U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate

[TCBF]

"To illustrate, the infantry give "parade states" (hats off to the RCR on that one? ) where numbers of troops is given.  Armour will give number of tanks, artillery number of guns, etc."

-  "Pers State" and "Gun and AFV State". Both.  Daily.



Tom

 

[xavier]

Hi all:
Very spiritd thread. Thanks. It's very enlighetning. Speaking about marksmanship that's exactly one of the conclusion that the 5,56 mm report brought up: to emphasize marksmanship and aiming higher (i.e. centre mass or even headshots)

Here's my question for the shooters: should the Canadian military reemphasize 'old school' marksmanship- iron sight aiming and only after the soldiers have gained a certain proficency they then train with all the fancy optical equipment? Or is that simply unrealistic and it's simply more effective to train soldiers with both iron sights and the optical equipment at the same time?

Thanks!

xavier

 

[Fishbone Jones]

xavier,

There's many discussions and threads already on that subject. Do a 'search' try Elcan for a start. Let's keep this thread on track for a change. Back to the adequacy of the 5.56mm.

 

[xavier]

Reeceguy:
Thanks. Sorry I thought I was on topic since the report on the M855 concluded that one way to ensure the effetiveness of that round was to emphasize marksmanship and to aim higher.
I'll rephrase the question: would emphasis on traditional marksmanship skills increase the lethality of the 5,56mm or do we still need to adopt a different 5,56 cartridge such as the Mk262? Since the Mk 262's effective ballastics either kills the enemy combatant outright or severly incapacitates him

I hope I rephrased my question to bring it back on topic
Thanks again!

xavier

 

[paracowboy]

we do ned to emphasize marksmanship more, that's a given. Troops don't get near enough time on ranges (although 3VP is doing it's damndest to correct that). I can think of years, where I fired no more than a dozen rounds at work.

The Elcan sight is crap, and the idea seems to be that better doodads will replace skills.

That being said, why have either/or? Why not have more troops shooting more often, with a better round? And why not give them better optics (EOTech Holosight)?

 

[Enzo]

Xavier, it's a bit of a cop out to say that marksmanship is solely the key. If that was the case, then the .22LR should be considered for issue since it's uber cheap and a grunt could carry thousands of rounds on their person  ;D

Marksmanship skills are essential, that is simply a given. Each soldier should take it upon themselves to continuously improve their shooting prowess in addition to a solid skill set attained throughout their careers, etc.

The idea is to get the rounds into the dude and keep him down. If a guy darts out from cover 100m away and exposes himself for about ~2-4 seconds, are you going to try for a snap head shot or lead him a bit and put a couple into the largest part of his self that he is presenting to you? Apparently (as I have yet to experience this) it's very frustrating to do just that and have buddy keep on running behind cover. So yes, if you're able to put it into his head, by all means, indulge yourself. But if you're playing tag and you'd like to keep on being the guy who's dominating the court, then it's a good thing to have a round you feel confident in.

You beat me to it Para, but since I wrote this, I'm posting it anyway  >

 

[xavier]

Enzo & Paracowboy:
Thanks.  I get it- marksmanship is important but so's having a bullet that effective as well
Enzo:
True, true. I simply reacted to the information that the new optical equipment appears to have rendered marksmanship less important. So I understand your point, it's more important for the bullet to stay in the body and incapacitate the guy then for the bullet to pass through and allowing the guy to scramble to safety so he can shoot back at you.

Thanks again for your explanations; I'll head back to the sidelines and read more of  the thread

xavier

 

[paracowboy]

We’re ignoring a point here. We’ve become so programmed by Hollywood that people assume that once you’re hit, you fall down and die. Or rather, you fly backwards and die.

Third world armies don’t believe that. So you can hit them several times, and they don’t fall down. Even when hit in the torso.

Look at real world examples: Ronald Reagan’s bodyguard was shot with a .22. He FLEW backwards 6 feet. Physics says that the shooter should also have flown backwards 6 feet. Equal and opposite reaction, remember? Why did he? Why did a man weighing more than 200 lbs FLY through the air 6 feet when shot with a .22 handgun? Because Hollywood told him that’s what happens. So he launched himself.

But in reality, a human can soak up a LOT of rounds before going down. Look at the example of that young policewoman, who was shot seven times, and still killed her attackers. 7 times. The human body can take an incredible amount of damage. So we have accounts of people being impaled with fence posts through the chest and living, but they take one small caliber round, and they die immediately. Because they think they're supposed to.

So, if we can get a better round, one that has more oomph!, it will increase the chances of  Zippy the Bad Guy goin’ down when hit. He doesn’t see much TV, or watch many movies. To him, getting shot sucks, but he doesn’t realize that he’s supposed to fly backwards and expire immediately upon getting hit. He thinks he’s supposed to get up and carry on the fight.

A better round would change his mind.

 

[KevinB]

We’re ignoring a point here. We’ve become so programmed by Hollywood that people assume that once you’re hit, you fall down and die. Or rather, you fly backwards and die.

Third world armies don’t believe that. So you can hit them several times, and they don’t fall down. Even when hit in the torso.A better round would change his mind.

110%

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Col. Grossman talked about this in his tour as well.  I believe that one of the ways the higher ups are trying to change that is through education (hard considering how we have been brainwashed by hollywood) and believe it or not simunition.

 

[KevinB]

SIMS are a great tool (as Grossman and other allude) -- It helps prepare the soldier mentally and physically.  (I think Grossman should be mandatory in BSL)

One thing you notice about beginning advanced shooters in sims (and combat) - is they tend to shoot a lot of weapons - since the eyes lock on the threat (weapon) only after more advabced training will they shoot for the upper chest (or head if it calls for that)

 

[vonGarvin]

IODP 1.1 will use simunition this year (I think they have for a couple of years now).  (NB: IODP 1.1 is Phase III, dismounted platoon commander's course).
FWIW, my first experience with "simunition" was as a pasty civvy playing paintball.  Now, I KNOW that this isn't the same thing, but there was at least ONE lesson that MAY translate.
For the very first game (battle inoculation?), we were in an open field with some barrels (the big oil drums).  We lined up and had virtually zero cover.  The aim of that game wasn't to win, but to get shot, to get over that first fear.  Unfortunately, I avoided getting hit.  I was hit on the very next game, in the throat, from about 10 metres.  Frig, did it ever hurt!  Anyway, why did I get hit?  I peered OVER cover (instead of beside it or through it) and Zippy from the blue team nailed me.  What was my lesson?  Don't crest yourself.  I think that was the last time I did that (at least while playing paintball!)

So, in reading through this thread I think that there are a few things to consider


The 5.56 is perhaps a "general purpose" round, as it is designed for use at all ranges.  As mentioned, until we have smart bullets that can alter their physical state at the muzzle, we can't go mixing and matching bullets.  But, something must "alter".  What would that be?  Well, for shorter ranges, where a fatal shot is NEEDED, we need to train to instinctively shoot "the magic spot".  For longer ranges, shoot as is currently taught?  I mean, if the bad guy is at say 250 metres, a near fatal shot may be enough to incapacitate him until you close with and destroy.  Heck, even if it just suppresses him, you've done the trick.

So I guess it comes down to realistic and relevant training, including simunition augmenting live fire.


Too bad we can't shoot our own with 5.56 mm in triaining to get rid of the initial "fear" of bullets (JUST KIDDING)

 

[paracowboy]

Well, for shorter ranges, where a fatal shot is NEEDED, we need to train to instinctively shoot "the magic spot".  For longer ranges, shoot as is currently taught? 

3PPCLI is already making good headway with this by teaching the Gunfighter Program, not only to our troops, but to CS/CSS in Brigade. Different skillset for closer ranges. And, the CF has ALWAYS taught to shoot for the center of visible mass, and that is usually the torso. Whether in the prone at 300, or standing at 25.

I mean, if the bad guy is at say 250 metres, a near fatal shot may be enough to incapacitate him until you close with and destroy.  Heck, even if it just suppresses him, you've done the trick.

But, if you hit him twice in the chest, and he ain't stopped, then marksmanship takes a second seat to bullet effectiveness, doesn't it? I'd much prefer a sloppy hit that stopped Abdul Q. Jihadi, then a perfect hit that didn't even slow him down.

So I guess it comes down to realistic and relevant training, including simunition augmenting live fire.

damn skippy!

 

[vonGarvin]

But, if you hit him twice in the chest, and he ain't stopped, then marksmanship takes a second seat to bullet effectiveness, doesn't it? I'd much prefer a sloppy hit that stopped Abdul Q. Jihadi, then a perfect hit that didn't even slow him down.

True enough, perhaps, but in the example given (250 metres) and he's hit, say twice and drops, writhing in pain, or even keeps running, then, at that range and in this situation ONLY, perhaps the remainder of the section could help pump him, OR simply light a smoke, fix bayonets, and await for him to get closer

 

[a_majoor]

A slight aside, but I seem to recall the 4.7mm bullet proposed for the HK G-11 had an asymmetrical nose to encourage the bullet to tumble and release its energy on impact. A wadcutter or semi wadcutter bullet design would also dump its energy into the target on impact, although I think there are issues like range, accuracy and mechanical issues with the feed system which work against that idea.

In spite of the bulletology arguments,  marksmanship training will always be the key. After all, the supply system might break down and you could end up firing plain old SS-109 5.56, or even lighter American ammunition rather than some "wonder round" hand crafted by I6 or carved from the finest material on paracowboy's CNC milling machine. If the round does not hit the target, there is little effect (the guy might flinch or drop to the ground and hide when he hears the round snap past), but if it does hit, then you get a positive effect, even if it does not kill him outright.

So the bottom line is we need to make the best use of the tools available (what are you going to do when you are out of ammo and have to pick up a discarded AK-47, for example?), while working towards evolving the tools to their best potential.

 

[paracowboy]

In spite of the bulletology arguments,  marksmanship training will always be the key. After all, the supply system might break down and you could end up firing plain old SS-109 5.56, or even lighter American ammunition rather than some "wonder round" hand crafted by I6 or carved from the finest material on paracowboy's CNC milling machine. If the round does not hit the target, there is little effect (the guy might flinch or drop to the ground and hide when he hears the round snap past), but if it does hit, then you get a positive effect, even if it does not kill him outright.

nobody, least of all Infidel or me, is arguing against marksmanship. (We've both bemoaned the lack of proper gun handling on here enough, I'm sure.) We're arguing that marskmanship alone is not going to solve the problem we're facing. If it were just a matter of shot placement, we could arm everyone with .22 Short. But, small bullets are not as effective as big ones at making people lie down and play dead. Big bullets are not as easy to control. The compromise is a medium bullet, or pumping up the small one to it's maximum effect.

Unless we're going to devote the time and money to training every soldier to hit the medulla oblongata every time, with every shot, we need to give them a round that will dump maximum energy when it strikes the torso, delivering maximum shock, and still be controllable for follow-up shots. The round we're using just don't do that, and there's a better one out there that does. So let's get it.

So the bottom line is we need to make the best use of the tools available (what are you going to do when you are out of ammo and have to pick up a discarded AK-47, for example?), while working towards evolving the tools to their best potential.

yes. In other words: more shooting; more realistic training involving shooting and working your way down to head-butts and groin kicks; and a new round with little change to the envelope - better 5.56 round, or preferably adopting the 6.8mm in the Minimi and Colt we're currently using.

 

[vonGarvin]

yes. In other words: more shooting; more realistic training involving shooting and working your way down to head-butts and groin kicks

+1 100%

 

[a_majoor]

I'm not really arguing with you paracowboy, (at least not until my Kevlar turtleneck T shirts arrive  ), but we need to frame the argument to take into account we might not always be getting the ammunition natures we desire. IF every soldier is trained to hit the target reliably, then what is going downrange from his C-7, C-8 or C-9 is less important. There are obvious limitations to this argument, to be sure, but if a soldier has fired his last magazine and scavenges a magazine from a dead or wounded allied soldier (for a worst case scenario), then he can still shoot with confidence knowing he is hitting the target, and the target will go down sooner or later. If later, we can always help the process along with a bayonet, hand grenade, head butt, throat punch etc.

This is far more doable than getting an entirely new round and modifying all weapons accordingly! Remember with the suggested choices we have at least four COA's:

Do nothing
Get improved 5.56
Go to 6.5
Go to 6.8

By the time the competing factions have had it out, new soldiers will be learning about the plasma rifle in the 25 watt range. Let's push for better 5.56 and improved training, so there will be a result in our lifetimes.

 

[paracowboy]

I'm not really arguing with you paracowboy, (at least not until my Kevlar turtleneck T shirts arrive  ), but we need to frame the argument to take into account we might not always be getting the ammunition natures we desire.

I don't think any of us are actually arguing. We're all saying pretty much the same thing, in different terms (if that made any sense). But, I like this thread, and the clarification we're achieving. (I hope the one on Simmunition and LEO/Infantry tactics will be as interesting. I'm having a lot of fun, here.)

Let's push for better 5.56 and improved training, so there will be a result in our lifetimes.

I know this is the most do-able scenario, and am only harping on 6.8 in the hopes of keeping it on the radar. The costs are not only prohibitive, but astronomical. Unless Uncle Sam goes with it, and as the first post pointed out, it ain't a-gonner happen. But, I'm goin' down fightin'! As I said, They win, but I'm right.

Now, since I'm not going to get my 6.8 (I recognized that a long time back, and have been pushing for a better round, an upgraded 5.56 since page one, basically.), let's, as you say, bring on a better round for the plastic-fantastic .22, and get the troopies out to shoot it more often.  Let's also throw in more training involving Simunition to hand-to-gland. Between the two, we should be teaching enough  muscle memory that they can engage at 300 (further with a better 5.56, further yet with a 6.8), all the way in to breath-smelling close.

 

[Haggis]

We’re ignoring a point here. We’ve become so programmed by Hollywood that people assume that once you’re hit, you fall down and die. Or rather, you fly backwards and die.....

But in reality, a human can soak up a LOT of rounds before going down. Look at the example of that young policewoman, who was shot seven times, and still killed her attackers. 7 times. The human body can take an incredible amount of damage.

A SWAT cop buddy of mine took a .223 Remington JSP in the thigh at point blank range.  He lived, and went on to remain a superbly fit street cop (although out of SWAT by his own choosing).  Clearly that tells me he doesn't watch much TV.