Bullets too small to defeat Taliban

[robertg]

This is interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ish-soldiers-too-small-to-defeat-Taliban.html

Read More

 

[country boy]

yeah, there are many people that feel the 5.56 is an insufficient military round (myself included), but replacing it would also mean replacing every soldiers rifle (or at least modifying it to fire the new round) which would cost a lot of money.

 

[torpedoman]

the "powerful" 762 round is a cartridge that lacks range and an AK at the ranges quoted is not accurate enough to be very reliable in hitting anyone, The last i heard they were investigating executions because so many of the enemy were head shot by our guys. The AK is a fine weapon that is the most reliable durable weapon ever fielded, superb for close range spray and pray shooting it is not a long range accurate shooter.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

5.56mm is devastating until the velocity drops below the fragmentation level at roughly 125 yards, more or less depending on barrel length, temp, feet above sea level, etc,.

The most logical answer is to issue AR10's. The soldiers would require little familiarization time and the ammo is already in the supply system.

This should have happened 50 years ago.

 

[Gunner3456]

I don't know the answer. I do find it interesting that the British journalist (who may never have fired a gun) used 7.62mm interchangeably with the AK and our guys' 7.62 NATO weapons.

As we all know, there ain't no comparison in the power of the rounds or the accuracy at range.

What would it take to arm with AR-10's all military who are actually involved in battle? 100,000 or 200,000 of them? Maybe 200 - 300 million dollars? Just take that out of the Stimulus Package fund and go stimulate some ragheads.

 

[dario541]

I read an article by a Marine in which he stated that the 5.56 is NOT a dependable round to stop an enemy soldier. He wanted at least a 6.8 (.270). I agree with the guy on the ground, not some pencil pusher who is concerned about the cost of giving our defenders the BEST! This Administration is wasting TRILLIONS of dollars, using the poor excuse that it was caused by King George (Bush) III. A few dollars could be spent on our military, but I guess that is too much to expect from a guy who HATES the military!

 

[56kninja]

This is interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ish-soldiers-too-small-to-defeat-Taliban.html

5.56 lacks the power, but it's accurate.

7.62x39 has the power but it's not accurate. At least, an AK isn't accurate. I very highly doubt anyone can hit anything beyond 200m with the AK's crude sights. If the AK was scoped, I bet it can hit much farther.

They need to change, 6.8mm or a .308 would probably do the job.

 

[svxr8dr]

Some informative reading

Small caliber lethality
5.56mm performance in CQB

<broken link removed>

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

Some informative reading

Small caliber lethality
5.56mm performance in CQB

<broken link removed>

That's a nicely done report, but just repeats the same old data from the 80's. The AR15 is good for CQB and up to around 125 yards. Past that range, unless you hit the brain or spinal cord, the enemy soldier is going to be very pissed at you and continuing the fight until he bleeds out or is evacuated.

If they dared do a medium range study, say 150-300 yards, they would be forced to say the AR15 sucks at that range, so they will never write that report.

 

[MountainBear]

Funny, weren't they big enough to defeat Iraqi's? This debate will never end. There's no point to debating anymore. The proponents aren't going to change the detractor's mind, and vice versa. This is just a waste of bandwidth.

 

[the4thshake]

IMO they should phase out the M855 for MK262. Changing ammo would be much more feasible then changing weapons. There are plenty of bullets out there that can be loaded in a 5.56 that have much better terminal ballistics then the current issue ammunition.