauser/30-06 base. Smaller cartridge = smaller weapon.
2.7×46mm UIAC test cartridges outperform all current and purposed military cartridges used worldwide.
3.7×46mm UIAC would comfortably replace all current US and NATO rifle and machine gun cartridges without losing any lethality or range. One cartridge for all our infantry weapons, what a novel concept.
4.Test Cartridge: Muzzle Velocity: 2650 fps; Bullet Weight: 130 grains; Bullet Coeffiency: .411, this is better BC than either the 62 gr. M855 or 150 gr. M80.
5.Projectile is 130 grs. Spitzer Boattail with .411 BC. At targeted velocity. Purposed projectile would be 130gr. FMJ with the profile of a 140 gr. Spitzer Boattail, constructed similar to the 7.92×33 126gr. Polte bullet, this would further enhance the BC. The Polte design insures a rear biased weight, causing rapid upset on impact with soft tissue.
6.Velocity is held at 2650-2700 fps to regulate recoil, heat, pressure, and to allow controllability at combat firing rates in an assault rifle.
7.Purposed DDM cartridge would use .284 Sierra 175 gr. MK, with a BC of .608 even at 2400 fps this projectile has better flight performance than the current M118LR.
8.The 7×46mm UIAC was designed for combat in performance, recoil, and weight.

I guess that boils down to logistics, do you want your guys tired and angry?

My cousin carried the m-249 saw through his tour of duty, the funniest thing he ever told me was when his predecessor convinced him to carry it. He said he couldn’t get anybody else to carry it through his whole tour.

Now if the army would put up the cash and come up with a lightweight, titanium and composite ar-10, that’d be something. Seems the 7mm and 6.8mm calibers are more economical though.

Asians invented firearms and Europeans modernized them. Americans, such as Colt and Browning, provided great innovations. Some of the best are manufactured outside the U.S. HK, for example, is the number one supplier for Direct Action (DA)/CQB weapons world-wide. It is used not only by almost all LE special units but also by all U.S. military DA teams. I find it also humorous that when we study warfare in our training, we almost always study the teachings of one “dead German” or another (”dead German” used with levity but also respect). We even refer to lessons from French tacticians at times (such as Jomini). Incidentally, did you forget that we are descendants of Europeans (mostly)?

“Sean on 08 Jan 2009 at 4:01 am link comment

It’s cute when know-it-all Europeans pretend they’re more competent with firearms and firearm design than a nation with 70 million gun owners and the most effective military on earth.

Sigh.”

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/490?OpenDocument

It basically appeals to all governments not to advance small arms lethality beyond the state of the art.

“The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.

A proces-verbal shall be drawn up on the receipt of each ratification, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.

The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Declaration, and have affixed their seals thereto.

Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and of which copies, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers. “

Important things to note:
1. Only applies when fighting against another party who has signed the treaty. Insurgents, almost by defination, haven’t signed any treaties.

Same convention also banned the launching of projectiles or explosives from balloons.

“The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature. “

Interesting how the whole bombardment from the air aspect has been ignored and the hollow point thing has be focused on.

Also amusing: St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 or in full Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight

Signed by: Austria-Hungary, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain (representing the British Empire), Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, the North German Confederation (i.e., Greater Prussia), Russia, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, the Ottoman Empire, and Württemberg.

Wonder how many of those countries are following that treaty.

Time for those treaties to get swept into the dustbin of history.

Regards

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I don’t think you got my drift.

I believe that the basic infantry weapon should be a weapon/cartridge system that allows the rifleman to effectively engage his target at the greatest range possible using a shoulder mounted weapon that is light enough to carry for extended periods of time with an adequate ammo load. The M1 carbine was popular with field officers in WWII, until they got into combat. Then the underpowered cartridge and the reduced range and stopping power it exhibited found this weapon abandoned, in field, for the Garand.

In terms of rendering an opponent harmless, the larger, heavier caliber is more effective. And it has a significantly greater range. The assault rifle was designed, by the Germans during WWII, to utilize a sub-powered rifle cartridge to engage targets at ranges signifcantly shorter than those available to the full sized battle rifle. It was an attempt to exceed the semi-auto Garand [representing a more controllable BAR] as well as replace the Erma submachine gun.

Now I enjoy firing the 5.56mm. It is easy on the ears and the shoulder for extended firing. Its drawbacks are reduced effective range and wounding capability. That being said, it is effective against unarmored troops within 200 yards, though it usually requires more hits to put down an opponent than the 7.62 NATO. In terms of effectiveness, within and beyond that distance the 7.62 is clearly superior. Automatic fire has traditionally been discouraged in the infantry as it is tremendously wasteful of ammunition. That is the real reason for the three-round burst capability on the M16/M4, to stifle the tendancy of troops to hose down a target with an entire magazine. At ranges other than CQC, a controlled single or double tap can easily be employed against a single target, in the open, and then an assessment can be made as to the desirability of a follow-up shot. At close range, this changes and multiple shots become desirable irregardless of the weapon employed.

The M16 was introduced to the ground combat services during the McNamara ear when civilian authority decided that standardization was more important than effectiveness. Now these, relatively, less effective weapon systems are still with us because of money and politics. Entire combat doctrines have evolved around the weapon system, rather than evolving a weapon system to fit an effective combat doctrine.

The same can be said for the 9mm v 45cal debate. Bigger is better. But, given the amount of money and political capital that is invested in the current M16 weapon/cartridge system, it is unlikely that it will be changed very soon.

By comparison, the automatic rifle variant of the M-14 was less accurate, but lighter weight.

A heavy round still gets more dispersal through a full automatic burst even with a straight line stock. The recoil line doesn’t go through the shooter’s center of mass, and therefore tends to turn the shooter.

Of course exposed lead rounds are used in shotguns!

During Vietnam Sweden wanted to put their 6.5 mm round into a position of competitive advantage, so they asserted that the US 5.56mm round which was smaller, lighter, and had higher velocity was somehow not fair…
After spending lots of money on a factory to make rounds similar to the US M193 round, Switzerland asserted that the NATO 5.56 round (Like the US M855 round) was unfair….

I liked it better when the US didn’t engage in these bouts of international politics to justify and leverage government investments in weapons design and munitions.

The IRA used to complain about the UK soldier’s use of rubber bullets. The IRA wouldn’t use such a weapon….

So, for instance, American soldiers who carry 9mm sidearms use bullets which don’t spread or fragment at all. Maybe there are rounds available which soldiers of other countries are permitted to use which are more lethal, but our guys don’t get to use them.

I personally think that clause of the Hague Convention ought to be revoked, but that’s unlikely any time soon. I think that American soldiers ought to be held to the same standards as everyone else, but that too is unlikely any time soon. So absent the ability of American soldiers to use anything I’d consider an effective 9mm round in their sidearms, I’d prefer to see them carrying something heavier which, even when using a steel-jacketed bullet, would be more lethal than the 9mm. I’ve seen too many (anecdotal) stories out of the Iraq invasion of cases where Americans using 9mm sidearms had to empty an entire magazine into a single enemy in order to stop him. We don’t know how many of our guys were in that situation and came out second-best in the exchange.

Mac45, it’s true that the powers that be have selected the 5.56mm cartridge to be the standard, on the principle that it’s lethal enough and the soldier can carry more of them. But practice belies the theory: most of the weapons which fire the 5.56mm round have a triple-burp setting, where each trigger tap fires three rounds. The reason they do that is because one round isn’t usually enough. The triple-burp is the norm when using those weapons, and some of them don’t even have a single-shot choice. (Or so I’ve read; I’m far from being an expert in this kind of thing.)

Historical evidence was that the .30-06 round really was good enough when fired one at a time. So when we measure how many times a soldier can tap his trigger before running out of ammo, can he carry more trigger-taps with .30-06 or with 5.56mm which are being fired three at a time?

I’m not specifically arguing for a return to the .30-06, but I’m saying that I don’t find the argument in favor of the 5.56mm to be compelling. The fact that we’re using it doesn’t mean it’s the best choice available.

First, the basic purpose of an infantry rifle is not to suppress fire, destroy structures or shoot small holes in paper targets. Infantry rifles are supposed to do one thing; render harmless enemy soldiers through death or incapacitating wounds. And, it is highly desirable to be able to do this at as great a range as possible.

Second, this objective should be attainable through the use of as few rounds as possible. Most firefights are not conducted with both combatants standing in the open pegging shots at one another. Most exchanges take place from some type of cover or concealment. This usually makes multiple hits a hit and miss proposition.

Third, with the exception of central nervous system wounds, most wounds are not immediately terminal. Incapacitation is largely a result of blood loss and tissue damage. Every human being reacts differently to bullet wounding, but generally, upper torso wounds are very effective if a large enough wound channel is created by a single round.

Fourth, any rifleman can be trained to adequately control almost any shoulder fired combat rifle.

Fifth, there will always exist niche situations that are more adequately addressed by certain types of weapons [sniper rifles, machine guns, submachine guns, shotguns, pistols, hand grenades, etc.].

So, the argument boils down to what rifle/cartridge combo is the most effective for the bulk of situations that the infantryman will encounter. Military planners have apparently decided that the situational needs, of the infantry, can be adequately met with the current light 5.56mm cartridge and its platforms. That the venerable M14/7.62mm weapon system was re-introduced as a squad marksman weapon in the current conflict points out a significant shortcoming in current operational doctrine. I, for one enjoy shooting the 5.56mm round and for short range contacts [under 200m] find it to be effective. At longer ranges, I much prefer the 7.62mm [and larger] cartridges.

Just a few thoughts, here. Carry on.

@darshan;
“hatred”/”hate” are in inflationary use by the American right wing (Europeans rarely talk about other’s hatred for some reason), I “hate” America as much as the “liberals” do – not at all, I’m just criticizing it (rarely).
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2007/09/about-myself.html

He apparently isn’t aware that it’s a war crime, a violation of the Hague Convention, to use bullets which are designed to flatten or fragment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_(1899_and_1907)

It’s true that a 9×19mm hollowpoint bullet is immensely lethal. But soldiers aren’t permitted to use hollowpoints. Nor any of the other bullets he speaks approvingly of because of their fragmentation.

But the blogs’ slogan is “Firearms, not politics”. Mr Ortmann can publish whatever he wants on his own blog, that is his right. I did not find his article to be offensive but his merely his opinion on current NATO cartridges. The European NATO members are sure to have different opinions than the US military.

Gentleman, lets keep this discussion on track. Comments should be related to the article.

A $800 AR15 will out shoot a $10,000 PSG1. Here are some wannabe shooters results.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=414599&sr=0 (also a link to a good program software)

Never did I said kill per minute. My main point is there is no one shot stop. Period. You keep shooting until your opponent is dead.

My other point is that the 5.56 is good or exceed at the range it was designed. From house to house to long distance shooting.

I also forgot to mention that the smaller bullet provide for larger size magazine.

Constructive criticism is one thing but such vitriol is completely unnecessary.
In this article also he is more focussed on criticizing Americans

I can only request you not to devote precious bandwidth to such people.

Regards

James

All of this article can be boiled down to a few bullet points.
1. Adequate accuracy is required, even under combat stress.
2. Handgun wound mortality is due to exsanguination (bleed out), unless you are lucky or have time for a great aimed shot.
3. More holes bleed faster.
4. Different rifle calibers are suitable for different tasks. Unfortunately, you will only be carrying one rifle in one caliber regardless of the task. So, learn the fieldcraft and be excellent with what you have.
5. In war, logistics DOES matter. It doesn’t guarantee a win, but lack of it can sure make winning a lot less likely. It’s no fun going without even a sears catalog for months at a time in a desert. —<
6. We should listen to the wisdom of our combat veterans and modify our T.O.E. to accomodate the needs of the troops in the field.
7. We all hope we don’t have to learn the wisdom in all the anecdotes personally.

sorry sven, here’s a semi-useless anecdote: i think that in today’s infantry doctrine, which pretty much amounts to “pin them down and kill them with indirect and air power” (that was my experience in afghanistan anyway, i’m sure iraq is different), that the ability to carry more ammunition for a sustained gun battle is just as if not more important an argument than the ballistics themselves.

accuracy a secondary characteristic? blasphemy, i know.

all in all, great article. i learned a lot and i appreciate your contribution.

I love the passion man, but don’t get tunnel vision. They’re two different rounds and serve two different purposes.

BTW Anybody who defends the M4 platform by rifle maintenance or shot placement arguments probably hasn’t had a whole lotta rounds thrown their way.

It stands on its own as a trainable platform that is light yet controlable and has good eurgonomics.

I served as a Squad Designated Marksman (M14-ERB) on my first tour and a Team Leader (M4) on my second. Both rifles have niche roles. I think that is due in part to the rifle design. However, I think this is primarily because of their respective ammunition’s characteristics. I can’t talk about terminal ballistics vs. external ballistics or muzzle energy or anything like that. What I can tell you is this:

People shot with a M14 drop with noticably greater frequency then those shot with a M4.

I don’t care what anyone says 762s are more predictable at greater distances than 556. Learn how to account for bullet drop and get over it.

Most soldiers can become proficient with an M4 rather quickly. (I think that is why it is so popular with wannabees.)

Most soldiers (even experienced ones,) have trouble with a M14.

SAWs (556) are great for surpressive fire. 240-Bravo (762) not so much.

240-Bravo will bust up a mudhouse. SAW not so much.

556 rounds don’t penetrate car windshields very well. 762 rounds do.

M14s will wear your ass out (shoot em and carrying em).

Hope it helps. But then again, what the hell do I know.

Combat is rarely a contest about kills per minute – most often the battlefield is empty and competent opponents are fleeting targets. There’s often no opportunity for a second shot, especially none that’s aimed for certain parts of the body.

You mixed up cartridge and rifle design with “The placement of the second shot for the 5.56 will be in the same area as the first. This isn’t always true for a battle rifle rounds like 7.62NATO.” That’s because barrel-shoulder stock-shoulder are in a straight line in most 5.56mm assault rifle designs. This is a newer design feature than the the 7.62NATO rifles. There’s no reason why you couldn’t have that feature in 7.62, though.

Btw; nobody argued for a 7.62NATO assault rifle – a proper comparison of 5.56NATO should better compare it with the supposedly ‘ideal’ caliber group of 6-7mm, like 6.5Grendel or 6.8SPC.

The losses in Iraq are a result of thousands of variables – certainly not all favorable. It’s no logical argument to justify a caliber with low war casualties as that can have many reasons.
Try to fight a war like that with as little (body) armor as the opponent and the statistics would look extremely different, maybe the whole face of war would look very different.

I had a very long discussion few years back on the 5.56 and I really don’t want to repeat it. I will said this.
1. Recoil is in burst and auto is controllable.
2. You can carry twice as much ammo as 7.62.
3. It is effective over 400 meters.
4. The ability for faster follow up shots.
5. The ability to engage multiple targets faster.
6. Operator accuracy won’t deteriorate due to pain over long engagements.

There is no such thing as one stop shot. You always double tap and if your opponent is still moving, you double tap him again. The placement of the second shot for the 5.56 will be in the same area as the first. This isn’t always true for a battle rifle rounds like 7.62NATO.

I can engage 6 six targets with the 5.56 before the 7.62 guy finish his third target.

I don’t want to diminish our service men and women sacrifice. I just wanted to point out some facts.

The US has lost over 4000 brave service men and women due to combat and non-combat related deaths in Iraq and Afghan since 2002. That’s almost 7 years. Each month over 35000 Americans die in car accidents. Around 10 Americans die each day to drowning. That amount to 3500 per year. Homicide deaths in Chicago outpace Iraq/Afghan combat deaths. The list goes on, but I think you get the idea.

If the the 5.56 rounds were so bad and ineffective one would assumed that the combat deaths rate should be higher then 3500 in seven years.

My cousin building a service grade A2 rifle to complete in 600m-1000m at blackwater. Anyone want to volunteer as a target? I don’t think so.

The above link I posted, the police officer placed 22 rounds .40 caliber Ranger STX into the criminal. 17 of which went into the COM. The criminal was able to keep fighting until he die from blood lost.

In “Lone Survivor” (good book, true story), Navy SEAL guys took multiples 7.62 hits in COM areas. Those injuries did not stop them from fighting and moving.

There is no such thing as one shot stop. Lean shot placements. Learn how to double tap effectively.

I think a new saying should be invented: “Shooters talk ballistics. Generals talk politics.”.

The thing is that every once in a while there time when, for whatever reason, things need to be redesigned. The 7.62mm NATO should have been the 7mm NATO (.280 British) and the 5.56mm NATO and its’ shortcomings would probably never existed.

Logistics are an entirely different matter (and many would disagree with you about it, as an emphasis on supply consumption is a typical U.S. American trait in warfare).
Besides; I touched the logistics/standardization issue by mentioning that .50BMG is well-established.

Firearms and munition are two different breed. Being an expert in one doesn’t mean you’re an expert in the other.

.338 Lupua is 20 years old and I don’t considered it new. The US military doesn’t want to ship another cartridge to the front line.

The US War College has a saying: “Armatures talks about tactics. Professions talks about logistic.” Battles are won before the first bullet are fire and believe me the US military is very good at logistics.

Logistics not money or politics is what determine the type of weapons, vehicles, munitions, gears, food, etc that the military use.

Keep in mind in all the wars we have entered, only three were fought on US soil. Because of this realization the US military place a premium on logistics.

With that said there is no magic bullet.

http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/lom/0412/the_peter_soulis_incident.html

5.45 is slightly worse than 5.56 usually and 7.62×39 can be anything from terrible to good, but I recall reports that it’s penetrating cover much better than 5.45 at least.

The bottom line is that bullet design is extremely important and anecdotal evidence is useless, but some calibers (those below 6mm) simply don’t have enough potential to satisfy against soft tissue, soft cover and armor in one design.

With militarily accepted fmj ammo, there is no question that the fight-stopping wound capability of the latter is greater. When you throw frangible ammo into the mix, the question becomes murkier. But, if both calibers expand as designed, you still get a larger wound cavity and increased blood loss. Forget about any handgun with military grade body armor. Armor designed to accept multiple hits from 7.62 NATO rounds will be an efficient shield against pistol caliber rounds, including the 5.7mm. Why was the 9mm cartridge and the M9 [Beretta] pistol adopted by the US military? Politics. The US government wanted to please our NATO allies and the Italians in particular and adopted both.

5.56mm v. 7.62mm:

The 5.56mm cartridge was adopted for one reason. To allow Air Force Security Police to have a short range, high capacity carbine, that was easier to carry and shoot than the m14, to defend air bases the M16 was adopted by that branch of the Armed Services. McNamara forced it upon the true ground combat services who did not want it. Since then, many “reasons” have been put forth to attempt to lend some legitimacy to the cartridge choice: soldiers can carry more ammo, it can be more effectively controlled than a full battle cartridge in automatic fire, most soldier to soldier engagements occur within 300 meters, etc. The problem is, that most armies teach their troops not to utilize full auto fire, but rather to use aimed semi-auto fire; the extra ammo is used up faster than that from a heavier battle rifle due to multiple rounds being fired at a single target rather than the single shots utilized by the larger rifle; and, finally, as we discovered in Iraq and Afghanistan, battle distances are very often as great as 800 to 1000 meters, far beyond the effective range of the 5.56mm round. Once again, frangible ammo is not in general use by standard military organizations, so its inclusion in the argument is fallacious.

Is there a better military handgun cartridge and battle rifle cartridge out there? Who knows. There probably is, but it is unlikely to see the light of day anytime soon. Why? Politics and money.

Im a big a fan of the 6.5 Grendel. At 1000 meters, it still packs more energy than a 9mm that just came out of the barrel.

Sigh.