M855: question for the experts
- Thread starter RevolverRodger
- Start date
FYI in 2004 in Afghan our OC weighed the troops the C6 gunner carried the most weight at around 150 extra lbs - inc gun.
C9 gunners where next.
M203 Grenadiers
C7CT DM
then 'riflemen'
Given a medic won't have frags, M72's, half the ammo etc that an Infanteer will, I dont see the way anyone can get that a medic would have that much stuff.
Secondly no one will be mobile, much less combat effective with double (or more) their body weight.
P.S. Navy Shooter -- I have some better copies
P.S. Impact velocity of M855/C77 for fragmentation is around 2500 not 2700 (depending on fleet yaw) [but larger fewer chunks as the velocity decreases] as the penetrator helps in upset with the SS109 round, which the M193 round does not have, as well as the additional lenght of the SS109 round.
C9 gunners where next.
M203 Grenadiers
C7CT DM
then 'riflemen'
Given a medic won't have frags, M72's, half the ammo etc that an Infanteer will, I dont see the way anyone can get that a medic would have that much stuff.
Secondly no one will be mobile, much less combat effective with double (or more) their body weight.
P.S. Navy Shooter -- I have some better copies
P.S. Impact velocity of M855/C77 for fragmentation is around 2500 not 2700 (depending on fleet yaw) [but larger fewer chunks as the velocity decreases] as the penetrator helps in upset with the SS109 round, which the M193 round does not have, as well as the additional lenght of the SS109 round.
RevolverRodger
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Somewhere in QC
Thanks for the info guys.
The discussion turns around the fragmentation of the bullet. While I agree with the importance of the fragmentation, the most important weakness of the 5.56 is not exposed: it’s very weak ability to induce shock trauma. Shock trauma is induced by the internal movement of organs while the bullet passes through. So say if a bullet hits the belly, the energy of a bullet has the possibility to make the heart and other organs to move and that will put the individual into shock and possibly kill the guy. During the ballistic test, that ability is usually measured by the amplitude through wich the gelatine moves. The more it moves, the more the bullet has the ability to induce shock.
The 5.56 does not move gelatine block alot. So if the bullet does not fragment (say 150m for a C7 or 50m for a M4), the 5.56 bullet becomes an hostile acupuncture therapy that has limited possibility to induce shock. While other bullets (7.62x39, 7.62N) might have more limited fragmentation than a point blank 5.56, they do induce higher energy into the target and have higher chances to create shock into the target. Hence the higher lethality of a 7.62.
I’ll bring to your attention that the drug argument, the guy survived because he was drugged, is very rare with a C6. Either drugged people in Afghanistan don’t get hit by C6 and only get hit by C7 or C9; or people survived the 5.56 because it is a weak bullet. I do remember at the beginning of my military career in the 90’s that we praised the 5.56 because it would not kill the soviet, it would injured him and forced 3+ people to take care of him... Contrairement à la guerre froide, in Afghanistan, we want to kill them and I am not too sure that the 5.56 is up to the challenge.
Avec respect,
S
The 5.56 does not move gelatine block alot. So if the bullet does not fragment (say 150m for a C7 or 50m for a M4), the 5.56 bullet becomes an hostile acupuncture therapy that has limited possibility to induce shock. While other bullets (7.62x39, 7.62N) might have more limited fragmentation than a point blank 5.56, they do induce higher energy into the target and have higher chances to create shock into the target. Hence the higher lethality of a 7.62.
I’ll bring to your attention that the drug argument, the guy survived because he was drugged, is very rare with a C6. Either drugged people in Afghanistan don’t get hit by C6 and only get hit by C7 or C9; or people survived the 5.56 because it is a weak bullet. I do remember at the beginning of my military career in the 90’s that we praised the 5.56 because it would not kill the soviet, it would injured him and forced 3+ people to take care of him... Contrairement à la guerre froide, in Afghanistan, we want to kill them and I am not too sure that the 5.56 is up to the challenge.
Avec respect,
S
Take a look at the diagrams above. The temporary cavities are shown, and indicate the "shock trauma" or what ever you want to call it. Note that 5.56mm NATO has a greater temporary cavity size than 7.62x39. No rifle round will kill instantly in all circumstances. There are plenty of Canadian troops that survived hits with 8mm mauser bullets in both world wars.
Furthermore there was never any ammo ever adopted by any military that was designed to wound. Nor was there any thought to wounded requiring more care and removing combatants from the field. Let this myth die, please! First of all, if you are in the offense, you are caring for the wounded you pick up as you advance. Secondly, the wounding potential would only exist with the small arms ammo, there is no equivelant myth concerning artillery shells and explosives which have inflicted the large majority of casualties since WWI. Unless you are also suggesting that there is a special 155mm fragment designed to wound and not just remove large body parts?
I think that what sofduc means by "shock" is the actual transference of engery from the bullet to the target, NOT the size/type of wound cavity.
A heavier bullet will have more energy to transfer to the target than a lighter bullet impacting the target at the same speed, due to the weight of the bullet.
A heavier bullet will have more energy to transfer to the target than a lighter bullet impacting the target at the same speed, due to the weight of the bullet.
Dude, with respect, you need to get out more.
Deploying units are advised to get in touch with Dr. Gary Roberts (L/Cdr USNR) he is a SME in the terminal effect field. He can do a lot to dispell myths perpetuated thru the system.
Hey sofduc,
I remember being told back in the day that the "Soviets could fire our ammo (7.62 x 51) out of there guns, but we can't fire our's out of their guns (7.62 x 39)."
Whatever, don't believe everything you were told by someone in the Army.
Rich
I remember being told back in the day that the "Soviets could fire our ammo (7.62 x 51) out of there guns, but we can't fire our's out of their guns (7.62 x 39)."
Whatever, don't believe everything you were told by someone in the Army.
Rich
I agree with you on the principles of "no round was created to just wound" , but improving on the killing capabilities was not pursued exactly because of those reasons.
Referring to eastern block war philosophy, the "patriotic army" was never on offensive, always on defence. The very words offensive and attack were used sparingly.
Also remarkable is the combat ideology - remnant of the WWII mass engagement of troops. That is where the "wound not kill" strategy works. The small-scale interventions of today don't fit the profile.
As a comparison, most |western-designed projectiles were designed to fragment... while the eastern ones - not.
In regards to artillery rounds, mines and bombs, I don't think the subject is comparable to small arms rounds, nor that we need proof that such devices had a rather large percentage that were designed to wound and maim rather than kill.
Just because a bullet has more energy available, it does not automatically mean more energy will be transferred.
-only if the medium allows that amount of energy to be transferred, and the method the energy is transferred is efficient.
I can swing a hammer or shoot a bullet, both have the same "energy" - but you see, the amount of energy transferred will be different and the way they are transferred will be different as well.
also location, location, location...
1) A bullet that passes thru and hits no vital organs
2) A bullet that stops inside the body, yet never reaches any vital organs
Go up and look at the bullet profiles I have posted above, and see which bullet you would rather use.
Worst case for the better rounds is at range they end up acting like a Warsaw pact bullet...
1) A bullet that passes thru and hits no vital organs
2) A bullet that stops inside the body, yet never reaches any vital organs
Go up and look at the bullet profiles I have posted above, and see which bullet you would rather use.
Worst case for the better rounds is at range they end up acting like a Warsaw pact bullet...
X2
..or hits bone. Many people would be surprised what the lowly 5.56 will do when it hits a femur, tibia, humerus or my favorite.. the pelvis. Hopped up, wearing a vest, or mad for Allah.. nothing stops movement like a smartly placed pelvic shot. A soft shot goes great with a hard target. I'm not saying you have the time to corn-hole your shots when under stress, but changing training from center-of-mass to lower-of mass is a easy switch. Since most inexperienced shooters have been known to shoot high, this gives some "room to grow" as well.
In a perfect world, lots of things would be different; guns and ammo included. But the fact is you have to train and understand the capabilities of what you have on hand. The gun and the bullet is the tool, it's the user that
ultimately is responsible for the outcome.
You got told that too, huh??
That's when I stopped believing what the officers told us (for the most part).
I'm pretty sure that was a poor attempt at sarcasm, seeing as how those games don't go so far as to specify the particular type of round used beyond the calibre a gun is chambered for.
@Navyshooter: Thanks for that link! The difference between the supposedly similar German and American 7.62 x 51 FMJ rounds was especially interesting.
