M16 Charging Handle

[Ken White]

I'd find it a lot easier to agree with that statment if it was a little more objective!

crash into the wall of life. Pun intended...

My personal objectivity in this matter is flawed by having seen too many people shot with that cartridge who were not stopped and too many bullets deflected by leaves and twigs. While I certainly acknowledge all cartridges suffer from problems of one sort or another and that there is not now and likely never will be a perfect military cartridge, the various flaws of the 5.56 are too well documented elsewhere for those interested in scientific objectivity and thus while my statement may not be objective I submit it's accurate and objectively verifiable.

Are there cartridges that destroy more tissue for the same range against the same target? Yes - but that is also true of almost any cartridge.

True but that's laboratory stuff. When we did the Troop Test on the AR-15, we shot a lot of pigs for the local Oscar Meyer packing plant and offered the Carcasses to the SF Lab for dissection (and repair in a few cases -- only to be shot again... ). That testing revealed that the round had considerably less lethality against a living and moving organism than did the 7.62mm baseline cartridge. We used Pigs as the Doctors assured us that the pig would more closely react as would a human than would dogs or goats. That Test report is probably available on DTIC somewhere...

For me, the great unanswered... and maybe unanswerable question is "Is it so inadequate as to render it's users at significant risk or less greatly less capable?"

Oh, I think that's answerable to a very slight extent. For most people most of the time, it is not so inadequate. For those unfortunate few for whom it did prove inadequate that is little solace. The objective issue thus is to (a) determine how many times the inadequacy apparently did occur or may have occurred. (b) eliminate all other factors as causative of that inadequacy, (c) assess the results and determine a likelihood of occurrence, (d) define 'significantly' and 'greatly' to the satisfaction of all concerned and thus assign an element of risk level that is acceptable.

IOW, you've indeed posed an unanswerable question. Or, more correctly, one that must be subjected to some subjectivity to be answered.

Perhaps a far better question from a military standpoint is: does the weapon or cartridge inspire full confidence in the majority of its users with some combat experience and who are familiar with the effects of other cartridges for general issue and worldwide combat use ?

Schmedlap hits it with the same point I made -- reality is that the weapon isn't going away and it is marginally adequate, the problem is the general issue US Army cartridge. As he said in one of those links about the weapon but also applying to the cartridge :

There, I said it. But I suspect we’ve got a better chance of settling the abortion debate than the M4 debate.

Yep.

[William F. Owen]

That testing revealed that the round had considerably less lethality against a living and moving organism than did the 7.62mm baseline cartridge. We used Pigs as the Doctors assured us that the pig would more closely react as would a human than would dogs or goats. That Test report is probably available on DTIC somewhere...

I concur, that compared to 7.62x51mm (M80), 5.56mm (M877) will possess less energy on impact, and given no fragmentation of the round, will destroy less tissue.

....and I likewise concur that we are no nearer an answer....

[gute]

Read Dr. Fackler's findings on the 5.56 - quite interesting. He is a fan of the 6.8 SPC.

[GI Zhou]

Read Dr. Fackler's findings on the 5.56 - quite interesting. He is a fan of the 6.8 SPC.

The 5.56 findings showed how 'explosive' the wounds were caused under 25 metres to soft tissue, not covered by body armour or other material. All dual core ammunition at velocities over 2,700 ft/sec will separate into two or more wound channels. Soft tissue walls are stretched to their maximum limit at approx 3,000 ft/sec. This is where the 'temporary cavity comes into play, where soft tissue is like a balloon at maximum stretch, even a small piece of fragment causes a large tear producing an 'explosive' type wound.

I'm a premanent cavity type afficianado myself. Larger calibre with deeper penetration. Do you have a reference to his being a fan of the 6.8 SPC ,as I have not spoken to the good doctor for many years.