It's interesting that theammo debateis getting mainstream press coverage. I doubt anything will change in the foreseeable future, though. Even though the Pentagon has been experimenting with alternative cartridges on the M-16/M4 platforms, the 5.56 SS109 seems like it's here to stay. Even if it does take an extra round or two to the center mass to keep targets down for good.
I'm wondering why they don't go back to the 55 gr. M193. Those bullets tumble,shatter, and wound a lot more effectively in unarmored human targets.
We probably don't have the manufacturing capability. The military goes through a billion rounds of ammo a year in various shapes and sizes, much of it small arms cartridges. Not to mention it would cost more per round to produce. And then there's the politics.
I noticed that the article quoted Dr. Fackler as saying the problem was the shorter barrel length (14.5") which didn't allow for enough terminal velocity in the round. Dr. Fackler is one of the gurus in this field and he does know his stuff.
I did some checking on the M4 and M4-Commando rifles and they appear to have muzzle velocities of 2759 and 2624 FPS respectively. In a full size M16 with a 20" barrel, you get over 3,000 FPS muzzle velocity which seems to be the magic # for getting an M193 round to reach its' lethal potential. I think the article brings up some valid points about the designed use for the SS109 (steel core) round which wasn't to achieve optimum terminal ballistics in a human body.
I agree that the 7.62 has better terminal ballistics and is more versatile than the 5.56mm round. I don't know much about the 6.8mm round and haven't fired one so can't really comment on it. Aught Six makes a good point that the military is unlikely to just switch over from 5.56mm to 7.62 or 6.8. What I think would be far more likely, make a lot of sense and actually work much better (shocking the gov't of course) is to begin loading and distributing M193 rounds or even design a heavier version of the M193 so you get terminal ballistics with a little more punch and the penetration that the SS109 round was designed for. Just my .02 here.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Dont forget to factor in the weight of new cartridges. The more ammo a guy can carry comfortably, the better fighter he will be.
You should probably give that statement some more thought. There are other factors to consider.Otherwise we could just issue rifles using .22 LR ammo to everyone.
I'm wondering why they don't go back to the 55 gr. M193. Those bullets tumble,shatter, and wound a lot more effectively in unarmored human targets.
Quote:
I did some checking on the M4 and M4-Commando rifles and they appear to have muzzle velocities of 2759 and 2624 FPS respectively. In a full size M16 with a 20" barrel, you get over 3,000 FPS muzzle velocity which seems to be the magic # for getting an M193 round to reach its' lethal potential. I think the article brings up some valid points about the designed use for the SS109 (steel core) round which wasn't to achieve optimum terminal ballistics in a human body.
Arguably, the M193 isthe most effective anti-personnel rifle round developed by the US. Ive seenenemy soldiersshot with it and know how effective it is at ranges of <175 yards when fired from the M16. The 55 grain M193 bullet leaves the muzzle of the M16 at3,200 fps.My .223 guns have 24" and 26"barrels and the velocity is higher than that of an M16.I have killed a lot of wild hogs with thatround and they usually die as if struck by lightning.
The military claims that the M855 round is just as effective as the M193 but I'm not sure aboutthat.
Dont forget to factor in the weight of new cartridges. The more ammo a guy can carry comfortably, the better fighter he will be.
You should probably give that statement some more thought. There are other factors to consider.Otherwise we could just issue rifles using .22 LR ammo to everyone.
No, I shouldnt. You read into a little far. I was adding to the factors already in play. Theres a balance between effectiveness, cost and mobility and that equals 5.56....for now.
I have carried M16, A4, FAL, G3, AK47, K6, MP5, M14, and even M1. For the average soldier, the 5.56 will get the job done. The 5.56 allows for more ammo to be carried by individual soldiers and for more rounds to be shipped per trip for logistics purposes, and logistics is what the Army is all about. I'm not a big fan of the Stoner design, and never have been. There was a new weapon developed to replace the M16 a couple of years ago, but it sees to have vanished. It looked like a solid system, and was more reliable than the current weapon. Does anyone know what happened to that rifle? I think it's designation was M8, but I could be wrong about that.
5.56 vs. 7.62
