M4, M16 and 5.56 NATO- A national disgrace?

[PinkhamR]

The .223 is still a very effective round at 50 to 100 yards ... 'nuff said

 

[NK777]

The .223 is still a very effective round at 50 to 100 yards ... 'nuff said

Which doesn't do them a damn bit of good while they walk the goat trails in afganistan while being fired on from an elevated position 200/300 yards away. 'nuff said!

 

[AIRASSAULT18B]

Any competent rifleman can accurately engage targets 200-300m. The group I served with could double that & triple if need be. The problem is all the REMFS & POGUES WHO HAVE NOT USED THE SYSTEM IN OPERATIONS READ AND WATCH REPORTS OF THE DEMISE OF OUR FAILED WEAPON SYSTEMS,OUR IMMANENT DEFEAT & THEY TAKE THIS AS THE TRUTH. I AM HERE TO TELL YOU FIRST HAND WHAT IS PRINTED IN THE PAPER & SHOWN ON TV IS LIKE A GRAIN OF SAND.Its meaningless. PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP . If you have not served & used the equipment in question you have no basis to judge. My MOS in the Army was 18B. For those of you who will question my experience. The majority of the posts I have read are opinion without experience & as the saying goes everybody has an opinion like the one on our backside.

 

[AIRASSAULT18B]

only the American military is stupid enough to go into battle unprepaired, i know the MODS most likely will delete this statement because the first ammendment here is not allowed, however, it feels good to know i was right from the begging, as was the one who initated this thread.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/25/army-outgunned-afghanistan/

Semper Fi

Who are you to call the American Military stupid? A person of low moral character or a under achiever while in the service? Not very American. Yes your right the MODS SHOULD DELETE THIS BS.

 

[Gunner3456]

the 5.56 round fired out of a short barrel M4 sucks. You guys talk about the 5.56 round fragmenting but that only happens at closer range out of a longer barrel. The shorter barrel do not produce the velocity period. It is a dumb choice! I'd love to see soldiers with standard issue 308.

What do you consider a short barrel? What's your definition of "sucks?" I chrony XM193 at +/- 3,000 fps from an M4 length (14.5") 1:9 twist, and +/- 3200 fps from an M16 length (20") same twist.

If the extra 200 fps were critical to me, I'd simply choose 20 inch barrels.

Our military and NATO don't have a standard issue .308 afaik. They issue 7.62 NATO, which is a wimpier round than .308. They'd still have to issue new guns and ammo for all of NATO to get .308 in standard use. Then there's the debate about # of rounds per pound to carry, and weight of the guns.

$.02

 

[NK777]

Why are some of you ex ground pounders so opposed to a larger caliber that you know would be a better choice? I am a Navy Vet so your right I do not pocess any combat experience with an M4 or 5.56. The caliber doesn't have to be 7.62 Nato/308, pick something inbetween that will give you the best of both worlds if you like but please quit worshipping a light high speed 22 caliber. 5.56 being as light as it is does drift horribly in the wind and dramaticlly loose energy. It also drasticly changes direction when encountering the slightest barrier.

I do not think our millitary is stupid and I'd never say that but this is definately an oversight especially in afganastan. Full auto 7.62 is generally to much recoil but three round burst are very effective. Again an intermediate caliber would probably be the best of both worlds. No I don't want to see our troops with AK47's and 7.62x39 because they are range limited because the bullet is to slow, but something like 6.8mm might just be the ticket.

 

[AIRASSAULT18B]

Why are some of you ex ground pounders so opposed to a larger caliber that you know would be a better choice? I am a Navy Vet so your right I do not pocess any combat experience with an M4 or 5.56. The caliber doesn't have to be 7.62 Nato/308, pick something inbetween that will give you the best of both worlds if you like but please quit worshipping a light high speed 22 caliber. 5.56 being as light as it is does drift horribly in the wind and dramaticlly loose energy. It also drasticly changes direction when encountering the slightest barrier.

I do not think our millitary is stupid and I'd never say that but this is definately an oversight especially in afganastan. Full auto 7.62 is generally to much recoil but three round burst are very effective. Again an intermediate caliber would probably be the best of both worlds. No I don't want to see our troops with AK47's and 7.62x39 because they are range limited because the bullet is to slow, but something like 6.8mm might just be the ticket.

If you are talking to me I am not a dirty nasty leg. I carried a M4 with a 203 as may secondary weapon instead of a pistol. My primary was a 50 so I think you know what my job was. I have no problem with medium to large caliber weapons. However the M4/m16 with 77gr-90gr BTHP as I stated earlier are lethal without question. They can come at me with a Ak47 or 74 or SVD. He will never hear the shot. Also I worship no one weapon system.

I am a Navy Vet so your right I do not pocess any combat experience with an M4 or 5.56. This is exactly what I talked about in my earlier post. If you have not been there & done that there is no weight in you comment or opinion.
I do appreciate you serving & will never belittle service to our fine country.

 

[NK777]

I do appreciate you serving & will never belittle service to our fine country.

As do I, appreciate your service to this country. My oppinion is as valid as yours. I feel 6.8mm would be a better caliber with very little advantage given up to the 5.56 You can still carry alot of it and use the same platform we currently use. Personally I think a 16" barrel minimum would be a better choice as well. I'm not to keen on the 14.5" M4's. Good for urban combat sure but out in the open a longer barrel will serve you very well.

 

[TheHossUSMC]

The Marine Corps standard rifle qualification course is shooting from the 200, 300 and 500 yard lines. The reason that the Marines are not interested in changing from the M16 in the standard full thickness 20 in barrel is twofold in my opinion.
1. 20in barrels will give you more muzzle velocity therefore making the rifle more accurate at long distances.
2. Marines always get the crap end of the stick when it comes to funding and m16s are plentiful. My issue M16 was looser than a thai working girl.

My AR is set up as a DS weapon for 100-200 yards. I own an AR-15 for a few reasons
1. Familiarity of platform
2. Availability of parts and ammo
3. Especially deadly and accurate at shorter ranges

That said I also own several AKs and would take them any day over an AR platform for almost any mission. I prefer my AKs for these reasons
1. Harder hitting/penetrating round at close range
2. Reliability
3. Ease of use for any users
4. Availability of parts and ammo
5. It wouldn't still be used by most militarys in the world if it didn't kick *** and was cheap.

If you have ever been in the military you would know that we don't "shoot to wound because it takes at least two out of the fight. I'm a Marine I shoot to kill. period. Besides that philosophy only really applies to fighting a standing army where they would actually stop and try to patch up their wounded. Most of these guys we are shooting today are not plentiful enough to wound and hopefully wait around till their help comes and wound them too. Most of the younger guys are just laying down bullet walls because we have so much damn ammo.
I remembered the other thing I was gonna say. Some dudes have said "you can carry more ammo with the 5.56. Well I'll be the first to say yes it is nice to have light ammo but not when your shooting guys who get up and run away after being hit. And I would also say my LBE was so damn heavy that a pound or two more, from heavier rounds, would not have made a difference for me. Weight is a serious issue, I know I carried the 240G, but you just deal with it. I got my nickname "The Hoss" because I was notorious for carrying a ton of weighty gear.
One little aside since it just crossed my mind, The 7.62 NATO is an awesome round. I could cut holes in concrete/brick/ mud walls with my 240G like a hot knife through butter. I would take a 240G over any of these other rifles. I would buy one in a heart beat if I could, but alas somehow machine guns made after 86' are somehow more dangerous and us lowly civilians cannot own them. What a bunch of 2nd amendment violating bullcrap.

 

[Bruce]

Posted by Blitzkrieg:
"So you know more about terminal ballistics than a forensic PHD?

Look at the graph again and read my earlier posts.. the M855 turns base backwards and disintegrates at about 7 inches of penetration. The "skinnies" in Somalia were thinner than that. A 7.62 NATO FMJ would have been no different, and would have simply punched a slightly bigger hole through. The US soldiers would also have run out of ammo sooner, IMO. I doubt it would have been more effective than the 5.56 for your Ranger buddies, either.."

I don't know where you get your info from Blitzkrieg but the "skinnies" have normal human bodies and are not thinner then 7 inches. Every native I saw in country was of normal body size and not some freakish size you have in-visioned. Especially since the warlords were controlling the food.
Also I would like to see you tell "my Ranger buddies" to their face why they were mistaken as to why the SS109 was not cutting it.

 

[NoAim]

Those pictures are deceptive.

Notice that they are fired at near maximum point blank velocity.

The stated fragmentation threshold is SOMETIMEs 2700fps for 62gr M855. Note that whether the round fragments varies substantially depending on bullet construction.

So, take an M4 with a 14.5' barrel. The average velocity of M855 is 2900fps. Using some basic ballistic calculations you reach the 2700fps number in 50 yards. So within 50 yards, the round MIGHT fragment. Afterwards you're shooting a standard FMJ type round with the usual effects.