MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[Uboat509]

Adding an op rod doesn't solve any of the issues with the M4. In fact, it adds some more.

A better solution is to move the gas port farther away from the chamber.

I have talked to a number of people who have carried the 416 and they have all, without exception, raved about it. I have yet to hear anyone say anything negative about the 416 who has carried it in combat.

The problem with 5.56 lethality is also a product of some suspect anecdotal evidence. "But Sarge, he soaked up 17 solid hits and kept running as fast as Jesse Owens" most likely was "Sarge, I suck at shooting, so I missed him 17 times."

That is not necessarily true. I have talked to quite a few guys in my community who most definitely do not suck at shooting and the consensus has always been that 5.56 green absolutely does suck at bringing targets down quickly as compared to 7.62. 5.56 LR does much better but when I left Big Army all we ever got was green tip. Perhaps that has changed since I left but I suspect that it has not.

I think I've made this point one time earlier during this thread, that if they pushed more GPMGs down to lower levels, and realized that rifles are really not what kills on the battlefield, whether they are chambered in .22 short or 105mm, the military would be a much better place. Personally, I like the shooting characteristics of 5.56, and feels it does an adequate job of killing bad guys.

I am with Ken on this. Substituting quantity of fire for accurate fire is a bad idea. You are trying to sew up the wound without treating the underlying infection. In any case adding more GPMGs to the platoon means more guys that I can't bring into clear rooms in a building or clear a trench plus it adds more weight as we have to carry that much more ammo to feed these guns. In particular I don't like the idea of more M240s which have a much higher than needed cyclic rate of fire and so chew up the ammo that much faster.

[Pete]

The M1 Carbine became a victim of its own popularity when it started being used as a main battle rifle instead of as an auxiliary weapon. In 1942 when it was introduced it quickly became the most popular small arm U.S. Army Ordnance had ever fielded because it was light, handy, and had a 15-round magazine capacity. Even though it was not a main battle rifle it started being used that way, and that's when its limitations in range and stopping power became apparent. In Pork Chop Hill by SLA Marshall most of the G.I.s are said to have been carrying M2 Carbines for conducting and repelling short-range trench raids.

One of the unsung successes of the carbine was its evolutionary development. The World War II model lacked the automatic capability, 30-round magazine, windage-adjustable rear sight, and bayonet lug. The rotary safety wasn't preplanned -- it corrected the human factors problem inherent in the push-button safety thay was easily confused with the magazine release. Evolutionary development with preplanned improvements always beats 20-year development programs.

With all that being said, the carbine would have been a better weapon had it been chambered for a more robust cartridge, had a barrel about two inches longer, and been about a pound heavier.

[Fuchs]

Using a spitzer bullet shape might have earned it a place as the first assault rifle. The handgun bullet shape was part of the problem.

[Pete]

In 1945 in Germany while the war was still going on Dad had a middle-aged civilian man approach him while he was on guard duty becase the guy wanted to get a better look at his carbine. He probablly meant no harm but Dad pointed his carbine at him to make him back off.

[Ken White]

Ken, energy as measure for bullet effectiveness against a human being is quite thoroughly debunked. It should simply not be moved in such discussions.

That's not true, what has been proven is that any study of incapacitation by small arms fire is extremely difficult and that energy is not the only or even on occasion the most or a more important factor.

Pure energy is only one measure and your energy transferred is another, those are only two variables. The issue is compounded by many other factors including range, bullet weight, speed, shape, construction and dozens of other things including bullet yaw, upset and expansion -- even the weather. All those physical events are further compounded by the virtually infinite variables of target body position, health, entry point, internal bullet travel route, specific organs or bone impacted (or not), hydrostatic shock, nerve damage, location and duration of temporary cavitation and size and location of any permanent cavity and much more...

One cannot derive many valid 'rules' in view of so many indeterminate variables. Nor can one discount many of those factors.

That acknowledged, greater energy and weight will, all things considered, have a greater AVERAGE impact effect than less of both. Having had a close look at a number of wounded and dead who were hit or killed by small arms fire and / or shell or grenade fragments, I have no doubt that bigger is badder. I can assure you that the Cal .30 US (.30-06) is a more effective military cartridge at all ranges and particularly over 600m than the 7.62x51 which in turn is an improvement upon the 5.56 at any range but particularly over 300m or so...

Yes, that's anecdotal. My dismissal of any 'evidence' involving gelatin is not anecdotal but it is also not scientific; it merely posits that gelatin does not have bone, muscle or will -- and that last is also a factor in bullet effect...

[Fuchs]

A look at energy in the context of effectiveness is only useful if more is better. That's not the case because light fast bullets are usually less effective than heavy slow bullets of significantly lower kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is therefore useless and debunked as a measure of effectiveness in this context.


To use kinetic energy in this context entails a very high risk of misleading others and yourself.


Kinetic energy itself is a by-product of a bullet with a mass moving at a velocity, comparable in its lack of utility to impulse (another product of a simple formula with mass and velocity) or the sonic boom of the bullet. It's a by-product that does not deserve a mention in a discussion about bullet effectiveness against bodies.

[Ken White]

...That's not the case because light fast bullets are usually less effective than heavy slow bullets of significantly lower kinetic energy...Kinetic energy is therefore useless and debunked as a measure of effectiveness in this context...To use kinetic energy in this context entails a very high risk of misleading others and yourself.

I do not totally agree with the last two sentences. Kinetic energy is not debunked, it simply must be used with an understanding of the other factors.

As for misleading, I think no more so than a valid scientific though perhaps overly technical approach. The problem is that physics and ballistics do not account for the vagaries of combat and the human body. I've seen too many people who should by any measure have died that did not, too many that had no reason to die that did so. Plus much between those poles. Science is great, people will generally not behave as does gelatin.

...It's a by-product that does not deserve a mention in a discussion about bullet effectiveness against bodies.

So we can disagree on that...

[Bob's World]

I don't know about any of this, but if someone was definitely going to shoot me, but I got to pick which weapon they used, I'm picking the smallest projectile at the slowest velocity. No science, just seems logical.

Therefore, if I wanted a weapon to do harm to others I would want the largest, highest velocity round that was practical (size, weight, etc).

So my test is this: which round do I least want to be shot with personally. pick that one.

[Kiwigrunt]

So my test is this: which round do I least want to be shot with personally. pick that one.

I would not want to be shot with this, but I don't think I'd want to carry or fire it. Not particularly fast but imagine a cast-iron frying-pan coming at you at 1500 fps.

[SethB]

I don't know about any of this, but if someone was definitely going to shoot me, but I got to pick which weapon they used, I'm picking the smallest projectile at the slowest velocity. No science, just seems logical.

Therefore, if I wanted a weapon to do harm to others I would want the largest, highest velocity round that was practical (size, weight, etc).

So my test is this: which round do I least want to be shot with personally. pick that one.

There are more variables than diameter, weight and velocity.

If you want to do some reading on modern test protocol, Dr. Gary K. Roberts has picked up where Fackler left off, although many will disagree with him on a fundamental level.

With all due respect to Ken and his depth of experience, I've known other men with similar experiences who have told me opposite stories. Using anecdotal evidence is therefore troublesome.

Speaking strictly on terminal effect, I've known police officers who were in 50+ OIS' during their careers and they tended to use the AR15 and M1 Carbine. Unlike Soldiers at war, each man they shot was autopsied, rounds were counted, hits were counted and the picture is much more clear.

A friend of a friend used an HK53 with 55 grain bullets all over Africa for many years.

A friend of mine is an 18E who has used the Mk 12 (5.56) to 900M with effect. The bullet often impacts at barely supersonic speeds.

Neither had any complaints...

The key, then would seem to be training. Something which is more easily accomplished with a smaller, lighter cartridge.

[Bob's World]

I would not want to be shot with this, but I don't think I'd want to carry or fire it. Not particularly fast but imagine a cast-iron frying-pan coming at you at 1500 fps.

But would definitely get ones attention. I suspect the right answer looks a bit more like an AK-47 for most soldiers, with something like an M-110 for 1-2 guys and a couple of LMGs per squad. PKMs and Dragonovs work though. Not sure how well our love of high-tech firearms plays out if we get into a situation again where guys are on the line, or behind the lines, for weeks on end.

[Ken White]

Speaking strictly on terminal effect, I've known police officers who were in 50+ OIS' during their careers and they tended to use the AR15 and M1 Carbine. Unlike Soldiers at war, each man they shot was autopsied, rounds were counted, hits were counted and the picture is much more clear.

HK416 and an M14 who now has an M4A1 in darkest Bafloofistan, I've got two others who are Cops today. One each in large east and west coast cities. Regardless of the definition of involvement, 50 plus OIS is an impressive -- and unusual -- number. I mention all that to point out a fact:

Great care should be taken in attempting to extrapolate LE firearms usage and experience to armed force combat. Two very different sets of circumstances.

Aside from the fact that most LE agencies are politically constrained with respect to calibers and effects for obvious collateral damage reasons, the training of LE Officers and Soldiers MUST be quite different. Mostly because LE folks are rarely confronted with what might be called extensive target arrays. Secondarily because they are required to do minimal damage. An occasional fire fight with one to even a dozen druggies is one thing; a sustained 50 or more person attack on your position or by your unit is a very different thing, add to that that the goal is to do the maximum possible amount of damage to the other guys and you get a quite different training focus -- or should.

Day in and day out combat is quite different than an occasional and actually rather rare LE oriented gunfight. Valid lessons can be drawn from both fields but they do not mix well...

The key, then would seem to be training. Something which is more easily accomplished with a smaller, lighter cartridge.

Valid point. Those LE folks generally get far more firearms training and practice. That's partly because they face more stringent requirements than do most Soldiers or Marines (the military DA specialists are a whole different regimen) and their training orients toward the specifics of the environment. The armed combat environment is vastly different and the end goal should be total combat effectiveness.

Training toward that end is multi faceted and quite diverse, firearms training is a small and not often practiced subset for most. Thus ease of training should be less an issue than the quality of initial training in order to thoroughly implant in muscle memory the requisite skills. Concomitantly, selecting a weapon system for ease of training, while somewhat important, pales into a minor concern when contrasted to the need for combat effectiveness.

Weapon system inadequacy in law enforcement can have adverse consequences and can possibly cause harm to several persons per event. Weapon inadequacy is sustained armed combat can affect hundreds of people per event -- and potentially many more in multiple events over several days. Fortunately, we have not had to cope with sustained and intense combat for almost 40 years. Hopefully, we will not have to for at least that many more years. I wouldn't bet the farm on it...

[Pete]

I have a reprint of small arms test reports from before the Civil War that were written and conducted by the U.S. Army Ordnance Department. Many of them mention how many oak or pine boards of a certain thickness that the projectiles would penetrate. Wooden boards are not the same as human tissue but they do provide a basis for comparing different weapons and loads. By the way, I believe the terms "ball" and "round" go back to when small arms projectiles really were spherical.

[Fuchs]

I have a reprint of small arms test reports from before the Civil War that were written and conducted by the U.S. Army Ordnance Department. Many of them mention how many oak or pine boards of a certain thickness that the projectiles would penetrate. Wooden boards are not the same as human tissue but they do provide a basis for comparing different weapons and loads. By the way, I believe the terms "ball" and "round" go back to when small arms projectiles really were spherical.

Those wood board tests were a standard measure for musket power back in the 18th century in Europe.

[Pete]

The chronographs used by U.S. Army Ordnance for small arms testing in the middle of the 19th century had rapidly swinging pendulums like on old clocks. When the projectile hit the flat surface attached to the pendulum the device would indicate the number of swings the pendulum had made. Thus velocity could be determined. I don't know how they measured muzzle velocity but they may have had a way.

[Fuchs]

The chronographs used by U.S. Army Ordnance for small arms testing in the middle of the 19th century had rapidly swinging pendulums like on old clocks. When the projectile hit the flat surface attached to the pendulum the device would indicate the number of swings the pendulum had made. Thus velocity could be determined. I don't know how they measured muzzle velocity but they may have had a way.

That was a tool for testing the potency of different kinds of blackpowders.
It was not for velocity tests.

Four tools were in widespread use during the 19th century for measuring blackpowder quality:

* ballistisches Pendel (ballistic pendulum)
* Wagnerische Hebelpulverprobe (Wagner's lever powder test device) from Austria
* Rodman apparatus (U.S., 1860)
* Noble's crusher gauge (after Rodman)

The old test mortar fell out of use during the 19th.

[SethB]

I don't know how they measured muzzle velocity but they may have had a way.

Most muzzle velocities are measure a few feet in front of the muzzle anyway.

I'd like to see if a doppler chronograph could be made small enough to fit on a rifle.

[jps2]

Most muzzle velocities are measure a few feet in front of the muzzle anyway.

I'd like to see if a doppler chronograph could be made small enough to fit on a rifle.

Velocity can be determined by capturing time beween frames (infrared detection)

See http://www.oehler-research.com/model35.html

A good and consistent initial velocity is required to compute ballistic drop vs distance.

[Pete]

Some can shoot, some cannot, and some never improve.

In 1944 there was a guy in my Dad's basic training unit at Camp Roberts, California who couldn't qualify with his carbine because he was terrified by it. He was given remedial training with a coach and he qualified Expert.

[Rifleman]

There are real limits to what you can train people to do when it comes to "skills". Some can shoot, some cannot, and some never improve. Plus almost all training is a function of quantity and quality and both of those cost money, so are the first things to get cut.

...here are some interesting links:

http://www.blogtopsites.com/outpost/...b41827ba80c9c9

http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/woodfill.htm

At least I thought they were interesting.