Article

2004-05-19 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2004-05-19 11:03:55 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2004-05-19 11:45:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-05-19 11:56:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-05-19 12:00:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I'll keep my Springfield '03.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-05-19 12:13:20 PM|| 2004-05-19 12:13:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-05-19 12:54:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-05-19 1:34:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Long as I got my trusty blunderbuss, I ain't worried.

Posted by tu3031 2004-05-19 1:36:25 PM|| 2004-05-19 1:36:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-05-19 8:42:35 PM|| Front Page Top

11:13 EndALLCONS
03:02 Anonymous4979
08:09 B
07:28 B
04:02 Super Hose
03:59 Super Hose
02:01 rex
01:16 Tresho
01:03 Tresho
00:47 ed
23:55 Phil B
23:49 Barbara Skolaut
23:35 RWV
23:30 RWV
23:29 Zenster
23:23 A Jackson
23:21 Dog Bites Trolls
23:19 RWV
23:18 Frank G
23:15 Anonymoose
23:15 Barbara Skolaut
23:13 RWV
23:13 Phil B
23:12 Alaska Paul