I think I posted something about that in my first post of the topic ;)
Bullet Size vs. Shot Placement Still Rages
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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
Verified Military
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:).
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
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
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.
Why am I not suprised.
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.
Bullet size and Shot placement need to be tied together - hit 'em in the right spot with a big friggin bullet. :2c:
I believe 9mm, but 5.56mm is definatly yours.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
Agreed
Exactly!!!
I'll even adjust your rep points for that! ;)
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:
Similar threads
- WillBrink
- Weapons & Marksmanship
