Does everyone blame the caliber when things dont seem to work out for the best?

Is caliber just an excuse?

  • Yes, its just an excuse.

    Votes: 47 70.1%

  • No, different calibers have different stopping power

    Votes: 20 29.9%
  • Total voters
    67
J

JohnH1963

Moderator
Soldiers in Iraq blame the 5.56 round when there isnt a one shot stop.

Police in America blame the 9 mm when there isnt a one stop shot.

Honestly, wouldnt two 5.56 mm rounds hit center mass or 2 9mm rounds center mass probably stop about 99% of all people?

Is caliber simply used as an excuse?

My favorite excuse is when someone shoots their foot reholstering a Glock and then blames the company because there is no manual safety on it.
 
johnh1963

LOL I tell them YOU ARE THE SAFETY and they usually look at me with that dumb (what?) look on their face.
Many a deer and people have met there demise to the lowly .22 long rifle due to accuracy of the shooter.
I am a firm believer in shot placement vs caliber. I have seen brown and black bear take a 7mm mag thru the heart and lungs and still make 100 yards before dropping:eek:. If you want to drop them on the spot the only way I know is to hit the CNS.
 
very true! i, thankfully, have never been in a firefight. having been ina crowd of people being sahot at i imagine that the flight or fight reaction makes accuracya good deal harder. i knwo when i head a gunshot i was runnig as fast as i could in the oppisite direction.
 
I'd say that the correct answer is somewhere between the two poll options but closer to the first answer than to the latter.
 
Nope. Not from a handgun.

6.8 SPC may be the "best" compromise for our battle carbines.

Only hits count.
 
Actually, the point about the target shooting at you is a valid one and the military has certain training exercises that help assist the shooter in this regard. When I was in the military, you had to crawl through a long field under barbed wire, flares being shot in the air, explosives going off around you in pits and the m60 being shot with tracers just a matter of feet above your head.

I believe in the same way police should probably go through a similiar course where an automatic weapon is being shot a matter of feet above their head with explosives going off around them.
 
It is the responsibility of the military to place soldiers in the best position possible to achieve success. This is done when equipment is issued and training is being done, and when strategy is being made, and etc. I agree that the 6.8 SPC is probably a lot better balanced than the 5.56, but the problem of shot placement would seem to lie in inadequate training. The problem is probably somewhere in between the two. When failure occurs, there is plenty of blame to go around, but none of it should be placed upon the individual soldiers.

In summary, take that post for however you want, because I am not an expert, and am not in the military. The post is based on common sense, such as that more/better training would probably lead to better shot placement in general, if that is even a problem (like I said, I don't really know, sense I am not an expert).
 
I do think that with everything else being equal, a bigger round is better just because it will cause a bigger wound channel. But, you are just as dead from a well placed 9mm shot as you are from a well place .45 shot. Shot placement is the single biggest factor.
 
KUHIO said:
There's ALWAYS another round with more stopping power, but that does not trump shot placement
Click to expand...

I agree, but just because there is always going to be a round with more stopping power, should we go with the one of the least ones out there? What I'm trying to say is that while shot placement is key and IS the most important aspect of shooting, I'd rather be "placing" rounds with more power. Then again, my only experience is hunting.
 
I've seen 9mm rounds and can honestly see why someone might believe that it would have less stopping power. Its not a huge round.

However, I've also seen the 5.56 and seen whats left after its fired. I know the velocity of the round too. This is a round that will cause great harm to one's body make no mistake.

I dont know where anyone would come to the conclusion that the 5.56 isnt good enough for stopping. Of course, the .50 and 7.62 are better stoppers. Those rounds will tear your arm off and will definately stop you.
 
...just because there is always going to be a round with more stopping power, should we go with the one of the least ones out there?
Click to expand...
Ok, let's say that we can demonstrate that there's a practical stopping power difference between Round X and Round Y that gives Round X significant edge.

In that case IF going with the more powerful round doesn't significantly handicap the shooter THEN it makes sense to bump up.

The problem is that it's common for people to make two unjustified assumptions:

First that Round X must have more stopping power than Round Y because: (I read it somewhere, I heard it somewhere, my dad told me, it LOOKS more powerful, it has a bigger/heavier bullet, etc.).

Yes, you can get more stopping power, but usually it takes a bigger step up than most people think.

Second that choosing Round X over Round Y makes no difference to anything other than "stopping power". In reality, it's almost never possible to get one thing without trading something else away. In this case, to get a practically significant benefit in the "stopping power" department it's common to have to give up significant advantages in shootability (i.e. recoil/blast/muzzle rise), capacity and platform size/weight.

You can't make a decision in a vacuum, it's important to consider the tradeoffs.
 
To answer the question .... some will and some wont. The issue of the 5.56 is a real good topic. One of the most interesting shows I have seen on Military channel was the comparison af the ak-47 and the m-16. Both Kalashnikof and Stoner were in the same room.... both saying how wonderful each others design was. They shot a 7.62x39 bullet into a cinder block.... cinder block broke in two pieces.... the 5.56 put a dent about a 1/8 of a inch in the block and that was about it. .... I know.... if the AK owners run up against some crazed rabid cinder blocks then they are good. It was also stated that the 5.56 was more accurate out to range and easier to carry... so the ak owners will be a little more tired and neeed a nap and have to maybe shoot 2 bullets to one in the field. That being said... being forced to hunt grizzly bear with a Pea Shooter isnt smart....you just give the bears a balanced meal by eating the peas as a side dish. Using a 12 inched barrel 44 magnum revolver isnt smart when drawing from a belt holster in a quick action setting... cop tells bad guy " Hold it... wait till I get this thing.... ahh wait um stop ..um oh nevermind .... meanwhile BG has walked around the corner ..down the block and through the alley thinking .... "Wow glad he had to fight with his weapon instead of me". So there should be some common sense in caliber application....but it should never be substituted for good old training and accurate application of the craft.
 
Striker071 said:
if the AK owners run up against some crazed rabid cinder blocks then they are good
Click to expand...
What about the combatants that are taking cover just behind a corner? You would think that most combatants have a reluctance to stand out in the open. I guess the answer is to wait until he peeks out, then place the shot on the exposed region of body. Couldn't we offer our boys a round where they could do that, but could also blow right through the wall? What I'm trying to say is that good shot placement and using rounds with good stopping power are not mutually exclusive.

We could constantly argue about this, but at the end of the day, it's all about which round works best for your forces. It would appear that the brass has decided that the 5.56 is that round, and I'm fine with that because they are in the position to decide. However, it is worth noting that larger military rounds, such as the 6.8 SPC, seem to be on the horizon.
 
Ammo

Even keeping in mind that accuracy goes out the window when the rounds start coming back, I think the caliber blame game is not a new thing. The .30 carbine wont go through frozen coats? The 9mm silvertip won't stop bank robbers? Both of those arguments were proven false, but still part of the myth people believe.
 
Accuracy and the military

Sure the military could spend (waste) more money on new arms and calibers for the troops but when you don't train for accuracy it's pointless. I've been in two branches of service and the only time we shot for accuracy was to get a bzo or grouping. Other than that it's hit or miss. In the M.C. we had better ranges and classes to test the shooters accuracy.There you move up and down the firing line from 200 to 500 yards, three shooting positions and more dedication to learning how to be effective. Unlike the Army who used paper targets with 10 silhouettes to represent distances of targets. Also they (Army) used pop up targets that always malfunctioned by not registering hits.
With all that being said if no-one trains police or troops practice accuracy on the range and stress it on the battlefield then there will always be failure to stop shootings (bg surviving).
Don't misinterpret this as a bash I was not 0311 or infantry in either branch just a support troop who shot expert and sharpshooter in all my quals. It's almost like saying equip them with rocket launchers but a good percentage of them would still miss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top