# Bullet Size vs. Shot Placement Still Rages



## AWP (May 26, 2008)

My title, not that of the actual article. The article's tone is that the M855 round is inferior. Shot placement is briefly discussed, but the article is lobbying for a larger round. Quotes include Paul Howe, of Delta fame.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/battling_over_bullets_3

I did laugh over this quote because it is so true:



> 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."


----------



## Cabbage Head (May 27, 2008)

Interesting article.  

I have seen the ballistic tests of 5.56 in gelatin where depending on barrel length the same round does completely different things.

The slower the round exits the less the termanal ballistics it has and the greater the penetration.

Our rounds at work are jacketed soft points.  Expand very nice.

We have some Hornady TAP in 55gr that knocked the shit out of a coyote the other day.  What you give up with this round is penetration.  I saw the unofficial pic's of what it did to the internal organs.  Ripped it all up....

For combat use in an urban environment, I would think that you would need something that has both.  Good penetration (velocity) that when striking the target offers expansion/fragmentation to cause incopacitation.

I would like to think that the argument of proper placement of the round is sound but,  I have never seen the person who would stand still enough to let me do that (granted this is only in Sim's training).

Having never been there, this is the best opinion I have on the subject matter.:2c:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 27, 2008)

I could not disagree more with this article, the information is wrong in many places. (i.e. why the M855 was designed and how it performs) To me this looks like an article based on an already determined opinion with a lack of proper research. As for Paul Howe’s comment: 

_*“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."*_

Paul Howe is one of the better instructors in the TX area, and his training is spot on. However, I disagree with his opinion in this matter. The same goes for deer hunters; they will always tell you a 30-30 or 270 are the only way to go when killing deer. But my NM AR15 shooting M193 works just fine and I have been doing that for the last 5 years…

Why is the article not mentioning the fact that the Somali’s were drugged up (khat leaves the equivalent to heroin or LSD) during this battle, it would not be unusual for a person to not go down after one shot? Also why is weight issues not being discussed in this article (weight of ammo and weapon difference) witch makes a lot of difference to the current conventional soldier? There are a lot more issues then BIGGER = BETTER…

I believe in Shot placement over round size, while at home I carry a G19 9mm pistol. Everyone knows a 45 ACP makes a bigger hole and causes more damage, but I still trust my life with a 9mm. why? Because I am not going to shoot just once, and I will more then likely shoot the threat in the head! I train my self all the time, so that if the time comes for me to do so. I will be able too….

:2c:


----------



## pardus (May 27, 2008)

Shot placement is vital when talking about a kill etc... but it is often impractical to expect people in combat to take well aimed shots, the shot placement argument forgets too about shooting through concealment etc...

The 5.56 is a good little round for certain situations but it was never the general purpose combat round that it's been used as or talked up to be, the Brits decided the 7mm 
(.280) was the ideal general purpose round way back in the late '40s, something that has been reborn with the advent of the 6.8mm round.

The 6.8mm needs to be adopted as the standard round and the troops need more training IMO.

:2c:


----------



## WillBrink (May 27, 2008)

Freefalling said:


> My title, not that of the actual article. The article's tone is that the M855 round is inferior. Shot placement is briefly discussed, but the article is lobbying for a larger round. Quotes include Paul Howe, of Delta fame.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/battling_over_bullets_3
> 
> I did laugh over this quote because it is so true:



BTW, from the research I have done, I think the money quote is below, and the topic is given too little space. God knows, the guy who made the quote knows a thing or two about terminal ballistics....

"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."

Doing the velocity it was intended to do out of an M16, the M855 makes an impressive wound channel.  No doubt, it has it's trade offs as everything does, but the M855 was designed to be lethal in a different gun.


----------



## Titus Pullo (May 27, 2008)

I remember the AAR's we were getting back from Somalia about the less lethal effects of the 5.56 ball rounds and how many of the guys were getting 4-5 hits center mass on a target and the target would just keep coming at them. Worse is that in many third world countries, like Somalia, the locals practice "religions" that have them ingesting substances like Khat, which is a narcotic, amongst other drugs such as heroin, before heading into battle. Many of them believing that the effects of the drugs will protect them from bullets. Sadly for some of our men and women that is almost a truth. While the drug does not obviously stop bullets it is difficult to put someone down with a round like the 855 when they are stoned to the gills.


----------



## Hitman2/3 (May 27, 2008)

I'm all for shot placement and it holds true when you have a visible target that your shooting at. However, my problem with the 5.56 comes when you have to engage a target that is behind concealment or even lite cover. 

There was a video I saw once that I'm sure some of you guys have seen. This guy basically shot a lot of different guns and a lot of different ammo to show the effects that rounds had on certain materials and the effect that certain materials had on the round. Anyway, this guy shot an M-16, loaded with the M855 round through a stand with leaves and twigs on it with a target just 1 foot behind it. The guy shot three rounds from a pretty short distance aiming at the center of the stand, the bullets were deflected so much that one of them barely even hit the target and the other two were off center buy almost 9 inches. The same test was preformed with a 7.62, and while the rounds were slightly off they were all more or less on target. 

Similar test were preformed to show the effects the round had on cinder blocks, solid wood, and bricks. Each time the 7.62 out performed the 5.56. To me that is a factor that is very important when your talking about MOUT or even working in a jungle or wooded environment. It would really suck if you know there is a guy behind a thick bush, or a guy that you know is right next to a window but you can't nail his ass because your bullet either won't penetrate or is deflected to far to have effects on target. 

Don't get me wrong, obviously the 5.56 is a lethal round; however, like Paradus said the 5.56 is not the ideal all purpose round that it is cracked up to be. Also as far as shot placement goes its all well and good at 25 or 30 yards. However, in a combat situation using iron sights with a target 100 to 150 yards away, your heart pumping, sweat and dirt in your eyes and the other guy shooting back hitting him or her in the heart or in the upper center of the face is easier said than done. I'd like to see a round that will put someone on their ass rather you hit them in the stomach or dead center in their chest, and will do it with one shot not three four or five. Personally I believe that the 6.8 is worth the military taking a real close look at. Just my :2c:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 28, 2008)

Personally I am waiting on my new intergalactic death ray, so that when I assume command over all ground forces of Operation Mars Freedom (OMF) we will be well prepared for those green bastards! :)

I agree that M855 is not the best round; all I am saying is that I am 100% comfortable with M855 and it’s performance in combat…


----------



## Minuteman1636 (Jul 9, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> I agree that M855 is not the best round; all I am saying is that I am 100% comfortable with M855 and it’s performance in combat…



+1

In my 20 years of service the debate has raged about what round is best. I was never a big fan of M193 (55gr used in M16A1's for you young guys). I do like the M855. I have never felt "inadequate":eek: with M855. 

However, my personal preference would be a return to 7.62/.308 based rifle.


----------



## jordan (Jul 11, 2008)

What kind of .223 round do you prefer for just going out to the range? Why?

I am talking civilian market. ie, remington, winchester etc.


----------



## JBS (Jul 11, 2008)

Weight is a factor:



*556* M855: 4.0 grams per round,

*7.62* NATO = 9.5 grams per round



So if you want 20lbs of 7.62, you could theoretically carry 955 rounds.

As compared to 20lbs of 556 it would be 2,268 rounds of M855.

That's theoretical because the links (assuming the ammo is belted) would throw off the math, and probably make it even less favorable for 7.62.


So pretty much capacity in terms of total volume of ammunition that can be carried would technically be cut in half.

That's definitely a consideration at least.


----------



## pardus (Jul 12, 2008)

JoeBlackSpade said:


> Weight is a factor:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats true but the 7.62 can do more with less shots too. Enough to make up the loss of quantity? I don't know but I know I'd rather be using a round I know will more easily shoot through a wall/door etc... and take out a bad guy on the other side. :2c:


----------



## Pete031 (Jul 12, 2008)

Is the M855 77 grain? or is it in the 60's?


----------



## 275ANGER! (Jul 12, 2008)

Pete031 said:


> Is the M855 77 grain? or is it in the 60's?



62 I believe
*edit* Yup, 62 grain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO

The MK262 is 77


----------



## HOLLiS (Jul 12, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Thats true but the 7.62 can do more with less shots too. Enough to make up the loss of quantity? I don't know but I know I'd rather be using a round I know will more easily shoot through a wall/door etc... and take out a bad guy on the other side. :2c:



Good summation.   Problem with any bullet it is design to do something, that can easily mean it will not do something else.  Sierra has a good discussion of bullets in, probably, any of their reloading manuals.  

Penetrating bullets are not soft tissue bullets and the converse is true.  We had a expression, "To kill 'em dead".  If I had to pick a round, I think a 8 inch arty round would be great, one shot, one big splatter, end of discussion.   I have never been man enough to hump a 8 inch around.   So there will always be trade offs.  


So the question will always linger, "Enough to make up the loss of quantity?"


----------



## Pete031 (Jul 13, 2008)

I've used 77 grain. That shit fly's. It really impressed me overseas, compared to our standard 62 grain.


----------



## JBS (Jul 13, 2008)

Something doesn't seem right with those numbers, though.

I am pretty sure that it sounds like too much ammo for the weight.



> Originally Posted by *JoeBlackSpade*
> 
> 
> _Weight is a factor:
> ...


Something is askew.  20lbs of ammo, there's no way that's 2,000 + rounds, take an Ammo can for example.   What does that weigh?  Close to 20lbs at least, and far less than 2,000 rounds.




* Edit:*  The weights I used were for the PROJECTILE, not for the _cartridge_.

*
Corrected weights:*
*
5.56 M855*

Projectile (only)                / Cartridge 
                              62 grain / 190 grain       
                              4.02 grams / 12.31 grams
* 
lbs-per-1000pc. * *27.14 lbs*
*





7.62 M80 Ball*

Projectile (only)              /  Cartridge 
                              146 grain                                / 392 grain
 9.46 grams                                          / 25.4 grams

*lbs-per-1000pc.    56.0 lbs

My apologies for the screwed up math.  ***
*


----------



## Rabid Badger (Jul 13, 2008)

All well and good and well said for weights / penetration / velocity.

One item I see that's not being addressed is bad marksmanship with lotso rounds still equals bad marksmanship and less hits - less dead bad guys and you'll need lot's of rounds.

Good MMS with less rounds + hit what you're aiming at  =  more targets down with less rounds AND the ability to engage more as need be.

Crawl - Walk - Run MMS = more dead bad guys no matter the weights.

Ah.......the basics....

:2c:


----------



## Polar Bear (Jul 13, 2008)

razor_baghdad said:


> All well and good and well said for weights / penetration / velocity.
> 
> One item I see that's not being addressed is bad marksmanship with lotso rounds still equals bad marksmanship and less hits - less dead bad guys and you'll need lot's of rounds.
> 
> ...


 

Well said, it is cheaper to retrain someone (Dime/Washer)then send them to the range 10 times to try and qualify


----------



## 8'Duece (Jul 13, 2008)

Caliber debates are endless, especially in a gun shop. Rumors run wild like little girls in grade school and most of the gun shop employee's, non military of course, alway's know more than we do about the weapons we are purchasing. 

Ask the next gunshop employee if the gas key is staked properly on that Bushmaster M4 flat top and he'll look at you like you just asked him to repeat the law's of physics in a non gravitational atmosphere. 

Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement !


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 13, 2008)

I think I posted something about that in my first post of the topic ;)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 13, 2008)

Polar Bear said:


> Well said, it is cheaper to retrain someone (Dime/Washer)then send them to the range 10 times to try and qualify



Nope we have a $500,000 computer system that took the place of (dime/washer) it's called EST 2000 Oh and we have Beam hit too:uhh: I do use the beam hit though!


----------



## Trip_Wire (Jul 26, 2008)

I have never been a fan of the 5.56MM nor the 9MM in a pistol. I fought my war with the M-1 Garand and the BAR in .30 Cal.

The 5.56 0r .223 round is banned for hunting Deer or Elk or any other game animal in Washington State. Unlike Texas, our Deer is a lot bigger than a German Shepherd dog! ;)

The 5.56 MM and the 9MM have killed a lot of people. The 5.56 in Vietnam and the wars since then. The 9MM used by both the Germans and the British in WWI & II, mostly in submachine guns and a few pistols. 

We also switched to the 9MM for our pistols in the military to suit the NATO commitments and as I recall to keep Italy happy. 

I am or was, a dedicated fan of COL, Jeff Cooper. (Deceased.) I happen to think the .45 Cal. is the best all around pistol round in the world, especially for the military, given the restrictions of the Geneva convention on the type of ammo that can be used.

Many Special Operations units in the US Military have also come to that conclusion as well. The 1911 in .45 cal. is the first choice of most professionals, in the Special Operations units.

The average soldier armed with a Beretta pistol, doesn't receive enough training or get enough range time to be proficient with the pistol and is limited to hard ball ammo. The average GI armed with a pistol isn't making head shots, he/she is lucky to hit center mass. 

As for the 5.56 in the Military, there have been many complaints from Spec. Ops. units as well as other units. The the 5.56 Rd. round isn't doing the job thats needed by them. The military is testing many types of weapons and in different calibers to replace the AR-16 System and Ammo. I think this will take place fairly soon, especially on the Special Operations community.

In LE, the 5.56 round and the 9MM in Submachine guns, like the MP-5 have done the job needed. Most agencies replaced the .38 & .357 pistol and went to high capacity 9MM pistols in the 70's. Most found over the years that the 9MM didn't seem to stop the bad guy's like the .357 did. So, a few switched to .45 Cal. Pistols. Many others, looked for a better 9MM bullet. The .45 Cal people also looked for better bullets as well.

Of course when the .40 Cal. came out many LE agencies switched from 9 MM to the .40 Cal. The .40 Cal seems to be the caliber of choice in a large majority of LE agencies now. It is IMO a good compromise between the 9MM and the .45 Cal. Although, I still prefer the .45 Cal.

Most LE SWAT teams also opt for the 1911 in various models and makers in .45 Cal. for the individual team members, for the same reasons Special Operations units do.

In summation, IMO Bullet placement is still the number one issue; however, choice of caliber .40 or .45 Cal and type of bullet is paramount as well, IMO, as well as others in the killing business. 

For those that still use or are forced to use the 9MM placement and bullet selection, is VERY important. There are 9MM bullets on the market that do a fair job. Of course, the military is stuck with hard ball. :doh: 

I prefer ballistic tests done on cadavers and/or animals like the Pigs that were mentioned here rather then computers or other material.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 26, 2008)

Trip Wire,

Thank you for your post.  It was very informative and a great example of why you are a great addition to the board.  A 'young' soldier like myself can learn a lot.   Not that I haven't already from the rest of the old cranky guys on here.


----------



## gunslinger (Jul 26, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement !


 

There it is.  Two in the heart and one in the mind.  I read that  here again the other day.   The arguement over calibers and bullets is as old as guns themselves.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 27, 2008)

I won't argue the fact that, .45 ACP and 7.62 are rounds perfect for killing. I agree that I would rather have a 45ACP in some combat environments. I would like the Army to have a better rifle round, however the rest of the world will have to be sold on it...

NATO drives the ammo used in our weapons today. I have a can of 7.62 link in my gun truck right now, not a US can and its tracer to ever ball?  

I will take a 9mm pistol until NATO changes and if I have the choice between a M4 or a M14. The mission will will be the deciding factor. M14 for long range engagements and OP type work. M$ for just about everything else, primarily the less weight factor...

Trip-Wire made a great point about, must soldiers are not super stars with the pistol or rifle for that matter. The average soldier will be lucky to hit center mass 50% of the time. (No not every soldier, the average) Must combat arms are a little better, but not by much.

The key is in 'training' we have to change the way we look at marksmanship in the upper level leadership. Stop telling someone they are an expert riflemen b/c they hit 36 out 40 targets on a bull-shit range. Spend hours upon hours, training our soldiers. With a training/ ammo budget fitting the greatest military*the world has ever seen (or so we like to believe)...

I can spend 2 weeks training someone just basic safety, load/unload and correcting stoppages! Just think how in depth I get about the fundamentals... The Army should build a 4 weeks section of BCT of pure rifle marksmanship, followed by every unit has 1 week a quarter dedicated to pure marksmanship...
:2c:


----------



## Trip_Wire (Jul 27, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> I won't argue the fact that, .45 ACP and 7.62 are rounds perfect for killing. I agree that I would rather have a 45ACP in some combat environments. I would like the Army to have a better rifle round, however the rest of the world will have to be sold on it...
> 
> NATO drives the ammo used in our weapons today. I have a can of 7.62 link in my gun truck right now, not a US can and its tracer to ever ball?
> 
> ...



Some good points you made!

(Although, I wonder how long NATO will last or be a factor, given the foot dragging about supporting the GWOT in some NATO Countries.)

I also think that the US Army could take a few lessons on rifle training from the USMC. I think their basic rifle course, is much better than US Army training. They (Marines,) also seem to give marksmanship at all levels a higher priority than most of the other services. :2c:


----------



## HOLLiS (Jul 27, 2008)

Some really good points.  I think part of the problem is the complexity of the issue.  Not everyone in the military has the same needs or skill sets.  The we can add squad and company weapons.   

I was TO'ed on the M14, then the M16.  In the Bush the M16 was much more preferred because of a simple factor, more ammo was preferred to less. Those of us with M16 were not alone, we had other members with M60s, M79, etc.  


Pistol are another complicated issue, a boot 2nd Lt in the rear with gear is one thing, and highly trained soldier in a team is completely another issue.  

In the Bush no one wanted a pistol, even Doc carried a M16.   As one very sage person mentioned, a pistol is something to fight with until you can get a rifle.  I think that reflects the grunt's POV.  

Then we get into bullet types.   Some really great advancement there.  

I still think it really gets back to what Trip Wire eluded too,  training.  

To be able to use the tools one has effectively, I think is equally or ever more important than bullet or rifle.


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Jul 27, 2008)

Trip_Wire said:


> Some good points you made!
> 
> (Although, I wonder how long NATO will last or be a factor, given the foot dragging about supporting the GWOT in some NATO Countries.)
> 
> I also think that the US Army could tale a few lessons on rifle training from the USMC. I think their basic rifle course, is much better than US Army training. They (Marines,) also seem to give marksmanship at all levels a higher priority than most of the other services. :2c:




I would have to agree with you here, not because I'm a Marine but because that’s how it is. In Marine Boot Camp you spend three weeks pretty much doing nothing but working with your rifle (in addition to the initial classes you receive when you first get issued your rifle). You spend a week just learning the fundamentals, safety, trigger control, sight alignment, sight picture, shooting positions etc. Another week on the KD range, and a week of field firing. You learn how to adjust for wind, get your natural point of aim, use a data book, and engage targets out to 500yds in the unsupported prone. If you don't qual on the range you get rolled back, and you keep getting rolled back until you qual. During field week you also learn the proper way to engage targets from different types of cover,  and how to shoot and move. Nothing high speed but this is just in boot camp and is the training that every Marine gets. 

It all goes back to the warrior ethos of the Marine Corps as a whole, not just the infantry unit but every unit. Even the admin sections will usually go out once a year and do some type of field fire using 240's, SAW's, MK-19's and .50's.  

Personaly I believe that if you are in the military that means there is a chance that you will end up in a combat zone. As such every member of the military, in addition to their job, at the very least should be able to properly and effectively employ their rifle. 
. 

This particular subject reminds me of when I first went through the World Wide Personal Protection Course for the State Department and there was an Army Ranger who almost failed the rifle qual because he didn't know the proper way to shoot from the kneeling. It took one of us (who happened to be a Marine) only a few minutes to show him how to shoot from the kneeling. The point being how could this guy have been in the Army for four years having served with such an elite unit and not know how to shoot from a basic unsupported kneeling position. If that doesn’t scream the need for improved marksmanship training I don't know what does.


----------



## Trip_Wire (Jul 27, 2008)

I could be wrong, but I don't think Ranger BNs and individual Rangers, practice the kneeling positions(s) or sitting positions very often in their training. It's mostly firing from a foxhole, prone or standing or on the move standing, as in assaults and/or raids, etc. (Usually done in the tire-house.)

It is; however; something any soldier should have learned in a basic rifle course, especially, like the basic USMC course! :2c:


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Jul 27, 2008)

Trip_Wire said:


> I could be wrong, but I don't think Ranger BNs and individual Rangers, practice the kneeling positions(s) or sitting positions very often in their training. It's mostly firing from a foxhole, prone or standing or on the move standing, as in assaults and/or raids, etc. (Usually done in the tire-house.)
> 
> It is; however; something any soldier should have learned in a basic rifle course, especially, like the basic USMC course! :2c:



I find that a little strange if thats the case, only because of the amount of time you can potentially spend kneeling during a patrol or even a DA mission if your pulling exterior security. I would just think at the very least he would have been taught it somewhere along the line. 

The sitting position is special. Its kind of like when your in highschool and you ask your math teacher when the hell am I going to use this long ass equation, and he can't really give you an answer:).


----------



## AWP (Jul 27, 2008)

I think it will be awhile before we stop kissing NATO's ass and go to something other than 5.56 or 7.62. We're stuck with those two rounds and 9mm for pistols/ sub guns.


----------



## Trip_Wire (Jul 27, 2008)

> Hitman2/3;188047]I find that a little strange if thats the case, only because of the amount of time you can potentially spend kneeling during a patrol or even a DA mission if your pulling exterior security. I would just think at the very least he would have been taught it somewhere along the line.
> 
> The sitting position is special. Its kind of like when your in highschool and you ask your math teacher when the hell am I going to use this long ass equation, and he can't really give you an answer:)



I agree with you and have used it myself, mostly on the range. As a Ranger, I may have been looking for an excuse for that Ranger. ;)

Yes, like I said he should have learned sitting and kneeling, as well as the other positions for rifle shooting in basic training, during rifle instruction.


----------



## pardus (Jul 28, 2008)

Freefalling said:


> I think it will be awhile before we stop kissing NATO's ass and go to something other than 5.56 or 7.62. We're stuck with those two rounds and 9mm for pistols/ sub guns.



Hmmm IIRC the US adopted the 7.62 and the 5.56 without NATOs consent... forcing NATO to follow along with the US's choice of caliber.


----------



## 275ANGER! (Jul 28, 2008)

Hitman2/3 said:


> there was an Army Ranger who almost failed the rifle qual because he didn't know the proper way to shoot from the kneeling.



Why am I not suprised.


----------



## Pete031 (Jul 28, 2008)

LOL.... Yeah I heard that too.


----------



## AWP (Jul 28, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Hmmm IIRC the US adopted the 7.62 and the 5.56 without NATOs consent... forcing NATO to follow along with the US's choice of caliber.




I'll do some digging. I know oone of the reasons behind our adoption of the 9 mil was that it was a NATO round.

My original point though is however they got there the countries are all in bed now. It isn't a relationship that will change without a fight.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 28, 2008)

Bullet size and Shot placement need to be tied together - hit 'em in the right spot with a big friggin bullet.  :2c:


----------



## Pete031 (Jul 28, 2008)

Freefalling said:


> I'll do some digging. I know oone of the reasons behind our adoption of the 9 mil was that it was a NATO round.
> 
> My original point though is however they got there the countries are all in bed now. It isn't a relationship that will change without a fight.



I believe 9mm, but 5.56mm is definatly yours.


----------



## pardus (Jul 28, 2008)

Freefalling said:


> My original point though is however they got there the countries are all in bed now. It isn't a relationship that will change without a fight.



Agreed



x SF med said:


> Bullet size and Shot placement need to be tied together - hit 'em in the right spot with a big friggin bullet.  :2c:



Exactly!!!

I'll even adjust your rep points for that! ;)



Pete031 said:


> I believe 9mm, but 5.56mm is definatly yours.



IIRC everyone was a little miffed over that, particulary after the US pushed/adopted the 7.62X51mm when th Brits had already worked out the 7mm/.280 was the round for the job, saying the 7mm wasn't big/powerful enough. :2c:


----------



## AWP (Jul 29, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Hmmm IIRC the US adopted the 7.62 and the 5.56 without NATOs consent... forcing NATO to follow along with the US's choice of caliber.



NATO nations had agreed that they should standardize rounds. The US had the 5.56x45 in use while also developing what would become the 7.62x51. NATO had already chosen the 7.62x51 in 1954 mostly at the insistence of the US. Somewhat later The UK had done studies showing that the .280/ 7mm round was a better "intermediate" round and along with Canada and Belgium urged to replace the 7.62x51 with this round. The US balked at that suggestion.

NATO pushed for a smaller standardized round than the 7.62x51 and in October 1980 the 5.56x45 was formally adopted by NATO (STANAG 4172) with FN's SS109 round.

Had the UK, Canada, and Belgium had their way the 7mm would replace both the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45. I can't say that I disagree with this train of thought.

So the US essentially drove NATO into accepting their choice of calibers.

I still believe that there is a long road ahead of anyone that wants to see something other than the current rounds in use.


----------



## pardus (Jul 29, 2008)

Freefalling said:


> NATO nations had agreed that they should standardize rounds. The US had the 5.56x45 in use while also developing what would become the 7.62x51. NATO had already chosen the 7.62x51 in 1954 mostly at the insistence of the US. Somewhat later The UK had done studies showing that the .280/ 7mm round was a better "intermediate" round and along with Canada and Belgium urged to replace the 7.62x51 with this round. The US balked at that suggestion.
> 
> NATO pushed for a smaller standardized round than the 7.62x51 and in October 1980 the 5.56x45 was formally adopted by NATO (STANAG 4172) with FN's SS109 round.
> 
> ...



Ummm That's all backwards and fucked up lol.

The .280/7mm was tested in the late 40's

The 5.56x45mm was adopted in 1964 the 7.62x51 was adopted around 1957. 

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/.280-British



> The .280 British, (also known as 7 mm NATO, .280/30, .280 Enfield, .280 NATO, 7 mm FN Short, 7x43 mm) later designated "7 mm MK1Z", was an experimental intermediate rifle cartridge designed by the British Army in the late 1940s (later with help from Fabrique Nationale in Belgium) and the Canadian Army). The .280 British was tested in a variety of rifles and machineguns including the EM-2, Lee-Enfield, FN FAL, M1 Garand and Taden gun. Despite its success as an intermediate cartridge, the .280 British was not considered powerful enough by the US Army and several variants of the .280 British were created in an attempt to appease the US Army. The US Army would continue to reject these variants, ultimately adopting the 7.62×51 NATO which forced NATO to do the same.
> 
> After the end of World War, the British, having encountered new assault rifle cartridges such as the 7.92 "Kurz" on the battlefield, set about replacing their venerable .303. Their goal was to create a cartridge that would replace all small arms in .303 including the Bren, the No.4 rifle and the crew served Vickers with a cartridge suitable for a "light rifle". Thus the cartridge had to demonstrate ballistic performance equal to that of a full powered rifle round and yet exhibit as little recoil and blast as possible. After extensive tests by the "Ideal Cartridge Panel" in 1945, the British decided upon two 7 mm cartridges – the .270 and the .276. In order to focus their efforts, the British ceased research on the .270 and concentrated their efforts on the .276. The .276 was later renamed the .280 even though no dimensions were changed. To add additional confusion the .280 actually has a bullet with a diameter of .284 inches. (The .276 is the measurement of the distance between the rifling lands in the barrel.) Recoil was calculated to be a little under half of the .303. Long range performance actually surpassed that of the .303, and shooters reported that it was much more comfortable to fire with the reduced recoil and reduced blast. It seemed that the British had accomplished their goals. They were soon eager to demonstrate the cartridge to the NATO allies. The AK-47 is the worlds most common assault rifle. ...  7. ...  .303 cartridge The . ...  The Bren (from Brno (the Czechoslovakian town of design) and Enfield, the location of the British Royal Small Arms Factory), usually called the Bren Gun, was a series of squad automatic weapon/light machine guns adopted by Britain in the 1930s and used in various roles into the 1980s. ...  The Vickers machine gun or Vickers gun is a name primarily used to refer to the water-cooled . ...  Year 1945 (MCMXLV) was a common year starting on Monday (the link is to a full 1945 calendar). ...
> 
> ...


----------



## AWP (Jul 29, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Ummm That's all backwards and fucked up lol.
> 
> The .280/7mm was tested in the late 40's
> 
> The 5.56x45mm was adopted in 1964 the 7.62x51 was adopted around 1957.




What is "backwards and fucked up?" The 5.56 was not adopted as a NATO standard until 1980. Other nations may have used it before then (the US had adopted it in the 60's) but it wasn't an "official" NATO round until 1980. The 7.62 was adopted officially by NATO in 53 or 54 (depending on your source).


----------



## pardus (Jul 29, 2008)

Read your post again then read mine, you'll see. ;)

No biggie, just got things a bit mixed up :)


----------



## AWP (Jul 29, 2008)

I may have the timeline regarding the 7mm off, the other stuff stands. If countries were using the 5.56 prior to 1980 they did so on a nation-by-nation basis (whatever their motives and reasonings), not because NATO had decreed it so.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 29, 2008)

NATO is a good thing as for ammunition IMO. We need to be able to walk up to a brit and say “hey let me get a can of 7.62, or a can 5.56”. Being able to use each other’s ammo in combat is just smart. 

As for making a huge change of rounds used, you have to look at all issues involved. Weapon replacements NATO wide (that’s a lot of money alone to have a bigger better round) then you have ammo stock pile that would be useless. You also have to think about the training cost to change over to new weapon/ ammo, not just in the US forces but now NATO wide! But not only these things, but also who’s round gets picked? Not every NATO force is going to want 7mm or 6.8 spc… So who gets to pick and why?

9mm is an easy replacement and could be replaced fast in NATO. Pistols are cheap, and even keep the same platform and just change calibers. However, a rifle is a much more complicated issue. 

SOF units getting a different caliber is all fine, they can get the special supplies they need. When talking about massive armies you are putting a lot of “what if’s” in the mix of things. 

Personally I feel the MK262 MOD1 is the future for our current rifles, it would be easier to get NATO to use a heavier bullet in a preexisting cartridge. Then to change all together. You get better nock down out of the MK262 and the accuracy is more then adequate.


----------



## pardus (Jul 29, 2008)

Good post mate.


----------



## Farang (Aug 2, 2008)

I train hundreds of military personnel a year and in my class I will always call on a student and ask him where do we shoot and 99.9% of the time they will say center mass,then I say 'you know what you get to do if you shoot someone center mass"?.....you get to shoot again!! Yes they will probably die eventually but you have a much better chance of incapacitating(keeping them from squeezing the trigger) or killing an individual if you shoot them in the CNS box. The upper chest is where the hydraulics and pneumatics are pumping the blood and if you shoot there(at least twice) and they dont go down you can bet your ass that they are wearing body armor or on drugs or both and then you better put one in the computer(brain). I teach the students to shoot someone where you would want to kill them because this course is not target shooting it is Gunfighting 101!!


----------

