Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan

[rdelliott]

h ttp://www.scribd.com/doc/26645298/Increasing-Small-Arms-Lethality-in-Afghanistan-Taking-Back-the-Infantry-Half-Kilometer

Don't know whether this has been posted here already or not, but it's an (79-page) discussion of US infantry marksmanship training and small arms development over the past century in light of experience in Afghanistan.

Interesting stuff.

 

[acrashb]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26645298/...istan-Taking-Back-the-Infantry-Half-Kilometer
You can hotlink as long as it isn't to a vendor that competes with CGN sponsors.

 

[Doc M]

Interesting read on the standard-issue M855 round. Exactly parallels the complaints from soldiers debriefed after the "Blackhawk Down" incident in Mogadishu... especially CWO4 Mike Durant who said that when SFC Shughart and MSgt. Gordon were smacking tangos with 5.56 greentip ammunition (after the 1 M14 they had, Shughart's, ran dry of 7.62) you could see the holes in their shirts but they just wouldn't go down without multiple shots to the vitals.

A few friends who've come back from the sandbox and bent my ear about things since I'm a gun guy have told me the same thing - putting 5 or 6 rounds into a guy before he finally gives up the ghost... shame we can't just muster up the guts to use soft-tipped ammunition since only 'regular' armies (i.e. state entities, answerable to state authority) are subject to the Hague Accords and Geneva Convention protection against the use of frangible ammunition.

-M

 

[kenjuudo]

This link was posted by Doctor Roberts in a thread at AR15.com in the last couple of days... and while there's no disputing the issues with M855 from a scientific perspective there are a couple of active servicemen posting in the same thread suggesting that it isn't necessarily as "bad" as all that... the consensus from the guys over there right now is that shot placement is really what it's all about regardless of what your dope is...

There's a bunch of issues with M855 and M193... muzzle velocity with M855 from 14.5" M4's to start with combined with bullet design and the affects of fleet yaw on both rounds and it's obvious that there are better choices.

Soft-tipped ammo so to speak isn't the most effective choice where fragmentation is desirable... expansion vs frag is another debate but the "tip of the spear" guys are all about the Mk262 Mod1 which uses the SMK 77gr OTM projectile... Hornady's 5.56 TAP with the T2 projectiles is wicked as well... in fact it's far superior to either of the M855 or M193 out of a 14.5" barrel... and scary wicked out of anything longer... similar in terminal performance to 110 grain 6.8 SPC.

 

[woodchopper]

I've done a fair bit of research / reading into this topic including a huge pile of documents all the way back to the trials post WW2 that saw the NATO adoption of 7.62x51

was the original adoption of 223/5.56 a mistake, in my opinion yes,

did they improve on it when NATO finally adopted / standardized it as 5.56x45 yes the heavier bullets help

are we stuck with it... again IMHO yes

The last NATO 'Workshop on Small Arms Leathality' has found that the round is sufficient and that shot placement is the most important parameter.

so all this discussion is worth exactly zero when it comes to selecting what ammo the Army is going to be using.

now the high speed opperator types with their special budgets and non standard purchaceing agreements may find themselves using something different but thats always been the way.

 

[Drachenblut]

Just wondering, how does the 556 NATO stand up in ballistics/penetration/lethality to the 7.62X39 Russian. I had a cousin come back from Iraq and he mentioned the caliber was "pretty sh*ty".

 

[frenchyguy]

VERY interesting.however, i do not believe, that it is the training, or the firearms that are the problem. the main problem is that the soldiers are in uniform, in large groups,in convoy's of large tanks, deuce and a 1/2's. the enemy is not known, until they shoot first. the tactics have to be changed. all these tanks, apc's, planes,soldiers are great if you can walk into a country and destroy everything and anybody to win. but that is not the way wars are fought anymore. i am just an armchair general, but from what i can see this is the case.MY 2 cents.

 

[Doc M]

I'll agree that shot placement is about 90% of lethality (when using non-explosive ordnance, that is). In the head with a .223 beats in the foot with .308 any day of the week and twice on a Sunday.

-M

 

[gorky]

I recall watching a show on Discovery Channel or History or what have you, about the development of the AR15 and specifically, how the 5.56 round "tumbled" when hitting it's target, causing horrific wound channels and blah blah blah. In theory, maybe. Unfortunately, reality does not always translate, especially at the ranges talked about here.

This is not to say that the AR15 is an inferior weapon - that is an arguement best left to those that have actually used a variety of weapons in combat scenarios. What I think has been lacking, and what hopefully this article can help provide, is a proper understanding of what scenarios modern soldiers are faced with and how their weapons perform in these scenarios. Obviously different military forces around the world suspect that improvements can be made to their current weapon platforms (based on their specifications for next gen weapons). Unfortunately, real world experience is often what is needed to understand the deficiencies of a weapon system and by then, so much time and money has been invested that the decision to change or start over is difficult, if not impossible.

 

[5440fight]

Gee, I wish Canada hadn't crushed all those c1s, would have come in handy... at least the Yanks kept a lot of m14s, they are being appreciated now. There is always is a compromise: weight, accuracy, stopping power, capacity, reliability. Issue the weapon for the conflict. Don't throw away perfectly good weapons because they don't suit one conflict, save them for the next.

 

[Reaper]

A big deal about nothing.It has been known for centuries that a wound must be in a vital area to cause incapacitation. All this hubbub about how ineffective the 5.56mm round is,seems to be from a very vocal minority with an agenda.
Most troops overseas and in general have no idea of ballistics and terminal ballistics, they know that if you shoot someone they fall as seen on TV,video games,etc,not so much in real life. Most do not realize the true effective range of the weapon (which is up to the individual shooters skill, not found in a manual) Couple that with gun rag readers and internet generals who are equally as uninformed you get a scandal that doesn't really exist.

 

[Reaper]

Gee, I wish Canada hadn't crushed all those c1s, would have come in handy... at least the Yanks kept a lot of m14s, they are being appreciated now. There always is a compromise: weight, accuracy, stopping power, capacity, reliability. Issue the weapon for the conflict. Don't throw away perfectly good weapons because they don't suit one conflict, save them for the next.

The C1s were not suitable for parade grounds much less combat, they were less accurate, less reliable and less capable than the C7 FOW.
FWIW every unit deploying is equipped with Designated Marksmen armed with a 7.62 weapon.their effect on the battle space so far has been minimal.

 

[Satain]

Gee, I wish Canada hadn't crushed all those c1s, would have come in handy... at least the Yanks kept a lot of m14s, they are being appreciated now. There is always is a compromise: weight, accuracy, stopping power, capacity, reliability. Issue the weapon for the conflict. Don't throw away perfectly good weapons because they don't suit one conflict, save them for the next.

But that would require to much common sense & now day's it dosn't seem to be to common.

 

[kenjuudo]

Just wondering, how does the 556 NATO stand up in ballistics/penetration/lethality to the 7.62X39 Russian. I had a cousin come back from Iraq and he mentioned the caliber was "pretty sh*ty".

The x39 projectiles, while obviously different than that of the M855 round in their design have similar "issues" with neck length (or ballistic neck), which is the distance the projectile travels "inside" a target before it begins to upset (tumble). The FBI standard for the thickness of an average human male torso is 9". The acceptable standard of total penetration for defensive ammunition is 12" - 18"... that is, total penetration... ideally however from a terminal ballistics perspective not all (or even most) of the round makes it that far. M855 can travel as far as 8" in tissue before it begins to upset... meaning that in many cases it is already through the target before beginning to yaw. The same is also true with the x39 rounds.

This idea of fleet yaw with respect the M855 / M193 projectiles is the key to the issue. The projectile is "unstable" in flight for the first 100M or so which results in varied angles of attack at the target... i.e. the angle that the projectile is "at" when it makes contact. A high, or sharp AOA results in the desired result of rapid upset / fragmentation. A low, or shallow AOA results in considerable penetration before upset.

These gel shots demonstrate the difference with an M855 projectile...

All this info and more can be yours... for free...! here:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

 

[paulz]

The issue with the 5.56mm is not the yawing, it is fragmentation. Below a certain muzzle velocity it will not break apart and fragment, which is what makes it particularly effective.

Since it was intended as an "assault rifle" (ie: intermediate) round, it was never intended to be effective much past 300m or so. Now that everyone uses optics, hits can be made at longer ranges than the cartridge was designed for.

The Brits had a cartridge design in the '40's and 50's, a 7mm. The Americans killed it. Ironically, it has similar balistics to the 6.8 SPC, which a lot of Yanks are touting as the solution to the "weaknesses" of the 5.56mm.

Personally, I am now a range commando only, but I would not be losing sleep over being issued a 5.56mm weapon if I were deploying. Lethality and "stopping power"(if it can be said to exist), is a function of shot placement.

Unless a bullet, any bullet, transits a major blood vessel, blood bearing organ, or the CNS, you do not get rapid incapacitation, period. A Scott's Guards officer was shot throught the head at close range with a 7.62 NATO round, lost almost a third of his brain mass in the Falklands, and did not even loose consciousness. There are lots of anecdotes from WW2 of soldiers being hit multiple times before going down, and that was with 30-06/7.62x54/.303.

 

[ESQ]

5.56 is doing the job. And the heavier rounds can be used to do it even better.

Don't forget the weight factor. A soldier can carry more rounds in 5.56 than any of the 'replacement' calibres.

 

[kenjuudo]

The issue with the 5.56mm is not the yawing, it is fragmentation. Below a certain muzzle velocity it will not break apart and fragment, which is what makes it particularly effective.

[...snip...]

That's correct... and the velocity threshold for M193 / M855 is 2,700fps and above for reliable fragmentation... however, the fleet yaw phenomenon has a direct impact (pardon the pun) on a rounds transition from "level" passage through a target to the point at which it begins to upset / yaw.

Fragmentation only occurs when the lateral forces on the projectile overcome its structural integrity... i.e. it turns sideways in the target, encounters greater lateral forces / resistance and as a result begins to break up. The faster it's traveling when this transition occurs, the more "explosive" the fragmentation... so velocity is one of the keys to the equation. The issue with fleet yaw is that the flatter the trajectory on impact the "straighter" (and longer) the projectile's path through the target before it begins to yaw and fragment. The gel shots above depict this perfectly.

Here's another snippet from the "Best Choices For Defensive Ammo" thread at AR15.com...

Why not M193/M855?

While these are not bad bullets, you will note that they are subject to large variations in neck length (distance the bullet penetrates before fragmenting); this variability is not desirable. In case of the short neck length, it is indeed an effective bullet. When 855 doesn't begin to fragment until 8"+, it will not be very effective on front torso shots and thin individuals; this explains the dissatisfaction of US combat troops with M855 in some cases. This is due to a phenomenon recently discovered called the "fleet yaw issue". It was first discussed in an article titled Small Caliber Lethality. There is variation from one rifle to the next about how much the bullet will yaw. The bullet leaving one rifle may exhibit more yaw than the same bullet shot from another rifle.

The bullets go through this yaw process on the way to becoming stable, and can yaw by as much as 4 degrees at short distances. You can see in the graph above that the bullet becomes very stable from about 100-400 meters, but the greatest variability - unfortunately - is within CQB range. The angle of attack has a profound impact on how a bullet behaves when striking tissue. Consider the two bullets in the picture below:

[please see the gel shots I linked to above]

 

[greentips]

If you give everyone a 308, they will write another report to complain if the next war is being fought in the Europe or Asia theatre.

The problem is that we don't like looking ahead (and also budgetarily impossible to prepare for all possible scenarios), so we always get into a panic mode when the reality changes.

 

[kenjuudo]

If you give everyone a 308, they will write another report to complain if the next war is being fought in the Europe or Asia theatre.

The problem is that we don't like looking ahead (and also budgetarily impossible to prepare for all possible scenarios), so we always get into a panic mode when the reality changes.

That's human nature alright... the grass is always greener in the other theatre.

 

[Colin]

The C1s were not suitable for parade grounds much less combat, they were less accurate, less reliable and less capable than the C7 FOW.
FWIW every unit deploying is equipped with Designated Marksmen armed with a 7.62 weapon.their effect on the battle space so far has been minimal.

Gee that means all those wars fought with the FN didn't kill anyone? It was one of the most common battle rifles after the AK.