Increasing Small Arms Lethality

[JDM175]

The following paper is making its way around the military as well as other shooting/military forums. A lengthy read but worth it.

Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer

A Monograph

By

Major Thomas P. Ehrhart

United States Army

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

[nightrunner]

excellent read!

although you can get most of the information, aside from the history lesson, from the conclusion.

[threeshot]

Great read. Thanks for sharing with TGO.

[mk19]

Love to read this one day, but 76 pages, is a killer right now.

[Guest rystine]

The M4 is popular, but the majority of rifleman in the Marine Corps still use the M16, and consistently train to engage in excess of 500 meters. From what I understood from what I read of this report, having a weapon capable of shooting past 500 meters, and training soldiers to make shots that far, is the main point (in addition to the need for a better service caliber). It said that this would require a major adjustment in training doctrine for the Army. IMHO, it should never have been removed from training.

Don't mean to bust on the Army, but it seems like the Marines training and doctrine is superior

[mk19]

Don't mean to bust on the Army, but it seems like the Marines training and doctrine is superior

Nothing new there Marines Could, can, and always would be able to shoot better than the Army

[JDM175]

If you read the report the Marine 500 meter portion of their is stated as unrealistic for combat operations. I am not going to get into the whole inter-service rivalry thing but the author noted defencies in both service's training programs. The paper while good does have its shortcomings as well. Just thought it would be an interesting read and is a pretty good history lesson as to how we got where we are at.

[mikegideon]

The M4 is popular, but the majority of rifleman in the Marine Corps still use the M16, and consistently train to engage in excess of 500 meters. From what I understood from what I read of this report, having a weapon capable of shooting past 500 meters, and training soldiers to make shots that far, is the main point (in addition to the need for a better service caliber). It said that this would require a major adjustment in training doctrine for the Army. IMHO, it should never have been removed from training.

Don't mean to bust on the Army, but it seems like the Marines training and doctrine is superior

Don't you mean M14? the M16 is an AR15. Will a 5.56mm even break the skin at 500 meters? I read the paper.

[Capbyrd]

Travis Haley claims confirmed shots with 5.56 at up to 700 meters. The guy is pretty good and seems to know his stuff.

However, I wouldnt trust it out that far. I'm just not that good.

[leroy]

Thanks for posting this most interesting read!!

Kind regards,

Leroy

[E4 No More]

Don't you mean M14? the M16 is an AR15. Will a 5.56mm even break the skin at 500 meters? I read the paper.

Oh, it'll certainly break the skin. But it probably wouldn't penetrate a helmet and certainly not armor. The point of the Marine shooting out to 500 yards when the Army was shooting out to 300 yards was to develop markmanship which is what the Marine Corps has always been famous for.

[mikegideon]

Travis Haley claims confirmed shots with 5.56 at up to 700 meters. The guy is pretty good and seems to know his stuff.

However, I wouldnt trust it out that far. I'm just not that good.

Not talking about hitting something. A .223 should easily travel that far. I'm talking about having enough energy left to kill a human. The paper states that the maximum useful range for that is 200 meters. The M14 in .308 is a whole other animal.

[Capbyrd]

Not talking about hitting something. A .223 should easily travel that far. I'm talking about having enough energy left to kill a human. The paper states that the maximum useful range for that is 200 meters. The M14 in .308 is a whole other animal.

Right. Those were kill shots he was talking about. sorry. I should have phrased it that way. The thread about it is somewhere in the magpul forum on arfcom.

[Guest rystine]

Not talking about hitting something. A .223 should easily travel that far. I'm talking about having enough energy left to kill a human. The paper states that the maximum useful range for that is 200 meters. The M14 in .308 is a whole other animal.

There's confirmed reports of Marines making kills in Iraq out to 800 meters with M16A4's and ACOG's.

Lot's of people underestimate the 5.56. And frankly most have no real experience, they just regurgitate BS they read on the interweb. I've personally seen dozens of hajis shot with both 5.56 and 7.62 and too be perfectly honest I never noticed a difference in how quickly they went down. The 7.62 certainly had a nastier wound, but the bad guy didn't go down any quicker. That's just my personal experience.

Edited March 16, 2010 by rystine

[mikegideon]

There's confirmed reports of Marines making kills in Iraq out to 800 meters with M16A4's and ACOG's.

I believe that. At 800 yds, it's still moving about 925 ft/s, and the energy is around 100 ft lbs. (standard 55 gr .223). FWIW, the .308 has 580 ft lbs of energy at 800 yards. I'm sure their loads are probably better than Remington .223 ball ammo, but there's only so much you can do.

I can also see why the author didn't give to 5.56 credit as a long range caliber.

[mikegideon]

Lot's of people underestimate the 5.56. And frankly most have no real experience, they just regurgitate BS they read on the interweb. I've personally seen dozens of hajis shot with both 5.56 and 7.62 and too be perfectly honest I never noticed a difference in how quickly they went down. The 7.62 certainly had a nastier wound, but the bad guy didn't go down any quicker. That's just my personal experience.

I haven't shot any hajis, but I certainly support the effort .

[Guest rystine]

If you read the report the Marine 500 meter portion of their is stated as unrealistic for combat operations. I am not going to get into the whole inter-service rivalry thing but the author noted defencies in both service's training programs. The paper while good does have its shortcomings as well. Just thought it would be an interesting read and is a pretty good history lesson as to how we got where we are at.

It may still be deficient, but it's still light years ahead of what the Army is putting out

I hope you realize I'm not trying to piss anyone off. But us Marines just can't help ourselves from poking fun at everyone else .

[Guest rystine]

I believe that. At 800 yds, it's still moving about 925 ft/s, and the energy is around 100 ft lbs. (standard 55 gr .223). FWIW, the .308 has 580 ft lbs of energy at 800 yards. I'm sure their loads are probably better than Remington .223 ball ammo, but there's only so much you can do.

I can also see why the author didn't give to 5.56 credit as a long range caliber.

The 5.56 works, it doesn't always work well, but it does work. IMHO, like the article said, the answer isn't going back to the 7.62 (it's just too heavy, and the recoil is too much), instead a round like the 6.8 or 6.5 is the best way to go.

Another thing to think about, do we really need a round that can kill a 500 lb elk at 800 meters, in order to kill a 175 lb human at 500? At some point you've simply got too much power for the job.

[mikegideon]

The 5.56 works, it doesn't always work well, but it does work. IMHO, like the article said, the answer isn't going back to the 7.62 (it's just too heavy, and the recoil is too much), instead a round like the 6.8 or 6.5 is the best way to go.

Another thing to think about, do we really need a round that can kill a 500 lb elk at 800 meters, in order to kill a 175 lb human at 500? At some point you've simply got too much power for the job.

I think the main point of the paper was to fill the longer range gap. I my ballistics program doesn't have any data on the 6.8 SPC, but from what I've read, it's gonna have better long range smack than the 5.56, and was designed to work with an AR lower. Too bad our guvment poo poo'ed the round when it was first developed.

[Guest rystine]

I like the 6.8, but personally am more intrigued with the 6.5 grendel. Not nearly as popular and more expensive, but has alot more long range power than the 6.8. Either way, both round fall "in between" the 5.56 and 7.62.

On the other hand, the big advantage for the 6.8 seems to be that it was designed to have maximum performance from a 16 inch barrel. The 6.5 needs at least a 20 inch to get the 800+ meter performance that it is made for, IIRC.

All that said, a new round won't eliminate the need to train soldiers to engage at those ranges.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

What you guys fail to know is that the long confirmed shots were made with a 77gr Sierra Matchking, Sierra makes two versions.. one with a canulure and one without.. the military uses the first version. Not in all rifles mind you. But there are some Spec Ops and DSR's that are using this ammo. The Marine Corps and Army got the info and data from their Marksmenship Units respectively. Talked to Sierra about making a military version of the SIE77 Matchking. The marksmenship units use the standard 77gr Matchking in their competition Service Rifles out 600 yards on a regular basis.

Here is a vid of them doing so at Camp Perry in the Inf Throphy on the 600 yard line.

YouTube - Marines Rattle Battle Practice '08

[Guest 70below]

I don't think there is any doubt that a round like the 6.5 or 6.8 would be a superior round in most respects. However, I would think, the political and financial burdens of the switch make it a difficult sell right now. The 6.5 or 6.8 rounds would cost more to produce than 5.56, and to tell our allies we are switching again after getting most of them to switch to 5.56 would tick a lot of them off. 5.56 may not be the best choice out there, but its been doing the job for a lot of years.

[Guest rystine]

I don't think there is any doubt that a round like the 6.5 or 6.8 would be a superior round in most respects. However, I would think, the political and financial burdens of the switch make it a difficult sell right now. The 6.5 or 6.8 rounds would cost more to produce than 5.56, and to tell our allies we are switching again after getting most of them to switch to 5.56 would tick a lot of them off. 5.56 may not be the best choice out there, but its been doing the job for a lot of years.

Thats true. For better or worse I don't think the 5.56 is going anywhere. Until there is some significant advancement in bullet technology anyway (caseless ammunition for example).

[DaveTN]

I didn’t read the whole thing, but I read part of it. It is just another paper saying what most of us have known since Vietnam; the .223 is POS round for combat.

I can’t comment on the statements that the 6.8 is superior to the 7.62 NATO because I have never used the 6.8. But it would have to be one bad azz round to be better than the 7.62 NATO. Don’t forget they said the .223 was a better combat round than the 7.62 and we now know what kind of BS that turned out to be.

Kill shots out 800 meters with a .223 are just internet

I have a .308/7.62 NATO AR style weapon and I think it’s a shame that I can be better armed than our troops. I would like to think they are looking at change, but unfortunately I think the cost will be the deciding factor.

Bullet technology my azz, we had better ammunition in WWII & Korea than we have now.

[mikegideon]

I didn’t read the whole thing, but I read part of it. It is just another paper saying what most of us have known since Vietnam; the .223 is POS round for combat.

I can’t comment on the statements that the 6.8 is superior to the 7.62 NATO because I have never used the 6.8. But it would have to be one bad azz round to be better than the 7.62 NATO. Don’t forget they said the .223 was a better combat round than the 7.62 and we now know what kind of BS that turned out to be.

Kill shots out 800 meters with a .223 are just internet

I have a .308/7.62 NATO AR style weapon and I think it’s a shame that I can be better armed than our troops. I would like to think they are looking at change, but unfortunately I think the cost will be the deciding factor.

Bullet technology my azz, we had better ammunition in WWII & Korea than we have now.

The 6.8 is less powerful powerful than the 7.62 (lot less recoil too), but you can legally shoot a deer with it . It's the same length as the .223. Trajectory is supposed to be about the same as a 7.62, but the bullets are lighter.

The 7.62 AND the 30-06 have too much recoil for full auto fire from the shoulder, even with a relatively heavy rifle like the M14. The 6.8 is probably the perfect compromise. It makes so much sense that the upgrade will probably get funded.

From what I got out of the paper, the enemy is able to stay outside the effective range of the 5.56 because of the terrain. Perfect job for the .308, but apparently, the military doesn't think so.