Paging ARMY, TP, TSC, etc.

[Hexis]

I miss Crusader, it was so much cooler.

[Army]

I know a lot of requested a larger round than the .223, but the .223 was a very well thought out round. If a .223 round hits a bone when it enters the body it bounces all around in the body tearing a lot up. I've ready many stories where they've found someone who was shot in the shoulder and the exit wound was in the lower extremeties. Back in the day a lot of our troops used the 30-06 round which is a great round, and when it hit it would usually knock the victim on their back and they would die.
Myth. Shoulder fired projectiles simply do not have the sustained kinetic energy to knock anyone down...or onto their back. Ancient rumor that refuses to die.

Why would our military ever go away from this round?? Because if I shoot one person on a battlefield and he dies, I've taken one man out of the battle. If I shoot one person with a smaller person and have it rip around through them, then they are left there screaming. This does a few things.. first, it puts fear especially in younger soldiers who see it, and get their mind off of the battle. Second, you usually have one or two men who run to try to drag them to safety. Now you've taken a few people away from the firefight instead of just one. The logistics behind it make sense.Another myth with no basis in reality or doctrine. All military small arms are designed to kill, nothing else. The "fog of war" will not allow precision placement of rounds to produce only a wound. Soldiers shoot to kill, it's how we train, and what we train for. The 5.56mm kills very well at all ranges the M16 is designed for.

When it comes down to situations where you want a "one shot one kill" result, look at the round used. Overwhelmingly the #1 calibur of choice for national sniper rifles is the 7.62 x 51 round (also known as the .308).It is a NATO round, which is one reason it is used, the other reason is it is quite accurate and energy efficient at ranges beyond the capability of the 5.56mm It is an excellent round.. I've dropped three deer this year and long ranges (one 400+ yards) with this round in match grade ammo You used non-expanding ammunition to hunt with? I hope you are a good shot, rather than just lucky. The russians used a slightly longer cartridge with a similar projectile for their early sniper rifles (mosin nagants) which used the 7.62 x 54.They still do. 7.62 Russian is still first line ammo for the former Soviet states. Still used in all their medium machine guns That also is a great round you can buy cheap in bulk now. I don't see there being a change in caliburs for the military anytime soon though. There has been more research and time put into creating the m16 than any other rifle out from what I've been told.Not really. The rifle was a deliberate design, rather than a modification of an existing design. As with all small arms the US has fielded, continuous evolution is normal. It has been modified through the years to fix the problems they've had and making it a really reliable and pretty easily maintainable rifle. The original "problem" was a change in powder type that was incompatible with the design. This was quickly remedied and the rifle was evolved to counter this fault, resulting in the A1 series. The fact that every one of our marines have to qualify by shooting a paper target at 500 yards with the ironsights/peepsights and they say it's simple to do so is pretty impressive. If you have a chance, go look at what 500 yards looks like.. it's a darn good shot with ironsights.

Anyways, that's just my 2 cents.

The M16 series is reliable, accurate, and tough. Ordnance does have a hard time listening to reason at times, but even they quickly conclude if a weapon does not work as required it will be replaced.

[Lohman446]

I doubt you shoot to kill, now you would be the expert. You shoot to remove from combat, be that by killing or wounding... Hence training to shoot towards center of mass rather than neck or head

I would never shoot to kill. I would shoot to stop the threat My lawyer says so

[kosmo]

You said the key words, SPECIAL FORCES.

My point was that its not the weapon thats inaccurate, its the person.

[Army]

I doubt you shoot to kill, now you would be the expert. You shoot to remove from combat, be that by killing or wounding... Hence training to shoot towards center of mass rather than neck or head

I would never shoot to kill. I would shoot to stop the threat My lawyer says so

I didn't worry about any lawyers in Iraq, so I shot to kill.....like all my other fellow Soldiers.

I also didn't call in arty to scare anyone, nor throw any grenades to see if they really do make the big fireball I see in the movies.

We shoot center of mass because we don't have the luxury of time to designate who gets a headshot or not. Front sight on the largest part of the target---pull trigger. Wounded combatants can still pull a trigger or set off a mine. We shoot to kill, period.

[Lohman446]

I didn't worry about any lawyers in Iraq, so I shot to kill.....like all my other fellow Soldiers.

I also didn't call in arty to scare anyone, nor throw any grenades to see if they really do make the big fireball I see in the movies.

We shoot center of mass because we don't have the luxury of time to designate who gets a headshot or not. Front sight on the largest part of the target---pull trigger. Wounded combatants can still pull a trigger or set off a mine. We shoot to kill, period.

Im going to question if your training is truley about shooting to kill or shooting to put down. Though surely it is not about intentionally wounding. Surely being trained to shoot center of mass is not the most effective way to train to kill is it?

[kosmo]

It is when not everyone in the military is a good enough shot to be able to go for headshots, especially under duress. When youve got a whole squad of soldiers nailing a guy in the chest at the same time, that guys not getting off the ground without a mop and a shovel.

[edweird]

shooting center mass with the 5.56 round is one of the most desireable ways to kill with it honestly. As much as the naysayers want to state about "ball ammo" not being hightech enough to kill BG's they compleatly fail to understand what the 5.56 projectile does once it leaves the air and encounters a dense watery mass such as a human torso.

The primary wounding mechanism for .223 and 5.56 ammunition is fragmentation. The primary factor in fragmentation is velocity.

before you all get all weirded out on the 12 inches of penetration and think "well im not 12inches thick I will just avoid the fragmentaion unpleasantness with my skinny emo boy frame". When using properly chilled and prepared ballistics gel, it is commonly accepted that 12 inches of gel penetration is ideal. re: ammo-oracle again

The FBI protocols use 12 inches as a penetration minimum in calibrated ballistic gelatin and looked for consistent 12"-18" penetration as an ideal. As a general matter, major vessels and organs can be reliably damaged with 6 inches of penetration. Ideally, then, you want a wound profile that penetrates at least 12" and does most of its damage between 4" and 12" of penetration. Of course, its always more effective to leave entry and exit holes to encourage bleeding. Shot placement is always important as well.

and the close up of the above fragmentation


/cant tell if these pics will show from work cause the work interwebs are like tubes, and congressmen are doing all they can to fix that
//updated with new pics cause the home interwebs tubes are superior to the work tubes

[SCpoloRicker]

You broke the tubes edweird.

[Army]

Im going to question if your training is truley about shooting to kill or shooting to put down. Though surely it is not about intentionally wounding. Surely being trained to shoot center of mass is not the most effective way to train to kill is it?

Amazing.

You have had Army combat training then? Been to a combat zone? Been fired at and returned fire? Watched your buddies get hit and have been able to do nothing for them until the volume of fire has lessened enough to expose yourself?

Until you can answer any of these with a verifiable "yes", your ignorant statements just make you look silly.

[tsc]

..I haven't posted in FOREVER

(And no I haven't been searching my name, Army pointed this out to me. )

One question for everyone assuming that a central mass shot will only wound:

Do you think your juicy, blood-tacular abdominal cavity takes *well* to massive trauma?

It's not the bullet that kills you-- it's the hole in your vital organs.

[SCpoloRicker]

Holy crap! Hey tsc, how the heck are you?

[Lohman446]

Amazing.

You have had Army combat training then? Been to a combat zone? Been fired at and returned fire? Watched your buddies get hit and have been able to do nothing for them until the volume of fire has lessened enough to expose yourself?

Until you can answer any of these with a verifiable "yes", your ignorant statements just make you look silly.

Get off your high horse Army, I already acknowledged you were the obvious expert at it. However, one does not have to have been there or done it to look at it and make a consideration of it. Edweird at least can make his arguments civilaly (sp). Disagreeing with you does not automatically make someone an idiot.

"It just is I would know" is generally the mark of someone who thinks there an expert but really isn't. I know you know what your talking about, and you would do far better to educate than to berate people. I told you why I think what I do, its not an opinion entirely void of logic. Surely you would can make a far stronger argument than what you did.

[edweird]

I edited my above post with working pics this time...

as my // confirms, home interwebs tubes > work interwebs tubes

[billybob_81067]

I edited my above post with working pics this time...

as my // confirms, home interwebs tubes > work interwebs tubes

This I have to agree with, cause the pics from your home intertubes are way cooler than the non-existant ones from your work intertubes. :)