US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war

Pilgrim

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
16,008
Likes
1,260
Location
RETIRED, at home or wherever I want to be
Feedback: 14 / 0 / 0
US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war

By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 12 minutes ago

As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor, a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies.

As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry.

"Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice," says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. "It just has more stopping power."

Strange as it sounds, nearly seven years into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bullets are a controversial subject for the U.S.

The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.

Designed decades ago to puncture a Soviet soldier's helmet hundreds of yards away, the M855 rounds are being used for very different targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of today's fighting takes place in close quarters; narrow streets, stairways and rooftops are today's battlefield. Legions of armor-clad Russians marching through the Fulda Gap in Germany have given way to insurgents and terrorists who hit and run.

Fired at short range, the M855 round is prone to pass through a body like a needle through fabric. That does not mean being shot is a pain-free experience. But unless the bullet strikes a vital organ or the spine, the adrenaline-fueled enemy may have the strength to keep on fighting and even live to fight another day.

In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets.

Yet the Army is not changing. The answer is better aim, not bigger bullets, officials say.

"If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn't matter what you shoot him with," said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small arms division at Fort Benning, Ga., home to the Army's infantry school.

At about 33 cents each, bullets do not get a lot of public attention in Washington, where the size of the debate is usually measured by how much a piece of equipment costs. But billions of M855 rounds have been produced, and Congress is preparing to pay for many more. The defense request for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 seeks $88 million for 267 million M855s, each one about the size of a AAA battery.

None of the M855's shortcomings is surprising, said Don Alexander, a retired Army chief warrant officer with combat tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Somalia.

"The bullet does exactly what it was designed to do. It just doesn't do very well at close ranges against smaller-statured people that are lightly equipped and clothed," says Alexander, who spent most of his 26-year military career with the 5th Special Forces Group.

Paul Howe was part of a U.S. military task force 15 years ago in Mogadishu, Somalia's slum-choked capital, when he saw a Somali fighter hit in the back from about a dozen feet away with an M855 round.

"I saw it poof out the other side through his shirt," says Howe, a retired master sergeant and a former member of the Army's elite Delta Force. "The guy just spun around and looked at where the round came from. He got shot a couple more times, but the first round didn't faze him."

With the M855, troops have to hit their targets with more rounds, said Howe, who owns a combat shooting school in Texas. That can be tough to do under high-stress conditions when one shot is all a soldier might get.

"The bullet is just not big enough," he says. "If I'm going into a room against somebody that's determined to kill me, I want to put him down as fast as possible."

Dr. Martin Fackler, a former combat surgeon and a leading authority on bullet injuries, said the problem is the gun, not the bullet. The M4 rifle has a 14.5 inch barrel — too short to create the velocity needed for an M855 bullet to do maximum damage to the body.

"The faster a bullet hits the tissue, the more it's going to fragment," says Fackler. "Bullets that go faster cause more damage. It's that simple."

Rules of war limit the type of ammunition conventional military units can shoot. The Hague Convention of 1899 bars hollow point bullets that expand in the body and cause injuries that someone is less likely to survive. The United States was not a party to that agreement. Yet, as most countries do, it adheres to the treaty, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The Hague restrictions do not apply to law enforcement agencies, however. Ballistics expert Gary Roberts said that is an inconsistency that needs to be remedied, particularly at a time when so many other types of destructive ordnance are allowed in combat.

"It is time to update this antiquated idea and allow U.S. military personnel to use the same proven ammunition," Roberts says.

In response to complaints from troops about the M855, the Army's Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey assigned a team of soldiers, scientists, doctors and engineers to examine the round's effectiveness. The team's findings, announced in May 2006, concluded there were no commercially available rounds of similar size better than the M855.

But Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Corps major, said the Army buried the study's most important conclusion: that larger-caliber bullets are more potent.

"It was manipulated," says Milavic, a Vietnam veteran who manages an online military affairs forum called MILINET. "Everybody knows there are bullets out there that are better."

Officials at Picatinny Arsenal declined to be interviewed. In an e-mailed response to questions, they called the M855 "an overall good performer." Studies are being conducted to see if it can be made more lethal without violating the Hague Convention, they said.

Larger rounds are not necessarily better, they also said. Other factors such as the weather, the amount of light and the bullet's angle of entry also figure into how lethal a single shot may be.

Heavier rounds also mean more weight for soldiers to carry, as well as more recoil — the backward kick created when a round is fired. That long has been a serious issue for the military, which has troops of varied size and strength.

The M14 rifle used by Joe Higgins was once destined to be the weapon of choice for all U.S. military personnel. When switched to the automatic fire mode, the M14 could shoot several hundred rounds a minute. But most soldiers could not control the gun, and in the mid-1960s it gave way to the M16 and its smaller cartridge. The few remaining M14s are used by snipers and marksman.

U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., is buying a carbine called the SCAR Heavy for its commandos, and it shoots the same round as the M14. The regular Army, though, has invested heavily in M4 and M16 rifles and has no plans to get rid of them.

A change in expectations is needed more than a change in gear, said Col. Robert Radcliffe, chief of combat developments at Fort Benning. Soldiers go through training believing that simply hitting a part of their target is enough to kill it. On a training range, getting close to the bulls-eye counts. But in actual combat, nicking the edges isn't enough.

"Where you hit is essential to the equation," Radcliffe says. "I think the expectations are a little bit off in terms of combat performance against target range performance. And part of that is our fault for allowing that expectation to grow when it's really not there at all."

The arguments over larger calibers, Radcliffe says, are normal in military circles where emotions over guns and bullets can run high.

"One of the things I've discovered in guns is that damned near everyone is an expert," he says. "And they all have opinions."

Larger rounds are not necessarily better, they also said. Other factors such as the weather,the amount of light and the bullet's angle of entry also figure into how lethal a single shot may be.

Other factors such as the weather, ????????????
 
Exactly what I was thinking, jdubois. MSgt. Howe ranted about the M855 several times in the book. Sad to see that they haven't learned the lessons yet. The M855 is a good round for conventional warfare, but for what we're doing now, they need to use the FMJ round that's the most effective against insurgents (I would say use JHPs, but you know what would happen if the media got a sniff of it)
 
The M193 round doesn't function all that well out of a 1x7 trist barrel which means major rebuilds which isn't going to happen.

The Mk 262 Mod 1 is the best solution at the time. The problem is that the ammo is not being distributed in great numbers.
 
In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets.

So over 80% of them didn't.

Holy media spin, batman.
 
The M193 round doesn't function all that well out of a 1x7 trist barrel

Huh? In CQB distances, my Colt is able to produce a single jagged hole with M193 with a 1 in 7 twist. Yes, heavier bullets are better as the range increases, but we are not talking long range engagements here. I've had my rifle jam only twice. Neither of those were with M193.

If they would just eliminate the steel penetrator and make a solid lead bullet the length of SS-109 (the actual bullet used in the M855 round), you'd have a roughly 69-70 grain projectile which is one of the preferred weights for Match use and it might tumble better in the target.

And they do not need a hollow point. There are plenty of designs of FMJ which can expand or fragment. Sure, it's not as good as a HP design, but the technology exists to keep all the treaty and equipment unaffected but make a bullet more effective. The real stumbling block is the freaking bureaucracy as the decision makers worry more about political favors and contracts than the ability of the soldier in the field.
 
Having never worn green or carried a rifle to war maybe I'm missing something (so those who have/do should feel free to correct me) but:

The actual soldiers interviewed for the article talked about 'putting the guy down', while the reporter was talking about lethality and killing the target. Those are two different things: and when being shot at the first seems much more important then the second.

Other then that the article was an amazingly good presentation of The Caliber Holy War.

AE
 
Tommy Guns with .45 ACP Hollow point

Since I dont think that AlQuada, Hamas or any of those guys signed any Geneva convention and they arnt really an ARMY in the traditional scence then maybe we are not only using the wirong kind of bulletts we are also using the wrong kind of troops.

Hague restrictions do not apply to law enforcement agencies. Lets pull all of the US Military out of those places and Hire Privite Security Forces who can use weapons like Tommy Guns with .45 ACP Hollow point and Shotguns with soft lead buckshot or heres a novel idea just Demo the entire building that the bad guys sre in.

It would cost less to pay Privite Contractors to eliminate the problem than all the Tax dollars we are spending.
 
When you say function, do you mean go bang or do you mean put people down?

In my experience, the 1x7 doesn't stabilized the lighter bullets all that well. The accuracy at distance will suffer with the M193. The Mk262 works great in the barrel and is much more effective. Why it isn't being produced in quanity is beyond me.
 
I hate these caliber flame wars. All it takes is 20% of people to complain about something, for it to be considered crap. I wonder if 80% of the poeple said it was crap, if the 20% for it would be taken so seriously. Like someone said, media spinning the situation.
 
I hate these caliber flame wars. All it takes is 20% of people to complain about something, for it to be considered crap. I wonder if 80% of the poeple said it was crap, if the 20% for it would be taken so seriously. Like someone said, media spinning the situation.

Yes, Martlet was absolutely right to call that out. It's a favorite statistical trick. But keep in mind that we don't want to go the other way and create a false dichotomy. Because only 20% complain, does not meant that the 80% are in favor of it. Some may not like it but didn't want to complain for some reason, a large majority probably just don't care either way, and only a small percentage may actually be in favor of the current round. Without knowing what the survey actually asked, and whether it was conducted properly, the 20% information is pretty useless.
 
Back in the Fall of 1966 a young ROTC Cadet was attending class at the University of Arizona (mandatory for all males in the freshman and sophomore years there...naturally that changed by 1970 or so) His instructor was a SFC Estes who had just returned from Viet Nam. SFC Estes was an infantryman who wore his CIB proudly on his summer khakis. "That new M16 ain't worth a shit. Not only does the sombabitch jam, that peepiddle round just don't do dick when it comes to killin' people. I'll take an M14 anytime or even better, an M1."

So the debate continues ad nauseum over the decades. Anecdotally, of the people who have actually used the 5.56 in combat that I have talked to and who are willing to talk about it, the majority have voiced the opinion that they would be more comfortable with something bigger, say on the order of a 7.62. Not all, however share that opinion.

I would be interested in knowing if those queried in the article (the 80%) were actually people who used the 5.56 in combat, or simply carried. Even in a non-linear battlefield, there are thousands who spend their tour of duty without ever firing a shot in combat. The only opinion that counts in my book is the opinion of those who have actually used the 5.56 round in combat.

The M16 and its service round is controversial and has been since the day it was adopted. I know that we have some real M16/AR15 afficianados on this forum. and many people enjoy shooting this rifle. However, the fact that some of the same issues are now being voiced in this war as in past wars leads me to believe that our troops do not have the best rifle nor necessarily the best round available to them. Adequate perhaps, but a world class army deserves a world class rifle and world class round. Good enough, simply isn't.

Mark L.
 
-puts on flame retardant suit-

The .22LR is an effective round under the right conditions. Some organizations are reputed to use the Ruger Mk I/II/III (suppressed) for assasination work. Naturally this is extreme close range and point of aim is generally the brain stem and/or skull.

The 5.56 is an excellent performer under the right circumstances, however in a firefight with the adrenaline pumping, are you really going to attempt a hit on the CNS (central nervous system), or are you going to try and throw as much lead as you are able to?

That being said, look at the war on the Eastern Front during WW2. Once fighting moved into the cities, Germany started issuing MP40s to entire units instead of the K98K, and Russia started issuing the PPSh.

IMHO the 16 for all of it's faults is a great rifle when used under proper conditions, however for urban combat it's hard to beat a good subgun. Take an M4 and give it an upper cjhambered for 10MM or .45ACP with a barrel between 10"-12" and you'll have a much better weapon for CQB, and if you need to shoot at longer ranges, switch the upper back to a 5.56.
 
There was an interesting episode of FutureWeapons where they brought up this point as well. I can't recall the gun that they were featuring but they showed an interesting comparison. The host was shooting at a steel target and compared the .223 round to the 7.62x39. The .223 round hit the target and lightly pushed it although he did stress the accuracy point. The 7.62x39 round when fired at the target completely knocked it over. Just by that comparison I know I'd rather be strapped with the larger round. It's not going to matter how accurate your round is in a CQC situation like Iraq.
 
There was an interesting episode of FutureWeapons where they brought up this point as well. I can't recall the gun that they were featuring but they showed an interesting comparison. The host was shooting at a steel target and compared the .223 round to the 7.62x39. The .223 round hit the target and lightly pushed it although he did stress the accuracy point. The 7.62x39 round when fired at the target completely knocked it over. Just by that comparison I know I'd rather be strapped with the larger round. It's not going to matter how accurate your round is in a CQC situation like Iraq.

I wouldn't place much trust in this "expiriment". I watched one episode with my old man where he compared 5.56mm to the 6.5mm (I THINK it was the 6.5mm). Same thing, 5.56mm didn't knock the targets over, but the 6.5mm did. BUT... it looked like with the 5.56mm, he was shooting center mass, but with the 6.5mm shooting higher up. Both me and my dad noticed this. Simple knowledge of basic physics should let you see the problem here.
 
I wouldn't place much trust in this "expiriment". I watched one episode with my old man where he compared 5.56mm to the 6.5mm (I THINK it was the 6.5mm). Same thing, 5.56mm didn't knock the targets over, but the 6.5mm did. BUT... it looked like with the 5.56mm, he was shooting center mass, but with the 6.5mm shooting higher up. Both me and my dad noticed this. Simple knowledge of basic physics should let you see the problem here.

Hmm......i will have to pay closer attention to that show from now on. I saw that episode a little while ago so I don't recall where on the target he shot for each round. I'll have to see if I can find that episode on Youtube later.
 
We had a swinging metal plate at 100 yards at our club, and the .308 or .30 carbine would swing it from side to side every time, but you had to hit it just right with .223 to get it to move. But people aren't steel plates, either.
 
Grunts have been complaining about the “stopping power” of the 5.56 since the 60's.

The 20-80% argument is junk because they don’t explain what the other 80% felt. 20% could be the majority of those who had an opinion.

But even if they had broken down the percentages into “for-neutral-against” they didn’t qualify the experiences of the polled 2,600 soldiers further then that they “had served in Iraq and Afghanistan”.

The poll, as represented, is flawed.


Respectfully,

jkelly
 
I don't remember any surveys at that time, but if the numbers then would have been the same as reflected by this survey, then I've been one of the 20% for the past 40+ years. I strongly suspect that the other 80% is and was composed mostly of those whose primary MOS involved fry pans, pencils or crew serviced weapons, or those whose experience with either the M14 or M16 left them with a more profound memory of the weight of the ammunition you had to hump around than on the effect of that ammunition when delivered to its recipient.

Ken
 
Back
Top Bottom