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.
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.