Stars and Stripes article: M4 in Afghanistan

Nightcrawler · August 19, 2002, 03:59 PM

Found HERE.

Better bullets also will help, experts say

By Mark Oliva, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Sunday, August 4, 2002

Soldiers who fought in Afghanistan have some hard-earned opinions about the rifles on which they relied to stay alive. Mostly, they want more firepower.

The standard-issue ammunition compounded the problem, they said: The 5.56 mm round shot — a bullet equivalent to that marketed in the States to shoot small vermin — wasn’t effective in stopping al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. “Should be a 7.62 mm, so it will drop a man with one shot,” wrote one soldier.

Not all soldiers’ reviews were negative. Pat, a Special Forces soldier who is serving in Afghanistan, wrote the military watchdog group Soldiers for the Truth that “the M-4 with optics and the newer hand guards tends to be a pretty good weapon. Guys can change the optics out depending on the mission, and misfeeds don’t happen too often with good weapon maintenance.

The adjustable shoulder stock and assault sling, front pistol grip works well with body armor and different sized guys also,” the soldier said.

Army Lt. Col. Robert Carpenter, project manager for the small arms section of the report, said: “Somewhere between the trigger pullers and the maintainers is the ground truth.”

Also a factor, he said, are the rounds soldiers use today.

Soldiers now use the M-855 ball round, a lighter bullet designed during the mid-1980s with a steel penetrator designed to pierce body armor. But soldiers now find themselves shooting at al-Qaida, an enemy that doesn’t use body armor.

Some soldiers who fought in Afghanistan said the small, current-issue 5.56 mm rounds just lack needed punch.

The commercially available equivalent to a 5.56 mm round is a .223-caliber — marketed as a vermin round, for killing small game such as rabbits or coyotes, said John Bloodgood, a 19-year Air Force master sergeant with 11 years in tactical units, who also is a private firearms instructor.

More effective are .308 bullets — commonly used for large-game hunting and similar in size to bullets used up through the Korean War, he said.

“A .308 bullet has almost twice the frontal area of a .223,” he said.

It’s not the size but the type of round the military’s using, and shot placement, that determines a bullet’s stopping capability, said Ken Cooper, director of Tactical Handgun Training, a New York state certified law-enforcement pistol-training facility.

“The military uses hardball rounds and the effect is less than if soldiers were shooting expansion rounds,” Cooper said. “You can penetrate the human body with little to no effect.”

Cooper teaches law-enforcement officials to shoot low, for the pelvis. He said the human torso is like a sponge; it easily can absorb the impact of small pieces of lead, especially non-expanding jacketed bullets that leave small, clean holes that close quickly.

Shots to the pelvis, Cooper said, increase the likelihood of breaking the pelvic bone or severing the femoral artery, resulting in an immobilized attacker at a minimum or one rapidly losing blood at a maximum.

“The military teaches people to shoot center mast, in the middle of the body,” he said. “But if you hit people low, they will go down quickly. That’s what we want, both in civilian law enforcement and in military combat.”

Jamie Young · August 19, 2002, 04:32 PM

I think the biggest problem is we are shooting longer ranges than we did in Vietnam. I think the should be issuing some of these guys .308s for certain operations.

Bartholomew Roberts · August 19, 2002, 04:53 PM

Quote:

"A .308 bullet has almost twice the frontal area of a .223,” he said.

If it had almost twice the frontal are of a .223, wouldn't it be a .446 and not a .308?

Quote:

Cooper teaches law-enforcement officials to shoot low, for the pelvis.

Well, all I can say is that Cooper's teaching on wound ballistics is pretty much directly opposed to that of Dr. Fackler, both on the 5.56mm wound ballistics and the preference for a pelvic shot .

Armadillo · August 19, 2002, 04:56 PM

Or just let them use 20" A2 rifles instead of that 14.5" M4, increasing the fragmentation range of the M855 round. M4 is fine for CQB, not for long ranges. Or better yet, issue them soft point ammo. After all, this is not an official war, no treaties would be violated.

wQuay · August 19, 2002, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Or better yet, issue them soft point ammo. After all, this is not an official war, no treaties would be violated.

Watch-Six · August 19, 2002, 05:45 PM

Mr. Roberts, that would make it twice the diameter. Remember that 1/2 Pi x radius squared stuff in algebra? That computes area. FWIW their statement is roughly in the ball park. Watch-Six

Jeff White · August 19, 2002, 11:32 PM

As usual you can find more knowledge here at TFL then you can in the popular press.

I don't think Stars and Stripes chose their experts very well. We should all quit worrying about what rifle we're issued. It works fine (and has for the last 28 years in my personal experience). It's ammunition is adequate for the job, although there are some 5.56x45 rounds out there that would be a better choice.

I read the article several times, and don't recognize any experts that are quoted. Anyone know this Ken Cooper?

Perhaps they should ask our own Pat Rogers for his opinion.

As for M855 ammunition being a lighter bullet, it's actually heavier then the M193 round that used to be standard. Just another article full of Bravo Sierra....

I have the solution for any of these experts who feels inadequately armed with his issue M4 or M16. We will pull the old 90mm recoiless rifle out of storage. We'll issue each expert one and a large ALICE pack full of beehive rounds. He can hump that load through the hills and dales of Afghanisatn and be assured that he'll get his one-shot-stop on any enemy he manages to hit. We don't have anything else in the inventory that's man portable that will guarantee the mythical one-shot-stop every time.

Jeff - who should probably quit reading these threads....

sleeping dog · August 20, 2002, 06:31 AM

Quoting the article:

a Special Forces soldier ... wrote ..."misfeeds don’t happen too often with good weapon maintenance."

Boy, now there's a statement to inspire confidence!

On the bullet area, Bart, a .446 bullet should have four times the frontal area as a .223, if I remember right. Something about the square of the radius, etc etc.

Regards.

Bartholomew Roberts · August 20, 2002, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Mr. Roberts, that would make it twice the diameter.

Thanks for the correction. Obviously I was thinking in diameter and not area.

I'm still pretty skeptical about the comment though. I can't think of too many cases where the difference in frontal area between a .223 and a .308 is going to make up for less than optimum shot placement.

444 · August 20, 2002, 09:10 AM

"“The military uses hardball rounds and the effect is less than if soldiers were shooting expansion rounds,” Cooper said. “You can penetrate the human body with little to no effect.”

Note to self; update trauma center staff on this development, it will be a load off their mind.

'Shots to the pelvis, Cooper said, increase the likelihood of breaking the pelvic bone or severing the femoral artery, resulting in an immobilized attacker at a minimum or one rapidly losing blood at a maximum."

A shot to the pelvis results in greater blood loss than a shot to the chest ? A severed femoral artery is more effective that a shot to the left ventricle (which is a much bigger target than the femoral artery) ? The femoral artery is easier to hit than the heart, lungs, aorta with the spine lying right behind them ? A shot to the pelvis will immobilize an attacker but a center mass shot that severs the spine won't ?

Very educational.

Armadillo · August 20, 2002, 09:42 AM

Not to mention that a small, high velocity round is more likely to just punch through the pelvis than to shatter it. Slower, bigger bullets (38 special and 45 ACP come to mind) are more likely to shatter the pelvis, but not a non-fragmenting small bullet (like a sub-2700fps M855 round).

Correia · August 20, 2002, 10:59 AM

So I shoot them in the pelvis so they can fall down, but still shoot me?

Or do I shoot them in the chest where their heart, lungs, and spine are and kill them?

Ken Cooper is full of crap. I can print up some business cards too.

My business cards will read:

Larry Correia Inc.
Super Ultra Tactical Firearms Training
and Window Repair

Then I too can be an expert!

HankB · August 20, 2002, 12:51 PM

IIRC, the original 55 grain M193 bullet was found wanting in terms of penetration, so the 62 grain "SS109" was developed with a steel penetrator. Being longer and heavier, it wouldn't stabilize in standard barrels, so they switched to a faster 1:7 twist rate, which DID stabilize the heavier bullet. So a variation of the "new" bullet was adopted as the M855 with a "new" rifle, the M16A2.

Perhaps the new bullet is stabilized TOO well.

According to some sources, the original 55 grain slug often became unstable after impact, leading to "tumbling" within the target, during which the bullet frequently broke at the cannelure. This increased the bullet's lethality, and led to some (the Swedes, for one) to condemn it as violating the Hague Accords.

The new bullet appears to be less likely to tumble after impact, and so is less lethal. (Kinda makes one wonder if "someone" wanted this result. Nah, that would require a conspiracy.)

Interestingly enough, Hatcher's Notebook contained the results of penetration tests of .30 caliber bullets in oak - the bullet fired from longer range penetrated more wood, because the "yaw" most projectiles exhibit upon exiting the muzzle was damped at longer range, and the bullet held a straighter course. With the longer ranges our troops are encountering today in Afghanistan, perhaps the same factor is at work, and the bullet is even LESS likely to tumble after impact?

Factor in the reduced velocity of the M4 carbine being used now, and lower combat effectiveness should be no surprise.

BTW, I've never used the .223/5.56 on a large animate target, but I've been very unimpressed with the cartridge's performance on varmints when using FMJ ammo. . .

281 Quad Cam · August 20, 2002, 04:26 PM

i do see the point of the higher velocity tumbling .223 hitting the pelvis, it would mess alot up... i think human reaction to devastation in that area is more dramatic, as a soldier i know i would most expect and be ready for a hit to the upper torso, maybe not damage wise, but a shot down there will put me down for keeps...

an HK G3 i think would not be so bad in the circumstances, good 7.62 bullet with greater range, and i think the german rifle will better stand up to the desert!

Also i can say, if youve ever shot at a human target, at nearly any range over 100 yards, your aiming at a vague shape, chest or pelvis, you could bark off 5 rounds before the shape falls flat... Its a battle! trembling, nervousness, the eagerness to just kill and be out of harms way, the training is what keeps you together, but a rifleman aiming for a body part at 400+ yards... i dont think so...

August 19, 2002, 03:59 PM	#1
Nightcrawler Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2000 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 2,945	Stars and Stripes article: M4 in Afghanistan Found HERE. Better bullets also will help, experts say By Mark Oliva, Stars and Stripes Pacific edition, Sunday, August 4, 2002 Soldiers who fought in Afghanistan have some hard-earned opinions about the rifles on which they relied to stay alive. Mostly, they want more firepower. The standard-issue ammunition compounded the problem, they said: The 5.56 mm round shot — a bullet equivalent to that marketed in the States to shoot small vermin — wasn’t effective in stopping al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. “Should be a 7.62 mm, so it will drop a man with one shot,” wrote one soldier. Not all soldiers’ reviews were negative. Pat, a Special Forces soldier who is serving in Afghanistan, wrote the military watchdog group Soldiers for the Truth that “the M-4 with optics and the newer hand guards tends to be a pretty good weapon. Guys can change the optics out depending on the mission, and misfeeds don’t happen too often with good weapon maintenance. The adjustable shoulder stock and assault sling, front pistol grip works well with body armor and different sized guys also,” the soldier said. Army Lt. Col. Robert Carpenter, project manager for the small arms section of the report, said: “Somewhere between the trigger pullers and the maintainers is the ground truth.” Also a factor, he said, are the rounds soldiers use today. Soldiers now use the M-855 ball round, a lighter bullet designed during the mid-1980s with a steel penetrator designed to pierce body armor. But soldiers now find themselves shooting at al-Qaida, an enemy that doesn’t use body armor. Some soldiers who fought in Afghanistan said the small, current-issue 5.56 mm rounds just lack needed punch. The commercially available equivalent to a 5.56 mm round is a .223-caliber — marketed as a vermin round, for killing small game such as rabbits or coyotes, said John Bloodgood, a 19-year Air Force master sergeant with 11 years in tactical units, who also is a private firearms instructor. More effective are .308 bullets — commonly used for large-game hunting and similar in size to bullets used up through the Korean War, he said. “A .308 bullet has almost twice the frontal area of a .223,” he said. It’s not the size but the type of round the military’s using, and shot placement, that determines a bullet’s stopping capability, said Ken Cooper, director of Tactical Handgun Training, a New York state certified law-enforcement pistol-training facility. “The military uses hardball rounds and the effect is less than if soldiers were shooting expansion rounds,” Cooper said. “You can penetrate the human body with little to no effect.” Cooper teaches law-enforcement officials to shoot low, for the pelvis. He said the human torso is like a sponge; it easily can absorb the impact of small pieces of lead, especially non-expanding jacketed bullets that leave small, clean holes that close quickly. Shots to the pelvis, Cooper said, increase the likelihood of breaking the pelvic bone or severing the femoral artery, resulting in an immobilized attacker at a minimum or one rapidly losing blood at a maximum. “The military teaches people to shoot center mast, in the middle of the body,” he said. “But if you hit people low, they will go down quickly. That’s what we want, both in civilian law enforcement and in military combat.” __________________ Nightcrawler- TFL Alumnus

August 19, 2002, 04:32 PM	#2
Jamie Young Senior Member Join Date: April 7, 2000 Location: SE/PA Posts: 4,834	I think the biggest problem is we are shooting longer ranges than we did in Vietnam. I think the should be issuing some of these guys .308s for certain operations. __________________ Find out about Gun Shows and Training activities. www.TheRallyPoint.org Get your gun club involved!!

August 20, 2002, 09:10 AM	#10
444 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 3,968	"“The military uses hardball rounds and the effect is less than if soldiers were shooting expansion rounds,” Cooper said. “You can penetrate the human body with little to no effect.” Note to self; update trauma center staff on this development, it will be a load off their mind. 'Shots to the pelvis, Cooper said, increase the likelihood of breaking the pelvic bone or severing the femoral artery, resulting in an immobilized attacker at a minimum or one rapidly losing blood at a maximum." A shot to the pelvis results in greater blood loss than a shot to the chest ? A severed femoral artery is more effective that a shot to the left ventricle (which is a much bigger target than the femoral artery) ? The femoral artery is easier to hit than the heart, lungs, aorta with the spine lying right behind them ? A shot to the pelvis will immobilize an attacker but a center mass shot that severs the spine won't ? Very educational. __________________ You know the rest. In the books you have read How the British Regulars fired and fled, How the farmers gave them ball for ball, From behind each fence and farmyard wall, Chasing the redcoats down the lane, Then crossing the fields to emerge again Under the trees at the turn of the road, And only pausing to fire and load.

August 20, 2002, 12:51 PM	#13
HankB Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2000 Location: Central Texas, outside of Austin Posts: 1,698	IIRC, the original 55 grain M193 bullet was found wanting in terms of penetration, so the 62 grain "SS109" was developed with a steel penetrator. Being longer and heavier, it wouldn't stabilize in standard barrels, so they switched to a faster 1:7 twist rate, which DID stabilize the heavier bullet. So a variation of the "new" bullet was adopted as the M855 with a "new" rifle, the M16A2. Perhaps the new bullet is stabilized TOO well. According to some sources, the original 55 grain slug often became unstable after impact, leading to "tumbling" within the target, during which the bullet frequently broke at the cannelure. This increased the bullet's lethality, and led to some (the Swedes, for one) to condemn it as violating the Hague Accords. The new bullet appears to be less likely to tumble after impact, and so is less lethal. (Kinda makes one wonder if "someone" wanted this result. Nah, that would require a conspiracy.) Interestingly enough, Hatcher's Notebook contained the results of penetration tests of .30 caliber bullets in oak - the bullet fired from longer range penetrated more wood, because the "yaw" most projectiles exhibit upon exiting the muzzle was damped at longer range, and the bullet held a straighter course. With the longer ranges our troops are encountering today in Afghanistan, perhaps the same factor is at work, and the bullet is even LESS likely to tumble after impact? Factor in the reduced velocity of the M4 carbine being used now, and lower combat effectiveness should be no surprise. BTW, I've never used the .223/5.56 on a large animate target, but I've been very unimpressed with the cartridge's performance on varmints when using FMJ ammo. . . __________________ To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself - Sun Tzu

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

August 19, 2002, 04:56 PM	#4
Armadillo Member Join Date: January 20, 2001 Location: Ames, Iowa Posts: 56	Or just let them use 20" A2 rifles instead of that 14.5" M4, increasing the fragmentation range of the M855 round. M4 is fine for CQB, not for long ranges. Or better yet, issue them soft point ammo. After all, this is not an official war, no treaties would be violated.

August 19, 2002, 05:45 PM	#6
Watch-Six Senior Member Join Date: April 19, 2000 Location: Utah Posts: 654	Mr. Roberts, that would make it twice the diameter. Remember that 1/2 Pi x radius squared stuff in algebra? That computes area. FWIW their statement is roughly in the ball park. Watch-Six

August 19, 2002, 11:32 PM	#7
Jeff White Senior Member Join Date: October 29, 1998 Location: Kinmundy, IL, USA Posts: 1,397	As usual you can find more knowledge here at TFL then you can in the popular press. I don't think Stars and Stripes chose their experts very well. We should all quit worrying about what rifle we're issued. It works fine (and has for the last 28 years in my personal experience). It's ammunition is adequate for the job, although there are some 5.56x45 rounds out there that would be a better choice. I read the article several times, and don't recognize any experts that are quoted. Anyone know this Ken Cooper? Perhaps they should ask our own Pat Rogers for his opinion. As for M855 ammunition being a lighter bullet, it's actually heavier then the M193 round that used to be standard. Just another article full of Bravo Sierra.... I have the solution for any of these experts who feels inadequately armed with his issue M4 or M16. We will pull the old 90mm recoiless rifle out of storage. We'll issue each expert one and a large ALICE pack full of beehive rounds. He can hump that load through the hills and dales of Afghanisatn and be assured that he'll get his one-shot-stop on any enemy he manages to hit. We don't have anything else in the inventory that's man portable that will guarantee the mythical one-shot-stop every time. Jeff - who should probably quit reading these threads....

August 20, 2002, 06:31 AM	#8
sleeping dog Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2000 Location: MI Posts: 536	Quoting the article: a Special Forces soldier ... wrote ..."misfeeds don’t happen too often with good weapon maintenance." Boy, now there's a statement to inspire confidence! On the bullet area, Bart, a .446 bullet should have four times the frontal area as a .223, if I remember right. Something about the square of the radius, etc etc. Regards.

August 20, 2002, 09:42 AM	#11
Armadillo Member Join Date: January 20, 2001 Location: Ames, Iowa Posts: 56	Not to mention that a small, high velocity round is more likely to just punch through the pelvis than to shatter it. Slower, bigger bullets (38 special and 45 ACP come to mind) are more likely to shatter the pelvis, but not a non-fragmenting small bullet (like a sub-2700fps M855 round).

August 20, 2002, 10:59 AM	#12
Correia Senior Member Join Date: December 3, 1998 Location: SLC Utah Posts: 3,740	So I shoot them in the pelvis so they can fall down, but still shoot me? Or do I shoot them in the chest where their heart, lungs, and spine are and kill them? Ken Cooper is full of crap. I can print up some business cards too. My business cards will read: Larry Correia Inc. Super Ultra Tactical Firearms Training and Window Repair Then I too can be an expert!

August 20, 2002, 04:26 PM	#14
281 Quad Cam Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 937	i do see the point of the higher velocity tumbling .223 hitting the pelvis, it would mess alot up... i think human reaction to devastation in that area is more dramatic, as a soldier i know i would most expect and be ready for a hit to the upper torso, maybe not damage wise, but a shot down there will put me down for keeps... an HK G3 i think would not be so bad in the circumstances, good 7.62 bullet with greater range, and i think the german rifle will better stand up to the desert! Also i can say, if youve ever shot at a human target, at nearly any range over 100 yards, your aiming at a vague shape, chest or pelvis, you could bark off 5 rounds before the shape falls flat... Its a battle! trembling, nervousness, the eagerness to just kill and be out of harms way, the training is what keeps you together, but a rifleman aiming for a body part at 400+ yards... i dont think so...