[GBullet]

One of the most controversial of all military rifle topics could be titled, "Which cartridge is best?". The controversy centers around whether a given cartridge is adequate. The current concern relates to the 5.56x45mm as used in the M16/M4 weapons in Afganistan and Iraq, but many folks remember that this same discussion occured during and after Vietnam. Before the 5.56mm, people debated the effectiveness of the .30 Carbine in WWII and Korea. Before the .30 Carbine or 5.56mm, people debated the effectiveness of the .38 Long Colt versus the .45 Colt in the Philippines. Before the .30 Carbine, 5.56mm, .38 Long Colt, or the .45 Colt, people debated the effectiveness of the .450 Martini-Henry versus the .303 Lee-Enfield. Before that, people debated...well, you get the idea.

At some point in cartridge debates, the issue of kinetic energy arises. Kinetic energy (KE) is the energy of motion. Kinetic energy is a flawed measure of wound severity. It certainly has its uses as a predictor, but wound ballistics experts of different nations cannot even agree on the minimum KE to stop an enemy soldier or terrorist. The Russians think that it takes about five times as much KE as the French do. Maybe the Russians are five times as tough as the French.

Notice that the AK has less KE at the muzzle than a typical .30-30 deer rifle, yet the AK seems frighteningly effective in Afganistan and Iraq. The stories that filter back from war fronts often portray the 5.56mm as lacking in effectiveness. For every pro-5.56mm story, there seems to be two or three anti-5.56mm stories. There were many anti-5.56mm stories told by U.S. veterans of Somolia. The usual U.S. military response is to look for a better 5.56mm bullet, and this is quite commendable.

Just as a point of information, neither the .38 Long Colt, nor the .45 Colt were very good at stopping crazed Moro juramentado's (hint: these were the Islamic terrorists of 100 years ago). The 12 ga. shotgun and the .30-40 Krag stopped attacks more reliably than any handgun bullet.

A British assessment of their .303, during their transition from the .450 Martini-Henry to the .303 Lee-Enfield, concluded that the new .303 cartridge should be fine for warfare "other than with savages". This was common language among military men in the late 19th century and reflected the tenacity of some of Great Britain's territorial enemies, particularly in Afganistan.

I do not believe that the problem lies with the bullet, the cartridge, the rifle, or with the skills of American soldiers, rather the problem is the targets...the enemy.

Soldiers find motivation in various areas. American soldiers are motivated by more than mere professionalism. They are motivated by a belief that they are protecting America and spreading freedom to oppressed people. As wonderful and resolute as that is, American soldiers don't want to die or be disabled. American soldiers have normal human instincts.

The enemy presently threatening the U.S. is mostly motivated by their religion. Put yourself in the enemy's mindset for a moment. If you thought that God had asked you personally to carry out a risky attack, would you not throw caution to the wind? Religion-motivated terrorists are like those big bugs in "Starship Troopers", they don't care if they get shot, they will keep attacking until they are dead.

The man or woman who thinks that their god smiles upon them for killing "infidels" is not easily stopped by any bullet.

 

[Garand]

There are many aspects to neutralizing a hostile. Unbelivable things happen, such as the Indian girl using a .22. I do believe that if the enemy wants to meet allah, that you should do everything in your power to accomidate them. If a large bullet puts the bad guy down faster, so be it. There were not many stories about Japanese soldiers in WW II, walking,talking or joking around after a hit from a .30-06 ball round.

 

[Magnum88C]

HA!, That's a classic Garand!

GBullet, there's also a problem in the morons who hold these military "talks", thinking specifically about The Hague here. Properly, your rifle bullet, of whatever caliber, should be the meanest, nastiest, most damaging round possible. But idiots try to legislate the most ineffective bullet designs (note, the United States did NOT sign The Hague accords. The only reason we conform to them at all is because our soldiers could be held as war criminals is we used anything but). And no, the match hollowpoints are legal because they are not designed to expand (they have a bad habit of fagmenting, but that is not "disallowed").

Now, for the civilian worried about protecting themselves, none of this matters, they should choose the best ammo they can find, as they would be treated as war criminals in any case.

 

[GBullet]

Properly, your rifle bullet, of whatever caliber, should be the meanest, nastiest, most damaging round possible.

Amen.

And no, the match hollowpoints are legal because they are not designed to expand (they have a bad habit of fagmenting, but that is not "disallowed").

I think the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy applies to "fagmenting".

 

[andy]

it's hardly anything LIKE as damaging as amortar rd, a rifle grenade, mine, etc, so it's just a bs "concern" in the first place. Wt and bulk have to be considered in the factors of rifle ammo. Remember,the guys MISS 50,000 times for every solid hit that they get with a rifle, and most men CAN'T make themselves kill at face to face combat, and most of those who CAN suffer(psychologically) for having done so, for the rest of their lives, some of them badly enough to make them non-combat-effective anymore. There are MANY reasons why the military gives so little attention to the rifle, and they are CORRECT to do so. The rifle only accounts for a lousy 10% of the casulties on the modern battlefield. In the Gulf war, it wasn't even 5%. Disease accounts for more than that,ya know. So proper sanitation and avoiding whores is more important than is any "improvement" any rifle rd offers over the 55 gr 223 ball bullet, at the military level of concern. Just because YOU are ignorant of those facts doesn't change them. It just marks you as ignorant, that's all.

 

[84 C4]

The only reason we conform to them at all is because our soldiers could be held as war criminals is we used anything but

That's a half-truth, they only get tried as war criminals if we LOSE, in war, the winner makes the rules.

 

[Magnum88C]

That's a half-truth, they only get tried as war criminals if we LOSE, in war, the winner makes the rules.

Not true, they can be tried, and if found to have violated the Geneva accords or Tha Hague, they can be executed legally (i.e. not violating the Geneva accords themselves) during the war.

Yet again, someone doesn't understand what he is quoting (or SWAGing)

Remember,the guys MISS 50,000 times for every solid hit that they get with a rifle

a number based entirely on dividing the total rounds fired to the number of CONFIRMED enemy casualties. This includes fire from aircraft and ground vehicles used to suppress an area, which GREATLY inflates the "miss" numbers, not to mention all the unconfirmed casualties aren't counted. Riflemen don't miss that often, he just thinks so, because he can't shoot a rifle worth a hoot.

I think the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy applies to "fagmenting".

LOL, yeah one of those typos that made it past the "1 hour" limit. Plus it would be difficult to mandate "no fragmenting rounds", as most rounds will fragment for a number of reasons.

 

[84 C4]

Not true, they can be tried, and if found to have violated the Geneva accords or Tha Hague, they can be executed legally (i.e. not violating the Geneva accords themselves) during the war.

Then we go to war with them, lets see them enforce international law while under American occupation.

 

[Magnum88C]

That's what I'm talking about. People we are at war with could "legally" execute our prisoners. According to international quorum though. Doesn't mean we couldn't burn them to the ground in retaliation, but we're too "civilized for such". Such is what happens when you politicize warfare.

 

[Gun_crazy_JR]

but we're too "civilized for such". Such is what happens when you politicize warfare.

Amen!!!!!!

:madeuce: :madeuce: :madeuce:

 

[Garand]

Gunkid/erika the last war that disease took more casualities was World War 1, with one of 2 theaters of operations during WW2. I would like to see the link to the "fact" that each infantryman in Vietnam fired 50,000 rds before he hit something. Suppressive fire was used by many people, but your numbers are a little off. Besides we are talking survival, no survivalist would even come close to firing that many rounds without a hit, except you! Just because your marksmanship ability is so limited, it doesn't mean that ours are.

 

[andy]

We are in the wrong in Iraq, just like we were in the wrong in Nam. It will hurt our economy horribly, just like nam did. Get ready for 18% inflation and 22% interest when you want to borrow for something. That's how BB pays for an unpopular war. he CAN'T tax people, so he just prints more money to pay the bills with, so EVERYBODY has to pay more, a LOT more, for everything.

 

[andy]

Regardless of what military guys "think" the 357 125 gr jhp stops about anybody that can reliably be stopped, with a single chest hit. It's more a question of HOW the energy is used, than how much of it is used. At 50m, I"ll take a good 30 carbine hp over 30 AK ball, ANY day. even tho the .30C hp "only" has 900 ft lbs, and the Ak rd still has 1300 ft lbs. Such a 30c load uses ALL of that power in the man, the AK rd, low velocity that it is, wastes at LEAST 1/3rd of its power on overpenetration, and it also tears up less tissue than does a good .30 hp (at the sort of ranges-velocity where the hp truly does expand in flesh.)

 

[Rich Z]

In another thread, the 5.45x39mm round was mentioned as a rather interesting military offering. Any comments on a head to head comparison with the 5.56 cartidge?

 

[GBullet]

Rich, you've raised a good question. It deserves its own thread.

 

[andy]

It's got nothing to offer over good 223 sp's, match ammo

penetrator rd, etc,and it can't use the .22lr conversion unit. That totals PLENTY of reasons to blow off the commie rd, , in my book.

 

[Dorobuta]

it's hardly anything LIKE as damaging as amortar rd, a rifle grenade, mine, etc, so it's just a bs "concern" in the first place. Wt and bulk have to be considered in the factors of rifle ammo. Remember,the guys MISS 50,000 times for every solid hit that they get with a rifle, and most men CAN'T make themselves kill at face to face combat, and most of those who CAN suffer(psychologically) for having done so, for the rest of their lives, some of them badly enough to make them non-combat-effective anymore. There are MANY reasons why the military gives so little attention to the rifle, and they are CORRECT to do so. The rifle only accounts for a lousy 10% of the casulties on the modern battlefield. In the Gulf war, it wasn't even 5%. Disease accounts for more than that,ya know. So proper sanitation and avoiding whores is more important than is any "improvement" any rifle rd offers over the 55 gr 223 ball bullet, at the military level of concern. Just because YOU are ignorant of those facts doesn't change them. It just marks you as ignorant, that's all.

Remember, you are wrong, 100% on this. You don't think that at the squad level, that you don't know who is pulling their weight and who isn't. IF you aren't killing when it is required, you're gone - one way or another.

You've never been in combat, you have not been there, done that. There are a shit load of dead bodies after fire-fights at a squad level. who the fuck is killing them if it isn't the soldiers in the fight? This is some of the most ignorant BS you post. You should be ashamed. You're a disgrace to anyone that has ever worn a uniform and served in combat.

They aren't carrying 50,000 rounds. You quote a statistic without understanding what it means. You do not understand the dynamics of a large battle vs a squad level encounter.

You are not capable of simple logic. You are so far out of your lane on this one, it isn't even pitiful - its disgusting. You project your failings on others.

I'm generally a reasonable person, but you keep posting shit like this, and I doubt I'd piss on you if you were on fire.