Why is the military using small calibers?

Politics and greed have ALWAYS been the driving factor behind selection of military weapons. When the .223/5.56 caliber M-16 was FORCED upon the U.S. infantrymen in Viet Nam who did NOT want it, the old standbys of politics and greed won out. Those of us in the field either traded off the M-16 rifles for something more effective, like a captured AK-47, or stole something else to use in lieu of the M-16. One guy I knew managed to "relieve" a Huey helicopter of an M-60 machinegun and then cut down the barrel of it to his liking. That "liberated" M-60 became his personal gun until he left Viet Nam.

I've heard that even now soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are replacing their .223/5.56 M-4 carbines, when they can, with heavier and bigger diameter boomsticks. When they can, they try for the 6.8 SPC carbines to use and like them. If they can't get a 6.8 SPC carbine they go for the old standby AK-47 rifles when they can get them. So things haven't changed that much in all the years between Viet Nam and now.

Hopefully, one day soon, the desires of the combat infantrymen will be heard when it comes to the debate of how useless/ineffective the .223/5.56 round is when used in combat. Until then, the average American G.I. will still be stealing guns to go to war and with which to survive.
 
I've heard that even now soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are replacing their .223/5.56 M-4 carbines, when they can, with heavier and bigger diameter boomsticks. When they can, they try for the 6.8 SPC carbines to use and like them. If they can't get a 6.8 SPC carbine they go for the old standby AK-47 rifles when they can get them. So things haven't changed that much in all the years between Viet Nam and now.
Click to expand...

I'll most assuredly tell you that if thats happen its quarantined within the SOCOM. I can't imagine a soldier trying to get 6.8 rounds over here, mail is checked very meticulously as well as your bags coming out here. And an AK, well, maybe, maybe, if the Platoon Leader lost his brain at West Point. That is more dangerous than letting the soldier leave the wire with no weapon. For those of you who know the different sounds m4/ak's make, its a good way to draw unwanted/friendly fire your way.

I was told it happened a lot during Vietnam, but now adays it seems Officers are breed of a more political nature than their Officer forefathers and don't let us have any fun.:mad:
 
I understand the reasons given that the 5.56 replaced the .308. It's lighter, less recoil...yada yada yada. Why then did the special forces request the development of a 6.8mm on an AR platform? Why do special forces still carry the .45acp over the 9mm most of the time? My personal feeling is that a good mixture of all of these weapons would be most effective and adaptive to different situations. However, that's costly and the military will look for a happy medium. What they don't realize is that when you design a jack of all trades it is no longer the best at anything. There will always be more effective guns/calibers than what the military carries. The question is, is it good enough? So far the answer is that the M-16 in 5.56 is kicking the snot out of the AK-47. So are we sending our troops overseas with better or worse equipment than our enemies? Most times our equipment is several orders of magnitude better than the enemies. I'd say we're doin ok by our troops with the weapons we send them to battle with.
 
We should have gone with the British .280 round that they first suggested years ago. The 6.8 SPC round is nothing more than our version of the old British .280 round any way.

The .223/5.56 round is too small in diameter and too light in its weight. We need something a little bit bigger around and a little bit heavier. Something over 100+ grains in bullet weight. Heck, when you have to use 3 bullets shot into the same location, like a head, to make sure that you land an effective shot that should tell you something is definitely wrong with your bullets.
 
After thinking about this for about 45 years, I would have asked for a short .30-caliber cartridge, something along the lines of the 7.62x39 but with a slightly different case shape. The rifle itself doesn't matter as much but it would probably be better if it were a little heavier than a stock AR-15, although by the time you use a rail and start hanging all the accessories on it, it would be anyway. Beyond about 300 yards, something different would be handier, like the M-15 designated marksman rifles that have actually been used for years now. I haven't made up my mind about a squad automatic. They seem to be highly appreciated at infantry squad level but I tend to be a little old-fashioned and think more rifle caliber machine guns would be a better idea.

However, that is contrary to contemporary trends in all armies and even the Soviets issued a squad automatic in the same caliber as the AK. Even the Germans today use a 5.56mm squad automatic, so if they do, it must be a Good Thing. Of course, we aren't fighting WWII.
 
Lake City ammunition tumbling through ballistics gel. To me thats a pretty good example of the damage a 5.56 is more than capable off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBqjAyhs56M

To those who say the round is to small and we need something bigger, and that you need multiple rounds to kill some one, I think Clark hit the nail on the head. I'm sure the Cavalry soldier argued about switching from a .45 caliber round to a 30 caliber round.
 
I won't go into 9mm versus .45ACP when only ball ammo is used. Everyone already has their mind made up one way of the other.

I will agree with the previous post about the direction of a given military being very important. We have the finest men and women in the word in our military and they are well equipped.

We have weak-kneed, non-committal, self-serving career opportunists dictating policy whether they be politicians for other executive level personnel. They do not fight wars to win and they do not engage in battle with sound exit objectives. Do I need to elaborate on this?

The 9mm ball or the 5.56 is not the problem. I hate the 9mm ball ammo but it is not the problem. :D
 
I would hate to go into combat armed with a 9mm pistol--or any other pistol, for that matter. In fact, some personnel usually armed with pistols have been carrying carbines instead. And I happen to like the carbine, although the only one I have handled was heavier than the M16 I was issued in the National Guard, but not as heavy as the M14 I was issued in the army five years earlier. Either way, I couldn't have hit anything with any of them at 500 yards unless the target stood very still out in the open.

I will agree, however, with the general comment about what we give our armed forces to do. It just sounds too much like what they were mostly all doing a hundred years ago in the Phillipines. The problem with politicians is they often try to do what the people that got them elected want them to. Either we have to get away from that idea or stop bothering to elect representatives. Mostly, I suppose our propaganda isn't up to snuff, more than anything else. On the other hand, if it were up to the military, we'd never go to war.
 
If you hit an enemy soldier with a .30 caliber type rifle bullet, the intended target, if you get a dead center hit on him, he will straighten up, turn 180 degrees to the rear and then fall down on his face with his feet often pointed back in your direction. This is pretty much true with the .308, 7.62 NATO, .303 British, 8 mm Mauser, 30.06, 7.62 X 54 and so on.

With the .223/5.56 bullet you have either generally got to use multiple shots, sometimes up to a dozen of them, to stop the enemy soldier or else you have to do a modified Mozambique shooting scenario where you use like 2 bullets to the chest and at least 2 bullets to his skull. Sometimes, it may take even more shots to the skull to get a bullet into the brain to shut down the CNS from the top.

What would have been really neat for our combat infantry would have been something akin to a cross between an AK-47 and a SAW. Imagine a sort of heavy barreled AK using drum magazines shooting a short .30 caliber round or the new 6.8 SPC round and being used in the manner of an old BAR or M-60 machinegun replacement. That would give our guys good penetration and a decent size bullet launcher for covering high speed approaches when needed like trails and streets.
 
Blue Train:

First off, thank you for your service to our country. I think politicians do the will of the people on the more visible items with less significant outcomes.

When it comes to substantial issues, they will and are doing the will of those who contribute the most the their campaign coffers.

Where do I start? Can we begin with the border issue? We are on the verge of a civil war in Mexico, there are drug lord troops occupying portions of our border land and our politicians have decided that cheap labor and potential votes are worth more than our safety and sovereignty. Those who benefit from these inexpensive wages are contributing more than those of us who believe in our sovereignty and safety. This holds true for all politicians from all parties by virtue of what they are doing versus what they say.

Certainly, I concur material decisions are made for reasons other than what is in the best interests of our soldiers and us in general. I think a lot of thought and changes went into making the M16 platform using the 5.56 round. Are their better choices? Yes. Are there worse? Yes.
 
-Rifleman173 said:
If you hit an enemy soldier with a .30 caliber type rifle bullet, the intended target, if you get a dead center hit on him, he will straighten up, turn 180 degrees to the rear and then fall down on his face with his feet often pointed back in your direction. This is pretty much true with the .308, 7.62 NATO, .303 British, 8 mm Mauser, 30.06, 7.62 X 54 and so on.
Click to expand...

Really? That doesn't seem to be the case in these stories:

1. Charles L. Thomas: "Thomas was again subjected to a hail of enemy fire which inflicted multiple gunshot wounds in his chest, legs, and left arm. Despite the intense pain caused by these wounds, Lieutenant Thomas ordered and directed the dispersion and emplacement of two antitank guns which in a few moments were promptly and effectively returning the enemy fire."

2. Jose F. Valdez: "Three of his companions were wounded in their dash for safety and he was struck by a bullet that entered his stomach and, passing through his body, emerged from his back. Overcoming agonizing pain, he regained control of himself and resumed his firing position, delivering a protective screen of bullets until all others of the patrol were safe. By field telephone he called for artillery and mortar fire on the Germans and corrected the range until he had shells falling within 50 yards of his position. For 15 minutes he refused to be dislodged by more than 200 of the enemy; then, seeing that the barrage had broken the counter attack, he dragged himself back to his own lines. He died later as a result of his wounds. "

Those were two I found where the people were struck in the upper torso with a full-power rifle caliber and continued to fight. There were many more stories of men with legs blown off continuing to fight and men wounded by shell fragments or explosives. There was one of a man who had one eye blinded by a shell fragment and a chunk of his skull dented who continued to fight house-to-house. These are all WWII era.
 
Well, of course. They were Americans, weren't they? You hit an enemy soldier with a .45 in his little finger and it'll knock him down. My father told me that. But perhaps it's hard to hit them in the first place. He spent a year as a prisoner of war in Germany--about 30 miles from where I was stationed when I was in Germany 22 years later.
 
Battlefield tactical doctrine: Infantry is to be able to control its environment to around 200 meters while using the primary weapon, the radio, to call in air or artillery. A selective fire weapon in 5.56 does that.

The Russian doctrine was different: Infantry advances accompanying tanks, following a curtain of artillery fire. The infantry assault is expected to begin at around 50 meters, supported then by the tanks' weapons. The AK-47 works just fine for this concept.
 
My bad, Bartholomew. I should have said, "In most cases if you shoot an enemy soldier dead center in the chest..." I wasn't expecting somebody to be nitpicking each and every thing said around here. And then you pop up with information from WW2 but your information does NOT say that those men were hit dead center in the chest either. A torso shot can mean any number of things. Not so with a dead center shot. Nitpicking goes both ways, buddy. Think third button down from the top of the shirt, maybe a hair lower. You have the collar button and the next 2 buttons down for the dead center shot. So, did your people from your information survive dead center shots? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
Art, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The reality today is that artillery does not advance with ground forces (it is stationary on firebases) and Close Air Support has been severely curtailed. Civilian casualties, real or staged, are to be avoided at all costs today due to political and media pressure on commanders. It is extremely difficult to get pilots to drop bombs now and will likely only get worse in the future. Risk aversion is a disease that does not retreat.

All this means that ground forces are stuck with what they bring with them, which is why they need the best of whatever we can give them. I don't mean this in the context of the caliber discussion, just a general statement.
 
Rob3, that tactical doctrine has changed is irrelevant. At the time of the introduction of the M16 package, that was the deal. It pretty much held true, on through the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

But we're still using air as support for ground troops. In Afghanistan, which really is the only major ground-war we have going, it is commonly the case that needs exceed the 200-meter control. And that's why the call for a regression to the sorts of cartridges of yesteryear.

Doctrines may change, whether by analytical plan or battlefield realities. Major changes across the board for weaponry are often slow to follow.
 
Wow. Lot's of rumor and innuendo, no facts.

If you hit an opposing force soldier, it makes no difference which way they fall down. Once down, they are likely not firing, and not manuevering. If you can't shoot back, or a least shoot accurately, and you can't move to change with the tactical situation, you don't need to be dead. You're effectively a non-fighter.

I'm not spouting off the "wound them and overload their logistics" BS. Funny how we adopted the 5.56 and since then have rarely engaged a Tier One battle army that even had medical support. It's not about knocking them off their feet dead right there. It's about stopping them from fighting back. The 5.56 does that, and because we shoot more of it and have more of it, more of them stop fighting. They lose.

Discount the fact we have been in a lot of police actions, and that the mission has moved from the older form of free engagement, to weapons hold until we are shot at first. It's a Military Police environment now, not open combat. The Rules of Engagement have changed considerably. Nonetheless, the M4 in 5.56 still has the advantage, urban or in close combat.

Rumors to the contrary, the 5,000 M14's refurbished to use as much M4 technology as possible aren't that eagerly sought after, units report they leave them in the racks. They are still what doesn't work well most of the time, a heavy, hard recoiling and less ergonomic weapon for long range use. Not the ticket in vehicles, on route recon with MG's already mounted up, patrolling urban terrain, etc. It's low intensity conflict in close proximity to the indigenous population. Not Dall sheep hunting in the Rockies.

As for the M16 being forced on soldiers who didn't want it, not so much. Lot's did want it, many chose it, not too many went back to the M14. People generally don't like change because they often lack understanding of why it is made. EX: looking at $3.50 a gallon gas prices, and they fact it NEVER went back to 25C, don't look forward too much longer to seeing 1 ton diesel trucks as commuter vehicles. Especially when we will have a mandatory 35mpg CAFE standard. And yet people are already starting to complain they can't spend money on them. It's not need, it's ego.

Bubba will still get to work, and we actually fight better with the M16. Nobody said we have to like it, having hunted and used .308 battle rifles while simultaneously serving 22 years in the Army Reserve, well, even I finally saw common sense. Sold the HK, built an AR. No huge corporate conspiracy driven by greed forced me to do it.

Just like the internet, lots of opinions in this thread, unfortunately, that alone doesn't make them informed or experienced. If you have served, thanks, but the '68 VN generation was filled with draftees who had a grudge to settle - they didn't see service as a duty, more like being shanghaied as prisoners in a life that had no empowerment.

I don't particularly hold to a victim's viewpoint, resourceful Americans make the best of things. The M16 IS the best we've had, and it will take a lot to improve on it. Returning to those days of yore, where men carried 12 pound chunks of carbon steel that rust constantly, and fired ammo loaded beyond most needs to win battles, no thanks. It's fantasy. The soldiers who lived through it will tell you it's no fun to go back to ham and lima beans cold from the can for breakfast. Haven't and don't want to use a rotary dial phone in a long time either, but I hear they have an app for that.
 
Last edited:
Nitpicking goes both ways, buddy. Think third button down from the top of the shirt, maybe a hair lower. You have the collar button and the next 2 buttons down for the dead center shot. So, did your people from your information survive dead center shots? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I apologize if that seemed like nitpicking Rifleman173; but if you hit someone in a vital organ with any caliber, they are going to die absent immediate medical treatment. If you don't hit the central nervous system, they may continue to conduct battlefield activities until they do die. If you fail to damage vital organs, even though you shot them "dead center in the chest", then they are going to be able to continue their activities until their blood pressure drops to the point that it can no longer supply the brain - and that might take awhile if you don't hit these vital organs.

A shot that passes through the heart/lungs is going to stop a fight in about 10-15 seconds or less, regardless of whether it was a 5.56x45 or .30 cal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top