Fighting Doctrine, or whatever. That's why 50+ nations are using it. They'd rather wound than kill.
Also remember, the M16 is a piece of ****, and 50+ nations are using it, too.
Anyone who says the current green tipped standard issue 5.56mm round is deadly, needs to go get shot by one. Unless you hit a vital organ (heart/brain/spine) its as worthless as you can get in a battlefield cartridge.
'[R-PUB wrote:A-10WarthogPilot']its true. they are designed to fragment on impact. thats why the .223 is so deadly
Yes. .223 Remmington, AKA 5.56x45mm M193. Vietnam Era round fired from a 1:12 twist barrel (Or 1:14 to make it even more unstable and produce the "meat ax" effect but at the cost of accuracy).
5.56x45mm FN SS109, AKA M855, fired from a 1:7 twist, which is more accurate and has better penetrating qualities than the M193, the current issue round does not fragment nearly as much and requires a higher velocity to do so. Which, apparently is a problem with the M4 as it drops below said velocity after about 100m, where as the full length M16 allows it to still have this effect at longer ranges. Also, against unusually thin people it might pass though them before it fragments even within the optimal range. Which was a problem during the US intervention in Somalia.
Its a good round for a conventional war. Where combatants wear body armor and what not, but for conflicts like the current one the old M193 is a better choice because of the much higher fragmentation. Which is, I suspect, why the French haven't universally adopted the FAMAS G2.
The key to modernising any weapon is covering them in glue and tossing them in a barrel of M1913 rails until they look "Modern" enough.
Many thanks to [R-DEV]Adriaan for the sig!
sekiryu wrote:Fighting Doctrine, or whatever. That's why 50+ nations are using it. They'd rather wound than kill.
Makes a degree of sense if you think about it.
1. Looks better on the evening news
2. Resources needed to look after a corpse: One box.
Resources needed to look after a wounded guy: Several doctors, nurses, blood transfusions, medivac/transport, supplies of antibiotic and other medical equipment, etc etc.
In a conventional, drawn out confrontation you can damage your enemy harder by forcing him to devote time, energy and resouces to maintaining his badly injured troops than if you simply shot them all.
Doesn't really apply in insurgency type conflicts or short micro-war style engagements where one side is massively stronger than the other (e.g.: NATO intervention in Serbia in 1999).
"That's how it starts, Mas, with that warm happy feeling inside. Pretty soon you're rocking in the corner, a full grown dog addict, wondering where your next St Bernand is coming from..." - IAJTHOMAS "Did they say what he's angry about?" asked Annette Mitchell, 77, of the district, stranded after seeing a double feature of "Piranha 3D" and "The Last Exorcism." - Washington Post
Despite this belief the 5.56x45mm was not "designed to wound". Also in most environments the current M16s and M4s work great. Iraq just happens to be a damn horrible place for firearms.
You seem to be a bit biased.... the m16 has, to my knowledge, been considered as a piece of **** rifle since it was introduced and it is still considered to be junk even though its been upgraded several times.
Anthony Lloyd, himself a former soldier in the British army and a Northern Ireland and Gulf War veteran: "The men inside (the APC) might have been UN but they were playing by a completely different set of rules. They were Swedes; in terms of individual intelligence, integrity and single-mindedness I was to find them among the most impressive soldiers I had ever encountered. In Vares their moment had come."
Despite this belief the 5.56x45mm was not "designed to wound". Also in most environments the current M16s and M4s work great. Iraq just happens to be a damn horrible place for firearms.
Proof? I've been told over and over again that it is designed to wound, in order to FUBAR the enemy's logistics (see Masaq's post). The current M16's and M14's don't "work great". There have been many complaints that it won't take out your average insurgent without filling him full of holes, and even more holes if he's doped up.
Disclaimer: The following is based on things I've read by Marine authors in Iraq, and shows on the History, Military, and Discovery Channels.
The M16 and M4 are by no means **** rifles Gyberg. It can easily be argued that they are the same, if not superior to the L85, but not worth the effort as no one will win that argument (see the various vs. threads). The problem in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia is found in the 5.56 mm round fired by the AR-15 family. As said, it is designed for conventional fights such as Korea or the Cold War battlefields of Europe. The 5.56 easily punctures body armor compared to the 7.62 or 9mm round, and is in fact, in its newest version, designed to seriously wound.
Why? As Sekiryu said, it takes many more people and many more potential targets to evac and treat a wounded soldier then a dead one. The problems found in Iraq are in the 5.56's stopping power, immediate lethality, and its effectiveness through potential cover such as cinderblocks. Unless it strikes a system such as the brain, spine or heart, it will not kill immediately but more likely through bleeding out or infection when left untreated. Because of the lack of stopping power, you may shoot an enemy many times (Read Blackhawk Down by Mark Bowden or listen to some guys back from Iraq) without immediately killing him, and he is able to fire off his AK at you before he goes down, especially if he's drugged with Khat (Somalia), Heroin (Afghanistan) or various other narcotics. Finally, the light round cannot drive through hard cover such as concrete as a 7.62 or 12.7mm round can, making it difficult to hit insurgents holed up in houses or behind walls.
Final comment/Disclaimer: Announcing that the current 5.56 round fragments automatically enters you into the sweepstakes for a butt-whooping by the PR Team's prized R-Dik
Actually, I'll resist the temptation and wait till I have the opportunity to derail some one else's thread instead of my own.
Note to other members of the P90 special interest group:
The above does not extend to you!
To all:
On the subject of derailment, get back on topic. We're here to discuss whether overheating should be applied to all automatic weapons in PR or removed from all weapons or left as it is.
Not ballistics.
Last edited by Bob_Marley on 2007-07-15 23:55, edited 1 time in total.
The key to modernising any weapon is covering them in glue and tossing them in a barrel of M1913 rails until they look "Modern" enough.
Many thanks to [R-DEV]Adriaan for the sig!
Can I make a request? I want the next 2 posts to made by Bob and Kenwayy ONLY! I want to get both sides of the 5.56 arguement and some advice to help us model it accurately in PR
I can take this to PM's if you like but I'd much rather that Bob and Kenwayy just ignore all other posts for a second and reply to this. Here we go.
_________________________________________________________________
In 0.6 the general damage to an armored torso is as follows.
7.62x51mm (G3) = Requires two shots to the torso to down a target.
5.56x45mm = Requires three shots to the torso to down a target.
In terms of showing the stopping power of these rounds to a target wearing armor, do you think this is a good representation? Do you think the 5.56 damage should be upped to reflect it's effectiveness after penetrating armor?
Also, do you think 5.56 damage against UNarmored targets should be weaker to model the round passing straight through?
"Clear the battlefield and let me see, All the profit from our victory." - Greg Lake
The current standard issue 5.56 was designed to penetrate the body armor when it was issued. I'll be completely honest and say I have no idea of what the 5.56 round will do to a ESAPI plate like we currently wear. It will pass through kevlar no problem.
Anyone who says the 5.56 in its current form is a good round for use in today's conflicts needs to join up, head to Iraq, and spend 13 months there routinely seeing insurgents take 5+ shots to sit them down, watch a man whose been riddled with, near as we could count, 30 rounds and still be alive. Granted his brain was dead and his body just hadn't caught up yet, but the point is the same. The current effect of the round is much like a laser beam. It makes a nice neat hole and that's about it. The exit wound is no bigger than a quarter, which is retarded for a battlefield round. Compare that to the first size of a 7.62 or the limb-ripping power of the .50, its severally lacking.
See heres the thing. All the charts, graphs, and scientific data means jack all when your *** is on the line with a round you have used, all to many times, on a unarmored human body and seen the complete lack of effectiveness.
The ONLY REASON we still use the M16/4 is political bullshit, and the only reason we use 5.56 is a bunch of whinny *** morons complaining about the weight and recoil of the 7.62 back when the standard issue was the m14 with full auto. But when my standard load is 80 pounds of ****, a few here or there I'm willing to sacrifice to know that a target is going down after 1-2 hits, and for the ability to hit through a dirt wall.
Having said that, a 6.8 would be a worthwhile compromise. This was supremely evident by the fact that every single 6.8 upper conversion kit available was snagged by SF. Generally speaking, when SF uses a piece of equipment, its good.
*disclaimer:
Make another god damn topic about this and I will rape your face. I was nice by request.
