Ok, I’m not really familiar with rifles and military gear so I’m curious. I was watching “The History Center” (I know, they’re not the most accurate channel out there.) and the Jeff Warrow and Dave Hackworth going over US gear. The thing that surprised me was he kept going on and on how the current weapon used by the rangers in Somalia and Afghanistan were basically toys.(The weapon they showed looked to be an M-4 Carbine for what it’s worth.) He gave that old spiel about bullets bouncing off the enemy which is something I remember hearing about the Korean war and that it jams constantly.(Which is a Vietnam complain of the M-16.) He also said any true warrior would have prefered the old garrand. Is he just a stuck in his ways soldier or is any of what he said valid. I mean I find it hard to believe with a rifle that you could shoot a guy a couple times in the chest and not penetrate even if he was wearing a thick coat for the mountains of Afghanistan.(I also didn’t understand how the Somalies could take multiple chest shots since I doubt they’re wearing coats.) One thing that really struck me is that it was my impression that rangers and special forces carry those things because they are light and would be easy to carry when being air dropped.(But of course the 2 guys on the show said it was just to give money to the arms conglomerate. That garrand just looked too damn heavy for a paratrooper or a guy hopping off a chopper.)
I’m not familiar with Dave Hackworth. My own recollection of the M-16’s early problems was that they were mainly attributable to improper ammunition, and were resolved; but there is much richer detail in this interesting read I found:
The caliber argument is eternal, with old-timers (and even relative younguns like myself) saying that a powerfull, accurate cartridge (.308) is the way to go. FN-FAL, M-14, G3, and other rifles represent these ‘Main Battle Rifles’.
Others say that small and light (.223) is The Way, becuase it is easier to train people to use, and more ammunition can be carried. M-4, M-16, G36 and the like are users of this caliber.
There are many arguments to this. Barrel length is a major factor with .223. Limited magazine capacity is a factor with .308. It goes on and on.
But to say Col.Hackworth ‘makes stuff up’ seems to be stretching things. He is a veteran of Korea and Vietnam, and even spent a bit of time with COIN forces in Europe after WW2, I believe. He is just expressing his preference on this topic, not weaving a yarn.
Lt Col. David Hackworth is supposed to be the most decorated soldier form the Vietnam Era. He also fought in the Korean War.
His book, About Face, is one of the best war book you will ever read, IMO. Having said that, he does seem to be a bit of a nut. I haven’t kept up with him in a few years, but he used to be an expatriate living in Australia (I believe). He was a regular contributor to Soldier Of Fortune Magazine-if that tells you anything. According to his book he was the highest ranking member of the military at the time to speak out against the Vietnam War. That is all I know off the top of my head.
In his book he also has nothing good to say about the M-16. It was his belief that the rifle was adopted by the US military because the Vietnamese were believed to be too small to use an M-1. He also mentioned that the bullets were easily deflected by pretty much anything. Particularly in the jungles, where clear shots were rare.
Hackworth also got a bit of publicity when Admiral Boorda committed suicide a few years ago over wearing military medals he(Boorda) didn’t earn. http://www.cnn.com/US/9705/16/hackworth/
It was revealed to Hackworth that he(Hackworth) also kinda had insignia he didn’t earn.
The problem with military “experts” are the same with “experts” in any sort of field – that is, so much of what they’re saying is personal opinion. The expert doesn’t say that, of course, so to those that aren’t familiar with the subject, it becomes like the word of the gospel.
Hackworth is a nut. I’ve met and interacted with him a few times, he’s a great guy, but I don’t think he’s all there.
It was just weird seeing that and then reading what you’ve guys have written, it’s like it didn’t match reality. The funny thing is for most of the rest of the program he made a point that infantry should travel light so you’d think it’d make sense to have a light rifle.(Also don’t I remember correctly most armies switched to lighter rifles for the average grunt over the past 50 years? I mean other than snipers who probably actually need a rifle like a main battle rifle that the average grunt is better off with a lighter weapon. Of course the guys he set as examples, special forces, are the guys that I thought wanted to travel the lightest.) His points also didn’t make sense to me. He mentioned how it was a problem in Afghanistan against the Taliban/Al Qaida but as I remember the number of guys killed in an actually battle, where bouncing rounds and jamming would make a difference, is rediculously low. I’m thinking 5 or 6 Americans.(Hell, the last American killed there was taken out by a sniper and not in a battle.) He also made mention that it cost lives in that Black Hawk incident in Somalia.(Funny that, I thought they managed to keep the Somalies away for a few hours until they ran out of ammo and killed hundreds of them. I would expect since they were fighting in a city that the range of the MBR wouldn’t have made a difference but less ammo to kill enemies would have meant they’d run out faster. It doesn’t sound like the rifle was the problem, it was downed in the midst of thousands of enemies and not backing them up quick that got them.)
He did say a few other things, like it was stupid to have full auto since the grunt will waste the ammo. Oddly enough he also said when he was in vietnam people in his platoon would use captured AK’s which I thought was also full-auto. Oh, he also did mention the bit about it not going through the brush.(But for all I know it’s just the soldier couldn’t see the enemy and simply missed.) He also bitched that the M-16 has a bolt assist.(Basically saying since it need one it was crap.)
Oh, I think he also equated the M-16 to Custer’s last stand. If I remeber correctly on that show he said that the reason that full auto is bad was demonstrated by Custer whose troops blazed away and ran out of ammo and then the NA came up and used hatchets on him and his troops.(It was my impression that the NA’s had the repeaters, not Custer and vastly out numbered him. Oh, and had better leadership to boot.)
From what I’ve read, many military types consider him a nut.
However!
The 5.56 bullets used in the M-16 and M-4 (CAR-15) by forces in Somalia and Afghanistan do have a reputation for not having enough “stopping power.” This means that you theoretically would have to shoot a target multiple times in order to incapacitate it, versus a 7.62 bullet (M-14, M-1) which is heavier and would take down a target in one shot. This is all up to debate of course, and I don’t have personal experience in any of this, just repeating what I’ve heard (always good, eh?). There are descriptions of this phenomena in Black Hawk Down, where Rangers and Delta reported M-16/CAR-15 bullets not having enough stopping power versus Medal of Honor winner Randy Shughart using a modified M-14 that took down targets quite easily.
The rationale behind using 5.56 bullets is that a wounded soldier is better than a dead one, because a wounded soldier would require the help of his buddies to evacuate and care for him, tying up more resources than a dead soldier would. This does not account for wounded soldiers that can still fight back, though. Also factoring in is the lighter weight of 5.56 bullets, allowing the individual soldier to carry more rounds on his person.
IIRC, during the ‘Blackhawk Down’ incident, the troops were using M855 ammunition.
M855 is a a 62 grain ‘armor piercing’ round, based on the NATO SS109 standards. The logic behind it was that the most likely opponents of NATO (at the time), were Warsaw Pact troops. Some of these troops would have some sort of body armor, almost all would have various LBE, so better penetration was asked for to get through these barriers.
This load was not designed with stopping scantily-clad irregulars in mind. The old M193 55gr round was perfectly adequate at that. Just ask John Mohommad. (Granted, I have also heard that they were using 53 grain HP’s, so who know…)
So the M855 punches right through a person, leaving a nice, neat 5.56mm hole. Unless that hole hits something really important, that is not a debilitating wound. Conversely, the M193 tends to careen wildly on impact, causing some incredibly traumatic wounds.
Also, the barrel length of a 5.56 rifle tends to matter more so then on other rounds. M193 needs to be travelling at roughly 2500fps to properly fragment on impact. Lower speed then that, and you tend get a little hole. A 16" barrel (as on the M4 adopted by the army) will tend to keep that speed out to 150 meters or so. A 20" barrel (As on the M16A4 adopted by the USMC), that speed will be kept out to roughly 300-350 meters.
Like I said, it’s quite a debate. The main reason, IMHO, that so many armies have transitioned to 5.56 is ease of use. And that argument makes some sense; A soldier who is well trained and comfortable with an ‘inferior’ weapon is probably more effective than a soldier who is not, all things being equal.
Of some interest in this matter is that Russian OMOD and other ‘Special Forces’-type units are transitioning back to 7.62x39, citing many problems with their own version of 5.56, the 5.45. We’ll see if that trend continues.
I didn’t include this, because I figured someone else would.
From the SD Archive:
from censored:
I’m not so sure I agree with that. The M-16 was developed during the Vietnam Era, and I would imagine they had the Viet Cong in mind when the rifle was designed. The Viet Cong used feces-covered pointed sitcks against US soldiers for the purpose you mentioned. But it was only effective because we take better care of our wounded. The strategy would not work against the VC, because they did not share the same policy toward their own soldiers.
from Dave_D
The good Colonel seems behind the times on that one. The older M-16 (A1) had a selctor switch for full auto. But the newer A2 models (Around 99% of the one I saw in the Army) allow only semi (one shot) or burst (3-round burst). I doubt US soldiers go to war with any full-auto M-16’s at all.
What Brutus said is what I meant to say. :smack: 
As I recall, and from what I read here, the story of the M-16 started quite a while before Vietnam.
From the link I posted earler:
There’s way too much to continue, but that does give some idea about the timeframe of M-6 development.
From the same source is this little bit about what the rifle might do to an enemy: