davjohns 1 #51 January 10, 2013 QuoteQuote5.56 was also developed to give more of a chance to wound rather than straight up kill someone, a more "humane round" by NATO standards. Reason being, it takes more man power to treat and remove wounded soldiers from the battlefield thus decreasing an enemy's combat effectiveness. Personally, I think 7.62 is deadlier all around, this guy's argument is pretty stupid. It doesn't have the range of 5.56 but it sure as shit has way more stopping power and can punch through thicker material. 5.56 isn't exactly too devastating as he put it either. Granted I haven't been in a warzone. It took me 4 rounds of 5.56 M193 FMJ just to kill a fucking rabid raccoon a few months ago behind my house, the first three were body shots, but still... I used to think that as well as it was what we were told when we switched from 7.62 to 5.56 but the truth of the matter is not so simple. Having worked for years on people who have been shot in a trauma setting I developed an interest in wound ballistics. Watch this, I think you'll find it interesting. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb0_1350399880&comments=1 I have done a bit of research on the development of the 5.56mm and the M16. I'm going from memory... The 5.56mm was part of a move to standardize ammunition with NATO countries. One of the big arguments for its adoption was that it was cheaper and lighter than the 7.62mm alternative. So, the logistics community was in favor of it. As for lethality, it was sent to Vietnam for use by SOF in the prototype XM15. The reports were favorable. The weapon killed effectively in the close environs of the jungle. So, the lethality of the round was not an issue in the decision to go to the round. The problem began when the weapon was subsequently sent to the Army Marksmanship Unit. The XM15 had a relatively short barrel and a 1:7 twist ratio with a 55 grain bullet. Basically, the bullet was unstable when used by the SOF. It was accurate enough for close quarters, but it was tumbling as soon as it hit anything to disrupt it. So, the weapon and round tested in Vietnam was quite lethal. The AMU found it lacking in precision; especially at long range. So, they proposed a heavier bullet (72gr, I think) and twist ratio of 1:9. This gave the round a greater gyroscopic effect and resistance to deflection. It also gave it a tendancy to zip through targets without creating the kind of damage the SOF guys reported. Thus, I don't think the lethality vs wounding ability characteristics of the round played into the decision to adopt it. While it is a valid point, international treaties frown on using such criteria for decision making. I think the logistics crowd had the biggest say in the change. As to the issue of range, the 7.62 has been the long standing round of choice for 1,000 yard competition. The advent of the .338 Lapua is changing this. But the balistic qualities of the .308 (7.62) and hardware involved are so well known that it is still the standard. The 5.56 is not preferred for long range. It just doesn't have the mass to carry far. Someone also mentioned the .30-06 earlier. A far superior bullet to the .308 IMO. Much flatter trajectory. This means the marksman has to make less adjustment for targets at various ranges. In the military marksmanship arena, this is very important. However, the round was not NATO standard and had to be abandoned. The M1 that was retooled from .30-06 to .308 and then transformed into the M14 was very popular with many Soldiers. Sadly, the weight of the M14 may have played into the decision to replace it with the much lighter M16 and 5.56. Aside over. Please go back to discussing whether I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #52 January 10, 2013 Quote25 Years??? People seem to forget Desert Storm. The first Iraqi war. We had control of Iraqi since then which made it so unreal Bush2 wanted another ground war when we already had Saddam contained. Some feel since Bush1 didn't get Saddam Bush2 completed the task by getting Saddam. You will remember Iraq did not have WMD's yet WMD's excuse was used to invade Iraq by President Cheney, I mean President Bush. Events seem to fade as time goes on. Storman Norman. Greatest General of the Time who barely got mentioned upon his death last week. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/us/schwarzkopf-obit/index.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #53 January 10, 2013 Quote Quoting this General because he gained notoriety and has an opinion on the matter carries no more weight than quoting Streisand on social issues. I agree but the reason I quoted him was more to do with the fact that I wanted other peoples opinions on what he said rather than to promote his view.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #54 January 10, 2013 Very interesting post, thanks. I agree in particular with this: Quote I think the logistics crowd had the biggest say in the change. And would only add Quote I think the logistics crowd (and bean counters) had the biggest say in the change. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #55 January 10, 2013 Quote I have done a bit of research on the development of the 5.56mm and the M16. I'm going from memory... I have a copy of _The Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective_ that's been sitting on my night stand since I was inspired to put my current wood working project on hold and start cutting 7075-T6 aluminum on a vertical mill. http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Rifle-Retrospective-Military/dp/0889351155 Quote The problem began when the weapon was subsequently sent to the Army Marksmanship Unit. The XM15 had a relatively short barrel and a 1:7 twist ratio with a 55 grain bullet. The first rifles had a 1 in 14 twist which was sufficient to stabilize 55gr varmint hunting bullets but not the 55gr M193 projectile in all weather conditions. It was reduced to 1 in 12 around 1963. In 1965 they were looking at even heavier bullets for long range use, although the change to 1 in 7 didn't happen until the M16A2 to accommodate the 62gr M855 (for which 1 in 9 is fine) and even longer M856 tracer (where that twist would be marginal). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #56 January 11, 2013 Thanks. I'll have to do some research. Your piece pointed out to me that I had my twist rates reversed in my earlier comment. 1:7 is a tighter and more preferable rate. Like you quote, a 1:14 is less twist and has a less stabilizing influence. What I recall about the article I read was that the initial engagements in Vietnam resulted in limbs blown off, head popped open, and the like. The projectile tumbled so readily that it became devastating. Later versions had a more stable projectile that went through soft tissue so readily that marksmen could not tell they hit the target. The target kept advancing with little realization they had been hit.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #57 January 11, 2013 QuoteQuote Quoting this General because he gained notoriety and has an opinion on the matter carries no more weight than quoting Streisand on social issues. I agree but the reason I quoted him was more to do with the fact that I wanted other peoples opinions on what he said rather than to promote his view. Fair enough. It just irks me when celebrity opinions are treated as authoritative on varied subjects.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #58 January 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteYou don't see us banning alcohol . . . Nope. It is, however, regulated and unlike guns and ammo, the bar tender is held responsible for giving people too much. I've never had to get a background check and wait a few days when buying a beer. Nor have I had to have a special permit to hold a beer in the pocket of my jacket.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #59 January 11, 2013 Quote Rounds can be changed in a revolver in less than 3 seconds with a speed loader Next 3 seconds is slow ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPwYou stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
