AR15.Com Archives
 Poll: M193 or M855 / SS109?
Fallujah  [Member]
4/8/2008 10:26:54 PM EST
i have been reading about the many failures to stop with the new M16a2 and m4's in afghanistan and Iraq. I was wondering since the m16A1 is still quite common here in Asia (with hardly any complaints about stopping power) whether the older M193 5.56 slug delivered more punch and stopping power than the newer SS109 rounds which are reputed to be more accurate, but sadly lacking in stopping power.

Which round do you prefer? Why?
Paid Advertisement
--
Ragin_Cajun  [Member]
4/8/2008 10:35:36 PM EST
55gr M193 fragments in a nasty fashion in flesh at higher velocities. 62gr SS109 with its mild steel core is designed to maintain lethality at a greater range, superior light barrier penetration, and armor defeating capabilities.

For a vastly superior explanation of this and much else, go look at The Ammo Oracle.
hdbiker1  [Member]
4/8/2008 10:42:14 PM EST
I may be wrong, but the ss109 is a projectile and not a round. The US uses this projectile in the m855 round. Correct me if I'm wrong, it won't be the first time.
0699TeufelHnd  [Team Member]
4/8/2008 11:05:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Fallujah:
i have been reading about the many failures to stop with the new M16a2 and m4's in afghanistan and Iraq. I was wondering since the m16A1 is still quite common here in Asia (with hardly any complaints about stopping power) whether the older M193 5.56 slug delivered more punch and stopping power than the newer SS109 rounds which are reputed to be more accurate, but sadly lacking in stopping power.

Any comments?


Where are you reading this (about many failures to stop)? Sources? Links?
Ragin_Cajun  [Member]
4/8/2008 11:22:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By hdbiker1:
I may be wrong, but the ss109 is a projectile and not a round. The US uses this projectile in the m855 round. Correct me if I'm wrong, it won't be the first time.


Yep, you got it. I got kinda sloppy with the designation in my first post.
goodwi77  [Member]
4/9/2008 5:55:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fallujah:
the older M193 5.56 slug delivered more punch and stopping power than the newer SS109 rounds which are reputed to be more accurate, but sadly lacking in stopping power.

Any comments?



Also, in my experience, 193 is MORE accurate than 855... I assume because of variations in the steel tip/ construction.

YMMV
767fixer  [Member]
4/9/2008 6:06:57 AM EST
interesting reading?

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/06/cbsnews_investigates/main1688223.shtml

www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html
Hoplophile  [Team Member]
4/9/2008 11:50:52 AM EST
Basically, M193 and M855 have similar terminal performance at a given velocity, but since the M855/SS109 is heavier it can have probelms with shorter barrels not getting enough velocity.

As far as the ammunition failing to meet expectations, the problem has more to do with the expectations that with the ammo. Nothing that can be carried by a human is going to provide a guaranteed one shot kill no matter what Hollywood tells us. People like to point to Blackhawk Down as an example of problems with 5.56mm performance but among the failures of ammunition listed in that book is a woman whose leg is blown off by a 40mm greande and she still kept shooting.
BattleRife  [Member]
4/9/2008 2:42:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By hdbiker1:
I may be wrong, but the ss109 is a projectile and not a round. The US uses this projectile in the m855 round. Correct me if I'm wrong, it won't be the first time.


SS109 is a round, developed and named in Belgium.

M855 is the U.S. name for the equivalent round produced there.

This cartridge is called C77 in Canada, and I presume has a different identifier in every other country you can visit.
12_gauge  [Member]
4/9/2008 3:22:16 PM EST
A human being requires a 20% blood-loss or hit to the CNS to be dropped. Do you honestly think that short of a CNS shot, any hand-held firearm can case a 20% loss in blood-volumn fast enough to "stop someone instantly"? I sure don't. We all know .22LR and up will penetrate the skull assuming no glancing. Ergo, do your part, and the round will do it's, and this ain't TV.
Fallujah  [Member]
4/9/2008 6:15:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By 0699TeufelHnd:
Where are you reading this (about many failures to stop)? Sources? Links?


i recall having read in in one of the gun mag annuals, i believe it was COMBAT ANNUAL published by GUNS magazine about 4 years ago. The article commented on the ss108 round used in the m16a2 and whether or not it was effective and should be replaced by a 6.8mm. The article further stated that the 7.62 nato round was more effective in terms of stopping power (some US army snipers were using the m14 in Afghanistan and Iraq), but it was unlikely that the US army would revert back to 7.62mm.
Fallujah  [Member]
4/9/2008 6:35:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By goodwi77:
Also, in my experience, 193 is MORE accurate than 855... I assume because of variations in the steel tip/ construction.


hmm very interesting.. i always thought it was the other way around.
Fallujah  [Member]
4/9/2008 6:39:26 PM EST
Gentlemen thank you for your comments. Please see new Poll.
vicious_cb  [Member]
4/9/2008 6:40:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By Fallujah:

Originally Posted By goodwi77:
Also, in my experience, 193 is MORE accurate than 855... I assume because of variations in the steel tip/ construction.


hmm very interesting.. i always thought it was the other way around.


Thats because gun rags are more interested in selling you something than reporting the truth.
12_gauge  [Member]
4/10/2008 7:31:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fallujah:

Originally Posted By 0699TeufelHnd:
Where are you reading this (about many failures to stop)? Sources? Links?


i recall having read in in one of the gun mag annuals, i believe it was COMBAT ANNUAL published by GUNS magazine about 4 years ago. The article commented on the ss108 round used in the m16a2 and whether or not it was effective and should be replaced by a 6.8mm. The article further stated that the 7.62 nato round was more effective in terms of stopping power (some US army snipers were using the m14 in Afghanistan and Iraq), but it was unlikely that the US army would revert back to 7.62mm.


Could it possibly be that shot-placement just MIGHT have been a bit of an issue on this one?

Put any most any NATO round where it needs to go, and it will do the job.
Fallujah  [Member]
4/10/2008 11:43:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By 12_gauge:

Originally Posted By Fallujah:

Originally Posted By 0699TeufelHnd:
Where are you reading this (about many failures to stop)? Sources? Links?


i recall having read in in one of the gun mag annuals, i believe it was COMBAT ANNUAL published by GUNS magazine about 4 years ago. The article commented on the ss108 round used in the m16a2 and whether or not it was effective and should be replaced by a 6.8mm. The article further stated that the 7.62 nato round was more effective in terms of stopping power (some US army snipers were using the m14 in Afghanistan and Iraq), but it was unlikely that the US army would revert back to 7.62mm.


Could it possibly be that shot-placement just MIGHT have been a bit of an issue on this one?

Put any most any NATO round where it needs to go, and it will do the job.


Yes certainly. a sniper's bullet through the heart (even a 22 lr bullet) will definitely do the job. I think what the article had in mind though was the size of the bullet.
Fallujah  [Member]
4/10/2008 11:44:15 PM EST
Hmm results show the m193 actually ahead! very interesting results indeed!

could we actually conclude that the u.s. army should have stuck with the m193 round rather than go for the m855?
bryan0928  [Team Member]
4/11/2008 1:42:42 AM EST
Well, to really form an opinion, i need to shoot a bunch of people from different distances...something I just don't have the option of doing.

Any prefererence would have to be based on internet opinions.

I guess based on lots of other peoples opinions that I have read over time, I'll go with the 55 grain stuff.

FMJ  [Team Member]
4/11/2008 2:09:13 AM EST

IMI M855
S&B SS109 ZV
SANTA BABRA SS109

I pick the M855/SS109 Because of ACCURACY ONLY

I can careless about the 10.5gr. Steel Insert

I'm a civi and wont be shooting past 75yards!


If my 2 LMT M4`S like M193 better then I would pick it
Or if I ran out of the above SS109/M855


BTW I've shot DEER with M193 & M855
I couldn't tell any difference
AR_556  [Member]
4/11/2008 3:04:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By 767fixer:
interesting reading? No - more like sensationalized BS

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/06/cbsnews_investigates/main1688223.shtml

www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html

It funny, there are all these articles talking about how ineffective the 5.56mm is and yet every time someone here who's actually BTDT chimes in, they almost always say it worked just fine for them? The 5.56mm does have some serious limitations when it comes to hard barriers (walls, glass, etc.) but against people, from what I can tell if you do your part, it will do its.

As far as M193 vs M855? I'll take Mk-262!
silentweapon338  [Member]
4/11/2008 3:34:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By 12_gauge:
A human being requires a 20% blood-loss or hit to the CNS to be dropped. Do you honestly think that short of a CNS shot, any hand-held firearm can case a 20% loss in blood-volumn fast enough to "stop someone instantly"? I sure don't. We all know .22LR and up will penetrate the skull assuming no glancing. Ergo, do your part, and the round will do it's, and this ain't TV.

82A1 CQB should do what you described!
bryan0928  [Team Member]
4/11/2008 4:12:47 AM EST
I just read the articles. A lot of the shit about 5.56 was from Veitnam era dudes. It seems to me that all the Veitnam guys are prejudice against 5.56.

They never have or will except it because they think their old m14s just had to be better than the new "Mattel rifle" with a "varmint cartridge."

Just like a lot of us would probably be prejudice if the Military switched from the AR15 to a slow moving, large bore cartridge chambered in a rifle made out of wood.
Fallujah  [Member]
4/12/2008 8:30:26 PM EST
in the end the march of small arms and ammo development inexorably goes on.
Fallujah  [Member]
4/12/2008 8:32:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By bryan0928:
I just read the articles. A lot of the shit about 5.56 was from Veitnam era dudes. It seems to me that all the Veitnam guys are prejudice against 5.56.


considering what happened with those early m16a1's i dont think we could blame them for being sore at the m16.
Chieftain6  [Member]
4/13/2008 12:59:35 AM EST


I just read the articles. A lot of the shit about 5.56 was from Veitnam era dudes. It seems to me that all the Veitnam guys are prejudice against 5.56.


I am one of those Vietnam guys, two tours 3rd Marine Division. I was there when we switched over from the M14’s to the M16’s.



They never have or will except it because they think their old m14s just had to be better than the new "Mattel rifle" with a "varmint cartridge."


How many of your buddies would you have to bag and tag, because of a faulty weapon and a weak cheese cartridge before you would concede the M16 is a POS because it ain’t got enough ass to do the job? How many? I bagged and tagged 7 close friends and at least 15 others. And those are the ones that went down because the rifle didn’t work, or stop the Black hats. Plenty others went down for the ‘regular’ reasons.

How, many of your friends would bag and tag BEFORE you came to the conclusion that something was wrong with the rifle?

This isn't a discussion about IF it happened. It did happen.



Just like a lot of us would probably be prejudice if the Military switched from the AR15 to a slow moving, large bore cartridge chambered in a rifle made out of wood.


That would be stupid. If it kept more of your guys alive, you would still criticize it? So if more of your guys got home because of a superior rifle/cartridge, you would still be prejudice.

Pretty, weak to me.



considering what happened with those early m16a1's i dont think we could blame them for being sore at the m16.


Like so many folks today, those that make fun of us don’t understand much of what we went through, unless it hit’s them upside the head, or they lived the debacle of that rifle and round.

Go figure.

Fred
0699TeufelHnd  [Team Member]
4/13/2008 1:39:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fallujah:

Originally Posted By 0699TeufelHnd:
Where are you reading this (about many failures to stop)? Sources? Links?


i recall having read in in one of the gun mag annuals, i believe it was COMBAT ANNUAL published by GUNS magazine about 4 years ago. The article commented on the ss108 round used in the m16a2 and whether or not it was effective and should be replaced by a 6.8mm. The article further stated that the 7.62 nato round was more effective in terms of stopping power (some US army snipers were using the m14 in Afghanistan and Iraq), but it was unlikely that the US army would revert back to 7.62mm.


You read ONE article and thus came to the conclusions in your original post about the lack of stopping power of M855???? (see below from your original post)

"i have been reading about the many failures to stop with the new M16a2 and m4's in afghanistan and Iraq. ............. the newer SS109 rounds which are reputed to be more accurate, but sadly lacking in stopping power.""

What do the arguments about the effectiveness of 5.56 vs 6.8 or 7.62 have to do with the differences in the effectiveness of M193 vs M855?

M193 was developed for certain types of applications and M855 was developed for others.

Your intended application should drive what type of weapon/ammo combination you chose.

By the way, M855 has sent many a bad guy to meet their maker.
0699TeufelHnd  [Team Member]
4/13/2008 1:43:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fallujah:
Hmm results show the m193 actually ahead! very interesting results indeed!

could we actually conclude that the u.s. army should have stuck with the m193 round rather than go for the m855?


From a poll on a gun website?

I surly hope not.
FMJ  [Team Member]
4/13/2008 2:48:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By 0699TeufelHnd:

Originally Posted By Fallujah:
Hmm results show the m193 actually ahead! very interesting results indeed!

could we actually conclude that the u.s. army should have stuck with the m193 round rather than go for the m855?


From a poll on a gun website?

I surly hope not.



If I was in the war I would go with M855 for better Penetration at longer range

At a close range it wouldnt matter

If I was going to shoot Bad guys PAST 300M then I would move to a different set up
0699TeufelHnd  [Team Member]
4/13/2008 5:03:14 AM EST
Small caliber lethality: 5.56MM performance in close quarters battle.
From: Infantry Magazine | Date: 9/1/2006 | Author: Dean, Glenn; Lafontaine, David
Infantry Magazine

* Print
* Digg
* del.icio.us

Not long after the U.S. Army's entry into Afghanistan, reports from the field began to surface that in close quarters engagements, some Soldiers were experiencing multiple "through-and-through" hits on an enemy combatant where the target continued to fight. Similar reports arose following the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Those reports were not always consistent some units would report a "through-and-through" problem, while others expressed nothing but confidence in the performance of their M4 carbines or M 16 rifles. The M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, which fires identical bullets as the M4 and M16, did not receive the same criticism. Often, mixed reports of performance would come from the same unit. While many of the reports could be dismissed due to inexperience or hazy recollections under the stress of combat, there were enough of them from experienced warfighters that the U.S. Army Infantry Center asked the Army's engineering community to examine the issue. Specifically, the Infantry Center asked it to examine the reports of "through-and-through" wounds, determine if there was an explanation, and assess commercially available ammunition to determine if there was a "drop in" replacement for the standard issue 5.56mm M855 Ball rounds that might provide improved performance in close quarters battle (CQB).

What resulted grew into a lengthy, highly technical, and highly detailed study of rifle and ammunition performance at close quarters ranges that involved technical agencies from within the Army, Navy, and Department of Homeland Security; medical doctors, wound ballisticians, physicists, engineers from both the government and private sector; and user representatives from the Army, U.S. Marines Corps, and U.S. Special Operations Command.

After having made some significant contributions to the science of wounds ballistics effects and ammunition performance assessment, this Joint Services Wound Ballistics (JSWB) Integrated Product Team (IPT) was eventually able to conclude that: (1) there were no commercially available 5.56mm solutions that provided a measurable increase in CQB performance over fielded military ammunition, (2) the reports from the field could be explained and supported with sound scientific evidence, and (3) there are steps that can be taken to immediately impact performance of small arms at close quarters ranges.

Background

Development of small caliber ammunition is an area which in recent years has largely been left to the manufacturers of the civilian firearms industry. Although there have been efforts by the military services to assess the performance of its small arms, the levels of effort and resources involved have been extremely low compared to those spent on other weapons systems: bursting artillery rounds, anti-tank munitions, etc. The general assumption within the services, despite evidence to the contrary from the larger wound ballistics community, has been that small arms performance was a relatively simple, well-defined subject. What has developed in the interim in the ammunition industry is a number of assessment techniques and measurements that are at best unreliable and in the end are able to provide only rough correlation to actual battlefield performance.

The major problem occurs at the very beginning: What is effectiveness? As it turns out, that simple question requires a very complex answer. For the Soldier in combat, effectiveness equals death: the desire to have every round fired result in the death of the opposing combatant, the so-called "one-shot drop." However, death--or lethality--is not always necessary to achieve a military objective; an enemy combatant who is no longer willing or able to perform a meaningful military task may be as good as dead under most circumstances. Some equate effectiveness with "stopping power," a nebulous term that can mean anything from physically knocking the target down to causing the target to immediately stop any threatening action. Others may measure effectiveness as foot-pounds of energy delivered to the target--by calculating the mass and impact velocity of the round--without considering what amount of energy is expended in the target or what specific damage occurs to the target. In the end, "foot-pounds of energy" is misleading, "stopping power" is a myth, and the "one-shot drop" is a rare possibility dependent more on the statistics of hit placement than weapon and ammunition selection. Effectiveness ultimately equates to the potential of the weapons system to eliminate its target as a militarily relevant threat.

The human body is a very complex target, one that has a number of built-in mechanisms that allow it to absorb damage and continue to function. Compared to a tank, it is far more difficult to predict a human target's composition and what bullet design will be most advantageous. The combinations of muscle, bone, organs, skin, fat, and clothing create a staggering number of target types which often require different lethal mechanisms. Physical conditioning, psychological state, size, weight, and body form all play a factor in the body's ability to resist damage, and all add to the complexity of the problem. The same bullet fired against a large, thick, well-conditioned person has a very different reaction than that fired against a thin, malnourished opponent.

The physical mechanisms for incapacitation--causing the body to no longer be able to perform a task--ultimately boil down to only two: destruction of central nervous system tissue so that the body can no longer control function, or reduction in ability to function over time through blood loss. The closest things the human body has to an "off switch" are the brain, brain stem, and upper spinal cord, which are small and well-protected targets. Even a heart shot allows a person to function for a period of time before finally succumbing to blood loss. What the wound ballistics community at large has long known is that the effectiveness of a round of ammunition is directly related to the location, volume, and severity of tissue damage. In other words, a well-placed .22 caliber round can be far more lethal than a poorly placed .50 caliber machine gun round. Setting shot placement aside for the moment, though, the challenge becomes assessing the potential of a given round of ammunition to cause the needed volume and severity of tissue damage, and then relating this back to performance against a human target.

Terminal Ballistic Testing

A common way of measuring this "damage potential," or "terminal ballistic effectiveness," is through what are known as "static" testing methods. Typically, these involve firing a weapon at a tissue simulant which is dissected after the shot to allow assessment of the damage caused by the bullet. Tissue simulants can be anything from beef roasts to blocks of clay to wet phone books, but the typical stimulant is ballistic gelatin. Gelatin has the advantage of being uniform in property, relatively cheap to make, and simple to process, which means that this form of static testing can be done almost anywhere without the need for special facilities. Unlike other simulants, gelatin is transparent. Therefore, assessment can take the form of video footage of a given shot, measurement of the cavity formed in the gelatin ("gel") block, and recovery of the bullet or its fragments for analysis. Static methods measure real damage in gel, but have difficulty translating that damage to results in human tissue.

When the Infantry Center initially asked its questions about 5.56mm performance, two agencies moved quickly to provide an answer through static testing, firing a small number of shots against gel blocks to compare several bullet types. Unfortunately, tests at the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Crane, Ind., (NSWC-Crane) and the Army's Armaments Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., produced significantly different results. Further analysis revealed that the two agencies had different test protocols that made the results virtually impossible to compare--and as it turns out, these test methods were not standardized across the entire ballistics community. The JSWB IPT began work to standardize test protocols among the participating agencies to allow results to be compared. Unfortunately, after that work had been completed and static firings of a wide range of calibers and configurations of ammunition were under way (see Figure 1), the IPT discovered that results were still not consistent. Despite using the same gel formulation, procedures, the same lots of ammunition, and in some cases the same weapons, the static testing results still had differences that could not initially be explained.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The IPT was ultimately able to determine a reason for the differences. The Army Research Laboratory (ARL) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., has long used a type of testing know as "dynamic" methods to evaluate ammunition performance, which estimate probable levels of incapacitation in human targets. Dynamic methods are resource intensive--the ARL measures the performance of the projectile in flight prior to impacting the target as well as performance of the projectile in the target. ARL was able to identify inconsistencies in bullet flight that explained the differences in the static testing results. Ultimately, the best features of both static and dynamic testing methods were combined into a new "Static/ Dynamic" method that is able to much better assess weapon and ammunition performance. This method takes into account a range of parameters from the time the bullet leaves the muzzle, to its impact on the gel block target, its actions once in the target, and then uses a dynamic analysis tool to correlate the gel block damage to damage in a virtual human target. It provides a complete "shooter-to-target" solution that combines both live fire and simulated testing, but is very time and resource-intensive to perform. As a result, the study effort narrowed, focusing on providing complete analysis of the most promising 5.56mm systems, and one reference 7.62mm system, needed to answer the original question (see Figure 2).


Figure 2--Final analysis systems

Ammunition Given Weapons Tested to
Full Static/Dynamic Answer the Problem
CQB Analysis Statement

* M855 "Green Tip" * M16A1
(62-gr.) * M4
* M995 AP (52-gr.) * M16A2/A4
* M193 (55-gr.) * Mk 18 CQBR (10"
* Mk 262 (77-gr.) M4)
* COTS (62-gr.) * M14
* COTS (69-gr.)
* COTS (86-gr.)
* COTS (100-gr.)
* M80 7.62 (150-gr.)

(Source: PM-Maneuver Ammunition Systems)

Terminal Mechanics

Before providing an explanation of the JSWB IPT's results, a brief discussion of small caliber, high velocity terminal ballistics is in order. The small caliber, high velocity bullets fired by military assault rifles and machine guns have distinct lethality mechanisms; conclusions provided here do not necessarily apply to low velocity pistol rounds, for example, which have different damage mechanisms. The performance of the bullet once it strikes the target is also very much dependent upon the bullet's material and construction as well as the target: a bullet passing through thick clothing or body armor will perform differently than a bullet striking exposed flesh. This study focused on frontal exposed targets.

Take an average M855 round, the standard round of "green-tip" rifle ammunition used by U.S. forces in both the M4 and M16 series weapons and in the M249 SAW. The 62-grain projectile has an exterior copper jacket, a lead core, and a center steel penetrator designed to punch through steel or body armor. An M16 launches the M855 at roughly 3,050 feet per second, and the M855 follows a ballistic trajectory to its target, rotating about its axis the entire way, and gradually slowing down. Eventually, the bullet slows enough that it becomes unstable and wanders from its flight path, though this does not typically happen within the primary ranges of rifle engagements (0-600m). (For more detailed ballistic discussion, see FM 3-22.9).

Upon impacting the target, the bullet penetrates tissue and begins to slow. Some distance into the target, the tissue acting on the bullet also causes the bullet to rotate erratically or yaw; the location and amount of yaw depend upon speed of the bullet at impact, angle of impact, and density of the tissue. If the bullet is moving fast enough, it may also begin to break up, with pieces spreading away from the main path of the bullet to damage other tissue. If the target is thick enough, all of these fragments may come to rest in the target, or they may exit the target. Meanwhile, the impacted tissue rebounds away from the path of the bullet, creating what is known as a "temporary cavity." Some of the tissue is smashed or torn by the bullet itself, or its fragments; some expands too far and tears. The temporary cavity eventually rebounds, leaving behind the torn tissue in the wound track--the "permanent cavity." It is this permanent cavity that is most significant, as it represents the damaged tissue that can impair and eventually kill the target, provided, of course, that the damaged tissue is actually some place on the body that is critical.

This is where the balance of factors in bullet design becomes important. Volume of tissue damage is important--which might suggest high velocities to enable the bullet to tumble and fragment sooner, materials that cause the bullet to break up sooner, etc.--but it must also occur in critical tissue. If the bullet immediately breaks up, it may not penetrate through outer garments to reach tissue, or it may break up in muscle without reaching vital organs underneath. The projectile must have enough penetration to be able to reach vital organs to cause them damage. At the same time, it must not have so much penetrating capability that it passes completely through the target without significant damage--resulting in a so-called "through-and-through." Energy expended outside the target is useless (incidentally, this is why "impact energy" is a poor measure of bullet comparison, as it does not separate energy expended in damaging the target from energy lost beyond the target). The ideal bullet would have enough energy to penetrate through any intervening barrier to reach vital organs without significantly slowing, then dump all of its energy into damaging vital organs without exiting the body. Unfortunately, design of such a bullet is nearly impossible in a military round, even if all human bodies were uniform enough to allow for such a thing. A round that reaches the vital organs of a 5-foot 6-inch 140-pound target without over-penetration is likely to react differently against a 6-foot 2-inch 220-pounder, even without considering target posture. To complicate matters, when hitting a prone firing target the bullet might have to pass through a forearm, exit, enter the shoulder, then proceed down the trunk before striking heart or spinal cord. A flanking hit would engage the same target through or between the ribs to strike the same vital regions. All these possibilities are encountered with the same ammunition. Ultimately, bullet design is a series of tradeoffs complicated by the need to survive launch, arrive at the target accurately, possibly penetrate armor, glass, or other barriers, and be producible in large quantities (1+ billion per year) at costs the military can afford.

Findings

The significant findings of the JSWB IPT's efforts include:

1. No commercially available alternatives perform measurably better than existing ammunition at close quarters battle ranges for exposed frontal targets. Based on current analysis through the static/dynamic framework, all of the rounds assessed performed similarly at the ranges of 0-50 meters. Though there might be differences for a single given shot, the tradeoffs of delivery accuracy, penetration, fragmentation and wound damage behavior, and speed and efficiency of energy deposit all serve to render differences between rounds minimal. The following chart (Figure 3) shows the rounds of interest plotted together. The specific values of the chart are not meaningful; what is meaningful is the fact that all of the rounds act in the same band of performance. Interestingly, the one 7.62mm round that received the full evaluation, the M80 fired from the M14 rifle, performed in the same band of performance, which would indicate that for M80 ammunition at least there appears to be no benefit to the larger caliber at close quarters range.

2. Shot placement trumps all other variables; expectation management is key. Though this should produce a "well, duh!" response from the experienced warfighter, it cannot be emphasized enough. We try hard to inculcate a "one-shot, one-kill" mentality into Soldiers.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

When they go to the qualification range, if they hit the target anywhere on the E-type silhouette, the target drops. The reality is that all hits are not created equal--there is a very narrow area where the human body is vulnerable to a single shot if immediate incapacitation is expected. Hits to the center mass of the torso may eventually cause incapacitation as the target bleeds out, but this process takes time, during which a motivated target will continue to fight. While projectile design can make a good hit more effective, a hit to a critical area is still required; this fact is borne out by the Medal of Honor citations of numerous American Soldiers who continued to fight despite being hit by German 7.92mm, Japanese 6.5mm and 7.7mm, or Chinese or Vietnamese 7.62mm rounds. A more realistic mantra might be "One well-placed shot, one-kill."

3. Field reports are accurate and can be explained by the phenomenon of bullet yaw. Shot placement aside, why is it that some Soldiers report "through-and-through" hits while others report no such problems, despite using the same weapons and ammunition? The phenomenon of bullet yaw can explain such differences in performance.

Yaw is the angle the centerline of the bullet makes to its flight path as the projectile travels down range (Figure 4). Although the bullet spins on its axis as a result of the barrel's rifling, that axis is also wobbling slightly about the bullet's flight path.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Yaw is not instability; it occurs naturally in all spin-stabilized projectiles. However, bullet yaw is not constant and rifle bullets display three regions of significantly different yaw (see Figure 5). Close to the muzzle, the bullet's yaw cycles rapidly, with large changes of angle in very short distances (several degrees within 1-2 meters range). Eventually, the yaw dampens out and the bullet travels at a more-or-less constant yaw angle for the majority of its effective range. Then, as the bullet slows, it begins to yaw at greater and greater angles, until it ultimately destabilizes. A spinning top which wobbles slightly when started, then stabilizes for a time, then ultimately wobbles wide and falls over demonstrates the same phenomenon.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Unfortunately, projectiles impacting at different yaw angles can have significantly different performance, particularly as the projectile slows down. Consider the two photos on page ??. In the first (Figure 6), the bullet impacted at almost zero yaw. It penetrated deeply into the gel block before becoming unstable. In a human target, it is very likely that this round would go straight through without disruption--just as our troops have witnessed in the field. In the second photo (Figure 7), the bullet impacted the gel block at a relatively high yaw angle. It almost immediately destabilized and began to break, resulting in large temporary and permanent wound cavities. Our troops have witnessed this in action too; they are more likely to report that their weapons were effective.

[FIGURES 6-7 OMITTED]

So all we have to do is fire high-yaw ammunition, right? Unfortunately, it's not that easy. High yaw may be good against soft tissue but low yaw is needed for penetration--through clothing, body armor, car doors, etc.--and we need ammunition that works against it all. Further, we currently cannot control yaw within a single type of ammunition, and all ammunition displays this tendency to some degree. Both of the shots were two back-to-back rounds fired from the same rifle, the same lot of ammunition, at the same range, under the same conditions. Yaw requires more study, but the Army solved a similar problem years ago in tank ammunition.

4. There are doctrinal and training techniques that can increase Soldier effectiveness. The analysis tools used in this study were used to evaluate some alternative engagement techniques. The technique of engaging CQB targets with controlled pairs--two aimed, rapid shots as described in Chapter 7 of FM 3-22.9--was shown to be significantly better than single aimed shots (see Figure 8). While that should certainly not be surprising to those who have been using this technique for some time, we now know why. Not only are two hits better than one, but controlled pairs help to average out striking yaw; on average, the Soldier is more likely to see a hit where the bullet's yaw behavior works in his favor.

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

Caveats

This study was an extremely detailed, in-depth analysis of a specific engagement (5.56mm at CQB range); we must be careful not to apply the lessons learned out of context. The study did not look at the effectiveness of ammunition at longer ranges, where differences in projectile mass, velocity, and composition may have greater effect. The target set for this analysis was an unarmored, frontal standing target; against targets in body armor, or crouching/prone targets, the results may be different. Of course, most targets on the modem battlefield can be expected to be engaged in some form of complex posture (moving, crouching, or behind cover) and future analysis will have to look at such targets, too. The study evaluated readily available commercial ammunition; this does not role out the possibility that ammunition could be designed to perform significantly better in a CQB environment. Human damage models need further refinement to move beyond gelatin and more closely replicate the complex human anatomy. While these caveats should not detract from the importance of the study's findings, they should be considered as a starting point for continued analysis.

Conclusion

Soldiers and leaders everywhere should take heart from the fact that despite all the myth and superstition surrounding their rifles and ammunition, they are still being provided the best performing weapons and ammunition available while the armaments community works to develop something even better.


More work remains to be done in this area, and the work is continuing with the participation of the major organizations from the original study. That effort is planned to look at longer ranges, intermediate barriers, and different target postures, and will further refine the tools and methods developed in the original study. The lessons learned are being put to immediate use as part of an ongoing program to develop a lead-free replacement for the M855 cartridge; the information obtained from this study will be used to develop a round that is expected to be more precise and consistent in its performance while still being affordable.

Major Glenn Dean served as the chief of the Small Arms Division in the Directorate of Combat Developments at the U.S. Army Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Georgia. He was the Infantry Center's representative to the Joint Services Wound Ballistics Integrated Product Team

Major David LaFontaine is the Assistant Product Manager for Small Caliber Ammunition and served as the PM-Maneuver Ammunition Systems lead for the Joint Services Wound Ballistics IPT.

COPYRIGHT 2006 U.S. Army Infantry School
Hokie  [Team Member]
4/13/2008 5:43:43 AM EST
I'd pick a 75-grain hollow point over both M193 & M855, but I suppose you could put each to good use. For example I keep some M193 around the house to accompany my "WTF bump in the night gun"...I also keep some M855 for my "WTF truck gun"....my "WTF buggin out gun uses 75 grain TAP"

The 5.56 cartridge is an amazing cartridge any way you cut it. I wouldn't want to be hit by any bullet type.

Eh....if you're looking for ballistic superiority...then you need to shelve the 5.56 and do some research on the 7.62X51 cartridge.

Shawnmt6601  [Team Member]
4/13/2008 6:16:11 AM EST
I really think a lot of people start thinking in the wrong direction on this sometimes. I have been using the 223/556 for years and it is an outstanding round.

Everytime I pick up a gun rag now its all about the failure of the 556 blah blah.. Its not the round itself. !st it is failure of a good hit.

If you hit a threat in the arm or glance off the ribs. I dont care what you use, it will not stop with one hit. NOTHING will 100% of the time, Nothing. We have all seen heart shots on deer with 7mm mags and 300 win mags where the deer ran another 200 yards before it went down.

I have killed 2 deer with nothing more than a 55 gr hp berfore and they died as quick as anything else I hit them with

Another is that you cant trash anuthing cause it is not a tank killer with ball or AP. If you take the fmj and swith to a Triple shock X or a ballistic tip and the terminal performance goes to new levels. You cant soley trash a round cause of ball performance. We (Civilians) are not restricted to ball. so why do we worry about it? We can choose damn near anything. Its long known you dont use ball for the best terminal ballistics. This is a constant source of frustration to me, when I read shit like Guns for M&P and they go on about "failures to stop" in Iraq!! How many cops use AP or ss109/ fmj? I would hope none.

AS far as the 308 goes. whatever. If i was in a battle where i never got closer than 200 yards, great. But If you have to engage multiple close targets within 7- 50 meters, try to put 1 round on 3 targets 2 yards apart within 3-5 seconds and see how hard it is to recover from that recoil. yeah Muzzle brakes they say, Want to be beside a guy in a trailor will he he crankin off a 16 inch barrel M1A with a brake.


Nothin is always 100% effective all the time. But a 556 with a 77 grain HPBT is almost idea in my book.


but, maybe i am wrong.....
rippersde50  [Team Member]
4/13/2008 6:24:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By 0699TeufelHnd:

Originally Posted By Fallujah:
i have been reading about the many failures to stop with the new M16a2 and m4's in afghanistan and Iraq. I was wondering since the m16A1 is still quite common here in Asia (with hardly any complaints about stopping power) whether the older M193 5.56 slug delivered more punch and stopping power than the newer SS109 rounds which are reputed to be more accurate, but sadly lacking in stopping power.

Any comments?


Where are you reading this (about many failures to stop)? Sources? Links?


He's been watching Futureweapons



On another note. I'll take the (X)M193 cause that's pretty much all I have and it is cheaper to get. When I run out and or there is no more M193 to be found. I will move on.



RealTeacher  [Member]
4/14/2008 10:02:27 PM EST
Gentlemen,
I don’t often get into debates of this nature. I hope I don’t regret doing it now.

But, as some of you know, I am an “old timer” and I can tell you from considerable personal experience, that questions of this type are too narrow in scope and don’t address the real world issues.

The 5.56 round in either the 55 or the 62/63 grain verity will kill just fine, if they hit where they should. But so will a 22 LR, or a dagger, or a 18oz hammer. If it hits, what it hits and where it hits are the keys.

But in combat, many of your rounds are directed around and through concealing barriers, some as light as screening brush and dry grass, and some as heavy as wooden walls.

The very fact that the 5.56 round will fragment makes it pretty deadly but it is the same attribute that keeps them from being effective in some suppressing fire, and in the cases of them striking anything thicker than a twig. It’s what keeps them from causing as great a wound as a 7.62 or a 30-06.

Yes, I know.........the “party line” is that the 223/5.56 will shoot through sheet steel at ranges that 7.62 won’t.
However, that’s only 1/2 the truth. Try this yourself.

Put a 1/8” plate or a 3/16” plate in front of a wet phone book and shoot through it with a 55 gr ball round from an AR, and a 150 or 147 grain ball round from an M-14 or a 30-06 rifle. When you do get a hole in the steel, look and see which makes a bigger hole in the phone book.
Next, do it with your SS-109 round, and compare it to a black tip 308 or 30-06 and see again which one is doing more damage.
The faster .224 bullets will make holes in steel when sometimes the slower 30 cals won’t, but the 224s are coming apart as they do it. There are only very light fragments coming out the other side.

The point being; Neither is all that effective for shooting through armor, but if the 30 gets through it’s still much deadlier than the 5.56. Don’t believe me? Don’t just say so,,, go out and try it and see for yourself.

In the current war, shots against vehicles are fairly common, and such shots were seldom seen in my day, and in my fights, but talking to a LOT of soldiers and Marines, they all have told me that weapon to have in your hands to shoot at enemies in vehicles is the M-240 or the old M-60. So I believe my point stands. 30 caliber machine guns are WAY better for such things than infantry rifles

Shot placement is the key to it all. But in combat we don’t get a 100% clear shot as often as we‘d like.

Now, I have never been in a fight in a city. So I can see why the dynamics of what I am going to say next must be judged against that fact. I am not the “end-all” for this kind of debate, but I do have some knowledge, so here's my "read" on it.

In the field, in brushy country and forests and jungles, the shots you get are probably about 80% “screened” to some extent. (my best guess)
I can remember shots that were open, but far more were at enemies that I could see only enough to tell they were there, and that they were enemies.

Shooting through a screen of grass or scrub was common, probably about 80% of the shots offered. An M-14 , G-3 or FAL will get through it in most cases. Sometimes the 7.62 bullets will deflect too, but if they get through, and if they do hit, they wound badly and do much more “work”


The 5.56mm 55 grain round doesn't get through very well at all, and when they do, they often come apart on the way through, so only fragments hit the enemy. And those fragments won’t be over 50% of the bullet weight at the very best. (25-30 grains, and sometimes a lot smaller)
That, more than any other factor is the reason the 5.56 round got such a bad rap. If you can make a clear shot, they will do the job most of the time, but getting a clear shot is a thing that doesn’t happen all that often.
For the record. I am NOT saying the 5.56 is EVER the equal of the 7.62 NATO in it’s wounding capability, but I am saying it’s deadly if it hits the enemy in the torso and doesn’t have to go through anything first.

Yes, I have seen men take a few of them and keep moving. I have personally seen that several times with M-16s, (4 that I can remember distinctly) but to again set the record straight, I have also seen it one time with a man hit by 2 troopers with FALs, (one of which was me) He dropped after 5-6 rounds------ but after the first round, it was almost like the next 4 were missing him. He finally just bled out I guess. Some might think that's a lie, but that the way it happened.

Nothing is 100% ----- except brain shots and spine shots, but the bigger bullets do more damage than the small ones.
In combat, MOST men are WOUNDED to put them out of the fight. I would have to guess here, but I would say about 1 in 10 is killed outright, and the rest get wounded to some extent or another. Many of them die of those wounds later, and the “later” is the key to this whole debate. “Later” in the cases I have seen, of enemies hit with 7.62 NATO was usually measured in seconds and sometimes minutes. “Later” in the cases of men hit with 9mms and 5.56 rounds was often minutes and sometimes hours, and even and days .
Stated simply, we wound the enemy to death most of the time, and kill them out-right only every now and then.

Bigger/deeper wounds let out more blood and cause more damage. That’s why the Browning 50 is the king of the battle field. Why would no one think to say something like “the 5.56 is just as deadly and effective as the 50 Browning,” but they will say it’s just as deadly as a 308 or 30-06?? That’s just not realistic. We are still in the bounds of the physical universe.

The M-16 is a very good weapon in many other ways. It’s “usability” ( in many ways from it’s versatility to it’s accuracy and lot of other factors too) is what makes it well liked, not so much the round it fires. the 5.56 works, but what are we comparing it to?
7.62X39? 7.62X54? 7.62 NATO? 30-06? 300 Magnum? 50 Browning?

In my experience it's on the bottom (or close to the bottom) of this list in it's wounding ability. That's not to say it's worthless, but only to say it's near the bottom of this list.

Here's where the waters in this debate always get clouded. As you will see, this debate is over the ROUNDS, not the weapons that fire them. That’s too narrow in scope.

To illustrate the point, I would far rather have an M-16 for getting around a neighborhood filled with people that want to kill me, than to have an M-2 Browning in my hands. Sure, the 50 round is light-years ahead of the 5.56 round, but I can’t USE the M-2 without something to mount it on. So the round doesn’t make any difference at all at that point.

But to come back to THE POINT of this thread, the 5.56 DOES have limitations. All rounds do. You just have to learn your weapon and use it to it’s fullest advantage. Any round is limited, depending on the situation and the target. A 5” field gun is not very good,----- if your target is a battleship and it’s 25 miles away.

Such debates are useless, if contest is omitted.

It’s like asking which is a better weapon, a broadsword or a cross bow. I am sure things like that were also debated 1000 years ago. The better weapon depends on the situation. A cross bow is not very good to have in your hands if you are 3 feet from 3 men who are armed with almost anything.
But a broadsword is just as useless if your enemy has a crossbow and he’s 100 yards away.

Both are better!
Neither is better!

It always comes down to the man, and how well he can fight and use his weapon, and his understanding of tactics.

My personal choice is an AR-15 in 6.8SPC or an FN/FAL.
Is mine better than yours?
It is, if I win.
It’s not if I loose.

Shermans were never the equal to Panthers and Tigers in WW2.
But 2nd and 3rd armored divisions defeated 3 panzer, 3rd SS panzer and the 24 Panzer.

See the point?
Spend your efforts to train, and less of them to debate.
Become VERY good with what you have.
You use your weapon. It’s doesn't use you.
trinydex  [Member]
4/14/2008 11:23:59 PM EST
"Army solved a similar problem years ago in tank ammunition"

i wonder what they did?
TECHguy  [Member]
4/14/2008 11:43:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By RealTeacher:
Gentlemen,
I don’t often get into debates of this nature. I hope I don’t regret doing it now.

But, as some of you know, I am an “old timer” and I can tell you from considerable personal experience, that questions of this type are too narrow in scope and don’t address the real world issues.

The 5.56 round in either the 55 or the 62/63 grain verity will kill just fine, if they hit where they should. But so will a 22 LR, or a dagger, or a 18oz hammer. If it hits, what it hits and where it hits are the keys.

But in combat, many of your rounds are directed around and through concealing barriers, some as light as screening brush and dry grass, and some as heavy as wooden walls.

The very fact that the 5.56 round will fragment makes it pretty deadly but it is the same attribute that keeps them from being effective in some suppressing fire, and in the cases of them striking anything thicker than a twig. It’s what keeps them from causing as great a wound as a 7.62 or a 30-06.

Yes, I know.........the “party line” is that the 223/5.56 will shoot through sheet steel at ranges that 7.62 won’t.
However, that’s only 1/2 the truth. Try this yourself.

Put a 1/8” plate or a 3/16” plate in front of a wet phone book and shoot through it with a 55 gr ball round from an AR, and a 150 or 147 grain ball round from an M-14 or a 30-06 rifle. When you do get a hole in the steel, look and see which makes a bigger hole in the phone book.
Next, do it with your SS-109 round, and compare it to a black tip 308 or 30-06 and see again which one is doing more damage.
The faster .224 bullets will make holes in steel when sometimes the slower 30 cals won’t, but the 224s are coming apart as they do it. There are only very light fragments coming out the other side.

The point being; Neither is all that effective for shooting through armor, but if the 30 gets through it’s still much deadlier than the 5.56. Don’t believe me? Don’t just say so,,, go out and try it and see for yourself.

In the current war, shots against vehicles are fairly common, and such shots were seldom seen in my day, and in my fights, but talking to a LOT of soldiers and Marines, they all have told me that weapon to have in your hands to shoot at enemies in vehicles is the M-240 or the old M-60. So I believe my point stands. 30 caliber machine guns are WAY better for such things than infantry rifles

Shot placement is the key to it all. But in combat we don’t get a 100% clear shot as often as we‘d like.

Now, I have never been in a fight in a city. So I can see why the dynamics of what I am going to say next must be judged against that fact. I am not the “end-all” for this kind of debate, but I do have some knowledge, so here's my "read" on it.

In the field, in brushy country and forests and jungles, the shots you get are probably about 80% “screened” to some extent. (my best guess)
I can remember shots that were open, but far more were at enemies that I could see only enough to tell they were there, and that they were enemies.

Shooting through a screen of grass or scrub was common, probably about 80% of the shots offered. An M-14 , G-3 or FAL will get through it in most cases. Sometimes the 7.62 bullets will deflect too, but if they get through, and if they do hit, they wound badly and do much more “work”


The 5.56mm 55 grain round doesn't get through very well at all, and when they do, they often come apart on the way through, so only fragments hit the enemy. And those fragments won’t be over 50% of the bullet weight at the very best. (25-30 grains, and sometimes a lot smaller)
That, more than any other factor is the reason the 5.56 round got such a bad rap. If you can make a clear shot, they will do the job most of the time, but getting a clear shot is a thing that doesn’t happen all that often.
For the record. I am NOT saying the 5.56 is EVER the equal of the 7.62 NATO in it’s wounding capability, but I am saying it’s deadly if it hits the enemy in the torso and doesn’t have to go through anything first.

Yes, I have seen men take a few of them and keep moving. I have personally seen that several times with M-16s, (4 that I can remember distinctly) but to again set the record straight, I have also seen it one time with a man hit by 2 troopers with FALs, (one of which was me) He dropped after 5-6 rounds------ but after the first round, it was almost like the next 4 were missing him. He finally just bled out I guess. Some might think that's a lie, but that the way it happened.

Nothing is 100% ----- except brain shots and spine shots, but the bigger bullets do more damage than the small ones.
In combat, MOST men are WOUNDED to put them out of the fight. I would have to guess here, but I would say about 1 in 10 is killed outright, and the rest get wounded to some extent or another. Many of them die of those wounds later, and the “later” is the key to this whole debate. “Later” in the cases I have seen, of enemies hit with 7.62 NATO was usually measured in seconds and sometimes minutes. “Later” in the cases of men hit with 9mms and 5.56 rounds was often minutes and sometimes hours, and even and days .
Stated simply, we wound the enemy to death most of the time, and kill them out-right only every now and then.

Bigger/deeper wounds let out more blood and cause more damage. That’s why the Browning 50 is the king of the battle field. Why would no one think to say something like “the 5.56 is just as deadly and effective as the 50 Browning,” but they will say it’s just as deadly as a 308 or 30-06?? That’s just not realistic. We are still in the bounds of the physical universe.

The M-16 is a very good weapon in many other ways. It’s “usability” ( in many ways from it’s versatility to it’s accuracy and lot of other factors too) is what makes it well liked, not so much the round it fires. the 5.56 works, but what are we comparing it to?
7.62X39? 7.62X54? 7.62 NATO? 30-06? 300 Magnum? 50 Browning?

In my experience it's on the bottom (or close to the bottom) of this list in it's wounding ability. That's not to say it's worthless, but only to say it's near the bottom of this list.

Here's where the waters in this debate always get clouded. As you will see, this debate is over the ROUNDS, not the weapons that fire them. That’s too narrow in scope.

To illustrate the point, I would far rather have an M-16 for getting around a neighborhood filled with people that want to kill me, than to have an M-2 Browning in my hands. Sure, the 50 round is light-years ahead of the 5.56 round, but I can’t USE the M-2 without something to mount it on. So the round doesn’t make any difference at all at that point.

But to come back to THE POINT of this thread, the 5.56 DOES have limitations. All rounds do. You just have to learn your weapon and use it to it’s fullest advantage. Any round is limited, depending on the situation and the target. A 5” field gun is not very good,----- if your target is a battleship and it’s 25 miles away.

Such debates are useless, if contest is omitted.

It’s like asking which is a better weapon, a broadsword or a cross bow. I am sure things like that were also debated 1000 years ago. The better weapon depends on the situation. A cross bow is not very good to have in your hands if you are 3 feet from 3 men who are armed with almost anything.
But a broadsword is just as useless if your enemy has a crossbow and he’s 100 yards away.

Both are better!
Neither is better!

It always comes down to the man, and how well he can fight and use his weapon, and his understanding of tactics.

My personal choice is an AR-15 in 6.8SPC or an FN/FAL.
Is mine better than yours?
It is, if I win.
It’s not if I loose.

Shermans were never the equal to Panthers and Tigers in WW2.
But 2nd and 3rd armored divisions defeated 3 panzer, 3rd SS panzer and the 24 Panzer.

See the point?
Spend your efforts to train, and less of them to debate.
Become VERY good with what you have.
You use your weapon. It’s doesn't use you.


Well said.
Hokie  [Team Member]
4/15/2008 4:00:53 AM EST
lots of good info here!
jeepnstein  [Member]
4/15/2008 5:04:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Chieftain6:


I just read the articles. A lot of the shit about 5.56 was from Veitnam era dudes. It seems to me that all the Veitnam guys are prejudice against 5.56.


I am one of those Vietnam guys, two tours 3rd Marine Division. I was there when we switched over from the M14’s to the M16’s.



They never have or will except it because they think their old m14s just had to be better than the new "Mattel rifle" with a "varmint cartridge."


How many of your buddies would you have to bag and tag, because of a faulty weapon and a weak cheese cartridge before you would concede the M16 is a POS because it ain’t got enough ass to do the job? How many? I bagged and tagged 7 close friends and at least 15 others. And those are the ones that went down because the rifle didn’t work, or stop the Black hats. Plenty others went down for the ‘regular’ reasons.

How, many of your friends would bag and tag BEFORE you came to the conclusion that something was wrong with the rifle?

This isn't a discussion about IF it happened. It did happen.



Just like a lot of us would probably be prejudice if the Military switched from the AR15 to a slow moving, large bore cartridge chambered in a rifle made out of wood.


That would be stupid. If it kept more of your guys alive, you would still criticize it? So if more of your guys got home because of a superior rifle/cartridge, you would still be prejudice.

Pretty, weak to me.



considering what happened with those early m16a1's i dont think we could blame them for being sore at the m16.


Like so many folks today, those that make fun of us don’t understand much of what we went through, unless it hit’s them upside the head, or they lived the debacle of that rifle and round.

Go figure.

Fred


This has to be the most eloquent post on what was wrong about the way the M16 was adopted I've ever seen. Once it made it to the field it got guys killed. There was a variety of reasons for this but I don't think that mattered much to the men who were actually doing the shooting. Some vets will always complain about what happened with the M16 and they are absolutely right for doing so.

J.

Paid Advertisement
--