The 5.56 round... a Killer
Sun Jun 08, 2003 1:10 am
Ok we got into a disagreement tonight during EoD on the M16. Here is my information defending my statement.
Site 1: History of the M-16 and its development. If you can prove a different history other than water cooler talk please do post the website.
http://mwilson.hypermart.net/views/guns/m16.html#14
Just one quote I found interesting about the first real field test of the 5.56 mm round.
On 16 June 1962, one platoon from the 340 Ranger Company was on an operation...and contacted three armed Viet Cong in heavily forested jungle. Two VC had carbines, grenades, mines and one had a sub-machinegun. At a distance of approximately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an AR-15 full automatic hitting one Viet Cong with three rounds in the first burst. One round in the head took it completely off. Another in the right arm, took it completely off too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about five inches in diameter...it can be assumed that any one of the three wounds would have caused death.
From the same article a quote showing that the negatives on the-16 are about the mechanism of the weapon, never about the 5.56 mm ammunition.
After seeing the M16 malfunction firsthand during tests at Fort Benning and Camp Pendleton and traveling to Vietnam to assess the problems, the Ichord Subcommittee report, issued in late June, 1967, stated "the much-troubled M16 rifle is basically an excellent weapon whose problems were largely caused by Army mismanagement."23 To correct the M-16's fouling problems, the formulation of the ball gunpowder used in the 5.56mm M193 Ball cartridge was changed by reducing the level of calcium carbonate(CaCO3 - limestone, used as an acid neutralizer to extend shelf life) from 1% to .25%, less than half the amount shown to clog the M16's gas tube.
Site 2: Ballistics tests on various world rounds. This page classifies them into categories relating to the protective covering required. You will see that the 5.56 x 45 round regularly gets categorized higher than the 7.62 x 39 (the common AK round).
Also, the more powerful modern AK round is the newer 5.45 x 39 seen in the AK 74 (hmmm.. this round actually has a smaller diameter than the M-16 round). Also the above site mentions the 4.7 mm round that has been developed for years for the HK G11 case-less ammunition weapon. It is even a smaller round than the M-16.
[url]http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=military+weapon+ballistic+statistics&ei=UTF-8&vm=i&n=20&fl=0&url=d2mxdVJOXZEJ:[url]www.lascointl.com/PDF/levelsofprotection.pdf[/url][/url]
Folks, if you can prove me wrong, please do. I love to find out the facts. But everything scientific that I have read about the 5.56 x 45 round states how powerful a round it is. I am an AP physics teacher that is a gun fan. (AP is classes for college credit, I teach calculus-based mechanics). The key component in the potential damage of a round is its speed, not its mass, AND ABSOLUTELY NOT its diameter. So please do not fall prey for the misunderstanding that the US army is shooting a pathetic 22 caliber round at its enemies. The mechanism of the gun has had its problems, but the round is amazing. If we change to another, it might even be smaller.
This hopefully leads to a good discussion on the topic. If you disagree, please do so with supporting facts. I do not claim to be 100% correct on this matter, but my opinion is based on empirical data. If someone changes my analysis by offering some great new data I would really enjoy it.
These are the first two of many sites that I have found giving the same data.
Site 1: History of the M-16 and its development. If you can prove a different history other than water cooler talk please do post the website.
http://mwilson.hypermart.net/views/guns/m16.html#14
Just one quote I found interesting about the first real field test of the 5.56 mm round.
On 16 June 1962, one platoon from the 340 Ranger Company was on an operation...and contacted three armed Viet Cong in heavily forested jungle. Two VC had carbines, grenades, mines and one had a sub-machinegun. At a distance of approximately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an AR-15 full automatic hitting one Viet Cong with three rounds in the first burst. One round in the head took it completely off. Another in the right arm, took it completely off too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about five inches in diameter...it can be assumed that any one of the three wounds would have caused death.
From the same article a quote showing that the negatives on the-16 are about the mechanism of the weapon, never about the 5.56 mm ammunition.
After seeing the M16 malfunction firsthand during tests at Fort Benning and Camp Pendleton and traveling to Vietnam to assess the problems, the Ichord Subcommittee report, issued in late June, 1967, stated "the much-troubled M16 rifle is basically an excellent weapon whose problems were largely caused by Army mismanagement."23 To correct the M-16's fouling problems, the formulation of the ball gunpowder used in the 5.56mm M193 Ball cartridge was changed by reducing the level of calcium carbonate(CaCO3 - limestone, used as an acid neutralizer to extend shelf life) from 1% to .25%, less than half the amount shown to clog the M16's gas tube.
Site 2: Ballistics tests on various world rounds. This page classifies them into categories relating to the protective covering required. You will see that the 5.56 x 45 round regularly gets categorized higher than the 7.62 x 39 (the common AK round).
Also, the more powerful modern AK round is the newer 5.45 x 39 seen in the AK 74 (hmmm.. this round actually has a smaller diameter than the M-16 round). Also the above site mentions the 4.7 mm round that has been developed for years for the HK G11 case-less ammunition weapon. It is even a smaller round than the M-16.
[url]http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=military+weapon+ballistic+statistics&ei=UTF-8&vm=i&n=20&fl=0&url=d2mxdVJOXZEJ:[url]www.lascointl.com/PDF/levelsofprotection.pdf[/url][/url]
Folks, if you can prove me wrong, please do. I love to find out the facts. But everything scientific that I have read about the 5.56 x 45 round states how powerful a round it is. I am an AP physics teacher that is a gun fan. (AP is classes for college credit, I teach calculus-based mechanics). The key component in the potential damage of a round is its speed, not its mass, AND ABSOLUTELY NOT its diameter. So please do not fall prey for the misunderstanding that the US army is shooting a pathetic 22 caliber round at its enemies. The mechanism of the gun has had its problems, but the round is amazing. If we change to another, it might even be smaller.
This hopefully leads to a good discussion on the topic. If you disagree, please do so with supporting facts. I do not claim to be 100% correct on this matter, but my opinion is based on empirical data. If someone changes my analysis by offering some great new data I would really enjoy it.
These are the first two of many sites that I have found giving the same data.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 12:17 pm
I heard some of the debate on TS. That and this post made me do a little web research also. This has been and is a topic of much dispute.
Some things I'm finding out though is that the M16 without a doubt is the more accurate of the two. On the other hand, the AK47 is considered more reliable (although, that is only because early versions of the M16 used by the US military were supplied with poor ammo that caused a build-up in the barrel. This was remedied during the Vietnam war, but the 'unreliable' tag had already stuck).
The big debate is over the power of the round used in the 9M16 (5.56mm) vs. that of the AK47 (7.62mm). The AK has a larger round. The M16 has a higher rate-of-fire and higher muzzle velocity. I have seen good arguments for both sides. One thing for sure is that they both were/are very powerful.
The debate continues......
(although I lean towards the M16 for overall effectiveness)
Some things I'm finding out though is that the M16 without a doubt is the more accurate of the two. On the other hand, the AK47 is considered more reliable (although, that is only because early versions of the M16 used by the US military were supplied with poor ammo that caused a build-up in the barrel. This was remedied during the Vietnam war, but the 'unreliable' tag had already stuck).
The big debate is over the power of the round used in the 9M16 (5.56mm) vs. that of the AK47 (7.62mm). The AK has a larger round. The M16 has a higher rate-of-fire and higher muzzle velocity. I have seen good arguments for both sides. One thing for sure is that they both were/are very powerful.
The debate continues......
(although I lean towards the M16 for overall effectiveness)
Sun Jun 08, 2003 12:32 pm
Sannop,
If I were you I would talk to Red from our Raven Shield group. He is very, VERY knowledgable in the field of "terminal" ballistics. When it comes to ammunition effectiveness people too frequently look at muzzle velocity and energy. Obviously these statistics are easy to come by and I think that is why everyone uses them as "proxies." Perhaps as a general rule that is fine but it has it's flaws.
Also, when it comes to the m16, people must remember that both the gun and the ammo have gone through multiple improvements and modifications over its 40 years of existance.
If I were you I would talk to Red from our Raven Shield group. He is very, VERY knowledgable in the field of "terminal" ballistics. When it comes to ammunition effectiveness people too frequently look at muzzle velocity and energy. Obviously these statistics are easy to come by and I think that is why everyone uses them as "proxies." Perhaps as a general rule that is fine but it has it's flaws.
Also, when it comes to the m16, people must remember that both the gun and the ammo have gone through multiple improvements and modifications over its 40 years of existance.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 12:42 pm
Currently, the Army uses the M16A2.
Though it's cousin, the M4A1 is smaller and better for urban warfare due to it's shorter length, the M16A2 will be the main assault rifle for the US Army for years to come.
Though it's cousin, the M4A1 is smaller and better for urban warfare due to it's shorter length, the M16A2 will be the main assault rifle for the US Army for years to come.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 1:09 pm
Originally posted by SHWoff
I heard some of the debate on TS. That and this post made me do a little web research also. This has been and is a topic of much dispute.
The debate continues......
(although I lean towards the M16 for overall effectiveness)
I wasn't disputing the overall effectiveness. I was in total disagreeement with the statement that the M16 fires a wimpy 22 caliber round.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 1:28 pm
Originally posted by Sannop
I wasn't disputing the overall effectiveness. I was in total disagreeement with the statement that the M16 fires w impy 22 caliber round.
I was just trying to take a neutral stance. I'm totally with you that, although the round is .223 cal., it packs a mighty punch.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 3:23 pm
Originally posted by Freedom
When it comes to ammunition effectiveness people too frequently look at muzzle velocity and energy. Obviously these statistics are easy to come by and I think that is why everyone uses them as "proxies." Perhaps as a general rule that is fine but it has it's flaws.
Huh? What else is there? A firearm is a device that transforms potential energy (stored in chemical form) into mechanical energy on the target.
When you shoot a burst at an enemy, you are trying to transform the total energy of your powder and send it to him. No gun does that perfectly, some energy gets lost in heat, sound, light, recoil, and misses.
Velocity, rate of fire, reliability, aiming, bullet mass, bullet deformation, are all factors that affect the delivery of energy. There is nothing else than energy.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 4:33 pm
Originally posted by Chacal
Huh? What else is there? A firearm is a device that transforms potential energy (stored in chemical form) into mechanical energy on the target.
There is nothing else than energy.
And remember.. in kinetic energy the speed is squared. Yes.. speed kills.
Since impulse is the change in an objects momentum and also the force applied to an object through the time of the action.... equal force (powder), with equal barrel length (time) will result in a larger change in speed for a smaller bullet. Since the speed is squared... a smaller bullet for a given amount of powder can result in a higher energy particle.
But this is just the start... a more rifled barrel will result in a higher angular momentum (higher mech energy) .. and since there are no outside torques in flight... the conservation of angular momentum will result in a more accurate bullet.. etc etc etc.
Not trying to sound like a smartass.. just highlighting the basics. So you can't look at a 5.56mm (or .223 caliber) round and say "Hey its only a 22, it makes a small hole".)
Sun Jun 08, 2003 4:34 pm
I don't know that much about ballistics, but I know what I've heard from cops and military types regarding the difference between a 9MM and a .45 pistol round...
People I've talked to like the .45 round better because of it's "stopping power". They say that if you hit a guy with a 9MM round at 15 yards he might keep coming if it's not a killshot. But hit him at the same distance with a .45 round and it will practically knock him out of his socks....
I don't know all of the details behind this, so it could be a matter of ammo type, manufacturer, etc. Any corrections or illumination in this matter is welcomed
I do know that in game, those M16's are a bitch....
People I've talked to like the .45 round better because of it's "stopping power". They say that if you hit a guy with a 9MM round at 15 yards he might keep coming if it's not a killshot. But hit him at the same distance with a .45 round and it will practically knock him out of his socks....
I don't know all of the details behind this, so it could be a matter of ammo type, manufacturer, etc. Any corrections or illumination in this matter is welcomed
I do know that in game, those M16's are a bitch....
Sun Jun 08, 2003 5:32 pm
Yeah, it's a common misconception amongst army old-timers that the .45 has more stopping power because of it's caliber. Not so. Let's make a few simple calculations.
The .45 ACP fires a 230 grain bullet at a speed of 810 fps.
The 9mm fires a 124 grain bullet at a speed of 1150 fps.
The kinetic energy is .5 * mass * (speed squared)
Thus the .45 has an energy of 75 451 500 (whatever unit is grain x fps squared
)
The 9mm has 81 995 000.
All other factors not being considered, the .45 has less stopping power.
Other factors could be important. Type of bullet comes to mind. A lead bullet will deform more on impact, transfering more of it's energy into the target's body (stopping power).
A copper bullet will deform less, with more penetrating power, thus less stopping power.
The same applies to the .223 round used in the M16.
Anyway, stopping power is more important in law enforcement than in military applications. Disabling the enemy without killing him is preferable.
The .45 ACP fires a 230 grain bullet at a speed of 810 fps.
The 9mm fires a 124 grain bullet at a speed of 1150 fps.
The kinetic energy is .5 * mass * (speed squared)
Thus the .45 has an energy of 75 451 500 (whatever unit is grain x fps squared
)
The 9mm has 81 995 000.
All other factors not being considered, the .45 has less stopping power.
Other factors could be important. Type of bullet comes to mind. A lead bullet will deform more on impact, transfering more of it's energy into the target's body (stopping power).
A copper bullet will deform less, with more penetrating power, thus less stopping power.
The same applies to the .223 round used in the M16.
Anyway, stopping power is more important in law enforcement than in military applications. Disabling the enemy without killing him is preferable.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 5:48 pm
I don't know from experience about stopping power between the two, but when I was first in the navy, the standard issue sidearm was the Colt M1911 .45. After a couple years, they made the switch to the Beretta 9MM.
The Beretta was a much better gun IMO. I couldn't hit shit with the 1911, but the beretta was much easier to be accurate with. Admittedly, the 1911s we had were pretty old and in bad shape, but I still liked the beretta better
As far as an M16... I wouldn't complain if you gave me one. Or an AK for that matter
The way I look at it... you can make a smaller, lighter weapon if it has a smaller caliber. You don't need as big a barrel, the clip will hold more rounds for it's size, etc. If you can coax the same or better ballistics out of it... where is the drawback?
The Beretta was a much better gun IMO. I couldn't hit shit with the 1911, but the beretta was much easier to be accurate with. Admittedly, the 1911s we had were pretty old and in bad shape, but I still liked the beretta better
As far as an M16... I wouldn't complain if you gave me one. Or an AK for that matter
The way I look at it... you can make a smaller, lighter weapon if it has a smaller caliber. You don't need as big a barrel, the clip will hold more rounds for it's size, etc. If you can coax the same or better ballistics out of it... where is the drawback?
Sun Jun 08, 2003 6:22 pm
Chacal I tried to do the same calculations with the M16 vs. AK dicsussion. It is somewhat sound but there are some flaws. For one the units need to be on the same scale. So while it is very generally accurate, it has a large room for error.
Also energy doesn't necessarily relate to the real world term of "stopping power". How will the area of the bullet effect the deformation and therefore the energy dispersion? How is the bullet rotating? Is it jacketed? An overly jacketed or small bullet might go through without losing enough energy to do any damage. (This is the best argument against the 5.56mm round.... that is why they work on tumbling rounds, etc.)
I relate this to nuclear particles... the alpha is the most "damaging" of all the particles, so much that it gets absorbed in the dead layer of skin. Therefore it is "safe" unless eating, breathed, or I guess shoved in some other oriface. The gamma and the fast (i.e. non-thermal) neutron have much less interaction and therefore they often go right through the body without any damage.
Stopping power is about the ability of the bullet to quickly give up its energy. Most reports that I have read have suggested that the lower speed and large size of the .45 ACP allow it to give its energy very quickly.. therefore a large stopping power. I wonder what are the negative consequences of the quick energy loss. Do these rounds have trouble pentrating when needed? For instance, will they sometimes bounce off of windshields or other surfaces endangering the public? I heard that this is one reason that a lot of forces went away from the old .38 special round. (Or was that an excuse to get away from the revolver?).
Just some thoughts
Also energy doesn't necessarily relate to the real world term of "stopping power". How will the area of the bullet effect the deformation and therefore the energy dispersion? How is the bullet rotating? Is it jacketed? An overly jacketed or small bullet might go through without losing enough energy to do any damage. (This is the best argument against the 5.56mm round.... that is why they work on tumbling rounds, etc.)
I relate this to nuclear particles... the alpha is the most "damaging" of all the particles, so much that it gets absorbed in the dead layer of skin. Therefore it is "safe" unless eating, breathed, or I guess shoved in some other oriface. The gamma and the fast (i.e. non-thermal) neutron have much less interaction and therefore they often go right through the body without any damage.
Stopping power is about the ability of the bullet to quickly give up its energy. Most reports that I have read have suggested that the lower speed and large size of the .45 ACP allow it to give its energy very quickly.. therefore a large stopping power. I wonder what are the negative consequences of the quick energy loss. Do these rounds have trouble pentrating when needed? For instance, will they sometimes bounce off of windshields or other surfaces endangering the public? I heard that this is one reason that a lot of forces went away from the old .38 special round. (Or was that an excuse to get away from the revolver?).
Just some thoughts
Sun Jun 08, 2003 6:24 pm
Originally posted by Rule of Wrist
The Beretta was a much better gun IMO. I couldn't hit shit with the 1911, but the beretta was much easier to be accurate with.
Low velocity and low angular momentum = inaccurate round.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 6:28 pm
Originally posted by Chacal
Anyway, stopping power is more important in law enforcement than in military applications. Disabling the enemy without killing him is preferable.
I don't think that the are saying that the 45 has less killing power... I think that it will take a drug crazed lunatic down when the 9mm might not.
I read that this was an argument made by some in the military against the switch to the Beretta. They feared that some religious fanatic might not feel the pain, etc. of a 9mm round.. but at least a 45 ACP will send their crazed ass backwards. I have no clue how legitimate argument this is.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 6:43 pm
Hey Sannop I was one of the ones calling the 5.56 a "crappy" .223 round. I don't think I ever said it sucked I believe I just said it was a wimpy 22 round.
The major reason the US Army went to the A-15/M-16 5.56 weapon system was for one reason and one reason only. A standard loadout with a M-14 (7.62) was 100 rounds of ammo. AR-15/M-16 loadout (because of the .223 calibre ammo) was 300 rounds. The US Army Ordinance department never wanted the M-16 it got rammed down their throats by Kennedy's DoD "Whiz Kids". Stoner spent about 8 years trying to get the army to buy the weapon system and Ordinance deliberately snubbed it until Kennedy's boys got into the DoD and said to get it. The DoD "Whiz Kids" had no practical military experience and loved charts and graphs. A 300 is a lot bigger number than a 100. Incendentally this is where the problem with the feed mechanism and the powder problem came from. The Whiz Kids thought that nickel/chrome plating the reciever was unneccesary (hmm don't believe the gunsmiths who tell you otherwise) and that the crap powder that they picked was the best. Thank you MR Mcnamara.
The hard and honest truth was with the hi grain M-14 7.62 round accuracy was abominable after the first and second rounds. The lighter smaller 5.56 rounds allowed a greater degree of control and accuracy. Gun problem or shooter problem? Thats still up for debate. I have shot both weapons during my term of service and I prefer the M-14 hands down. I may have some advantages over many shooters (I am 6'2 and 230 and have a long history of shooting) so I may be a bit biased. A bigger bullet with a potential higher velocity doesn't do much good if it doesn't connect with the target.
And as far as the debate about .45 calibre's there was a a solid reason the US military went to the .45 and kept it for approximately 80 years. During the Spanish American War in the Phillipines they found that their .38 calibre revolvers could hit a target and the target would be able to continue forward and slash the shooter with something like a machete. Not good if you are on the .38 end. The major advantage for the 45 is the size of the slug. It may have a lower overall velocity but it comes down to energy transfer to do damage. The .45 was stopped in the targets body and achieved maximum energy tranferal. Smaller higher powered rounds did not. The M92 Berreta is not a better weapon because it has a higher FPS. It does carry more ammo but when a round continues thru a target it brings along a lot of the kinetic energy that you want delivered to the target. Nowadays we have all kinds of deforming ammo that allows you to achieve that with a higher powered round but the .45 did it first and did it best.
The major advantage of a 7.62 round is penetrating power. You can shoot thru all kind of stuff with a hi powered 7.62 round and pop the people behind it. The smaller 5.56 round goes "twang!" and flies off somewhere else.
I spent six years in the Navy and we had M-14's and M-60's. Why did we do this when the rest of the services use M-16's and M-249 SAW's? Simple. A 7.62 round will punch thru a 1/4 inch steel bulkead and say "HELLO!" in a big way to the guys on the other side of the bulkhead. A 5.56 round can't do that.
I admit I am a bit biased. My favorite weapon system is the Atchisson Assault 12. a Vietnam era weapon that was issued at fire bases for perimeter defense. It looks like a M-16 on steroids and is a full auto 12 gauge shotgun with a 20 round box magazine. Can you say crowd pleaser?
As with wheels, whiskey, and women it really comes down to personal preference.
The major reason the US Army went to the A-15/M-16 5.56 weapon system was for one reason and one reason only. A standard loadout with a M-14 (7.62) was 100 rounds of ammo. AR-15/M-16 loadout (because of the .223 calibre ammo) was 300 rounds. The US Army Ordinance department never wanted the M-16 it got rammed down their throats by Kennedy's DoD "Whiz Kids". Stoner spent about 8 years trying to get the army to buy the weapon system and Ordinance deliberately snubbed it until Kennedy's boys got into the DoD and said to get it. The DoD "Whiz Kids" had no practical military experience and loved charts and graphs. A 300 is a lot bigger number than a 100. Incendentally this is where the problem with the feed mechanism and the powder problem came from. The Whiz Kids thought that nickel/chrome plating the reciever was unneccesary (hmm don't believe the gunsmiths who tell you otherwise) and that the crap powder that they picked was the best. Thank you MR Mcnamara.
The hard and honest truth was with the hi grain M-14 7.62 round accuracy was abominable after the first and second rounds. The lighter smaller 5.56 rounds allowed a greater degree of control and accuracy. Gun problem or shooter problem? Thats still up for debate. I have shot both weapons during my term of service and I prefer the M-14 hands down. I may have some advantages over many shooters (I am 6'2 and 230 and have a long history of shooting) so I may be a bit biased. A bigger bullet with a potential higher velocity doesn't do much good if it doesn't connect with the target.
And as far as the debate about .45 calibre's there was a a solid reason the US military went to the .45 and kept it for approximately 80 years. During the Spanish American War in the Phillipines they found that their .38 calibre revolvers could hit a target and the target would be able to continue forward and slash the shooter with something like a machete. Not good if you are on the .38 end. The major advantage for the 45 is the size of the slug. It may have a lower overall velocity but it comes down to energy transfer to do damage. The .45 was stopped in the targets body and achieved maximum energy tranferal. Smaller higher powered rounds did not. The M92 Berreta is not a better weapon because it has a higher FPS. It does carry more ammo but when a round continues thru a target it brings along a lot of the kinetic energy that you want delivered to the target. Nowadays we have all kinds of deforming ammo that allows you to achieve that with a higher powered round but the .45 did it first and did it best.
The major advantage of a 7.62 round is penetrating power. You can shoot thru all kind of stuff with a hi powered 7.62 round and pop the people behind it. The smaller 5.56 round goes "twang!" and flies off somewhere else.
I spent six years in the Navy and we had M-14's and M-60's. Why did we do this when the rest of the services use M-16's and M-249 SAW's? Simple. A 7.62 round will punch thru a 1/4 inch steel bulkead and say "HELLO!" in a big way to the guys on the other side of the bulkhead. A 5.56 round can't do that.
I admit I am a bit biased. My favorite weapon system is the Atchisson Assault 12. a Vietnam era weapon that was issued at fire bases for perimeter defense. It looks like a M-16 on steroids and is a full auto 12 gauge shotgun with a 20 round box magazine. Can you say crowd pleaser?
As with wheels, whiskey, and women it really comes down to personal preference.