Modern military is a wimp, at least according to the bullets used

snowman · 09:03 PM

The military is in decline. Just look at the bullets used in the mid 1800's vs the ones used in the mid 1900's and the newer ones are getting even wimpier.

The biger one is the US GOVT 45-70

The second is a 0.308

The M16 is even smaller.

Nostril Cheese · 05-21-2007, 09:11 PM

got a small one, huh?

Joeaksa · 05-21-2007, 09:14 PM

Guess you have never seen anyone hit by a .223 or 7.62 round?

What is someone going to post next?

WolfeMacleod · 05-21-2007, 10:43 PM

We're not becomign wimpy, we're just becoming a kinder, gentler nation.

ok...we're becoming wimpy...

tabs · 05-22-2007, 12:17 AM

Back in the Revoulution bore size was 69, during the Civil War it was 58. post Civil War it was 50/70 then 45/70 and then 30 caliber.

svandamme · svandamme's Garage

doesn't matter how big the old bugger is if you it doesn't have the reach, firingrate or accuracy of the little new buggers

and then there is still this :

nothing wimpy about that one

on2wheels52 · on2wheels52's Garage

Spray and pray?
Jim

jriera · 05-22-2007, 04:35 AM

The 'logic' behind giving infantry smaller caliber ammunition and guns is based in the theory (fact) that it takes more resources to attend the wounded (transport, nurses, doctors, operating rooms, etc.) and has a higher psychological impact than not the dead produced by larger caliber ammo.

berettafan · 05-22-2007, 04:45 AM

snowbunny a few minutes of your time looking at .223 damage photos on the net will explain a lot to you. the key word to look out for is 'tumble'.

berettafan · 05:03 AM

remember the damage caused to the cop cars during the big shootout in 'Heat'? small entry holes and BIG exit holes? a friend who built his own legal fully auto AR and spent a lot of time with it told me that scene was the most accurate movie bit he had seen from a weapons standpoint.

edit===

i would like to qualify this as secondary information; i defer to any who actually know otherwise. on a board like this i wouldn't be surprised if a fellow Pelican actually worked on that movie and could offer some behind the scenes info.

Moses · 05-22-2007, 06:04 AM

F=MA

masraum · 05-22-2007, 06:35 AM

I've also seen on a show that they are working on bullets made of materials besides Pb including some sort of plastic to eliminate the Pb poisoning issues.

BTW, the assertation that smaller ammo makes the military wimpy is silly.

scottmandue · 05-22-2007, 06:57 AM

I seem to remember watching a documentary on the M16 where they said that the military poo pooed the rifle because of the "wimpy" ammo for several years.

Until one of the guys who developed the M16 had a BBQ where he invited a general and showed him what the gun could do to a couple of watermelons.

IIRC

RKC · 05-22-2007, 07:23 AM

Was at Walter Reed two weeks ago for a conference. Saw graphic slides of the wounded and dead from a surgeon who had just returned from Iraq. Modern weapons are plenty lethal. They are doing full body scans as "digital death certificates" on all the KIA's now so we have them for future studies.

Reminds me of the Kennedy "missile gap." Ours were smaller because ours were better and higher tech....

It doesn't really take much to kill a man if you hit one just right....

Kirk911SC · 05-22-2007, 07:40 AM

Found this with a quick Google search.....

http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm

jriera · 05-22-2007, 07:56 AM

As I said before ... is about the 'wounding' not the 'killing'

The .223 should be banned

Joeaksa · 05-22-2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scottmandue
I seem to remember watching a documentary on the M16 where they said that the military poo pooed the rifle because of the "wimpy" ammo for several years.

Until one of the guys who developed the M16 had a BBQ where he invited a general and showed him what the gun could do to a couple of watermelons.

IIRC

The General was Curtis LeMay of the US Air Force. Eugene Stoner, the designer of the AR-15 was getting stonewalled by the US Army, who had just adopted the M-14 (very good weapon BTW) and had no interest in the new weapon.

Stoner invited Gen. LeMay to a BBQ and let him fire a protoype full auto AR-15. The General was impressed and ordered some of the rifles for his SAC guards. The rest is history...

Jeff Higgins · 05-22-2007, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kirk911SC
Found this with a quick Google search.....

http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm

...30 Caliber rifle bullets of this type are known to knock men down, and throw them off their feet back some distance...

The article loses all credibility right then and there. No rifle bullet, of any caliber or energy, will throw them off their feet back some distance. Ever.

It's amazing the missperceptions that abound concerning terminal ballistics. Thank you Hollywood; thank you folks like Bob Tuley. In cases like this, the massive body of knowledge gained by soldiers' field experiences gets discounted by the thoughts of the inexperienced and unknowledgable. Experienced soldiers are adamant that the 5.56 does not kill as well as the 7.62.

My own experiences as a hunter bear this out. I've killed a fair number of a pretty good cross section of game and non-game animals available in North America, ranging in size from mere ounces to almost half a ton. .223 (5.56 NATO) class cartridges are out of the question for animals once they get to be about half the size of a small man. .30-'06 class cartridges do a noticably better job.

Back to the "throwing men off their feet". The only critters I have ever accomplished this with are ground squirrels and prairie dogs, hit with .223's or .220 Swifts. They weigh a couple of pounds at the most. Once you get up into the coyote size animals, there is nothing you can hit them with (that can be carried by a man) that will knock them off of their feet. Hell, I've shot coyotes with the .375 H&H mag using 300 grain bullets and have never managed to do this. It's a myth.

djmcmath · 05-22-2007, 10:13 AM

The discussion of wounding being preferable to killing makes sense at a strategic level, but it seems less desirable at a tactical level. Lots of wounded is a great bennie of a well-designed weapon, but not until after the battle. While it's still going on, I'd rather that the other guy not be able to shoot at me any more.

But then, I've never been in combat, so I'm really just talking out my arse.

Joeaksa · 05-22-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
...30 Caliber rifle bullets of this type are known to knock men down, and throw them off their feet back some distance...

The article loses all credibility right then and there. No rifle bullet, of any caliber or energy, will throw them off their feet back some distance. Ever.

Back to the "throwing men off their feet". The only critters I have ever accomplished this with are ground squirrels and prairie dogs, hit with .223's or .220 Swifts. They weigh a couple of pounds at the most. Once you get up into the coyote size animals, there is nothing you can hit them with (that can be carried by a man) that will knock them off of their feet. Hell, I've shot coyotes with the .375 H&H mag using 300 grain bullets and have never managed to do this. It's a myth.

Agree with much of the above but a .45 cal pistol bullet will swing a man around and a .50 cal bullet WILL pick someone up and move them.

As Jordi mentions above, the .223 bullet goes in and tumbles. The 7.62 round (M-14) is much better but todays military seems to want to use the "spray" method of fire on the battlefield as opposed to the old fashioned "firing one shot and hitting one target" of old days.