U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate

[Kal]

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.

Hollywood also has its share of examples of where an individual incurs an injury and continues on with little ill effect all the while still making one liners.  In reality, that same injury would incapacitate the same individual.  Why aren't we becoming programmed to believe this? 

 

[Kal]

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.

Is this fact?  How can this conclusion be drawn?  Did this bodyguard say this is what happened to him?

Para, I don't mean to be a questioning dick, but can you please provide some answers?

 

[Kirkhill]

I am going to slowly stick my head back above the parapet again here to ask another (no doubt) silly question. ;D

Actually 2 or 3.

1.  How much life is left in the existing stocks of C7/C8/C9s?
2.  How much inventory of 5.56mm do we keep on hand?
3.  What is the rate of burn on ammo and weapons in peacetime?
4.  What is the current burn rate?
5.  If everybody trained at the level suggested by various posters here (and I am in no position to say otherwise - one of my own grievances was inadequate time on ranges and "militia bullets") what  would the burn rate on weapons and ammo be?

Following on from those questions (rhetorical all) I am going to suggest that in peacetime weapons are cleaned and used as little as possible.  Marksmanship is not a high priority. 
In periods of conflict (note - I did not say war, nasty concept) skill with arms becomes critical but I am guessing that a couple of weeks on the ranges and a 1000 rounds per soldier goes a long ways to fixing that.  Unfortunately all that training uses up stocks and wears out weapons.  Thats the bad news.

That also is the good news though.  If we are eating up inventory, and inventory needs to be replaced, why not replace it with something more suitable to actual conditions? Not necessarily better, just more suitable.

The problem with a peacetime army is that it is much like sitting in one of those old WW1 trenches. You know you are going to get hit and you have to plan to counter it.  You just don't know where, when, how, by whom and in what strength.  Consequently you end up trying to counter threats which may never happen and which others don't see, sometimes you take too much counsel of your fears for the worst and create tools for dealing with phantoms.

Once action is joined, and the enemy has dictated where, when and how the battle is going to be fought then it becomes brilliantly clear you don't need nukes, you need more billy clubs.

Now you no longer have to imagine all the possibilities you may have to deal with you can focus on the reality you are dealing with.

If you need a different round/weapon/etc, when is a better time to look at one?

Too long above parapet - going to ground.

Cheers.

 

[paracowboy]

Kal,
It's all in the works of Davie Grossman and cohorts. Required reading for 3 Vp leadership types (and me). It's also why we in the Infantry are changing the way we train, from having troopies continue "fighting" in Simmunition and MILES gear training, to lectures, to 1st Aid being re-vamped via TCCCS.

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.

you can also see by the example of the young female street cop, that it doesn't impact everyone. Didn't work on her, thankfully, and she's still patrolling the streets (according to the newspaper article, anyway. Some Seattle paper, IIRC).

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Perhaps it didn't work on some of these people BECAUSE they have been introduced to the new kind of training discussed to negate the hollywood effect.

 

[Enzo]

Following on from those questions (rhetorical all) I am going to suggest that in peacetime weapons are cleaned and used as little as possible.  Marksmanship is not a high priority. 
In periods of conflict (note - I did not say war, nasty concept) skill with arms becomes critical but I am guessing that a couple of weeks on the ranges and a 1000 rounds per soldier goes a long ways to fixing that.  Unfortunately all that training uses up stocks and wears out weapons.  Thats the bad news.

Uh, hell no! Marksmanship IS a high priority. Barrels wear, parts can be replaced, it's only money. Your rifle is your weapons system and you should be intimate with it (quite literally an extension of yourself) and that comes with proper training (lots of that on range, in exercise, etc.) and practical experience (as close to combat conditions as you can "safely" replicate). 1000 rds/per... Is that a guess you're willing to stake lives on? This a refresher and such time should already be mandatory prior to a tour along with tons of the aforementioned.

The problem with a peacetime army is that it is much like sitting in one of those old WW1 trenches. You know you are going to get hit and you have to plan to counter it.  You just don't know where, when, how, by whom and in what strength.  Consequently you end up trying to counter threats which may never happen and which others don't see, sometimes you take too much counsel of your fears for the worst and create tools for dealing with phantoms.

Outdated analogy, yes there is much said about training for the past conflict (there is still much of that to be found in any military) but the current MOUT & insurgent style contacts have been around since before the 90s. Evolution of your systems and tactics, etc. is key and that is shown, i.e., C7A1 - C7A2, etc. Attempting to counter the specific threat is factored into your available weapons systems and their integration within the section, i.e., C7, C8, C6, C9 w/ support: LAV, Griffon (Apache), CF-18, Artillery, etc.

 

[paracowboy]

Perhaps it didn't work on some of these people BECAUSE they have been introduced to the new kind of training discussed to negate the hollywood effect.

entirely likely, as Davie-boy has been well received amongst the Law Enforcement community, and his discoveries/teachings are disseminated widely. My cousin the Mountie and I had possibly the only truly interesting conversation of our lives on it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Uh, hell no! Marksmanship IS a high priority.

Enzo, no argument from me there.  Unforturnately governments, DND, the CF, the Army and the Militia over the years have demonstrated that they do not think we are right.

Bullets! Bullets! Bullets! You're dead.

 

[KevinB]

The CF actually pays extra money to IVI to keep it open (well SNC as IIRC they own IVI now).  The draw is so low that is uneconomical for SNC to operate it.

Marksmanship is a VERY perishable skill -- troops whould ideally be shooting everyday - failing that every week.

Armies cost money -- why bother having one that is unskilled and unable to deliver what it should be able to do?

Curently some troops in some units will only be alloted 60 some odd rounds a YEAR  ???
That is a CRIME.

Basically the M16FOW will have a revier lifespan in excess of 100,000 rounds -- barrels between 5k and 20k depending on type of use.
Bolts between 5-10k rounds usage.

Like Paracowboy I like the 6.8 round in principal -- however until they get a SAW adopted for it - it is a non starter other than specialized unit use.

 

[paracowboy]

Like Paracowboy I like the 6.8 round in principal -- however until they get a SAW adopted for it - it is a non starter other than specialized unit use.

and, sadly, not really worth the added expense with 5.56, 5.56 link, 7.62 link, 7.62 hollow point, .50 cal link, .50 cal, .338, 9mm, (did I miss any?). No sense in adding more to the supply system. Far more economical to go to an upgraded .223.

But, I'm still right, dagnabit!

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I was reading through this thread and originally I wasn’t going to say anything since it has been a long time since I’ve done any serious shooting. However, while reading through the threat I noticed a statement made by paracowboy that caught my eye and I had to comment. Here is the statement:

“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.”

Later paracowboy states that he received this info from David Grossman, a well-known expert on human aggression. Unfortunately, this information is wrong.  Here is a link  (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyvideo.htm) to the video of the assassination attempt and it’s quite obvious the bodyguard (he’s the guy in the grey suit who turns and faces camera) did not fly backwards six feet. You see him taking the hit, he then turns/”skips” to the right and collapses.

Paracowboy, this is not meant to a criticism of you since you had received the info from an acknowledged expert in the field, but when I saw the statement I figured I should set the record straight. Cheers.

 

[paracowboy]

Later paracowboy states that he received this info from David Grossman, a well-known expert on human aggression. Unfortunately, this information is wrong.  Here is a link  (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyvideo.htm) to the video of the assassination attempt and it’s quite obvious the bodyguard (he’s the guy in the grey suit who turns and faces camera) did not fly backwards six feet. You see him taking the hit, he then turns/”skips” to the right and collapses.

Paracowboy, this is not meant to a criticism of you since you had received the info from an acknowledged expert in the field, but when I saw the statement I figured I should set the record straight. Cheers.

thanks! Factual info is never a criticism.

As an aside, does anyone know how the guy is doing now? I imagine he's retired, but did he continue on with the Secret Service?

 

[starlight_cdn]

Curently some troops in some units will only be alloted 60 some odd rounds a YEAR  ???
That is a CRIME.

I shoot exactly 42 rounds 5.56mm and 25 rounds 9mm a year with my unit. Pitiful.

Thankfully, I keep my pers skills up via 'recreational' shooting and some work after hours.

 

[TCBF]

Well, I got lucky.  A bunch of us learned a new way to shoot yesterday, and in the process fired over 300 rounds each.  My take on it - when you take a 51 year old with 30 years in and suddenly try to teach him how to shoot starting bent over in the 'dog ^&*%$#@ a football' (as I call it) position - your ammo budget better go up a LOT. 

Another skill set that will no doubt fade if we don't keep it up.

Me, I'm all for keeping it up.  It was a very interesting experience, and worthwhile.

 

[starlight_cdn]

Well, I got lucky.  A bunch of us learned a new way to shoot yesterday, and in the process fired over 300 rounds each.  My take on it - when you take a 51 year old with 30 years in and suddenly try to teach him how to shoot starting bent over in the 'dog ^&*%$#@ a football' (as I call it) position - your ammo budget better go up a LOT. 

Another skill set that will no doubt fade if we don't keep it up.

Me, I'm all for keeping it up.  It was a very interesting experience, and worthwhile.

It is new for you!!!

Excellent for close up....

 

[Centurian1985]

Well, I got lucky.  A bunch of us learned a new way to shoot yesterday, and in the process fired over 300 rounds each.  My take on it - when you take a 51 year old with 30 years in and suddenly try to teach him how to shoot starting bent over in the 'dog ^&*%$#@ a football' (as I call it) position - your ammo budget better go up a LOT. 

Can you amplify this or post a link to a picture of what you are describing?  I spent a lot of time behind the firing sights but this doesnt sound like any position Ive used or seen before (other than in procreation that is  ;D)

 

[KevinB]

Should be something like this.

 

[HItorMiss]

Yup I6 put up some very good pictures. you bend your knees keep your body square to the target and lean foreward slightly at the waist for recoil.

Did I miss a postion I6?

 

[George Wallace]

Yup!

Your body armour/plates are on your chest and back.  You have nothing under your arms, so that is you soft/weakest spot - sides.

 

[KevinB]

Squaring up 100% is more of an MP-5 drill - due to the greater lenght and recoil of the C8 you still blade your stance a bit -

The slight lean and bent knees are so you can still shoot and move while retaining stability in yoru upper torso.
Both Elbows are in - as opposed to as previous taught