Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The .45 with better ammo i.e. the FNTC (Hornady makes it) has far more knockdown power than the 9mm FMJ & still meets the Hague Convention requirements.

Posted by Frantic Freddie at June 27, 2006 06:47 PM

Maybe we need to purchase some AK-47s as well as Soyuz. A comment to the linked article asserts western private contractors often use the AK-47.

Posted by Bill White at June 27, 2006 06:48 PM

I have never been able to figure out why we don't make an all service rifle based around the 7.62 round. That way when we are in these foreign countries, in an imperial status, we can use the rounds we find stashed around the entire country.

When my son was in Iraq as a Marine combat engineer, he spent days on end destroying artillery shells, mortar rounds, RPGs, but mostly 7.62 Nato rounds. He was working along side a group of civilian contractors from the U.K. who did munitions destruction for a living. The Brits told my son that they had destroyed 500,000 rounds of 7.62, full metal jacket, standard issue, NATO amunition. That was over 2 years ago, they are still working to destroy rounded up ammo.

If we were using the same size rounds as the majority of the world, we could be shooting a better and more powerful round and it would be FREE!!

That's why we don't do it, the American Fedral Government would cease to exist if we saved 50 bucks, instead of spending 200.

Posted by Steve at June 27, 2006 06:58 PM

Er... the guy who discussed how hard it was to kill a boar was referring to using a 9mm pistol, not an M-16 variant. And note the guy who later mentioned how his partner shot a boar with a 50-cal and it still ran 50 feet before it died. If that story is true, then the point is that a boar is very hard to kill, not that the US military is underarmed.

There's a lot of other BS comments on that site. The reason that the US Army switched to the M-15 and its 5.56mm ammo is that it allowed the troops to carry more ammunition and fire more rounds. An AK-47 is a heavy weapon with a heavy round. It is very reliable, but once you run out of bullets, you have a very effective club.

Posted by Steve Infield at June 27, 2006 07:10 PM

The 7.62x39 Combloc and 7.62x51 NATO are not compatible interchangable cartirdges.

The problem is not with the M-16, it is with the Euro designed SS109 projectile in the M855 round when fired from the short barreled M-4.

The M-193 was a very good round.

The Mk262Mod1 is an outstanding round.

The M855 is a mediocre round.

BTW Bill, the Russians no longer use the 7.62x39 AK-47/AKM as a front line weapon. They long ago went to the AK-74 and the micro calibe 5.45x39mm ammo.

BTW, shooting for the upper torso is good advice as under stress, soldiers tend to pull the shots lower anyway.

For more reference on this subject:

www.ammo-oracle.com

I have an excellent PDF from Crane NSW on this subject that I will post a link to if I can find it again. It was very authoritative, an excellent piece.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 27, 2006 07:23 PM

Steve

Have you ever fired an M16-A2 and AK-47 comparatively?

The M16 is still a plastic Mattel toy. The AK is a much better weapon and has much more penetration power.

Also, modern light caliber weapons fired on full auto don't climb like the Tommy gun did. I have shot many full auto weapons and most of them don't climb uncontrollably.

The Mac-10 Room broom is a lot of fun to shoot on full auto and the Uzi is the best all around for short range activities.

A Tommy gun on full auto with a 50 round drum mag is heaven, even if it does climb.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at June 27, 2006 07:26 PM

"Steve

Have you ever fired an M16-A2 and AK-47 comparatively?

The M16 is still a plastic Mattel toy. The AK is a much better weapon and has much more penetration power."

And did you not read my post as to how the Soviets have long ago abandoned the AK-47/AKM and the 7.62x39mm Cartridge and went to a round very similar to the 5.56?

I have shot a full auto example of almost every Kalashnikov including the AK-47, AKM and the AK-74 up to the belt fed PKM.

The AK-47 is not very controlable on Full auto. The 74 is much better due to its smaller caliber and the very effective (and loud, no free lunch) muzzle brake.

I have also shot full auto examples of the full length M-16 series as well as the M-4 carbine derivative.

I prefer the M-4 series over any Kalashnikov, particularly one running an MGI Rate Reducing buffer. This setup beats even the 74 for controlibility.

PS the Thompson climbs so bad becuase of its stock being way below the bores axis. the dropped stock of the tommy gun provides a greater moment arm.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 27, 2006 07:47 PM

The bigger-is-better disease is eating on the mind of the American shooting community like cancer.

The M-16 was a far superior weapon system to M-14, and is much better than AK-47 (which is why Russians adopted 5.45mm AK-74).

Katzman is full of shit in several places - basically everywhere where he doesn't suck on the joint of misty-eyed doddering old-timers who quote Patton.

For example, his understanding of wound ballistic is nil. The 5.56mm bullet tumbles when it's FASTER than 820 m/s, whereas he writes "The 5.56mm round tumbles and fragments when it slows to 2,700 feet per second." What he writes is the entirely opposite to the truth.

Saying that SAW was the reason to introduce the 62gr bullet is retarded. It was introduced years before SAW existed.

The M193 chambers and fires in A2 just fine. The longer bullet sits deeper inside the case! I have to wonder who told him this crap. The reason not to do it has to do with the round's performance.

Just look, the guy discusses the performance of the 5.56mm round without mentioning the move from M-16 to M-4 and implications of the shorter barrel.

I can't believe he'd throw his credibility to the wind just like that. I have to wonder if he shot anyone with an AR-15, ever.

Posted by Pete Zaitcev at June 27, 2006 10:52 PM

I also find it quite ironic that the so-called "M-16 debacle in Vietnam" was manufactured by the very same MSM, which is so despised now for its lies and anti-american partisanship. It's just another Jenin Massacre. MSM was all to eager to jump on the teething problems of a new weapon system and spent quite a bit of effort publicising letters from the front which reported the issues. Thus the enduring legacy of bullshit was created, and the outstanding combat effectiveness of M-16 was besmirched and hidden from public consciousness.

Posted by Pete Zaitcev at June 27, 2006 11:26 PM

Dennis,
I have indeed fired both of those rifles and rounds. I own an SKS. I prefer the AK /SKS type round.

The fact that the Russians went to a new round doesn't change my opinion. The Russians and the Chinese spent 50 years selling and giving away the SKS and AK-47. They supplied them to every petty tyrant or warlord or radical nut case they thought would stand up to us and listen to them.

The 7.69 x 39 is the most produced round in history, in the billions. It is the McD's of bullets. It has a superior history of killing and maiming American and coalition troops in countries world wide. We can literally pick them up off the ground and use them in most of the countries we go to.

The old arguement that the M-16 allowed troops to carry more ammo is silly. They can carry more, but thy use more too! If you can carry more but use more, where is the payoff? We vey rarely if ever walk to a battle anymore, so concern over how much troops can cary over a long distance seems a false doctrine. That part of my argument I get from my son the Marine, and reading and talking to my sons friends and other guys we know who have been there.

I just don't understand why we don't go to those "foreign" rounds. It sometimes looks to me that our government and military go to "new" weapons, or weapons systems, simply to keep the inovators working. I don't think we need to be shooting the Kentucky long rifle because they were a superior weapon at one time, but the thinking that goes on in the Pentagon baffles me. It baffled me when I was in the militry and it still does.

My entire argument rests on my opinion and personal experience. As does everyone elses.

Posted by Steve at June 28, 2006 03:59 AM

Katzman is full of shit in several places...

Without getting to the merits of your criticism, it was Donald Sensing, not Joe Katzman.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 28, 2006 05:35 AM

Again to those not paying attention, a question:

If the 7.62x39 is so shit hot good, why did the Soviet Union abandon it?

The simple fact it is the 7.62x39 with the poor stopping reputation.

Google on Fackler and Stockton for more info.

Not to mention all the Soldiers in Somolia who continued to fight with multiple 7.62 wounds.

This whole 5.56mm caliber controversy is nothing but a giant example of selection bias. When the 7.62x39 fails, it is written of as a fluke because its a large caliber. Whan a 5.56 fails, it is cited as evidence it is too small.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 28, 2006 05:54 AM

The Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center PDF on 5.56mm prefrmance I promsed. If everyone reads this, they will be far more informed on the subject.

http://savefile.com/projects.php?pid=543926

5.56 Ammo info , the one on the bottom, is the correct download.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 28, 2006 05:58 AM

Given a choice between 7.62*39 and 5.56*45 I’ll take 5.56, it is a moderately better "hitting" round and it is inherently more accurate in any given weapon. 7.62*39 has good mass at about 120 gr but it has poor muzzle velocity. 5.56 has great muzzle velocity but poor mass (55-60 gr). The 5.56 is great at close rang where it’s velocity remains high but at longer ranges when the velocity drops off the tiny bullet loose most of its kinetic energy.

I believe a better choice, as a happy medium between 5.56 and full size 7.62 NATO would be something with a bullet weight of around 100gr and a case that hold enough powder to push it along at around 3000 fps at the muzzle. Something like the .25-06 Remington or similar. It would retain some of the benefits of a 5.56 in that it is lightweight enough for soldiers to carry a large amount of it with then while giving hitting power approaching the 7.62 NATO.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 28, 2006 09:04 AM

"I have never been able to figure out why we don't make an all service rifle based around the 7.62 round. That way when we are in these foreign countries, in an imperial status, we can use the rounds we find stashed around the entire country."

Even if we did use that round - we still wouldn't use those stashes. You don't bet your life on ammo you don't know the history of except in extremis.

Posted by Anon Mouse at June 28, 2006 11:16 AM

I'm not an armament expert, but I'll play along anyway. My understanding is that I can go to store and pick up ammunition for my AR-15, but I can't pick up the special "armor piercing" military grade rounds. These rounds are designed not to fragment but penetrate. So lets say I have a few of those rounds, and now am firing them with my high powered rifle... Who wouldn't expect those rounds to easily pass through an unarmored skinny person? These rounds are designed to shot through light armor like steel plates and kevlar. What is soft tissue going to do to a bullet like that?

The problem is we have weapons designed for a different style of combat. For the most part, the military has tried hard to rectify this problem with weapons variation and greater use of special forces with training in irregular combat. While these changes are occurring; I am unsurprised that a weapon designed to stop a Soviet supplied combat force is not optimal for stopping terrorists wearing light robes.

And I suspect that 7.62 round would have the same problems. Now a .50 caliber simply makes a big hole in anything.

Posted by Leland at June 28, 2006 12:52 PM

A lot of answers to these questions and postulates could be answered by simply downloading the document linked to in my previous posting or going to www.ammo-oracle.com

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 28, 2006 03:55 PM

Mr. Puckett: Excellent question you pose, on the Russian chocie to change to 5.56*45.

As I had occasion to note a couple of years ago:

"... I have been trying to retrieve a transcript of an interview Mr. Kalashnikov did with the History Channel, a year or so ago; haven’t had much success to date. The question of the 5.45 cartridge came up, and Kalashnikov was quite clear on his opinions… to wit: the Soviet union adopted the round because they thought the US must know something, since they kept using it. Kalashnikov thought it a bad idea at the time, given the round’s ballistics, but was overruled. ..."

It appears "Uncle Misha" had the same question. And no one ever answered it adequately.

(see: http://www.dedoc.net/?p=148#comment-168 for the link. I have yet to procure the transcript of that interview, though it's on my list of things to do for just such occasions as this.)

We have the testimony of two generations of warfighters as to the suitability of the 5.56 round... or lack thereof. We have the testimony of the SpecWar community, who procure weapons that fire larger caliber bullets at each and every chance they get. We have the very existence of the 6.8 SPC round, which was invented by a group of warfighters and shooters because they'd been there and done that and were unhappy with what the 5.56 actually did in the field -- theories and ballistic putty be damned.

And now we have the study which Mr. Dunnigan cites... a study which, to its credit, at least *acknowledges the problem that's been reported for decades*.

The study then goes on to make a classic REMF recommendation which sounds good when one's duty uniform is a labcoat.

When it comes to warfighting, I'll listen to the warfighters, thank you.

cordially, de Doc
//
W.S. Ernoehazy, Jr, MD
formerly LCDR MC USNR

Posted by De Doc at June 28, 2006 04:38 PM

"Mr. Puckett: Excellent question you pose, on the Russian chocie to change to 5.56*45."

Nit, you mean 5.45x39mm. Anyway...

Then perhaps you know Dr Gary K Roberts, a student of Fackler and prehaps the preeminent terminal ballistican currently in government employ. He is a major proponent of the 6.8 round. While I think it is a very ood round, I still believe the SCHV concept is basically a sound one for the reasons listed in the sources that I previously linked to.

In spite of Kalshinkovs opinions, he was an engineer, not a ballistician and they were mucking with his baby. The 5.45 garnered a reputation as a superior round even on the skiny Afghans during the Sov-Afghan war. The Afghanistanis nicknamed the 5.45 the 'poison' bullet due to its lethality.

All rounds are compromises and some are better at some things than others. Current doctrine is and carrectly so that volume of fire wins infantry engagements at the unit level. For that, the 5.56x45 and 5.45x39 are idealy suited as they are a good balance and large basic ad enhanced combat loads can be carried.

Speaking of the warfighters, I have yet to personally meet a High Speed Low Drag Operator, I.E someone with serous trigger time with the 5.56mm on the 'two-way' range, with a overall negative opinion of the 5.56mm. From MACV-SOG old salts to current Army SF and MEUSOC Operators.

Any caliber can fail to stop and any caliber an kill with one shot. The standard is does the 5.56mm do the job in the great majority of the cases? The answer is unquestionably yes. One can find anecdotal evidence of even larger calibers failing to stop or kill. There is a gentleman currently living and functioning who had about one half of his brain removed by a 7.7mm Jap round in hte South Pacific.

As I said before, when a large caliber fails, it is wirtten of as fluke. When a SCHV round fails, it is cited as evidence of its inadequacy. One must consider the whole picture lest selection bias reinforce our preconcieved notions.

How many examples can one cite of a serious engagement where an AK weilding force defeated an M-16 wielding one? Admittedely, there are usually other factors but I can say if such example exists, I have never encountered it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 28, 2006 08:32 PM

SCHV=Small Caliber, High Velocity.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 28, 2006 08:58 PM

Mike:

The plural of anecdote isn't evidence... a criticism which applies to me as well as thee.

*wry grin*

I've never met anyone who's been "out of the world and back again" who *liked* the 5.56 chambering. You say you've never met anyone of that ilk who *didn't* like the 5.56.

The interested onlooker would have to score that a draw.

That still leaves the recurring SOCOM requisitions for larger caliber rifles, the entire genesis of the 6.8 SPC project, and the Picatinny Arsenal report which was the inspiration for this post.

As to the question about AK users vs M16 users, and who wins those engagements?

The answer is simple enough...

The side who has superior C3I...
the side with superior tactics and combat doctrine...
the side with superior training and leadership...

All of which can clearly overcome the disadvantages imposed upon the superior force by a suboptimum choice of caliber for assault rifles.

cordially, de Doc

Posted by De Doc at June 28, 2006 09:03 PM

"The plural of anecdote isn't evidence... a criticism which applies to me as well as thee."

I understand that. Tagging things in my previous post as anecdote instead of labeling it as evidence for example.

Anectode is useful to help us ask the right questions but it is not terribly useful is achieving the final answer. I prefer something that can be repeated under controlled circumstances such as calibrated ballistic gelatin tests.

But, for an anecdote, I leave you with the mother of all 5.56mm vs the 7.62x39 Anecdotes.

"
Black Hills' Mk 262 Mod 1
How our improved 5.56 stacks up against its peers
By David Fortier
Photography: Emily Fortier

A specialized 5.56 load developed for use in the Mk 12 sniper rifle, the Mk 262 Mod 1 has proven very effective in combat.

"He arose, and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clave unto the sword: and the Lord wrought a great victory that day..."--II Samuel, 23:10

When a five-man Special Forces team looking for Scuds in Iraq ran into a reinforced Iraqi infantry company, the future looked grim for the Americans. Facing overwhelming odds, it was quickly decided that three men armed with sniper rifles would cover a hasty retreat back to the LZ. With these odds death--or worse--seemed certain.

Yet the ensuing firefight did not go as the Iraqis had planned. Rather than being overwhelmed, the three Americans instead put down a hail of highly accurate rifle fire. Advancing against this murderous wall, entire sections of Iraqi infantry were simply cut down. Screaming and rattling away with their Kalashnikovs on full auto, they were knocked from their feet by carefully aimed shots. When staggering losses finally broke their spirit, the surviving Iraqis either threw down their weapons or simply ran away. Scattered about lay the bodies of 167 of their comrades. The Iraqi dead lay in mute testimony to the Americans' tenacity and marksmanship skill.

With the criticism of poor terminal performance leveled by many on the 5.56x45, you would think those 167 Iraqis were cut down by 7.62mm M14s. Such was not the case. They fell to 5.56 Mk 12 sniper rifles firing 77-grain Mk 262 Open Tip Match ammunition. Developed to offer increased accuracy, range and improved terminal performance over the standard 62-grain M855 load, the Mk 262 has performed quite well in actual combat. This impressive combat record has stimulated a great deal of interest among civilian shooters, so we thought we'd take a look at this load and its Russian and Chinese counterparts.

The Mk 12 series of sniper rifles is capable of providing both precision fire and full-automatic support fire. It’s a surprisingly accurate weapon. The Mk 12 is a collection of parts assembled for the Navy and is not now for sale.

When work was undertaken on what was to eventually become the Mk 12 series of sniper rifles it was understood from the outset that a better 5.56 load would be needed. Standard M855 ball was deemed unsuitable due to its accuracy criteria. Manufacturing specifications for this load only require it to shoot into four MOA from 100 to 600 meters. For use at 600+ yards a projectile with a higher ballistic coefficient was desirable to reduce drop and wind drift. The question was how to make the 5.56 into a viable 600-plus-yard cartridge.

While competition shooters, or "yellow glasses," are often scorned by the tactical crowd, they laid the ground work in this regard. Loads using 75-, 77- and 80-grain HPBT match bullets began to dominate service-rifle competition in the late 1990s. One company that was at the forefront of loading extremely accurate and consistent 5.56 match was Black Hills Ammunition. Its 5.56 match was so good, from lot to lot, that it had contracts from all the armed forces rifle teams. This was quite a testimony to both Black Hills and its workers. So Black Hills was contacted about the specific needs and requirements the military had for this new 5.56 combat load.

Testing was undertaken using a variety of projectiles and powders, with the goal being enhanced accuracy and terminal performance at extended distances. At first a 73-grain Berger Open Tip Match bullet was selected, but this was later changed to a 77-grain Sierra MatchKing. Rather than being loaded to commercial .223 Remington pressures, this ammunition was loaded to higher 5.56 NATO pressures to enhance performance. The resulting load was very similar to match ammunition loaded for the Army Marksmanship Unit for use in competition.

The Mk 12's ammunition evolved and was eventually type-classified as Mk 262 Mod 0 and Mod 1. The primary difference between the two is the addition of a cannelure to the Mod 1 projectile to prevent bullet setback during feeding.

Both terminal performance and accuracy of this ammunition are markedly improved over M855 ball. Each lot is tested for accuracy by firing 10, 10-shot groups at 300 yards. The average group size is between two and two and a half inches. Due to the way the 77-grain Sierra MatchKing behaves in soft tissue, this load offers dramatically increased terminal performance compared to the M855--while still being Land Warfare-legal. The downside is that penetration is not as good as the M855 round.

Without a doubt, the Mk 262 Mod 1 has proven very effective in actual combat. It's capable of excellent accuracy out to 700+ yards if you can call the wind. Terminal performance is a noticeable step up from M855 ball. While it was originally intended for use in the Mk 12 series, its enhanced terminal performance has led to it being used in M4 carbines as well. Basically, it's a desirable commodity being used by whatever troops can get their hands on it.

The Mk 262 Mod 0/1 ammunition is based on lessons learned by competition shooters using the 5.56 at 600 yards."

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 28, 2006 09:27 PM

I am mildly surprising that shooting a 77gr bullet from an M-4 works (isn't it a 1:9 twist?). Shooting a 62gr bullet from an old 1:12 twist gun does not work. Here's a picture:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zaitcev/150181850/
But of course, if it does work, then it's great!

Posted by Pete Zaitcev at June 29, 2006 11:03 PM

Real military M-4's and M-16A2,A3(rare) and A4's are 1/7 twist. Some civie semi-auto knock off's use a 1/9 twist.

The MK12 SPRs mentioned above are 1/8 twist with a match barrel, proabally a Mike Rock.

A 1/9 may or may not stabilize a 77 grain round depending on ambi3nt temp and atmospheric density.

It might stabilize it on a warm day and not a cold one for example, like the reason for switching from a 1/14 to a 1/2 twist in the original M16.

The 1/7 twist was dictated to stabilize the very long M-856 SAW tracer. A 1/7 twist has sucessfully stabilized 100 grain 5.56mm projectiles in experiments.

It is bullet length and not weight that dictates the necessary twist to achieve the magic 1.3 or better stability predicted by Hatcher's formula.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 30, 2006 09:16 AM

Post a comment