[tapehoser]

Yahoo! Article

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. - The military is reviewing soldiers' complaints that their standard ammunition isn't powerful enough for the type of fighting required in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army's highest-ranking officer said Thursday.

But Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said it was too soon to say whether the Pentagon will switch.

Current and former soldiers interviewed by The Associated Press said the military's M855 rifle rounds are not powerful enough for close-in fighting in cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking with reporters at a conference in Huntsville, Casey said leaders are constantly soliciting feedback from soldiers in the field and were aware of complaints about the M855 ammunition.

"To effectively prepare them we have to adapt as the enemy adapts, and that is some of the feedback we have gotten," Casey said. "We'll evaluate it quickly and then we'll decide how we want to proceed."

But Casey said it would be premature to say if the Pentagon will consider a different type of ammunition.

"I can't tell you exactly what we're going to do," he said.

The M855 rounds were designed decades ago to puncture the steel helmets of Soviet soldiers from hundreds of yards away. Some soldiers said that they are not large enough to stop an enemy immediately in close quarters.

Casey said the military has been evaluating its equipment and practices since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

"Technology is pulling us, and what we're learning on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is pushing us," he said.

Maybe the AR10 will become more common? Something a with a little more oomph is needed!

 

[Paul]

We need ammosargent to speak up on this issue!!!

 

[MarshallDodge]

I think a soft point or similar bullet would work better in that situation but I think that all they are allowed to use is a full metal jacketed round.

 

[tapehoser]

Actually, I know several marines that say they used hollow-points in their AR's while in Iraq.

 

[MarshallDodge]

Actually, I know several marines that say they used hollow-points in their AR's while in Iraq.

This could be true. I just thought that since the Geneva convention prohibits the use of anything other than FMJ then that is what they have to use. Maybe since it is not a war but a "policing" effort that they can use whatever they want. I would be happy with the 60-75 grain Hornady V-Max loaded to max velocity. I am pretty sure that is what is used in the TAP ammo.

 

[marksman]

This is a little off topic but it wasn't actually the Geneva convention that setup rules concerning using hollow point rounds it was the Hague Convention of 1899. That's a common misconception.

 

[marksman]

And note that the obligation is only binding if the conflict is between two contracting parties. So if the bad guys don't follow the rules then neither do we.

 

[MarshallDodge]

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Guest]

OTM is now allowed as it has been judged as not intended to cause grievous or inhumane wounds. Could that be the HP rounds used by your friends in Iraq?

 

[Outsider]

I just read an article in Tactical Weapons - May 2008 about making a switch from the NATO 5.56x45mm and 9mm to the FN (Five-seveN) 5.7x28mm. "This PDW round was required to be cable of defeating 48 layers of Kevlar, something far beyond the capabilities of the 9mm cartridge. FN's answer was the 5.7x28mm cartridge" (TW, page 24).

Also in the same issue under their "Cartridge Testfire" they talk about a 6mm vs. NATO. "The poor initial performance, together with the marginal incapacitating ability of the 5.56 round, started the doubs of the Stoner design that linger today, even though the weapon and caliber have both evolved substantially. However, battlefields change over time. The mobile warriors of today are fequently getting in and out of vehicles and need a weapon of shorter length. The loss of active barrel length in the M4 further cuts the overall effectiveness of particular loads of the 5.56 round that many already considered to be too small and weak.

"Of significant note, recent efforts were undertaken by both military and civilian manufacturers to develop a round for the AR platform that could bridge accurate lethality and shorter barrels. Two different approaches were developed: the 6.8 SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) and the 6.5 Grendel" (TW, page 70).

So to my reading they are trying to get newer ammo developed and deployed. But like all new things they take time to develop, test, approval, production and into the field.

 

[divegeek]

While they're changing ammo, they should look into bullpup designs (bullpups position the action behind the trigger). That seems like the ideal way to get a shorter weapon without sacrificing the velocity/range and accuracy provided by a longer barrel.

 

[Outsider]

Anyone check out the new KRISS?

http://www.kriss-tdi.com/content/view/3/6/

 

[tap-rack-bang]

Actually, I know several marines that say they used hollow-points in their AR's while in Iraq.

It is this ammo I actually saw it in use in iraq but it is not expanding ammunition the hollow tip helps the balistic coeficent.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /mk262.htm

Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Special Ball, Long Range, Mk 262 Mod 0/1 (United States): 5.56x45mm 77-grain Open-Tipped Match/Hollow-Point Boat-Tail cartridge. Mod 0 features Sierra Matchking bullet, while Mod 1 features either Nosler or Sierra bullet.

This is a little off topic but it wasn't actually the Geneva convention that setup rules concerning using hollow point rounds it was the Hague Convention of 1899. That's a common misconception.

it is the Hague Convention of 1899 and it doesn't limit hollow point rounds it limits expanding and flatening bullets

here is the a link to the text if your interested.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1899f.htm

 

[rdoggsilva]

I say go back to the 30-06. It did well in two World Wars and several police actions. It is a accurate round with the stopping power that is needed. Yes the recoil is more then the 223 but can be worked with. Go back to aim shooting like the Marines do . Just my .02.

 

[divegeek]

I say go back to the 30-06. It did well in two World Wars and several police actions. It is a accurate round with the stopping power that is needed. Yes the recoil is more then the 223 but can be worked with. Go back to aim shooting like the Marines do . Just my .02.

+1

Love the '06.

 

[Tarzan1888]

I say go back to the 30-06. It did well in two World Wars and several police actions. It is a accurate round with the stopping power that is needed. Yes the recoil is more then the 223 but can be worked with. Go back to aim shooting like the Marines do . Just my .02.

I agree, and as for the recoil, what are our current crop of soldiers a bunch of pansies. If the guys in WWI, WWII and Korea could handle them so could the guys now. :bang2:

Tarzan

 

[divegeek]

I say go back to the 30-06. It did well in two World Wars and several police actions. It is a accurate round with the stopping power that is needed. Yes the recoil is more then the 223 but can be worked with. Go back to aim shooting like the Marines do . Just my .02.

I agree, and as for the recoil, what are our current crop of soldiers a bunch of pansies. If the guys in WWI, WWII and Korea could handle them so could the guys now. :bang2:

I don't think weakness is the issue with out soldiers. Current soldiers are, on average, quite a bit bigger and stronger than they were a few decades ago -- which is a good thing because they carry a lot more weight than they did a few decades ago. Recoil is a big issue when you're firing full-auto (even three-round burst) without a heavy barrel, tripod, etc., and it's also a big problem if you need to fire from awkward positions as happens in CQC.

That said, I think modern firearms technology is up to building relatively lightweight rifles chambered in .30-06 with manageable recoil. It's a great round.

 

[GeneticsDave]

I agree, with the newer firearm technology and increased efficiency/selection of defensive rounds, I would think this is a problem that would be easily fixed on the manufacturing end. The problem seems to lie not with a lack of suitable options, but a hesitancy to change on behalf of the military leadership (from what I have heard). :dunno:

 

[Tarzan1888]

I say go back to the 30-06. It did well in two World Wars and several police actions. It is a accurate round with the stopping power that is needed. Yes the recoil is more then the 223 but can be worked with. Go back to aim shooting like the Marines do . Just my .02.

I agree, and as for the recoil, what are our current crop of soldiers a bunch of pansies. If the guys in WWI, WWII and Korea could handle them so could the guys now. :bang2:

I don't think weakness is the issue with out soldiers. Current soldiers are, on average, quite a bit bigger and stronger than they were a few decades ago -- which is a good thing because they carry a lot more weight than they did a few decades ago. Recoil is a big issue when you're firing full-auto (even three-round burst) without a heavy barrel, tripod, etc., and it's also a big problem if you need to fire from awkward positions as happens in CQC.

That said, I think modern firearms technology is up to building relatively lightweight rifles chambered in .30-06 with manageable recoil. It's a great round.

I knew that.....You didn't see the sarcasm in my post?

I am fully aware that our soldiers today are bigger and stronger than ever, and technology is making great advances and just because we can withstand the recoil doesn't mean we have to. On top of all that the '06 has put down more external enemies of this country than any other round.

I am reminded of the old Xerox commercial where all these other companies say over and over "Its just as good as a Xerox" and you say to yourself why not get the original.

The .30-06 Springfield is the round that everyone else compares theirs to.

Tarzan

 

[divegeek]

I knew that.....You didn't see the sarcasm in my post?

Sorry, I missed it

I did read it that you were joking to some degree, but missed the full intent.