Blackhawk Down - SS109 too little?

I think the mean rounds per stop figure would be a useful one to know; but I don't see how you could ever reliably gather the data.

It seems that the central issues are:

1) Are there more effective rounds than the 5.56mm (M193/M855)?
2) How much MORE effective are they?

As a hypothetical example, let's say I determine that the 7.62mm NATO is 10% more effective and equally accurate as the 5.56mm with the right bullet design. It will still have some spectacular failures to stop; but overall it will stop people more often than the SS109 about 10% of the time.

In this hypothetical example, the central question will then turn on "How much ammo can I carry?". Will it be worth it to gain 10% effectiveness in terminal wound ballistics and immediate stopping if it means I have to carry several hundred rounds less? If I go with the less effective but lighter round, will I get the opportunity to put multiple rounds on target when it does fail?

I don't see how anyone could argue that there aren't more effective rounds than 5.56mm with regard to terminal ballistics. Nobody would claim 5.56mm outperforms .50BMG in this aspect. However, when we start adding in factors like trajectory, recoil, weight of equipment and ammo, etc. it becomes a lot harder to quantify how effective a round is.

It seems to me like what we need to reach a better understanding is a reliable way to quantify the overall effectiveness of a round in order to judge question 1 and 2.
 
I have a friend who was a SEAL .50BMG Sniper. I never heard him complain about the stopping power or size of the cavity. Maybe we all need to shoot .50 What do you think that would do to the Somalians? :D
 
Actually, I was watching a special on the Discovery channel about the SEALs and there was a sniper who was talking about his .50 sniper rifle and how a Somali was aiming an RPG, and the sniper hit him. Needless to say, he didn't getr to fire that RPG.
 
I think that certainly the US Military had the data on what worked and what didn't as far as ammo. These guys get the "lastest and greatest" before anyone else and if our guy's were sent in there with the wrong ammo and it didn't expand then the military needs to re-think (which I'm sure they have) their options.

I think that the .223 round is a good round but one questions what happened.

Here one opinion from a guy who has used both.

If we're talking about combat against an armed opponant in a military context then we restrict ourselves to military ball ammo at generally under 300 meters.

The 3 most often used justifications for the 5.56/M16 being "as good" as the 7.62/M14 are the rifle is shorter, handier
and lighter. The soldier can carry twice the ammo for the same weight. The 5.56 tumbles when it hits the enemy and
causes more damage. Many other reasons get proffered but mostly they are further justification of the above three.

I have carried, used and observed used in combat the M1 carbine, the M14, the EXM16, the SKS, the AK 47, the M60,
the RPD, the M1911A1, a TT53 and my most favorite; the PRC/25 (could call in beaucoup smoke from Sandy with that).
There were others I observed also but mostly my personal experience was with the above.

I've never found the light weight or shorter length of the M16 to be of any advantage. I never tired of carrying the M14 nor did it's barrel "snag" on anything. If it did it was due to poor weaponscraft. I had it in some pretty thick stuff and even used it with the bayonet affixed. But then I humped an M60 (23 lbs empty) for awhile so the M14 was a piece of cake. I never percieved being slower with the M14 in CQC than with the M16 or the M1 Carbine. Actually I thought I was quicker as I never had to "double tap" with the M14 as was the case with the other two. SOT and CQC training now emphasises that "double tap" technique with the m16A2 and the M4 varients. If you are "double tapping" then you need twice the ammo to engage the same number of targets at close range. That negates the advantage of carrying twice as much ammo. With proper training and fire discipline we never used up our "basic" loads or ran out of ammo in any
engagement.

I've seen several enemy soldiers continue to function with several good upper body hits from the EXM16. Never saw one
fail to drop immediately from the same hit with 7.62 NATO Yes, the 5.56 bullet might richochet around inside while the
7.62 NATO bullet goes straight through. Big difference is the 7.62 NATO leaves a fist size hole going out and only takes one bullet to do the job.

"Cover" from the 5.56 is many times mostly only "concealement" to the 7.62 NATO. While both bullets are deflected by brush the 5.56 bullet will break up and if it hits the enemy, more often than not, proceeds to really piss him off. On the other hand, the 147 M80 bullet will not break up, it will penetrate more dirt, sang bag, logs, trees or brush than the 5.56 will ever hope to. And when it hits the enemy it general takes them out of the fight.

Contrary to the Hollywood image and generally accepted military training, proper fire contol and discipline has the soldier not only firing at exposed enemy but also where the enemy might be, behind or alongside of trees, behind brush, to the left, right and below of windows, to the left and right of doors, through walls, etc. Fire superiority is not about "volume" of fire, but of well placed fire that has a decididly adverse effect on the enemy's ability to return fire or sustain combat.
Spray and pray is nothing more than the waste of ammunition and an invitation to defeat.

Truth of the matter is; either round is effective if used properly and within it's limitations. Problem is we do not train our soldiers. Instead we give them a lighter rifle with less recoil and more ammo, hoping they'll hit something. If you doubt this consider the amount of marksmanship or weaponscraft "training" our soldiers get today. Also consider the "standards" of "qualification". They are both very inadequate.

While I do not feel "undergunned" with an M16A2 and seven 30 round magazines when on duty, when I leave home of my own (not the Army's valition) I take an M1A with 5 Mags and an extra bandolier.

At 300 yards a 168 grain BTHP will be moving
at 2100 fps and have about 1650 ft-lb's kinetic energy.

Whereas: a 60 grain .223 bullet will be moving at about 2000 fps and have 546 ft-lb's energy.
 
what to arm our soldiers with

If the discussion is now what to arm our soldiers with, I'd say:

1) Train our military thoroughly in realistic and strenuous use of small arms. Not just 40 rounds of equipment familiarization every other year. Train at 2, 7, 25, 100, 200, 300, 400 yards and more. Train at unknown distances. Shoot uphill, downhill, in thick brush, in simulated urban situations. Shoot .223, 7.62 NATO, .50 BMG, and others. Shoot semi. Shoot full auto. Shoot at night, day, through smoke, with chem gear on, etc.

2) Have a supply system that supports several small arms: CAR-15, M-16, M-14, M-60, 1919A6, M2 HB, M-240G, M-249, BAR, etc.

3) Let our thoroughly trained soldiers choose what's most comfortable for them given the mission at hand. (with final authority in the commander) I'm a firm believer in 1 size does not fit all and there's no such thing as a universal weapon, only weapons with varying strengths and weaknesses. A recon team, for example, might want the lighter load of a .223 based rifle. On the other hand, one Brit SAS unit of like 17 men went into action with 10 or so GPMGs (same basic design as the M-240G) in the Falklands.

Unfortunately, the bean counters would never go for my kind of military. :(

Edmund
 
Neither would I. But then, I'm a drone. ;)

I personally think we would be much better served with arms firing a round slightly larger-bore and definitely heavier, at about 3000 fps. This round should have virtually every advantage of the .308, while still being light enough to carry considerably more, and it MIGHT be controllable in burst-fire. This cartridge would be suitable for the riflemen, the designated marksmen that I would add per squad, and for the light MG'er. We could then eliminate the .308 and .300 WM from inventory, and have two "rifle" rounds in use: 6mm Hammer and .50 BMG. All needs could be met by these. (and if you don't swear fealty, YOU get to hump the Barrett, all 36 lbs of her!)
 
The 5.56 tumbles...

FYI, ALL spitzer-type rifle bullets tumble in flesh, and tend to exit tail-first because the CG is aft. What sets 5.56 NATO apart from 7.62 NATO is that 5.56 fragments at velocities over 2500 fps and 7.62 NATO doesn't fragment at all. This has more to do with bullet design than anything else. 5.56 NATO makes a larger permanent wound cavity than 7.62 NATO due to fragmentation, and that has nothing to do with tumbling bullets.

Rifle bullets that tumble in air before they get to the target are going to be more inaccurate and are probably due to using the wrong barrel twist rate. It's not the tumbling that causes devastating wounds with 5.56, it's the fragmentation. I just wanted to make that distinction concerning tumbling rifle bullets.

You don't want 5.56 hitting the target going sideways. You want it to penetrate 6" - 9" reaching vital organs, tumble and break apart at the cannelure, and then fragment causing a large permanent wound cavity for quick incapacitation. Fackler details this in his work.
 
I have spoken more with my co-worker about the seminar he attended (a few months ago). And he also spoke (if I undestood him correctly) to Dr. Fackler about 5.56mm and 7.62x29mm and from what he told me that Dr. Facklers' opinion was that the 7.62x39 was a more effective round. Not only did he say that but that Dr. Fackler was unimpressed with the 5.56mm ctg. and did not believe it was up to snuff. Also as to a point said about temporary cavity causing more injuries due to blood vessels being ruptured-the usual result if I understand it correctly is a Haemotoma (sp.) fancy word for a bruise.
Dr. Fackler also states that a lot of authors "recommend basing treatment on the supposed velocity of the projectile:in sum, the higher the surgeon thinks the velocity was, the more tissue he is supposed to cut out! THIS IS PALPABLE NONSENSE. CONSIDER THREE WOUNDS< ALL PRODUCED WITH THE MUZZLE OF THE WEAPON ABOUT 10 FEET FROM THE VICTIM: ONE FROM A 22LR BULLET ONE FROM A .44 MAGNUM BULLET, AND ONE FROM A 12GAUGE SHOTGUN (LOADED WITH ANY SIZE BUCKSHOT). THE 44 MAG. BULLET IS LIKELY TO DISRUPT A LOT MORE TISSUE THAN THE .22 LONG RIFLE,AND THE SHOTGUN LIKELY TO DISRUPT A LOT MORE TISSUE THAN THE .44MAG, YET THE PROJECTILE VELOCITIES ARE NEARLY IDENTICAL IN ALL THREE CASES. PROJECTILE MASS AND PROJECTILE TYPE ARE OF OVERWHELMING IMPORTANCE- THEY CANNOT BE IGNORED. IN REALITY THE TREATING PHYSICIAN DOES NOT NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE PROJECTILE- HE NEEDS TO TREAT THE WOUND GUIDED BY COMMON SENSE AND THE OBJECTIVE DATA FROM HIS EVALUATION. THE NEW (1988) EDITION OF EMERGENCY WAR SURGERY- NATO HANDBOOK EMPHASISES "TREAT THE WOUND NOT THE WEAPON"" (capitals where Dr. Fackler stressed his remarks).
He also states later that "Todays chaotic comprehension of wound ballistics is ironic since the way bullets disrupt tissue is easy to understand: bullets CRUSH the tissue they strike and stretch the tissue around the projectile path;this STRETCH, entirely analgous to a splash in water, is commonly called the temporary cavity. A light bullet at high velocity might have the same calculated numerical tissue disruption potential as a heavier one moving more slowly: however, the higher the velocity the more potential is realized as temporary cavitation. The larger slower bullet uses its potential more in crushing tissue (larger bullets make larger holes - much of wound ballistics is merely common sense). The crush is reliable in all types of tissue, the temporary cavity stretch is variable and erratic - highly dependant on the elasticity of the tissue struck."
I have seen the wounding charts also of the 5.56mm M193 round (and read Dr. Facklers comments about the M855 being marginally more effective circa 1992) and the Soviet M-43 ctg. also (but there are also more effective 7.62x39 loadings out there that are standard issue in various countries that we are in or may possibly face). Originally that is the data I used to believe the 5.56mm ctg. is more effective but as I have looked deeper I have found the 5.56mm to be lacking. Some of the research going on now you may or may not hear about in a few years (depends on how good the spies for the gun mags are).
 
Guys - you can not count on the bullet doing any tricks such as tumbling and breaking...
You can only count on that one bullet making a hole through your target. That means you want that bullet to heavy and fat to go nice and deep. If the bullet does anything else - then hey, you got a bonus effect.
 
Back to "Blackhawk Down"

This thread has prompted me to start reading the book again, for the third time! This time I'm paying more attention to references to the stopping and killing effects of the various weapons. This battle was so completely documented, with hi -res video, after action interviews and, finally, the Bowdon book, that it naturally stimulates more analysis than earlier conflicts. More data leads to more questions.

As I read the book again I'm struck by the number of one shot stops reported with the 5.56 mm rounds, most of which hadn't impressed me in earlier reading as much as the negative comments by Trooper Howe. I believe most of us are conditioned to think that people drop immediately when hit. I imagine that most of the Somalis who were hit solidly by 5.56 rounds but kept running didn't get very far before dropping and dying, but it must have been disconcerting not to see them drop. I remember the first time I shot a deer, through the lungs at less than 50 yards, with a .223 coincidentally. I was using 55 g. softpoint factory ammo. He ran about 40-50 yards before piling up. I thought I had missed, so I fired again as he ran by me. That one missed. I realize that deer aren't humans, but I was fully expecting that deer to drop, and if I hadn't been able to watch him and follow up (like in a combat situation), I might have doubted the effectiveness of the round.

It is an incredible story. I hope they make a good movie out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top