armoredman
New member
OK....Achmed, hey, Achmed, he wants to know...huh? Oh, dagnabbit, he died.
Why is the military using small calibers?
- Thread starter younggunfreak
- Start date
OK....Achmed, hey, Achmed, he wants to know...huh? Oh, dagnabbit, he died.
If you subscribe and keep the NRA Rifleman mag, they did an article on this. Seems that they did a lot of investigating about the soldiers ability to hit a man IN COMBAT. At 100 yds, the hits on a man were less than 17% of the shots fired. It jumped to well over 50% at 50 yds. Longer ranges meant far fewer hits- not every soldier is a good shot especially when being shot at. The power of the 308 was just not needed. They played with several versions of the 5.56 including the 22 Gustafson before deciding on the Remington version we know as the 5.56. A soldier can now carry more ammo, shoot more with less fatique, and can pray and spray more.
But as we have learned via the Iraq war and the current "police actions" we are now involved with, there is no one ideal platform. The 5.56 has limits just like the 308 or the 338. There will never be a single shooting platform for all occasions and scenarios.
But as we have learned via the Iraq war and the current "police actions" we are now involved with, there is no one ideal platform. The 5.56 has limits just like the 308 or the 338. There will never be a single shooting platform for all occasions and scenarios.
Lawyer Daggit
New member
Lighter to carry, easier on recoil. Emphasis on wounding.
Large bore battle rifles went back to a time when the bullet had to bring down a horse and the emphasis was on shooting the horse rather than the rider.
Large bore battle rifles went back to a time when the bullet had to bring down a horse and the emphasis was on shooting the horse rather than the rider.
There has been some feedback from the middle east recently that
the M14 was being used as a squad support rifle because some units were
having trouble with 556 range. Word has it(yanno, ya read this melarky in
magazines) that they've even replaced the old style M14 stocks with
newer versions shaped more like the ARs to help the old warhorse adapt.
But how many of these magazines are full of crap I just couldn't say...
You state 2+2 =4 and 3 seconds later somebody is saying 2+2 is 5
the M14 was being used as a squad support rifle because some units were
having trouble with 556 range. Word has it(yanno, ya read this melarky in
magazines) that they've even replaced the old style M14 stocks with
newer versions shaped more like the ARs to help the old warhorse adapt.
But how many of these magazines are full of crap I just couldn't say...
You state 2+2 =4 and 3 seconds later somebody is saying 2+2 is 5
Roger that.
The short answer as to why we use small caliber 5.56x45 is that round for round, it is considerably lighter than the full strength, larger caliber 7.62x51 that it replaced. Not just the round, either -- the rifle was quite a bit lighter as well. That means that the individual is able to carry more rounds for a given weight, and with a lighter weapon as well. Not only that, but the recoil is quite a bit less, meaning that semi-auto follow up shots are faster and full auto fire is quite a bit more controllable. In a lighter weight rifle. Infantrymen appreciate light weight. Take my word on this.
Hollow points? We never used hollow point 5.56 ammo as a combat round. Or soft points, either. FMJs only. The initial loading used a high velocity, relatively light bullet that was barely stable and thus was prone to yawing on impact. Not only that, but at shorter ranges, after it yawed it was liable to fracture at the cannelure and both of the resulting halves would expand, creating massive tissue damage. Note that this is not the only military combat round in the world (and not the first, either) that did that. Later on, to improve longer range performance, the rifling twist rate was increased as well as the bullet length and weight, both of which decreased the liability of that yaw/fracture/expansion effect. Even so, it still gets the job done. FWIW, back when I was "wearing green" in the mid to late '70s, we were armed with the "old type" lighter bullets in our M16A1s. Our only qualms with the platform was feeding reliability, not with terminal effectiveness. Even with the lighter bullets, we could consistently hit our targets at 400 meters*, and that was good enough.
Let's put it this way: Back in the day, the other side tried to make a stink about the yaw/fracture/expansion that the 5.56 was liable to do, claiming that it was a war crime to use such ammo (never mind that we weren't signatories to the Hague convention, and still aren't -- we act(ed) as if we were, and the system was actually compliant anyway). Yeah, it was a wicked little round, no doubt about it. Nobody on our side complained about the terminal effects, unlike the other lightweight option fielded not so long before that time, the M1 Carbine. And even those complaints were overblown as long as you respected its limitations. The accusations against the 5.56 lasted right up to the point to where the other side developed their own analogue of it. And they did so not only because we had done so, but they recognized the benefits of the platform. The enemy wouldn't have developed and deployed their own version of it if they weren't convinced it was a good idea, they weren't stupid. FWIW, our version wasn't explicitly designed to yaw, it just turned out to do that pretty regularly. Theirs was. I'll give them this, it wasn't the first modern military round explicitly designed to yaw.
Why not go to the 6.5, 6.8 or some other larger caliber round? I ask, what would you gain from that? Higher weight per round? That is a negative on the battlefield, it adversely limits the infantryman's standard load. Heavier ammo means fewer rounds, or less other gear. Better terminal results? Better than what? At least with rifle length arms (M16s), the 5.56 gets the job done. Carbine length (M4s) at longer ranges isn't quite as effective but it is still good enough. Keep in mind that the carbine length weapons aren't meant to be main battle rifles in open country -- close order battle or second line troops, neither of which are all that limited by the lessened long range effectiveness. So again -- what does the heavier round do for you, the infrantryman?
I think that the argument against the 5.56 boils down to "Good enough is the enemy of excellence". While that is, at the cutting edge, true; that itself is a fallacy when it comes to larger scale combat. When you are talking about the cutting edge, for instance special ops, then an argument can be made for the 6.5 and 6.8 since you have a higher trained, more capable soldier who can be expected to handle the increased weight. But for more typical, main battle line troops, the other side of the equation takes precedence. The excellent is the enemy of good enough. And since we, the taxpayers, are paying for it -- I say that for the bulk of the troops, we need to be looking at what is good enough to get the job done as opposed to what the minority of special ops troops would actually be able to make use of.
*Note that at longer (let's say, 200+ meter) ranges, from an infantryman's standpoint, just hitting the target and creating a casualty is good enough. At least that was the case given the situation in the '70s, where we were facing Communist forces, not suicidal Islamists. Quick kill/disable effects were important at short ranges, and the 5.56 delivered. Quick kill/disable effects are less important at longer ranges -- creating casualties that took the enemy out of the battle was good enough, and again the 5.56 delivered.
Last edited:
.45 ACP -- good combat round, proven effective. High weight per round which detracts from its role as a SMG round. Wide round, which limits capacity in magazine fed handguns.
10mm -- Unproven in military combat, but should be good, in the right hands, that is. High bulk. Long round, which limits the use as a "generic" handgun as it means that the resulting handgun isn't suitable for people with small hands. I have concerns with it regarding its use in the SMG role. Not only is it heavier than the defacto standard (9x19), but it is also bulkier and heavier, both of which are negatives. And, it has more recoil, which means that it will have more muzzle rise, and that means that the weapon will have to be heavier or it will be less effective. A heavier weapon will not be well received with the troops, and neither will a weapon that isn't as controllable. IMHO, the 10mm SMG has its niche, but that isn't in the hands of main battle troops. Especially when decades of combat has proven that 9x19 gets the job done, just fine, in both the handgun and SMG role.
9x19 -- AKA 9mm Parabellum. The name speaks for itself. Parabellum is Latin for "For War". It is a round that was designed, from the ground up, as a military round. This is also a round that is proven effective. It was designed, back in the pre WWI years, as a military handgun round, and then became the defacto standard SMG round. The thing is, everybody else in the world considers the 9x19 a quite sufficient military round. For that matter, our own experience with the round reflects that. In fact, our own troops in WWI and WWII seemed to covet our enemy's Luger and Walther 9x19 handguns when available, due to their lower recoil and yet adequate performance. We had no problem using our enemy's SMGs, for that matter. Our allies used 9x19, too; no complaints, both handguns as well as SMGs. Our enemies seemed to be satisfied with the round, that goes without saying. Our own troops paid that price. Objectively --
> .45 ACP, at 230 gr per bullet (US Military standard hardball)+powder, brass and such, weighs about twice what a 9x19 at 125 gr per bullet (+-, depending on the load). That's pretty darned significant.
> 9x19, even given the lower bullet weight, is a significantly higher velocity round. And that means that the energy potential is as good or greater. Ok, I'm not an energy hound. But it does mean that in a FMJ environment, that due to the higher velocity that it has better barrier penetration potential. And that is important, in the battlefield.
> 9x19 has less recoil, per round, than .45 ACP. That isn't all that significant with regards to handguns -- neither are all that objectionable. The difference is with SMGs and muzzle rise. 9mm is just a better SMG round. It just is.
Last edited:
armsmaster270
New member
Many police and military units that issue the 9mm to the troops issue the 45ACP to specialized units. Then there is the USCG which issues .40S&W Sig Sauers and hollowpoints.
Oh, you mean the very same 5.56 varmint rifles that the Air Force, Navy and Marines use? The very same 5.56 varmint rifles that the US Air Force were the first adopters of?
If you really want to know what the reasons why there is success or failure on the battlefield, look at the top. Who wants victory? Who enables victory? Who enables the troops? Who inhibits them?
The problem isn't the rifle. The problem isn't the troops. It isn't the Army. It isn't the Navy. It isn't the Marines. It isn't the Air Force. Those guys aren't the problem. It is higher up than that.
True. But then again, there are different criteria between what is appropriate and optimum for use with civilian police, line troops, secondary troops, and special ops troops. Special ops troops don't have the restriction of needing to cooperate with allies, for instance. They are "mission oriented". Resupply from a theater wide supply point just isn't a criterion. They enter the operation with their ammo supply and expect no resupply. Not so with line troops. They don't have to consider the least common denominator, either. They don't have to consider having to have usable sidearms for small handed females, for instance. Thus, 10mm or 38 Super are viable for them and yet aren't viable in general issue. They can cull their troops because they ARE specials.
Besides that, 9mm is known to be a better penetrator. In general, 9mm is the better round. It is only when the ranges are quite short, and the engagements are expected to be very short (thus, mag capacity is known to be less of a factor) that one would go with the bigger .45 round. Objectively speaking, that is.
To the OP:
I highly doubt you are actually seeking a legitimate, Real-Life, answer to your statements. But...
The weapons, in of themselves, have nothing to do with the success/failure of our modern military. The current weapons available to our military are of high-quality, good design, with an acceptable logistic system in place to ensure adequate resupply/maintenance in the field. For an armed force in the field, these characteristics are much more important than calibre.
I attribute our successes to the leadership/training of the NCO/Officer Cadre. The benefits of a disciplined (sometimes, hehe), educated, professional force far outweigh the concerns you attempted to call attention to in your original post.
In the end, its the quality of the personnel in your Corps/Branch which truly lead to success/failure in the field. To get a better "feel" for my point of view, I suggest you too raise your right hand and sign on the dotted line.
My .02, and worth every penny you paid.
I highly doubt you are actually seeking a legitimate, Real-Life, answer to your statements. But...
The weapons, in of themselves, have nothing to do with the success/failure of our modern military. The current weapons available to our military are of high-quality, good design, with an acceptable logistic system in place to ensure adequate resupply/maintenance in the field. For an armed force in the field, these characteristics are much more important than calibre.
I attribute our successes to the leadership/training of the NCO/Officer Cadre. The benefits of a disciplined (sometimes, hehe), educated, professional force far outweigh the concerns you attempted to call attention to in your original post.
In the end, its the quality of the personnel in your Corps/Branch which truly lead to success/failure in the field. To get a better "feel" for my point of view, I suggest you too raise your right hand and sign on the dotted line.
My .02, and worth every penny you paid.
JAG reviewed the use of Open Tip Match bullets and said after all the legalities are addressed that they are 100% OK to use in combat. That was in 1988, and just goes to show how out of touch civilians are with military reality these days. The OP has recited a litany of untruths commonly accepted by the clueless public, understandable since only 1 in 100 has ever served now.
Hollow point or open tip match bullets don't perform very well in penetration, and that's another ignorance issue with civilians. The bullets effectiveness in getting past loaded web gear, a ballistic vest, sandbags, or a light skinned vehicles glass and sheetmetal has something to do with ammo choice. Be advised, we need that capability too, and lots of military ammo is loaded with a steel penetrator inserted in the bullet. In a lot of cases, a hollow point is a very POOR choice.
The point in using intermediate caliber full auto carbines is that a soldier will fire them more often, more accurately, and with more bullets flying on the battlefield,get more hits. It's NOT ABOUT DEAD RIGHT THERE, it's about hits, which however placed, arm, leg, torso, whatever, can and do incapacitate a soldier's response. They no longer fight as effectively, and frequently cannot manuever to outflank the opposing force. If one side has more hits on it's soldiers, it rapidly loses effective fight ability, and it will more often lose the fight.
This has been studied since WWI, by the Germans, French, British, Russians, Americans, etc. They all posted reports on combat studies, determined actual body counts, wounds, and why one side won or lost the battle. It's been important enough units have dedicated historians to document what happened. Sift through enough reports and you discover Germans kicking our butt in the Ardennes because they had STG-44's with 30 round mags on full auto, vs. GI Joe and his 8 round Garand.
The average soldier IS the average citizen, especially in the US, and we've researched it ad infinitum. A heavy recoiling battle rifle basically is a loser gun. It inhibits shooting it frequently, because most average soldiers - citizens - don't like the recoil. It prevents fast follow up shots because of the muzzle rise, and the weight of it and it's ammo limits what can be carried.
Again, in combat, it's NOT civilian police response or hunting ethics, it's NOT DRT, it's about more hits. Lighter carbines shooting three times the ammo are superior on the battlefield. The Department of Defense knows it, and the Army wants more of it - hence the long term investment and research into caseless ammo, now known as the LSAT. Half the weight, twice the ammo, no case to extract, TWICE THE FIREPOWER for each soldier. That's an immediate 50% increase in hits.
Not a decrease because we stupidly went back to what didn't work and limited our effectiveness. No Thank You.
It was suggested the OP go take a long walk with a ruck for the experience. It might be asked, so what, how does the weight of a ruck change from one weapon to another. It doesn't much. What changes is that you won't have three pounds of the weapon to support in your hands, it's on your hip load in the ruck as extra ammo. Having done exactly that since the 1970s, I can speak from experience that humping the M16 daily in full battle rattle is actually easier than hunting with a lighter load and a heavy main battle rifle like the Hk91. Those heavy pigs flat wear you out with their weight and bulk, the AR15, not so much. The human anatomy tolerates weight placed squarely on the hips a lot more than carried in the arms, and those who have actually tried both know they have more strength in reserve and less fatigue, regardless of build or fitness level.
The less exhausted team has the edge in every contest. We seem to know this and learn it from the first day in sports, but are in complete denial when it comes to combat. Well, that's testosterone talking, not common sense, and you quickly discover coaches strategize around it, not ignore it. So do generals.
Instead of whining about what isn't understood, it would serve to a better education to examine why it IS the way it is. There's been professionals working on the dyanamics of combat since before the American Revolution, and ignoring what is obviously the status quo in firearms design pining for a historical curio or relic doesn't even begin to examine why it no longer state of the art.
We can shoot "hollow points," but we prefer penetrator rounds, we don't need big heavy calibers, the 5.56 does the job, we don't need to be the world's policeman, but we are and do it better than most, because we don't just go in and kill everyone to let their God sort them out. I doubt very much we would tolerate that happening on our soil, it's in the best interest of every American to take some time and really study what they need to know, rather than spout street corner locker room BS with no factual basis.
Hollow point or open tip match bullets don't perform very well in penetration, and that's another ignorance issue with civilians. The bullets effectiveness in getting past loaded web gear, a ballistic vest, sandbags, or a light skinned vehicles glass and sheetmetal has something to do with ammo choice. Be advised, we need that capability too, and lots of military ammo is loaded with a steel penetrator inserted in the bullet. In a lot of cases, a hollow point is a very POOR choice.
The point in using intermediate caliber full auto carbines is that a soldier will fire them more often, more accurately, and with more bullets flying on the battlefield,get more hits. It's NOT ABOUT DEAD RIGHT THERE, it's about hits, which however placed, arm, leg, torso, whatever, can and do incapacitate a soldier's response. They no longer fight as effectively, and frequently cannot manuever to outflank the opposing force. If one side has more hits on it's soldiers, it rapidly loses effective fight ability, and it will more often lose the fight.
This has been studied since WWI, by the Germans, French, British, Russians, Americans, etc. They all posted reports on combat studies, determined actual body counts, wounds, and why one side won or lost the battle. It's been important enough units have dedicated historians to document what happened. Sift through enough reports and you discover Germans kicking our butt in the Ardennes because they had STG-44's with 30 round mags on full auto, vs. GI Joe and his 8 round Garand.
The average soldier IS the average citizen, especially in the US, and we've researched it ad infinitum. A heavy recoiling battle rifle basically is a loser gun. It inhibits shooting it frequently, because most average soldiers - citizens - don't like the recoil. It prevents fast follow up shots because of the muzzle rise, and the weight of it and it's ammo limits what can be carried.
Again, in combat, it's NOT civilian police response or hunting ethics, it's NOT DRT, it's about more hits. Lighter carbines shooting three times the ammo are superior on the battlefield. The Department of Defense knows it, and the Army wants more of it - hence the long term investment and research into caseless ammo, now known as the LSAT. Half the weight, twice the ammo, no case to extract, TWICE THE FIREPOWER for each soldier. That's an immediate 50% increase in hits.
Not a decrease because we stupidly went back to what didn't work and limited our effectiveness. No Thank You.
It was suggested the OP go take a long walk with a ruck for the experience. It might be asked, so what, how does the weight of a ruck change from one weapon to another. It doesn't much. What changes is that you won't have three pounds of the weapon to support in your hands, it's on your hip load in the ruck as extra ammo. Having done exactly that since the 1970s, I can speak from experience that humping the M16 daily in full battle rattle is actually easier than hunting with a lighter load and a heavy main battle rifle like the Hk91. Those heavy pigs flat wear you out with their weight and bulk, the AR15, not so much. The human anatomy tolerates weight placed squarely on the hips a lot more than carried in the arms, and those who have actually tried both know they have more strength in reserve and less fatigue, regardless of build or fitness level.
The less exhausted team has the edge in every contest. We seem to know this and learn it from the first day in sports, but are in complete denial when it comes to combat. Well, that's testosterone talking, not common sense, and you quickly discover coaches strategize around it, not ignore it. So do generals.
Instead of whining about what isn't understood, it would serve to a better education to examine why it IS the way it is. There's been professionals working on the dyanamics of combat since before the American Revolution, and ignoring what is obviously the status quo in firearms design pining for a historical curio or relic doesn't even begin to examine why it no longer state of the art.
We can shoot "hollow points," but we prefer penetrator rounds, we don't need big heavy calibers, the 5.56 does the job, we don't need to be the world's policeman, but we are and do it better than most, because we don't just go in and kill everyone to let their God sort them out. I doubt very much we would tolerate that happening on our soil, it's in the best interest of every American to take some time and really study what they need to know, rather than spout street corner locker room BS with no factual basis.
Doesn't anybody read history books any more?
Doesn't anybody who posts about guns ever shoot one first? Just curious. Don't mean to rain on your parade kid but the stuff you get from gun sites catering to the Junior Crowd are not good sources of information and before you form an opinion you really really need to do a lot of serious reading and ask questions before you make your statements. Ask a lot of questions. Keep coming back and keep reading, it will be good.
I am a dinosaur who marched in boot with a 1903A3, learned to shoot with a M1 Garand and was not happy when the M14 was replaced with the M16 but that is another story, not because of the ammo but the gun. Ask me if I volunteer to get shot with any .223 bullet out of any gun. I emphatically will not.
At one time, the .45-70 Government was considered a small caliber and the soldiers were complaining even then about the loss in stopping power. But even so, they even issued one with a lighter charge for use in carbines. Don't know why, perhaps it was because of all the foreigners in the army at the time.
The first AR-15s were built around the .222 Remington but the army decided something more powerful was needed, to make it a 300-yard rifle. But the AR-15 was used in combat by others possibly before the US used it, in the version without a forward assist. And they used the same rifles for another 20 years, too.
We might as well admit to some of the main facts of life: the other guy always has a better weapon. And he can shoot better either because he is better trained, or he grew up shooting back in the hills, or his uniform is spiffier. And you can't shoot back because you'll give away your position.
The first AR-15s were built around the .222 Remington but the army decided something more powerful was needed, to make it a 300-yard rifle. But the AR-15 was used in combat by others possibly before the US used it, in the version without a forward assist. And they used the same rifles for another 20 years, too.
We might as well admit to some of the main facts of life: the other guy always has a better weapon. And he can shoot better either because he is better trained, or he grew up shooting back in the hills, or his uniform is spiffier. And you can't shoot back because you'll give away your position.
If you think the 5.56 is not effective on human flesh you should try googling for photos of wound cavities it creates. There's graphic stuff out there if you look for it but I didn't think it was in good taste to put up a link. No doubt the 5.56 loses effectiveness at long range but within 300 yards it will take the fight out of your adversary.