Printable View
The military is reviewing soldiers' complaints that their standard ammunition isn't powerful enough for the type of fighting required in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Current and former soldiers interviewed by The Associated Press said the military's M855 rifle rounds are not powerful enough for close-in fighting in cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Link:
News from The Associated Press
The M855 are designed to be fired from the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, and are idealized to penetrate personal body armor. With rifle bullets, you pretty much get the choice of penetration or terminal effects. As rifle barrels become shorter and shorter, small and fast bullets become less and less effective.
It's not quite as simple as that, of course, but that's my 2 cents.
As an aside, the cited article is a prime example of why some people shouldn't be allowed to write news articles. The writer really stunk it up with that one...
Military members have been complaining about round energy since the M-16 firinig the 5.52 round became standard issue. Is it a little light? Yes. Will it result in dead tangos if you have proper placement? Yes. Was it ever my first choice of ammo? No.
One question for those guys whining about it though - are they ready for the additional poundage that a heavier round will result in to carry the same number of rounds?
One reason the 5.52 is the standard is you can carry a bunch of rounds easily. If the standard load goes up to say a .308 the weight will be pretty seriously different.
Heard that one $300M supplier of ammunition is in big trouble for provising really old bullets. He had a hole in the wall for his main office. That may be another reason for complaints.
5.52 round? What round is that???Quote:
Originally Posted by cyeah
Surely you mean the 5.56mm round.
Well, provided he was furnishing AKM and RPK rounds to the Iraqis, I doubt he had anything to do with soldiers' dissatisfaction with M4 rounds....Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley
Thanks for playing, though....
Yeah - it was a brain fart. Where did you seerve?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
So the body armor sucks, and now the bullets do too? What happened? I thought we had the best military in the world?
5.56 can't shoot through the building walls they need to in urban terain. So basically if we are fighting with 5.56 and the enemy is using AK47's then they would have the close quarters fighting advantage. If you can shoot through a wall and the other guy can't it's a huge disadvantage. The m-16 was meant for Jungle warfair and long range shooting. The battles have changed and we have not changed our weapons. I would agree with the troops over there that we need to upgrade the weapon with bigger stronger round. Maybe not as accurate but until we fight in a different theatre we are using the wrong stuff. That is just my opinion. By the way I loved my m-16.
For the record
2nd Battalion
24th Marines
Echo Company
I'm currently at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Hohenfels, Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyeah
26+ years and counting, and "where did you serve" becomes a rather complex question....:wink:
Actually, the body armor is really good. The myth that we have bad body armor was spread by one really unscrupulous vendor, who was p.o.d because "his" product failed repeatedly, during Army tests, so in true American tradition, he attacked the Army, the testers, and the competition, using some really naive dupes in the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJK15
The question is; why are we wearing body armor at all, except in fixed positions? Americans wearing body armor give the bad guys an advantage in the field.
No army never armored itself to victory.
I know nothing about this topic at all... just what Call of Duty 4 has taught me. I do enjoy reading from our 'service' posters, and would like to thank you for everything you may have done!
I was under the impression we were moving over the the shorter barreled m4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knownothing
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtd9046
I'm going to have to go ahead and echo that sentiment...
Thanks guys :notworthy:
I know nothing about this subject but I read an article earlier this week that said the current bullet used by the majority of our troops was designed to penetrate soviet helmets at a distance. It went on to say that in close combat, like we see in Iraq, the bullet goes straight through the enemy. Unless a vital organ is hit the enemy can escape or continue to fight until he bleeds to death. They made it sound like they needed a bullet that would cause more internal damage before it exited. For those in the know, is there any truth to this thoery?