After five years of fighting, soldiers say that the bullets used in M16 & M4 rifles are not effective in street fighting. Our warriors deserve the tools necessary to come home alive. by Bob Nightingale
(libertarian)
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Typically, when a war lasts a long time, the weapons become obsolete. Usually an enemy improves his tactics or technology. However, in recent fighting in Iraq, and in the not so recent Somalia, US forces are requesting the 1950s-era M14 and its bullets, when they can. The M16 was designed for the jungles of Vietnam. It was the rifle John Wayne broke against a tree in disgust after one of his men died in The Green Berets. Its 5.56 mm round was made to penetrate Soviet body armor. It seems to be less of a match against the nimble street fighter, lightly clothed and easily hidden behind masonry and burning cars.
The Associate Press' article "US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war" ([link edited for length]) details the shortfalls of the bullets used in the M16 rifle. Snipers still get issued the older, rarer M14. The M14 uses a 7.62 mm round, about the same diameter as the one used by the M1 Garand (.30 cal) from WWII. It is very close to, but not interchangeable with, the 7.62 mm used in the AK-47, which is the most produced assault rifle in the world. The M16's bullet is about the same diameter as a .22, but longer, pointier and with more gunpowder.
The article reports that the Army investigated the 5.56 mm for its battlefield effectiveness. It does what it was designed to do. But according to one ex-Marine, the report left out that a larger bullet would be more effective in certain scenarios. The official Army response was for the men to just shoot straighter.
That same attitude has gotten plenty of men killed in past wars.
In WWI the US Army arrived in France without any automatic rifles, and had to suffer the curse of the Chauchat. The French-made Chauchat jammed often and was susceptible to getting dirty due to its open magazine. Later in WWI, American Marines were ordered to give up their reliable Lewis machine guns for the inferior Chauchat, because of political considerations.
The British naval muskets were no match against American frontiersmen using the Kentucky long rifles in the Revolutionary War and at the Battle of New Orleans ([link edited for length]). With a longer barrel, the shot flew straighter and had a greater muzzle velocity. A longer barrel allows the powder to burn longer and builds up more pressure behind the bullet. The longer barrel of the M14 over M16 likewise works in its favor.
Before the semi-automatic M1 Garand rifle was adopted, the Army said that the bolt-action Springfields were better because they used fewer bullets. The problem was that a soldier could get shot between ejecting one round and locking the next one manually. Someone was late on getting the memo on the Gatling gun and the Vickers machine gun. The Springfield M1903 was kept as a precision sniper rifle for years after the M1 became the main Army rifle just prior to WWII. If you're surrounded, you want something that sprays a lot of lead quickly. Now if you have any doubt what one man can do with a .50 caliber machine gun, look up the Audie Murphy story sometime ([link edited for length] ). The assault rifle, like the M16 or the AK-47, combines the rapid fire of a machine gun with the convenience and accuracy of a rifle. The question that weapons designers and military planers have struggled with is the bullet size: should it be a quarter inch, or half inch, or something in between?
This war in the Middle East isn't the first time American fighters have asked for a larger caliber. During Moro Rebellion ending in 1913 after the Philippine-American War, Americans found that their .38 caliber sidearms were inadequate against a determined foe. The larger .45 caliber (about 11.5 mm) Automatic Colt Pistol was available, but not by the men who needed it. The 1911 model was eventually adopted by the military in time for the first World War. It remained the standard sidearm of the U.S. military, until it was replaced by the Beretta 9mm in the 1980s.
The downside of the .45 ACP was the slow muzzle velocity that made it less effective against body armor. The 9mm was lighter, could carry more rounds, and cost less to manufacture. The Tommy gun of Prohibition fame used the same large ammo as the Colt .45, but was retired after WWII for the same reasons, just sooner.
Honestly, my opinion shouldn't carry much weight here. I'm just reporting and analyzing what I see. I'm an out-of-shape civilian, sitting in my easy chair, thousands of miles away from any battlefield, with my fat fingers at a computer keyboard. It's been over 20 years since I've shot anything, mostly range practice with a .22. My paper targets didn't shoot back.
The ones getting shot at are professionals. They're the ones who should know what the best tool is to get the job done, or, at least, to stay alive.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Bob Nightingale only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Bob Nightingale is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
There are a couple more factors also involved in this. The modern militray 5.56 is designed to tumble (in tissue) and fragment (on bone) for maximum stopping power. For this tumbling and fragmentation to be possible the bullet has to achieve a minimum velocity. The M16 series and the M240 SAW both have enough barrel length to achieve the required velocities, but the M4 carbine with its shorter barrel doesn't consistantly achieve that velocity. This is partially why the Marines have not adopted the M4 as their primary weapon.
Essentially this means that the conversion from the M16A2 to the M4 has reduced the stopping power of the weapon, but has made the weapon more ergonomic and effective in urban streetfighting. The shorter length of the M4, combined with the full automatic capability (as opposed to the 3 round burst capability of the M16A2) gives it more versatility in close quarters fights.
As for the power of the round when comparing the 5.56mm to the 7.62mm there are a few more factors to consider than just stopping power. The 5.56mm tends not to be as effective at penetrating masonry as the 7.62. This is a two edged sword as far as the powers that be are concerned. When one considers that one of the goals of the powers that be is to limit the amount of casualties among non-combatants (among whom the insurgents are hiding) the 5.56 can be better at room clearing operations. The problem of course comes in when your opponent changes strategy. When you are trying to clear out heavily dug in enemies (like the fight for Fallujah) the ability to penetrate and reduce their cover can be a major asset.
Finally the standard 5.56 bullet is only about 1/3rd the weight of the standard 7.62 bullet. Because of basic physics this means that the 7.62 remains more lethal and accurate at longer ranges. This can be a major factor when engaging enemies in non-urban or built up areas where ranges over 300 meters can be an issue (think the mountains of Afghanistan).
There are of course non-ballistic tradeoffs between the 5.56 and 7.62. These fators are largely conerned with weight. Generally speaking a soldier carrying 7.62 will have approximately 1/2 to 1/3rd less ammo than someone carrying 5.56. The M14 is also larger and heavier than the M16 or M4 which can be a factor for smaller soldiers. Both weapons are good for their primary missions, but since the Kennedy administration the ARMY has had a policy of choosing one weapon for all occassions and issuing it to everyone. This one rifle fits all policy is helpful for logistics but does not always lead to the most elegant battlefield solutions.
This is one decision that should be left to the military, not the politicians. Let the people who are doing the fighting have whatever caliber they want.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
