You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
From the "Unclear on the Concept" Dept
2004-05-19
We don't make this stuff up.
Turkish Institution of Machine and Chemistry Industry (MKEK) Director General Mehmet Baspinar said that the institution started to produce bullets injuring people instead of killing them due to change in NATO's concept and to give those bullets to Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). Baspinar said, ''there used to be 7.62 mm rifles which were killing a person when they hit him. In 1990s, the public opinion discussed whether a weapon should wound or injure people. Then, some NATO member countries started to use 5.56 mm rifles which don't kill, but wound a person.'' Baspinar said, ''we have been producing 5.56 mm rifles for the last four years and giving them to the Gendarme Command and Land Forces Command.''
Errr, Mehmet, that part about 5.56mm rounds wounding people, not killing them? That was a bug, not a feature.
Posted by:Steve

#8  Bulldog is right, one of the glories of the M-16 is that the shock of mangling it does to a person is horrific. It's a combination of making the other guy use up his logistics caring for his own wounded plus the psychological aspect of seeing one's buddy screaming his ass off becuase a round that him in the thigh just came out his left testicle.
Posted by: Jarhead   2004-05-19 8:42:35 PM  

#7  Long as I got my trusty blunderbuss, I ain't worried.
Posted by: tu3031   2004-05-19 1:36:25 PM  

#6  N.B.: I was taught that in the US Revolutionary War, some 200,000 rounds were used to achieve a single bullet enemy casualty. By Vietnam, this had increased to over 2,000,000 rounds per enemy casualty.
The current projected US production demand for 5.56 ammunition is being ratcheted up to 2 Billion rounds per month.

In praise of high explosive.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2004-05-19 1:34:51 PM  

#5  I was told the 5.56 British standard SA-80 was supposed to injure w/o killing in order to tie down more of the enemy personnel, coping with live casualties. In the next breath, I was told that 'as the SA-80 likely won't kill or stop with the first shot, you may need to loose off two rounds at a target in quick succession.' Not everyone appreciated the irony.
Posted by: Bulldog   2004-05-19 12:54:07 PM  

#4  I'll keep my Springfield '03.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2004-05-19 12:13:20 PM  

#3  Actually, Mike, that was the CONCEPT -- and it was totally contingent on propellant (bad propellant explains the initial M16 failures), 20" barrels, and finally high muzzle velocity (exceeding 2600fps). The modern-day M855 tungsten-carbide-penetrator FMJ doesn't perform to that standard in the M16, and in the M4 it's even worse, usually performing sub-2500fps when not under 2400fps ... without sufficient speed to tumble, it just exits cleanly. Apparently this is what the Turks are looking for ...

(In contrast, what the 7.62mm brings to the table is its bigger diameter meaning more mass and thus actual stopping power, in terms of general "energy dump" upon its target.)
Posted by: Edward Yee   2004-05-19 12:00:33 PM  

#2  Mike-you are correct. The rifling of the original version of the M-16 had a low number of turns - which led to lower bullet stability and greater tendency to tumble. Also, the original propellant in the 5.56 round did not cause much fouling. The Army increased the rifling turns and changed the propellant, with the resultant problems in Viet Nam.
Posted by: Spot   2004-05-19 11:56:01 AM  

#1  IIRC, the 5.56mmx45 round (and the M-16) were bitterly condemned when first introduced on the grounds that the 5.56 round (due to the combination of high velocity, bullet mass, and rifling pitch) tends to tumble and fragment on impact with a human body, causing more injury than a comparable hit from a 7.62. Do I remember rightly?
Posted by: Mike   2004-05-19 11:45:13 AM  

00:00