Wrong Ammo for this War
I recall several stories about the M-16 and how troops have decried it as a weapon and the undersized round that it fires-- the 5.56 mm.
In one, long ago, when the M-16 was just being introduced in Vietnam, a Marine instructor was said to have had his troops gathered around the elevated wooden platform the USMC often uses during instruction, and in the midst of his introduction of the M-16, hurled it to the ground and spat invectives at it.
The reason for his ire what that the M-16 was prone to jamming, was relatively delicate in construction, particularly the gas feed tube and the forward grips, and the round was subject to being deflected by brush, small trees and vegetation.
No doubt he was comparing the M-16 to its heavier predecessor, the M-14, which fired the heavier and harder-hitting 7.62mm x 51mm NATO round.
In close combat it was heavy enough and robust enough to use as a war club. The reasons the military gave for replacing the M-14 was that the rounds (or bullets) were heavier and troops could carry fewer of them. A big disadvantage when many firefights were with an unseen enemy and the troops response was to ‘pray and spray’ fully-automatic fire in the enemies’ general direction.
Still, many have maintained their criticism of the M-16 and its progeny, the M-4, as being prone to jamming and firing too weak a cartridge.
In response to complaints from troops about the M855, the Army’s Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey assigned a team of soldiers, scientists, doctors and engineers to examine the round’s effectiveness. The team’s findings, announced in May 2006, concluded there were no commercially available rounds of similar size better than the M855.
But Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Corps major, said the Army buried the study’s most important conclusion: that larger-caliber bullets are more potent.
”It was manipulated,” says Milavic, a Vietnam veteran who manages an online military affairs forum called MILINET. ”Everybody knows there are bullets out there that are better.”
Officials at Picatinny Arsenal declined to be interviewed. In an e-mailed response to questions, they called the M855 “an overall good performer.” Studies are being conducted to see if it can be made more lethal without violating the Hague Convention, they said.
Larger rounds are not necessarily better, they also said. Other factors such as the weather, the amount of light and the bullet’s angle of entry also figure into how lethal a single shot may be.
Heavier rounds also mean more weight for soldiers to carry, as well as more recoil — the backward kick created when a round is fired. That long has been a serious issue for the military, which has troops of varied size and strength.
The M14 rifle used by Joe Higgins was once destined to be the weapon of choice for all U.S. military personnel. When switched to the automatic fire mode, the M14 could shoot several hundred rounds a minute. But most soldiers could not control the gun, and in the mid-1960s it gave way to the M16 and its smaller cartridge. The few remaining M14s are used by snipers and marksman.
If I had to go to war, and there was a choice of weapons, I would definitely take the M-14, firing the 7.62mm and strap on the M1911A1 .45 cal FMJ as a sidearm.
Those two proven war-horses should never have been replaced the lighter, weaker 5.56mm and 9mm rounds.
likwidshoe
robert108
C. Y.
Carrick
Richard Rhodes
JazzyKat
nunez