.223 revisited
I feel compelled to write that while I very much agree with what is written in the ".223 history" by He Dog and Iconoclast as accurate, I am compelled to disagree that it(M-16 and .223 Rem) should have then, now, or ever be(been) the main battle rifle of our military.
I, also, am compelled to say that what David Hughes leaves out of his book, which most of the essay is based upon is that better calibers and better rifles have gone by the wayside due to tricky politics and out and out skullduggery. Curtis Lemay pushed going with the M-16 and led the way with the program even though he was totally out of his realm in experience of what was needed. He needed better training, not a new rifle system.* But at the time he held the majority of the purse strings for the military due to the Air Force's preeminent position within the defense establishment.
In other posts we have read that the M14 had "teething" problems. This is where Eugene Stoner came in from Armalite and introduced his rifle. Historically this is accurate, and, combined with the mindset of the time that "Whatever the government researched and found out must be true," ...must be true. That being that the .21/22 caliber was expected to cause 250% of the casualties that a .30-06 could because it tumbled, danced, followed bones from the shoulder to 'out of the foot', and broke apart at the cannelure for massive fragmentation. I always say that if you leave statistics out, that being the massive recounts from Viet Nam and Grenada, Panama, Mogadishu and both Gulf wars(Afghanistan included) that the .223 tends to penetrate through the body and leave very little damage, of course it will be true. Plain and simple, there is a minimum of what bullet diameter will transfer energy to the target and the .223 is too small. I prefer to have "teething" problems than being "toothless." Along that line we are still working out the bugs with the M-16. It has had a lot more teething problems than the M-14. And, the M-14 has proven more accurate all the way out to 1000 yds.
In the first paragraph of ".223 History" it is mentioned that no battle has ever been decided by 300 yds. or more. The battles of Balleau Wood, San Juan Hill, (the siege of Bastogne(Battle of the Bulge) and most of the trench warfare in WWI averaged 400 yds between opposing sides. Many battles in WWII were fought at more than 500 yds. The only truth to the Army findings was that aimed fire during combat depreciates noticeably at all ranges but more pronounced beyond 300 meters. Another one to look at is Operation Anaconda. In that battle American troops left the helicopters only to be pinned down by Mujahadeen/Al Queda that were firing Ak-47's. The 10th Mountain division remained pinned throughout the battle until Al Queda fighters relinquished their positions. This is the epitome of why we need to get a rifle capaple of firing into troops in the open up to 1000 yds.
The point in all this is aimed fire with a rifle that will reach 1000 yds., at troops en masse, is what is needed not a lightweight rifle system in which only special match configurations will reach 600 yds. that isn't reliable.
Again, this post isn't meant to be a personal attack on either Iconoclast nor He Dog. The facts presented in their essay were given by published authorities. It's just that those sources fail to mention the M-16's continuing problems and shortcomings in not only our choice of rifle but our military doctrine as well.
We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
I, also, am compelled to say that what David Hughes leaves out of his book, which most of the essay is based upon is that better calibers and better rifles have gone by the wayside due to tricky politics and out and out skullduggery. Curtis Lemay pushed going with the M-16 and led the way with the program even though he was totally out of his realm in experience of what was needed. He needed better training, not a new rifle system.* But at the time he held the majority of the purse strings for the military due to the Air Force's preeminent position within the defense establishment.
In other posts we have read that the M14 had "teething" problems. This is where Eugene Stoner came in from Armalite and introduced his rifle. Historically this is accurate, and, combined with the mindset of the time that "Whatever the government researched and found out must be true," ...must be true. That being that the .21/22 caliber was expected to cause 250% of the casualties that a .30-06 could because it tumbled, danced, followed bones from the shoulder to 'out of the foot', and broke apart at the cannelure for massive fragmentation. I always say that if you leave statistics out, that being the massive recounts from Viet Nam and Grenada, Panama, Mogadishu and both Gulf wars(Afghanistan included) that the .223 tends to penetrate through the body and leave very little damage, of course it will be true. Plain and simple, there is a minimum of what bullet diameter will transfer energy to the target and the .223 is too small. I prefer to have "teething" problems than being "toothless." Along that line we are still working out the bugs with the M-16. It has had a lot more teething problems than the M-14. And, the M-14 has proven more accurate all the way out to 1000 yds.
In the first paragraph of ".223 History" it is mentioned that no battle has ever been decided by 300 yds. or more. The battles of Balleau Wood, San Juan Hill, (the siege of Bastogne(Battle of the Bulge) and most of the trench warfare in WWI averaged 400 yds between opposing sides. Many battles in WWII were fought at more than 500 yds. The only truth to the Army findings was that aimed fire during combat depreciates noticeably at all ranges but more pronounced beyond 300 meters. Another one to look at is Operation Anaconda. In that battle American troops left the helicopters only to be pinned down by Mujahadeen/Al Queda that were firing Ak-47's. The 10th Mountain division remained pinned throughout the battle until Al Queda fighters relinquished their positions. This is the epitome of why we need to get a rifle capaple of firing into troops in the open up to 1000 yds.
The point in all this is aimed fire with a rifle that will reach 1000 yds., at troops en masse, is what is needed not a lightweight rifle system in which only special match configurations will reach 600 yds. that isn't reliable.
Again, this post isn't meant to be a personal attack on either Iconoclast nor He Dog. The facts presented in their essay were given by published authorities. It's just that those sources fail to mention the M-16's continuing problems and shortcomings in not only our choice of rifle but our military doctrine as well.
We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
0
-
im with you on this, give them ar-10's. it is 308 caliber and can get them at 1000 yards. on the other hand, the point of battle is to injure rather than kill. if you wound an enemy, it takes 2 people to remove them from the battlefield so in essence for each person you injure, you are at least temporarily removing 3 men from the battlefield. this is probably not true of the heathens we are fighting now, but civilized enemies try to get their wounded off the field. also the 223 is a better long range cartridge than the 7.62x39. UMC has their metal case 223, probably the closest thing i can quickly reference, dropping 11" at 300 yards. a comparison to 7.62x39 UMC metal case has it dropping 24.5" at 300 yards. granted the 7.62x39 has 225 more ft lbs of energy. as for the 10th mountain division being pinned, it probably had more to do with the enemy holding the high ground, than their weapons. it is elementary military science that says whoever holds the high ground has the advantage. i recall one ww1 battle where the USMC was firing on german positions from 600-750 yards out with the springfield 03's with devastating precision. the germans had never had any other opposition hail massed accurate fire from those distances. well regardless, the 22 caliber miltary round is here to stay.
I'm not an expert, but i did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.0 -
I am the editor of the peice penned by Iconoclast, and military rifles are certainly not my primary interest, nor do I claim any expertice whatever.
That said, as a matter simply of rational thought, I note this from Teaks essay: "Army research and analysis of casualties in WW 2 revealed that most small arms wounds were sustained at relatively short range, typically 100 yards or less and becoming negligible at ranges above 300 yards." If that is correct, and I have no reason to believe it is not, I would have to question the rational for a rifle with a thousand yard capability. Such a rifle might be useful for snipers and extremely skilled marksmen, but I doubt the average shooter, including the average infantryman is a serious threat at 1,000 yards. Iconoclast might well disagree with me, and likely will when he finds this thread.0 -
sandwarrior,
I truly appreciate your insightful comments. I hope you don't mind if I respond. You've taken me to task - legitimately - for not interjecting my opinion in one case and doing so in another.
(1) On the effectiveness of the 5.56 / AR15 as the primary small arms system for our infantry (and because of our influence, NATO), I completely, absolutely agree with you. LeMay and McNamara took this ball and shoved it down the military's throat. Having politicians or a USAF Lt. General determine the needs of the grunts for shoulder arms is as insane as having an E1 evaluate aircraft design. Whether or not the 7.62 / M14 was *the* answer is open to debate, but the record clearly shows the smaller system was & is not. National pride aside, the 7.62x39 / AK-47 system has shown itself to be the paradigm of such weapons systems and there have been others - the .276 Pedersen, 7mm CBB NATO candidate and now the 6.8 SPC which - JMO - were / are better cartridge designs for this purpose. The current system is not a complete failure, but it is far from optimum. That is my opinion, FWIW, and I suspect we are pretty much in agreement, but I did not interject this into the essay.
(1a) As a side note on the topic of doctrine, I am on thin ice, but it seems to me a mix of weapons in a given unit would be preferable to a single chambering. I realize there are considerations of compatibility, supply, etc., but as you noted, there *are* situations in which longer range weapons are an absolute necessity. By the same token, however, given the nature of concealment and cover in combat, there are not many environments where a 1000 yard shot, or even one at 400 yards, will be presented with any frequency. The barren ground of Afghanistan is an exception to the wooded, jungle or urban environments which have involved our military for most of the last century.
(2) On the distance issue, I should have left my opinion out of the essay but I have to disagree. While you are correct that the forces involved in the battles cited were engaged at these distances, the shoulder weapons were not the decisive factors in the battles at those distances, particularly the trench warfare of WW I. Aside from snipers, artillery and machine guns were the weapons engaging the opposing forces at the 400 yard range and because of them, the infantry kept their heads down until it the moment arrived to go "over the top." When the time comes to take the ground and hold it, the infantry does the job - no one else can - but the majority of the casualties inflicted by US forces in modern times have come from explosives - artillery, armor and airborne - with small arms almost always coming into play at far shorter ranges at the final stage of the battles. In that sense, the infantry engagement is the decisive moment and often in fact decides the battle, but rarely at 300 plus yards. Does that mean our forces don't need the capability to engage at those distances? Obviously not. But it has been and will remain a relatively rare circumstance when that capability will be the decisive factor.
One more injection of personal opinion . . . . I've never seen it in print, but my gut feeling is that there were really two movements here which were entirely at odds with little possibility of compromise / cooperation. The traditionalists were firmly wedded to a .30 caliber cartridge - and certainly they had some really good points - while the ones committed to an entirely new approach were dedicated to the .22 and tumbling bullets - and they had good points (at least in theory) as well. Although there were also two unique American .25 designs, one by FA & one by WRA in addition to the other "midsize" cartridge types cited above, these didn't progress beyond the initial evaluation and otherwise the middle range was largely ignored as there was not much support for such a design between the two contending theoretical approaches. I've always thought the M14 in .276 Pedersen would have been damn near ideal and perhaps something in 6.8 is where we will find ourselves down the road.
Kirk - if this thread goes 10+, please move it to the General Board.
"There is nothing lower than the human race - except the french." (Mark Twain)0 -
Iconoclast, He Dog, Bperdue,
I do appreciate you all posting in return on this subject very much. I posted this a little tongue in cheek myself not wanting to take you to task on the subject but rather to point out that the champions of this cause generally won't acknowledge the other sides qualities, along with their own drawbacks. I'm very glad to hear your views. Many former veterans stand back in astonishment of weapons research and procurement projects and wonder a) Why we have so much money to spend on weapons projects that are either not practical at the individual soldier level or totally impractical in theory at any level.
and b) why we continue to go back to the weapons/calibers that didn't work for us in the past and get rid of the ones that did. Lastly, c) why this goes on when the Army (at least) needs the money in other areas. There were and are viable weapons systems on the market and money continues to go for the "double projectile joke", or the rack of multiple firing bullets that no one can carry anywhere. R&D is necessary but sometimes I wonder when some entity in congress should step in and say No more money for some of these fallacies.
To me, this hearkens back to the 6.5 Grendel post I was so interested in. Here is a mid-sized round with capable knockdown...notice I said knockdown, not killing power, out to 1000 yds. I agree that aimed shots with iron sights of most any type of rifle are going to be very hard to make at ranges beyond 300 yds., especially in combat. However, well aimed shots into a position area has a lot of effect on the enemy. The M-16 will put effective fire on a target out to 600m but if it hits someone the effectiveness of the 62 gr. bullet is gone past 350m. The 6.5 will provide knockdown all the way out past 1000 yds. By saying we need an effective rifle at 1000 yds. I don't mean that each soldier should be carrying a sniper rifle. I mean a rifle with good, durable battle sights, chambered in a cartridge capable of doing what I mention above at 1000 yds.
Also, Belleau Wood was decided by small arms fire, although if you were to count all the battles fought in the Spanish American War, WWI and WWII most were decided by weaponry heavier than the individual firearm. That doesn't mean that our troops can't be more proactive at farther ranges when assaulted or assaulting. This is exactly what we are finding out in Afghanistan and to a lesser degree, Iraq. That what we need is a longer range personal weapon.
BTW the asterisk was referring to Lemay's tour in Korea when he found dead Air Force personnel with the wrong ammunition for the weapon they were carrying. I forgot to put the footnote in. A clear sign that what he didn't have was training in the right place, not the wrong weapons. On second thought they had M2 Carbines...not a good weapon to make a defensive stand with.
Again, thank you for your return posts
We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>0 -
Yup. Talk with the guys coming back from Iraq. The .223 doesn't stop anything beyond 200 yards without multiple hits. Also, the 9mm handgun doesn't stop anything ..... period. 0 -
Barrett M468 ... proposed.
Here's something interesting that might be related in the not too distant future ... maybe.
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html0 -
ZipperZap,
I was very glad to hear about the 6.8 when if first came out. The great thing was it was initiated by the guys who've "been there, done that." I have friends in both Afghanistan and Iraq who are using it and say it is a lot better than the .223. A number of them though have also carried the refurbed M-14's brought out of war stock and re-stocked with the lightweight synthetic stocks. The general consensus with those was when ever on a long foot patrol the ammo got really heavy really fast....not to mention it weighed on their minds that they only had 400 rds. instead of 800+.
All this being said I have to say that my .223 in a Savage 12fv is my most accurate rifle and one of my favorites. Also, it has a lot more range than did my .222 (Win HB). Due to the tighter twist and bigger case capacity. I'm sure I would have owned a .222 Rem Mag had I not bought a .223 though. It's a great varmint cartridge, just not a good military cartridge.
We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>0 -
I think this is a very interesting topic for discussion, but I will have to disagree with some points and agree with others that have been posted here.
Iconoclast brought out several good points in his post concerning tactics in the battles mentioned. In several of the battles, the engagement ranges would make it seem that a more powerful and longer ranged cartridge would have been benificial, but I have my doubts. Attacking uphill, against a dug in position while fully exposed is one of the worst possible ways to take ground from the enemy, and more than rifle fire is needed to carry the assault. Modern Combined Arms tactics dictate that other, larger weapons be used to kill or wound the majority of the enemy force before the assault phase begins and the Infantry moves forward under support fire from the weapons platoon or squad.
Close Air Support (CAS), artillery, mortars and heavy machine gun fire are all used when available. The primary problem during Operation Anaconda was that no organic heavy weapons were available because the units involved did not bring them. Thats right, the company mortars, MK-19 grenade launchers, and M2HB machine guns that these units normally rely on for their own supporting fires were all left behind. "No probelem" said the head shed, "We have Apache's".
When the troops were delivered into the horseshoe shaped Sha-i kot valley via CH-47, they were surrounded by dug in enemy positions on three sides. This forced our soldiers to attempt a battle uphill against an entrenched enemy with superior firepower. The enemy poured mortars, light artillery, 14.5mm heavy machine gun and RPG fire onto the 10th Mountain and 101st positions. Almost as soon as the battle began, 4 of the 8 Apache gunships took heavy damage from the 14.5mm machine guns and were forced to return to Bagram airfield. I doubt if a company armed with M-14's would have had any better luck. Perhaps a few .50BMG rifles (like the Canadians used) and some .338 Lapua's would have helped, but more on that later.
My main point concerning the battle of Sha-i kot is that Battalion and Division level blunders were made during the planning of this operation and different rifles in the hands of the troops would have made no difference in the overall outcome.
Getting back to te issue of 5.56mm rifles, I tend to think that one point of confusion exists between the different types of 5.56mm/.223 ammunition and the weapons that fire this round. I have stated several times on this forum, that the wounding capacity of the 5.56mm is very dependant on the rifling twist of the barrel it is fired from. In almost every discussion of the wounding power of military rifles, the issue of rifling twist is seldom if ever discussed. Because the military is forced to use an FMJ type of bullet instead of an expanding or fragmenting hollow point type, finding ways to deliver the energy from a bullet into soft tissue presents a difficult set of problems.
Most people will argue the 5.56mm overpenetrates and does not create a sufficient wound channel to "knock down" an enemy combatant. With the 62 grain M855 ammo fired from a 1 turn in 7 twist barrel, this is true, BUT when the 55 grain M-193 ammo is fired through a 1 turn in 12 twist barrel, we have a very good killer. Why the difference? Because when a bullet, ANY bullet is overstabilized by a very fast rifling twist of 1 in 7 or 1 in 5, it will penetrate very well, but will not leave anything other than an icepick type would. Straight in, straight out. If that same bullet is fired in a barrel having a slower twist rate, the bullet tends to be less stable and will yaw sideways when it strikes, producing a drastically different wound track. I have conducted hundreds of tests with the 5.56mm and other rounds at my local ranges and I have proven to myself that rifling twist is the key to wounding power with FMJ type bullets.
I know there are several members here at GB that will read this post and tell me to lay off the crack pipe, but before you discount my post and suggest every soldier should be issued an AR-10 in 7.62, try these experiments.
First, a very basic experiment with a childs top. You know, the kind you had as a child and spun with a length of string. Take the top and spin it as fast as you can. Now try to knock it down or deflect it in any way. Almost impossible isnt it? Because the top is gyroscopically stable, just like a bullet fired from a fast twist barrel, it will stay point up. When the same top slows down, it becomes less stable and can be knocked over easily and when it slows enough, it will fall over on its own. Bullets fired from slow twist barrels are no different. The tumbling bullet is not theory, but easily proven fact.
Fire 7.62mm 150 grain M80 ball ammo from two barrels of the same length, one that has a 1 turn in 7 twist rifling and one that has a 1 turn in 14 twist. I know that these twists are not standard in .30 cal, but they can be had and they serve very well to prove my argument. As many experienced target shooters already know, the slower twist barrel will not fully stabilize the bullet and it may actually tumble after a very short distance, but the bullet from the fast twist barrel will be overstabilized and difficult to deflect from its path. Place the soft tissue target of your choice at 100 meters and fire away. You can shoot wet clay, ballistic gellatin, a nice rump roast, live goats, layered sheets of wet newspaper, or whatever you have that will allow you to compare soft tissue damage.
You will find the same thing that I did and the same thing that ballistic labs all over the world have discovered. The bullet fired from the faster twist barrel passes straight through leaving only a small narrow wound channel, while the same bullet fired out of the 1 turn in 14 twist barrel yawed sideways after about 4-6 inches of penetration and left a large hole, especially on exit. If large bones are struck, the results can be even more traumatic.
If one were only exposed to the testing of the 7.62mm M80 ammunition fired in a very fast twist barrel, one would be forced to the conclusion that it is not a good killer, but instead would only wound the enemy. We all know that this is not true, but given the results of the test with the weapon and ammunition provided, it would be very factual. I have always maintained that the bad rap that the 5.56 has from Somalia and other battles is caused by the M855 62 grain ammo and the 1 in 7 twist, NOT simply the small caliber. The 5.56 55 grain M193 and the 6.8SPC 115 grain bullets fired in 1/10 or 1/12 twist barrels are BOTH very good and I would feel comfortable fighting with either of them. This is what the Infantry needs 99% of the time, so I think we should stick with it.
As He Dog pointed out, infantry battles at distances over 300 meters are rare and when they do take place, rifle fire is not usually the deciding factor. Also, any changes we make to provide the infantry with longer range firepower usually detracts from his ability to fight at closer ranges, such as urban or jungle environments.
Volley fire from rifles is not a good idea in my book, but if we are really pressed for this because of a lack of organic heavy weapons support, 2 belt fed 7.62 machine guns would be far better than a rifle squad expending its ammo to try to accomplish the same thing. If we really got down to strict military doctrine, CAS in the form of A-10 Thunderbolts with buttloads of 500lb boms and 30mm cannon fire would make long range rifle fire on the part of the average infantryman unnecissary, but as we have seen, you cant always count on the head shed to look out for you.
When we move on to the subject of larger calibers and longer ranges, I applaud the U.S.M.C. for the forsight they have shown with the designated marksman program. In some units, an M-14 or M-21 is provided, but in some others an M-16A2 or the Match type SPR is used. This is actually very similar to the Soviet doctrine of supplying an SVD or M-91/30 to one or two soldiers in each platoon. These were usually the more skilled shooters and they are normally ordered against selected targets at greater distances. They are not snipers in the strictest sense, because they are not trained or deployed in that role, but instead they support the company, platton or squad in both the assault and defense. The only change I would make to the concept would be to provide one VERY long range rifle at company level such as the .338 Lapua, the 408 Cheytach or possibly the .50BMG Barret M-99.
I hope you find my post interesting and not above the comprehension of most non military folks here at GB. I tried to keep it simple yet factual.
"Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the Orient, that fanatacism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate a Muslim from his religion is the best service one can render him."
-E. Renan0 -
skydiver386,
Great post skydiver! I will go with the fact that a slower bullet is much more susceptable to gyroscopic precession, therefore causing a better wound channel. However, I still maintain that a larger diameter bullet more easily tranfers energy to the intended target That is what I consider important. Even though the more erratic wound channel does transfer more energy to the target than does the highly stabilized bullet causing a straight wound. I will also go with the fact that the head shed doesn't think things through before sending people out to do a job. Integral heavy support(sustainable) always needs to be on the battlefield. I also, at this juncture, want to clear up the issue of how many battles are decided by rifle fire. Battles are not necessarliy decided by rifle fire but in each case it makes a difference whether or not they can reach out. In the case of the Shah-i-kot Valley many people felt like they were shooting squirt guns at visible enemy. It was more the fact that rounds dropped off so fast. Had we had 7.62's it might not have been any better maybe even worse as the volume of ammunition would/could have been expended sooner with resupply difficult. I am in favor of lightening the load like the 5.56 was intended to do. In other words rifle range is a relative supporting factor. In the case of machine guns we get back to ammunition expenditure. for long range engagement it will keep the enemy's head down. One squad in support of another can do the same thing with better aim into the target area less revealing of position and way less expenditure of ammunition. I do like the idea of a heavy long range weapon being with each company. Although, the military is finding out that the .50BMG is a load to pack and it has ruined some of the guys we train to shoot it. I like the idea of the .338 Lapua. The British snipers use these with recoil absorbant stocks and muzzle brakes to very good long range effect. Maybe we need to look at stock design and better muzzle brakes to make these support weapons more effective. However, The point I am making is that better long range weapons bigger in diameter than the 5.56 with less weight and recoil than the 7.62 will make a difference.
Also, I'm thinking here, it helps to see what perspective an individual is coming from. My experience was as a light infantryman. We had to pack everything in. We did not have the luxury of laying down massive firepower that regular and armored infantry have. Anyone up on or behind enemy lines knows what this is like. We also trained constantly on calling in fire...we knew we couldn't go it alone but had to sometimes. I would say that this makes me a little more jaded in finding a median round to change up to and a rifle(going back that subject) that has gotten better but the one we had before I think was better. Thanks again for the post.
We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
9 comments