Concern Growing Over U.S. Troops' Ammo -- Questions About M-16 Bullet

(CBS News) As American troop casualties in Iraq continue to mount, concern is growing they may be outgunned. That includes new questions about the stopping power of the ammunition that is used by the standard-issue M-16 rifle.

Shortly after the U.N. headquarters was bombed in Baghdad in August 2003, a Special Forces unit went to Ramadi to capture those responsible.

In a fierce exchange of gunfire, one insurgent was hit seven times by 5.56 mm bullets, reports CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian. It took a shot to the head with a pistol to finally bring him down. But before he died, he killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded seven more.

"The lack of the lethality of that bullet has caused United States soldiers to die," says Maj. Anthony Milavic.

Milavic is a retired Marine major who saw three tours of duty in Vietnam. He says the small-caliber 5.56, essentially a .22-caliber civilian bullet, is far better suited for shooting squirrels than the enemy, and contends that urban warfare in Iraq demands a bigger bullet. "A bullet that knocks the man down with one shot," he says. "And keeps him down."

Milavic is not alone. In a confidential report to Congress last year, active Marine commanders complained that: "5.56 was the most worthless round," "we were shooting them five times or so," and "torso shots were not lethal."

In last week's Marine Corps Times, a squad leader said his Marines carried and used "found" enemy AK-47s because that weapon's 7.62 mm bullets packed "more stopping power."

More: http://cbs3.com/topstories/topstories_story_158201927.html

but based on the military track record, I don't doubt.

Too sad......

While 5.56 is .02" smaller than than .22 Long Rifle, the 5.56 has more propellant behind it, giving it more velocity.

Now, this poses a question, does this mean that the old 7.62mm NATO round might come back into use? We'd have to either retool the M-16, re-issue and modernize the M-14, or just buy H&K G3s or FN FALS off of european governments.

This is the same "debate" over the illusory notion
of "stopping power" that has been raised and put to rest
a hundred times since the US adopted the 5.56 round.

And while there are some valid points to be made within the discussion,
anyone who dredges up that tired "just a .22; suited for squirrels" nonsense
is an IDIOT who is too stupid to be part of the discussion.

You know what happens to a squirrel hit with that round?
It DISAPPEARS, leaving a few scraps of fur and a cloud of red mist.

ALL military bullets are limited in effectiveness by their FMJ
construction, as required by the Geneva Accords.
And real life is not a TV show - humans just DON'T
always magically fall down from a single bullet wound
from ANY weapon. EVERY war has incidents of humans
who sustain MASSIVE injuries, yet fail to die right away...
Heck, sometimes they don't even die at all.

The world's Military experts have had 40 years to compare
the M16's 5.56 round to the AK's original 7.62...and they have all gradually
adopted the small fast bullet in favor of the big slow one.

Note the word "original" in that last paragraph?
That's because the even the folks who INVENTED the AK-47
rechambered it DECADES ago-
to an SCHV round that is practically a CLONE of our 5.56!

the m16 round.stopped the fox he was hunting!! if i remember the bullet in the m16 tumbled thus giving it shredding power. the bullet in my father in laws gun made a nice clean hole thru a fox

While the 5.56 isn’t know for its tremendous stopping power, its muzzle energy is only 10% less than the Russian 7.62x39 round used in the AK-47 rifles they mention in the article and its handling qualities, accuracy and soft-tissue tumbling effects make it a very effective assault rifle in most of the roles in which it has been used.

This article is basically a rehash of the “battle rifle” vs. the “assault rifle” debate that has been going on for decades since the military adopted the lighter caliber round when they switched to the M-16 in the 60’s.

A battle rifle is a heavier weapon, designed for longer range, more sustained use and features a larger, more powerful round such as the NATO 7.62x51 (a very different and more powerful load than the Russian 7.62x39 round mentioned above). An assault rifle is a lighter, quicker weapon chambered for a smaller caliber rifle round and shorter ranges. Both the M-16 and the AK variations tend to fall into this latter category.

The original US rationale for adoption of the 5.56 load is pretty sound. Weapons that use it are generally more accurate and easier to handle than those which use the heavy 7.62x51 NATO, they support a higher rate of useful fire and a solder can carry more rounds at the same weight for sustained actions in the field. These weapons are also easier for new recruits to train on and use since recoil is much reduced esp. in burst or auto fire modes.

In environments like Vietnam, that design analysis seemed spot on – in jungle combat, close range firepower is supreme and the long range accuracy is secondary. These advantages are less clear in Iraq or other desert climes which offer plenty of long engagement range opportunities. As a result, its drawbacks are magnified in this conflict.

While the AK is a very serviceable, rugged weapon, it’s not the equal of the M-16 and it makes for a poor replacement. Most of the drawbacks of the M-16 apply to the AK, and its poor rate of fire, low velocity and build quality variation make it something of a sideways step at best.

As a last note – the ’22 caliber’ round mentioned in the article is NOT the ubiquitous .22 rimfire long rifle round so popular with small game hunters. He’s referring to the Remington .223, which is in fact a round used in what are called “varmint” rifles, and is somewhat less powerful than the 5.56 on which it was based. You can put a .223 into a 5.56 weapon, but if you try the reverse, you can damage your weapon (and yourself) beyond repair.

Here are the numbers, for the curious:
Muzzle energy
5.56 NATO ~1800 joules
7.62 Russian ~2000 joules
7.62 NATO ~3200 joules
.22 Long Rifle ~150 joules

The M-16 is a squirrelly weapon with a very cheap feel, I wouldn't want to have my life depend on it, thats for sure.
The primary purpose for the design of the weapon and the round was to give the smaller people in the 3rd world an American weapon they could handle.

The weapon I carried was the M-14, one flat-shooting, hard-hitting, reliable fighting rifle.

But the M-14 was a nice, if heavy, rifle that was hard to control in automatic modes no matter how big you are. It was certainly a very reliable, fine weapon.

Welcome to DU.

The clan consensus is that while the .223 is a highly lethal round, but due to its very high velocity and low mass, the combat vets all say they prefer a .30 like the 7.62 as even a non-lethal shot will knock the enemy down giving him a couple of seconds to reconsider getting back up.
Of course they all preferred the .45 to the 9mm side-arms too.

I've always preferred the HK G3 and the 7.62 Galil to the M-16, but it's not a bad rifle and doesn't deserve the rap it gets from the caliber crowd.

The 9mm is a closer call and these days the plethora of specialty loads available for weapons chambered for this round make it a better choice than the .45 in almost all circumstances. If a person wants more firepower from a pistol or revolver than 9mm specialty loads provide, they should look toward magnum rounds rather than the .45 to get what they want.

and is less than half as powerful as a typical deer rifle. The cartridge was developed from the .222 Remington varmint-hunting cartridge, which was intended for shooting groundhog-sized animals. In a nutshell, it fires TINY bullets at deer-rifle velocities. The AK-47 fires heavier .30 caliber bullets, but at a much lower velocity, so the energy levels are rather similar.


M16 (5.56x45mm/.223 Remington)..........1,275 ft-lb
AK-47 (7.62x39mm).......................1,495 ft-lb
.30-06 deer rifle.......................2,900 ft-lb
.375 big-game hunting rifle (.375H&H)...4,230 ft-lb
.577 big-game hunting rifle (.577NE)....7,000 ft-lb


Obviously, if the only question were terminal effects, then you'd issue every soldier a .375 H&H. However, there are always tradeoffs between energy/momentum and usability.

Heavier bullets (and therefore more kinetic energy and momentum) result in significantly more recoil, meaning the gun is more difficult to control, particularly when the gun in question is a military automatic weapon. More powerful guns are bulkier and weigh more. Their ammunition and magazines are also bulkier and weigh more, meaning that a soldier with the more powerful rifle will be carrying less ammunition for any given weight, and will have to be resupplied more often.

There seems to be a growing consensus that the 5.56x45mm/.223 Remington is ideal for law enforcement and civilian defensive use, but is underpowered for use as an all-around military cartridge, particularly in belt-fed weapons. One proposed alternative is the 6.8mm SPC, which gives ballistics closer to .270 Winchester. However, there is a lot of institutional inertia favoring the 5.56x45--new equipment costs money--so I wouldn't be expecting a caliber change anytime soon.