Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The truth about the 5.56mm round
TriggaFingaz    1/24/2004 1:51:19 PM
To all infantrymen and gunusers out there , tell me this: is the 5.56x45mm round an effective round or is it so weak that you need more than one shot to drop a man? Some books say that it is absolutely lethal, able to stop one's heart owing to sheer velocity. Other accounts claim that enemy soldiers hit with this round continue charging. Some books claim it will tumble and dig multiple wound channels in the body, detractors claim it drills straight though people but yet has poor anti-material penetration. Which is more accurate? Please specify whether you used M193 or M855 'green tips'.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
DrillSergeant    RE:Protective thickness of materials.   9/4/2004 3:30:19 AM
I think that round your talking about they called it a SLAP round or something to that effect. Sounds neat but its just a 30 some odd grain bullet. To me its just a .22 on steroids. I think that the govt ought to stop spending millions on wasted projects and step up and go with a 6mm or the new 6.8 SPC. Could possibly save some lives with that change.
 
Quote    Reply

FelixA9    RE:Protective thickness of materials.   9/4/2004 12:39:28 PM
No that's not it. This is the thread you want to check. http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/29-1643.asp Sometime back there was a story that got a lot of media attention about the rounds being used in Iraq by some special forces. The Army was looking into it but the general consensus seemed to be you didn't want that ammo in general use because of blue-on-blue incidents. The rounds are DEADLY. On guy got shot in the ass and died from it. Turned out the shock/fragment mass tore up his lower abdominal area too.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Protective thickness of materials.   9/4/2004 3:22:38 PM
"The Army was looking into it but the general consensus seemed to be you didn't want that ammo in general use because of blue-on-blue incidents." I know everybody pokes fun at the American military for their number of "blue on blue", incidents, but not adopting frangible ammunition because it is too deadly, and is more likely to kill your own side if shot takes the biscuit. However, I do believe frangible ammunition may break the Hauge Convention along with dum-dum rounds.
 
Quote    Reply

Crosshair    Advantage of AK vs M-16   9/5/2004 1:28:49 AM
One reason I heard for solders wanting the AK over the M-16/M-4 is simply the fact that the AK doesn't gum up easy with that powder that is known as sand over there. Sure the M-16 works good when it is clean and is more accurate to a degree. But the retarded gas system on the M-16 causes it to soil itself as a part of its design. Cleaning off powder residue is hard work and a constant issue with the M-16. I have frieds in the National Gaurd and most love the M-16, they all have said that cleaning it is a real b*tch though. The AK doesn't have this problem because it uses a gas piston system like almost every other military rifle. If you think that the M-16 is such a good design just look at how many rifles use a gas system like the M-16. No rifle except the AR-10 uses such a "sh*ts-where-it-easts" type gas system. All of them use a piston to drive the bolt. /put's on flame proof suit.
 
Quote    Reply

DrillSergeant    RE:Advantage of AK vs M-16   9/5/2004 11:01:04 AM
When we are at ranges with our privates, we encounter so many malfunctions with their M-16 A-4s that at times they get discouraged. Yeah the M-16 might be more accurate to due to tighter tolerances and a flatter shooting cartridge, but I cant count the amount of times that I have had to shove a rod down the barrel to push out an fired round that could not be extracted from the chamber, or all of the bolt overides we have, when you have a expent round that somehow manages to stuck on the top of the charging handle. Or once again when a round gets stuck in the chamber and you cant pull the charging handle back. Yeah the U.S. military cleans its weapons but its no good to you if it gets a little dirt and locks the heck up or if your having to shove a cleaning rod down the barrel to fix the problem. If the chips were down and it was getting ugly, I would be more than willing to sacrifice a little accuracy for a weapon that will fire when you need it to.
 
Quote    Reply

VisigothCSA    RE:The truth about the 5.56mm round   9/6/2004 10:02:48 AM
Felix, That round you are talking about was a frangible round, which is why it killed that man even though it hit him in the backside. Normally such bullets are prohibited, but some exceptions exist. Special operation forces and counter terror/hostage rescue forces can use hollow points and frangibles. The reasoning is that in hostage rescue it is necessary to put the target down very quickly as they may harm the hostages otherwise.
 
Quote    Reply

VisigothCSA    RE:Advantage of AK vs M-16   9/6/2004 10:11:59 AM
There was a story from England about a confiscated AK 47. The usual method of destroying rifles was to pack the barrel full of dirt and ram the muzzle deep into the ground then fire the weapon, causing the barrel to explode. The AK 47 popped out of the ground and when examined they found the weapon had cleared the barrel and was still intact. This was tried several more times with the same results. Eventually the rifle was cut up with a torch. As for the other trouble with the M 16, part of the problem is a weak recoil spring. One of the chief complaints is that wears out very quickly and often breaks. This can happen in only a few thousand round of firing, which can easily be reached in training. The AK 47 has better knock down over the M 16 because the bullet is heavier; about 120 grains vs. 70, and it has a larger impacting surface, meaning more energy is transferred to the target. That is rather like comparing the 9mm to the .45 in terms of knockdown.
 
Quote    Reply

bigfella    RE:Advantage of AK vs M-16   9/6/2004 12:24:34 PM
I'm sure all you military folk have more experience than me, but I have my own little M-16/AK story. Last year I was in Vietnam at the Cu CHi tunnels. For a few $ you can fire off various weapons. I opted for 3 rounds with a 16 and 3 with an AK. The damn 16 jammed during ejection on 2 out of 3 shots. The AK, no worries. Talking to my guide I said "no wonder you guys won".
 
Quote    Reply

Pino    RE:Protective thickness of materials.   9/6/2004 1:03:20 PM
I think it's depending of the environent of use. A desert might ask for the 7.62 mm or equal and a urban city combat or jungle for the fast firing 5.56 mm. The advantage of the small 5.56 mm is a lighter weapon (faster to aim), fast rpm rate and of course a soldier can carry more rounds (handy in a jungle or city where you don't want to carry your 20 kg backpack). I think it will alway be a combination of one or more heavy group weapons (7.62 mm MAG/M60) in combination with the personal 5.56 mm weapons
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:Protective thickness of materials.   9/6/2004 3:05:35 PM
Back in the 80’s the British supplied some aid to Mozambique. This included a shipment of SA80’s to arm local troops together with a group of “Advisors” (read SAS). When a trucload of troops was about to set off in a convoy, a reporter noticed that whilst the locals were carrying the SA80’s, the advisors were carrying AK47’s. When he asked why, the reply was that the AK would fire under any circumstances but the clouds of fine dust raised by the trucks would render the SA80’s inoperable within a mile.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics