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
OK my last post ..there was jest in most lines to give some levity to my post.... Crazed cinder blocks... was for the 5.56 crowd trying to defend the round..... and the nap and the 2 to one shot ratio.. was for the staunch ak fans here... basically my last sentence from my last post says it all... sorry if folks took me serious....on the jesting part:D
 
The 5.56 works fine against people, but not as well when fired from short barreled M4's at much distance.

What it doesn't do well, is penetrate barriers.

That's my take after listening to those who've been there.

Troops who accurately report combat results shouldn't be compared with those who negligently shoot themselves and blame the gun.

And NO, two hits to the chest with a 9mm aren't the equivilent of two from a 5.56
 
Most will tend to blame the caliber when it's really an accuracy and tactics issue because it's the easiest scapegoat.

If you don't believe me just look at the FBI after the Miami Shooting. They went from the 9mm to the 10mm to having the 40 S&W designed for them. The good thing that came out of that whole ordeal was the rapid advancement in handgun ammunition technology.

Biker
 
If you don't believe me just look at the FBI after the Miami Shooting. They went from the 9mm to the 10mm to having the 40 S&W designed for them. The good thing that came out of that whole ordeal was the rapid advancement in handgun ammunition technology.

Biker
Click to expand...

Correct. Not only did they reject the .40 cal., they specified downloaded 10mm ammo that exactly duplicated the .40 S&W.
 
Al.40cal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Once again, accuracy and stronger rounds are not mutually exclusive. Also, there are existing "arms and calibers" that provide more power now. However, I do agree that more marksmanship training is needed if shot placement is poor.
 
The 5.56 is a weaker round then the 7.62. I remember reading that they had concluded that 8 men with 5.56mm could be more effective then 12 men with 7.62.

At the time, the logic was that wounding the enemy was a greater priority then killing them. Two wounded men would require 3-4 men to carry them. Therefore, wounding just two men would take an entire squad out of action. Wounding 8 men would take the entire platoon out of action.

In the Iraq situation, I can see why killing is more important then wounding. The rebel squads dont have the same ethics as a uniformed force. They wouldnt take the time to carrytheir wounded off the field. The wounded would be placed back among the ranks whether they were well, had one hand or not.
 
Correct. Not only did they reject the .40 cal., they specified downloaded 10mm ammo that exactly duplicated the .40 S&W.
Click to expand...
The .40 S&W didn't exist at the time the FBI chose 10mm. It was developed later to duplicate the 10mm FBI load in a shorter case.
At the time, the logic was that wounding the enemy was a greater priority then killing them.
Click to expand...
I've heard this argument (and seen the logic explained) but I've never seen evidence to support the assertion that the military was actually more interested in wounding than killing. i.e. no official documents/requirements/specifications that support the idea that the military chose ammunition that would wound rather than kill.
 
I think what gets lost in the caliber war argument is bullet composition and cartridge performance. Not all 9mm and 5.56 cartridges are created equal. For example, unless things have changed since my day, U.S. troops were required to use the NATO ball round in their M-16's. This ammunition is overly penetrative and fragments less. In contrast, most LE officers use rifle ammunition that is designed to fragment in the body and not over penetrate, such as the 55 grain ballistic tip and the 75 grain Hornady TAP. I believe the same argument can be made for pistol cartridges to some degree. Who would argue that a 158 lead round nose bullet in .38 special (typical round carried by police into the 1960's) is better than a 158 grain plus P lead hollow point. Same caliber but reportedly different results. Yes, shot placement is always #1 but their is something to be said about the individual velocity and bullet composition.
 
There have been a few studies from the Army that indicated marksmanship was the problem, rather than calibers with the 5.56. Units that shot well didn't have problems.

Also, the wounding procedure - as John mentioned, if you research this you find:

1. Some folks mentioned that taking care of a wounded person is resource intensive as compared to the dead.

2. I couldn't - and I looked - find wounding over killing as a specific design specification for any weapon. I think that statement is a misinterpretation of # 1.
 
I have not seen any research or official papers on the wounding vs. killing, but I had learned of this theory in the US Army. I dont think I read it out of a manual and cant remember exactly where I picked it up to be honest. It was just word of mouth I believe. I was told that certain land mines were designed to wound, but not to kill such as the "bouncing" variety or even the claymore. I didnt see this theory talked about in any manuals at the time.

I know in Vietnam, and other similiar conflicts, soldiers have a tendency to pour firepower down upon the aggressor. In reviewing some youtube videos, it appears that certain police officers might have the same tendency.

In tough situations, training is the key. Simply firing bullets at paper targets will not provide good training. A person needs to be used to being a marksman under fire and adverse conditions. I remarked in an earlier thread how the Army made me crawl under barbed wire through a muddy field while an M60 with tracers was being fired a matter of feet above my head and C4 explosives going off in pits around me at night while overhead flares were going off. This was also while some M1 tanks and artillery was lighting up the sky on another range. You could see the artificial lightning and thunder produced by the shells. Now that was realistic.

Today they have even more realistic training scenarios with fake towns and other such things.
 
I still work with the Army at a battalion level as a civilian. I would have to say that marksmanship is probably the culprit. It seems to me that this is a requirment for some commanders to be done and forgot about annually. I have tried to pound the idea in that if a Soldier can not zero his weapon then sending him to the range is a waste of time and money. We must concentrate on the fundamentals till the Soldier can zero that weapon. Also that marksmanship isnt something you do only once a year. We have aquired a marksmanship trainer and I have finally gotten it in the training schedule on a regular basis.

So far the marksmanship scores of the unit have supported my ideas and I can finally see some change coming about. I dont know about one shot stops but if I am wounded when advancing on a position it is sure to reduce my effectiveness depending upon the severity of the wound and the constitution of the individual. I have used an AR15 of mine out to 600 yards with pretty good accuracy.

I am a fan of the 30 caliber military round. However the main individual round fires the 5.56mm. Learn to be proficient with what you have and I think there would be some improvement.
 
.22lr to eye is better than 500 magnum to leg, .22 in chest vs a .5 inch hole in chest..........see shot placement only gets you so far if all we needed was shot placement the ruger mk1/2/3 would be the police's standard issue sidearm
 
I have not seen any research or official papers on the wounding vs. killing, but I had learned of this theory in the US Army.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of myths in the military, such as it being illegal to use the .50 against personnel.

You can find the original documentation for the AR-15, 5.56, and the adoption of both. Wounding individuals was never the focus of the project. The ability to carry more ammunition and have a more readily controllable select fire weapon was intended to make the soldier and fire team more effective and lethal.

The American military has always been known for the care it gives its troops and wounded. None of our opponents over the last few decades has showed anything approaching the same level of interest and care. Why would the military, who were well aware of these facts when intermediate cartridge weapons were being developed, have been motivated by a "fact" they knew was incorrect?
 
Unless you are taking CNS shots, I think "one shot, one kill" is a pipe dream. It will probably take more than one shot to down a determined opponent (like a guy with a towel on his head who seriously considers wearing a suicide vest). Additionally, in wartime conditions, bad guys tend to use cover. You won't always have a perfect silhouette to fire at. If all I can see is an arm or a leg, that's what I'll shoot. Every hit counts. Blood loss sucks, period. Accuracy is great, but you shouldn't expect the threat to stop with a single round.

I have shot expert for five of the last six years that I've been in the Iowa guard. However, when I went to Afghanistan and met some unpleasant characters armed with PK machineguns and RPG's, I did not make hits with every round. When green tracers splash into the walls around you, and stuff is exploding, it's considerably harder to make that perfect trigger squeeze. You can train a lot, but when you know the threat is really trying to kill you, accuracy becomes a bit harder to achieve.

I think a lot of the arguing about what caliber to use is based on a false premise--one shot, one kill. If you've done it, congrats. I don't have an extensive experience in combat, but from what I saw, you better not count on a single round to kill the BG. Unless you're taking CNS shots with a decent scope or sniper rig.
 
JohnH1963..
I think this a good thread so was your previous thread about nuteralizing an enemy. And so was mine which asked the question about how many shots required to stop/bring down a BG. They were both stopped because of political incorectness ands liberal thinking- I dont see why else. Guns are to shoot when necessary, and we cant discuss those scenarios and limitations then all this is double standard.

However, I dont think you will get practical answers here as well, since most folks here will poll and restate verbatum whatever they read on internet or hear at thier range.

Few people here have actually put down BGs, rest are just show off with mine gun or caliber is better than your kinda thing.


Nevertheless if you could extrapolate a theory at the end of your poll...plz pm me.
 
The problem is a frame of reference problem, prior to entering the military most of its members only frame of reference to what small arms do was what they saw on TV. When hits don't pick guys up and throw them across the room than the belief there must be a problem.

I have used, controlled or directed about ever type of conventional ordnance against men in my last 4 tours overseas; if it is not high explosive there is at least one "freak of nature case" of a guy taking a fatal hit and fighting back despite his wounds with about everything. A few months ago a US solider in AFG, took a RPG to his torso that failed to function, and despite having a 80mm rocket logged in his chest he continued to fire his machine gun till he bleed to death. After shot placement, it's more who is shot than what they are hit with that counts.
 
I think this a good thread so was your previous thread about nuteralizing an enemy. And so was mine which asked the question about how many shots required to stop/bring down a BG. They were both stopped because of political incorectness ands liberal thinking- I dont see why else.
Click to expand...
Firepower!, Pax shut down the thread for good reason, although not the reason(s) you suspect.

One very good reason is that there is simply no way your question can be answered with any accuracy. The question's been asked before and invariably results in endless debate with no productive results, thus becoming nothing more than a waste of bandwidth.

Another reason is the fact that some of the replies you received were less than helpful.

You can analyze shootings until the cows come home, but, other than in generalities, you'll not come up with any "magic formula" for putting down BG's.

Over the last three decades, I've been on literally dozens upon dozens of shootings. I saw one man take one hit from a .22 LR while on the run and drop dead minutes later. I've seen others take multiple, close range hits from 9mm's and .45's and not only survive, but act like they hadn't even been shot.

The reason? There are far too many variables involved to make any kind of quantitative analysis possible. Caliber, bullet, distance, angle of penetration, clothing, psyche of the victim, state of intoxication, and that "X factor" we call "luck", to name a few, all play a part in the end result of an encounter.

Now take into account that a lot of those factors are fluid, i.e., constantly and rapidly changing, like the target's movements and the resulting changes in the angle(s) of penetration, and you simply cannot predict the outcome of most encounters.

You can improve the odds of dropping a BG and surviving through training and proper equipment choice, but I suspect that the percentage of improvement isn't all that great.

Given the stakes, however, I'll take any improvement of the odds, which is why I train and try to use and maintain quality equipment. It's also a damned good reason to do everything you can to avoid an armed encounter in the first place ;).
 
CC, I'd go along with that. I for one will seek every possible advantage I can obtain for myself in a gunfight, whether that be through tactics, training, or choice of weapon and cartridge. All of it matters, and none of it is unimportant.

Theoretically, you can take someone down with a .22 short to the brain stem - but what are the odds of actually making that hit in a real world scenario where the other guy is gunning for you? Practically none, and I don't believe it's reasonable to assume that in a combat situation that we will always place the shot exactly where it needs to go. That's just not realistic. A more powerful round will give you a better chance of success when you don't hit those particular parts of your opponent that produce immediate incapacitation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top