The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 5, 2017, 04:14 PM   #26
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
Quote:
someone correct me if i am wrong, but i believe the M-16 debuted with a 1-12 twist when it hit the scene. that twist could not stabilize the bullet causing it to tumble, and hence, resulted in devastating wound tracts. the M-16A1 "corrected" the twist problem, and lethality has suffered ever since.
The M16 & A1 used the 1:12 twist, and the ammo was the 55 gr. M193. A 1:12 WILL stabilize that or lighter bullets, else you wouldn't be able to hit anything.

I've shot enough targets to 600 and beyond to know that combo is indeed accurate. In fact the I carried a M700 w/1:12 as a counter-sniper rifle and used M193 Ball in my duties. That rifle was extremely accurate.

The tumbling theory comes from the light high velocity bullet being easy to upset and does SOMETIMES start tumbling.

Thought the M193 is somewhat accurate, its light, it does not have a lot of energy or penetration at distance and is easier to be deflected by wind.

That is why the Army went to the 'A2, which has a 1:7 twist. It allows for heavier bullets which penetrate better and are less effected by wind.

I hope not to confuse anyone when I refer to heavier bullets needing a faster twist. Its not the weight of the bullet that determines twist requirements but the length of the bullet.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old May 5, 2017, 04:46 PM   #27
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
someone correct me if i am wrong, but i believe the M-16 debuted with a 1-12 twist when it hit the scene. that twist could not stabilize the bullet causing it to tumble, and hence, resulted in devastating wound tracts. the M-16A1 "corrected" the twist problem, and lethality has suffered ever since.
You're wrong. That is a popular myth and has even been printed in books; but it confuses the difference between spin stabilizing a bullet in air and spin stabilizing a bullet in a much denser medium like a mammal, which is mostly liquid. It also shows a poor understanding of the bullet flight characteristics involved (which to be fair weren't even well understood until recently).

Suffice it to say, you'd need a twist like a machine screw to stabilize a .223 bullet in flesh, so 1:7 doesn't give up anything over 1:14. If you want the longer explanation, this PDF explains why the whole basic concept underlying that argument is wrong: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519801.pdf
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 5, 2017, 05:09 PM   #28
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
kraigwy beat me to it!..

Quote:
someone correct me if i am wrong, but i believe the M-16 debuted with a 1-12 twist when it hit the scene.
You're right about that.

Quote:
that twist could not stabilize the bullet causing it to tumble, and hence, resulted in devastating wound tracts. the M-16A1 "corrected" the twist problem, and lethality has suffered ever since.
your NOT right about this.

The 55gr FMJ (M193 ball) was entirely adequately stabilized, and the M16A1 used the same 1-12 twist so no "correction" happened there (nor was one needed).

The tumbling so touted for the 5.56mm round in Viet Nam is an overblown myth with a kernel of truth buried inside.

The truth is that EVERY bullet longer than it is wide will yaw, (and eventually tumble if it has enough penetration) when traveling through a target medium.

The effect is most pronounced with Spitzer type bullets (the center of gravity is well toward the rear of the bullet) and the faster the bullet is moving, and the lighter it is affects the distance needed to travel though the target before tumbling.

The standard 150gr spitzer used in 7.62x51 NATO will tumble however, due to its size & speed, it usually doesn't show this tumble effect inside a body. In other words the bullet has (usually) passed through the enemy before it tumbles.

The small light faster .22 cal bullet tumbles sooner, often while within the body of the enemy. In other words, fewer inches of tissue deflect it more.

The part about the rifling twist rate causing the .22 bullet to be unstable and tumble in order to create greater wounds is complete BS.

As to "lethality" of rounds in war, based on kills vs rounds fired, it may be a useful thing when considering the entire mass of ammo used, but for comparing the performance of specific individual rounds against each other, its a red herring.

Quote:
my research suggests that soldiers in WW2 were better marksmen, perhaps due to the fact that they knew every round mattered. perhaps if they carried 5.56 with the limited round count, the result may have been the same or close, since the limited number quite possibly may have resulted in making more accurate shots. just my 2 cents, but seems to fit.
The number of kills/rounds fired would seem to suggest that, but you have to look at more than just those numbers to get anything other than a radically distorted picture.

Consider where those numbers come from, and how things differed in various wars. Some of these factors will also explain why just using the killed/shots fired data is insufficient.

WW I, .30-06, bolt action rifle 5rnd capacity.
WWII, same round, same rifles, plus the 8 shot semi auto M1 Garand
different tactics, with a big change about halfway through WWII.

You'll get different numbers kill/shots fired from both wars, using the SAME round. Why? One factor is the larger capacity of the semi making it easier to fire more rounds. ANOTHER factor is that pre WWII doctrine was that riflemen fired when they had a target, suppressive fire was the province of the machine guns.

About halfway through the war, combat experience and the veterans to teach it changed that. Riflemen were taught to put a round or two into anything that might conceal an enemy. That change right there is enough to radically skew analysis of both an individual rounds effectiveness and the troops marksmanship based on enemy killed /rounds fired.

Move up to more recent times with the M16 and you have 20rnd capacity, full auto, and light recoil, in the hands of every rifleman & other troopers. Its a rare GI who doesn't use full auto if its available. Simply put, GIs fired more ammo per kill in Viet Nam than WWII because they could. Move up to 30rnd sticks, and the same rifle, and that's a huge increase in rounds available to be fired, and so more will be used "per kill".

The guy with only one shot (at a time) tries hard to make it count. The guy with a full auto tries to make each burst count. Which one do you think uses more rounds per kill??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 5, 2017, 07:35 PM   #29
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
FWIW twist vs. stability: I have a 1:14 upper, specifically for coyotes. I regularly see one MOA with 55-grain flat-base soft-points.
Art Eatman is offline  
Old May 5, 2017, 09:56 PM   #30
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,483
You mean like a .222 Magnum?
Predates the .223, probably a better round but does not fit the AR.
14 twist was plenty for 55 gr flatbase spitzer or 52 gr boat tail.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old May 5, 2017, 11:12 PM   #31
ttarp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2013
Posts: 888
I find it telling, people make excuses for the 5.56's effectiveness, while the most cited complaint of 7.62 is weight and capacity.
ttarp is offline  
Old May 5, 2017, 11:32 PM   #32
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 751
We are civilians. How many rifle gun fights are we going to get into? Even then, how many rounds are we going to shoot? I figure that a gun in 7.62x51mm is going to be more than enough. Now Magpul offers 25 round magazines!
tomrkba is offline  
Old May 6, 2017, 12:04 AM   #33
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
The hydroscopic shock does a lot of damage.
The doctor gives me water pills to help keep me from getting hydroscopic shock.

Hydrostatic shock, that will get you much quicker, if it occurs.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old May 6, 2017, 07:58 AM   #34
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
Quote:
I've found the opinions of military personal to be no more accurate than internet or gun shop chatter.
That's a good statement. i spent a career in US Army EOD. Never shot anyone in combat. But i have killed a large number of wild hogs using the 5.56mm M193 rifle round. The effects of that bullet are devastating at ranges to about 150 yards when fired from a 20" or longer barrel: The bullet penetrates about 6", yaws and fragments. At lower velocities the magic is gone.

US Army Colonel and medical Dr. Martin Fackler, treated combat gunshot wounds. Dr. Fackler also conducted tests on military ammunition.

Wounds produced at velocities in excess of about 2,750 fps prove the M193 5.56mm bullet to be devastating. Conversely, the US Army 7.62mm M80 ball ammunition is not as effective. The German 7.62mm NATO ball round is much better.

http://kjg-munition.de/Zielwirkung/m..._patterns.html

Last edited by thallub; May 6, 2017 at 08:10 AM.
thallub is offline  
Old May 6, 2017, 12:50 PM   #35
rjinga
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2012
Location: N. E. Georgia
Posts: 512
Quote:
Bullet mass and bullet striking velocity establish a bullet's potential; they set the limit on the tissue disruption it can produce. Bullet shape and construction determine how much of this potential is actually used to disrupt tissue; they are the major determinants of bullet effect. Far and away the most disruptive bullet of those described is the West German 7.62 NATO round. Its fragmenting behaviour maximises utilisation of its much higher potential (bullet mass well over twice that of any of the 5.56mm bullets and velocity only about ten percent less than theirs) for tissue disruption.
Military rifle bullet wound patterns by Martin L. Fackler
__________________
"Yo homie. Is that my briefcase?"

Sig Sauer P229 SAS GEN 2 E2 9mm; PTR 91, GI model; Chinese Type 56 SKS; Smith & Wesson Shield 9mm
rjinga is offline  
Old May 6, 2017, 02:10 PM   #36
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
I just want to point put that US service rifles circa WWI through WWII were chambered for .30-06 but the rounds used have differences depending on their being .30 M1906, .30 M1, or .30 M2 ammunition.
Chris_B is offline  
Old May 6, 2017, 08:57 PM   #37
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
When 'Spray-n-Pray' was the official doctrine (Vietnam) and the tall aperture sight was used so the M-16 so full-auto fire could be used, then the 5.56 made sense.

BUT, now days with excellent combat optics and the doctrine of aimed fire being prevalent (and more practice time given the grunts) then something close to the 7.62x51 makes sense.

I'm hoping a 6.5 to 7mm based on the AR being used. Doubt we will go all the way back to the 7.62x51 though.

Personally I've always wanted a FN-FAL Para 7.62x51!

Deaf
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old May 7, 2017, 10:12 AM   #38
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
Quote:
When 'Spray-n-Pray' was the official doctrine (Vietnam)
I don't think that was the official doctrine. In reality, in a huge majority of firefights we didn't see who we were shooting at. SE Asia is jungle for the most part, you were shooting from one jungle patch to the next, that required "fire power", who produces the most fire power normally won the engagement. The difference is weight alone gave the M16a1 and its 5.56 (both light weight) a huge advantage.

We carried everything we had in the bush for months at a time, getting re-supplied about once a week. Weight as critical, every pound you could save met we could carry more ammo and just if not more important, canteens.

That's why I call BS, (as unrelated) when people discuss the "rounds expended vs. bandits hit", what wins firefights is "violence of actions" and that is more critical when you cant even she who you're shooting at.

Now as to this part:

Quote:
and the tall aperture sight was used so the M-16 so full-auto fire could be used, then the 5.56 made sense.
I have no idea where that came from. Don't quite what to say, except the tall front sight has no relationship to full auto fire. I believe it has more to do with the gas system being above the barrel but I don't know what was in Mr. Stoener's mind when he designed the rifle. However, I do know it works.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old May 7, 2017, 11:00 AM   #39
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
Quote:
...even if you missed CM and only hit an extremity, the round had enough kinetic energy to literally take the person off of his feet.
Any Physicists here that want to try and explain the law of, "...for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction..."? Doesn't that mean the shooter would be knocked down by all the "kinetic energy", also? Seems to me that a .308 bullet that pierced a human arm would not impart hardly any of the kinetic energy it possessed whereas the shooter would actually experience much more to his shoulder. Correct me if I am wrong. Besides, I thought that getting hit in the arm and being knocked down only applied to the .45 ACP.
dahermit is offline  
Old May 7, 2017, 11:15 AM   #40
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
and the tall aperture sight was used so the M-16 so full-auto fire could be used, then the 5.56 made sense.
There are two possibilities with this statement. One is that it is referring to the two position aperture rear sight, the "tall" one being marked "L" for Long range (300M). If so, the rest of the statement makes little sense.

IF the statement refers to the sights being "tall" because they are on the carry handle (and tall front sight base to match) that was a design feature, necessary NOT because of the placement of the gas system (the AK's gas system is on top of the barrel as well), but because of the straight line stock used.

The straight line stock DOES aid in managing the recoil from full auto fire. But it is not a necessity to use a straight line stock to use full auto fire. When you do use a straight line stock, you must mount the sights high enough the shooter can get his eye behind them to use them. That's why the M16 has raised sights.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 7, 2017, 02:00 PM   #41
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
Many actions in Vietnam-like Korea-took place at night which greatly reduced the effectiveness of aimed fire.
And for every Carlos Hathcock and Adelbert Waldron there is someone like the
member of my squad in BCT-Fort Dix, C-4-2, Summer of 1967.
Company Commander: "How come you only fired 31 at Record Fire ?!"
Recruit (wears glasses): "I couldn't see the targets, Sir!"
Company Commander: "Why not ?!"
Recruit: "I had a cold, Sir!"
SIGSHR is offline  
Old May 7, 2017, 02:58 PM   #42
BlackLabsMatter
Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2016
Posts: 32
Actually, it all went to hell when we went from the .45-70 to a .30 caliber. That's a .15 difference in bore size vs .08 between the .22 and the .30. You can't kill a man with a puny .30 and the magazine just wastes ammo. That last sentence had actually been said historically.

The above is sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell.

In my not so humble opinion, the M4/M16 is the finest service rifle currently fielded by a legitimate military. It the combined qualities of versatility, ruggedness, accuracy, and swiftness that's hard to beat.

Last edited by BlackLabsMatter; May 7, 2017 at 03:13 PM.
BlackLabsMatter is offline  
Old May 7, 2017, 03:00 PM   #43
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
In Cuba in 1898 nobody complained about the stopping power or accuracy of the 45-70, it was that big cloud of white smoke.....
SIGSHR is offline  
Old May 8, 2017, 06:32 AM   #44
Mobuck
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 6,846
"We are civilians. How many rifle gun fights are we going to get into?"

In a previous life, I was in quite a few. I suggested that the 7.62x51 was superior but several didn't seem to think so. My question is how many 7.62x51 rounds have each of you personally watched impact a walking talking target?
Mobuck is offline  
Old May 8, 2017, 06:54 AM   #45
dontcatchmany
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2010
Posts: 460
I carried an M14 in Vietnam.

All I can say is that I came home and some folks did not get to go home. I am still rather fond of that rifle.

I sometimes think that I would like to have one but I would want it just like the government issue of 1968/69.

Hell, I might sleep with it just as I did that rifle...but my wife might object.
dontcatchmany is offline  
Old May 8, 2017, 07:06 AM   #46
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,652
Mobuck--I don't think anyone is denying the inherent superiority of the 7.62 in terms of energy delivered; especially at medium/longer ranges--I think what is being contested is the notion that a NATO 5.56, used as intended at relatively closer ranges, is not an adequate round. It also offers quick deployment/acquisition and follow-up advantages.

Of course, I have "0" experience with engaging living targets with either caliber--so I could be wrong.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old May 8, 2017, 10:15 AM   #47
Scout
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 510
Boy. the bullscheisse is being slung.
__________________
God bless the U.S. Cavalry
Scout is offline  
Old May 8, 2017, 10:36 AM   #48
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
I sometimes think that I would like to have one but I would want it just like the government issue of 1968/69.
I have a "rack grade" M1A. Only difference from the M14 is a commercially made receiver and doesn't have the full auto parts. All the rest is GI parts.

Shoots better than I do.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 8, 2017, 10:54 AM   #49
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,652
Quote:
Boy. the bullscheisse is being slung.
Got something you want to throw in as well?
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old May 8, 2017, 05:51 PM   #50
Mobuck
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 6,846
I'm not saying the 5.56 is "inadequate" but it does have it's limitations.
I also refer to this in the context of hunting as in : yes, it will do certain things BUT there are many better choices.
The M-16 was intended (so I'm told) to provide short range, high volume fire of a more controllable nature than the M-14. I saw very few M-14's used full auto(don't remember ever doing so personally) as the line troops were already issued the M-16 and the M-14's we used weren't really intended as fire support weapons. The M-14 was the "short range" (under 500 yards) weapon while the bolt rifle started there and reached on out if that's what it took. Simply making a first round hit with a 5.56 at guestimated ranges and variable wind conditions would be problematic never mind the questionable effect at those ranges. Remember that back then, the 7.62x51 was already a force to be reckoned with on the target range and was rapidly displacing the venerable 30/06 in many long range circles.
Mobuck is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10164 seconds with 8 queries