U.S. Army Issues New M855A1 Ammo to Troops in Afghanistan

reply to post by Bonified Ween


They show a British Enfield which is also called the 303 British. That is what that accurate fire outside the range of their M4 carbines likely was. It can reach out nearly twice the effective fire range of the US forces main weapon.

They were popping smoke on him to call in air support to take out a sniper. That is not a very cost effective way to fight an enemy that is using ancient out of date weapons. Better to arm the US troops with at least one M-14 per fire team. A scoped accuratized M-14 with a well trained shooter would have taken out that sniper cheaply and cleanly.

The Major thought he would provide the troops with a related thread regarding 5.56x45 ammunition and it's effectiveness:

Blended metal bullets, possible improvement for 5.56 caliber

The Major is well aware that blended/sintered metal bullets may not meet the Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III provisions, which as all the recruits know is the Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899.

The Major just thought it would add perspective and alternatives to the discussion.

Carry on.

Originally posted by Mike6158
I'll ask my buddies son what he thinks (3 Iraq tours) but the thought of "designed to injure rather than kill" cracks me up. I think it's safe to say that the point of shooting an enemy is to kill them.

I found this... I know I know its yahoo answers but...

The AR-15 is solid for the longer ranges, but it does NOT punch through things quite so well as the AK... the raw destructive force of the 5.56 round is not up to par with the 7.62x39mm... so, while the AR is an effective weapon, I would not use it as a sole weapon... these rounds were made to INJURE opponents rather than kill them, with the maxim of the time being that injuring a man takes him and at least one other guy out of combat, while killing a man only takes one out of combat.

link

Also from good old wiki:

Anti-personnel mines are a form of mines designed for use against humans as opposed to anti-tank mines, which are designed for use against vehicles.

This type is designed to injure (as opposed to killing) as many victims as possible in order to increase the logistical (mostly medical) support required by such an enemy force. Some types of anti-personnel mines can also damage the tracks on armoured vehicles or the tires of wheeled vehicles.

Wiki


And the 5.56x45s effectiveness from Wiki:

Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56x45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite their being hit multiple times by M855 bullets.

Wiki 5.56x45

That doesn't look like the kind of weapon designed for killing power to me. But then again I don't know much about guns.




[edit on 1/7/2010 by LightFantastic]

While I don't much care for the Hague Convention rules which stipulate that it's ok to shoot someone with a .50BMG round, but illegal to shoot them with a .22LR hollowpoint, from a legal standpoint we have to abide by them, and I think this round may well break them.

The M855A1 is based on the design of Federal's Trophy Bonded Bear Claw bullet - a round designed to expand after significant penetration in heavy, dangerous game without any jacket separation, and while it may not necessarily be a direct copy, why would you you borrow a design from an expanding round if it isn't intended to expand?

I have researched everything currently available on this bullet, and all the military want to talk about is how it out-penetrates the M855, something no one ever really complained about, the complaints were largely focused on the lack of terminal effectiveness beyond 200M out of an M4 length barrel, and that means how well it kills things, in terms of terminal ballistics the exact opposite of barrier penetration. In fact the M855 (which is really the Belgian SS109 round) that replaced the original M193, was adopted specifically because it had superior penetration.

The original 55gr M193 was surprisingly effective at hurting people in close range Vietnam style engagements, especially when fired out of a 20 inch barrel. When we went to a 14.5 inch barrel and the M855 round at Afghanistan distances, the story changed dramatically, with enemy combatants proudly displaying multiple 5.56mm "pinprick scars" that simply healed over.

The US military has long since been pushing the envelope with expanding or exploding bullets. First we had the .50 Raufoss, which was deemed to be ok because it only exploded after passing through a body, then the 7.62mm sniper rounds that were carefully designated Open Tip Match instead of hollowpoint, and now the M855A1 pushing things that little bit further.

We need to move to a 6.5 Grendel or preferably a 6.8SPC solution - but the cost would be horrendous, and it's much easier to take a bullet that is perfectly capable of causing huge and very lethal wounds as long as you cause it to expand.

Let's just say that until I see an M855A1 that has been fired into a gelpack, I'll be reserving final judgement, and if you can find such a photo let me know, because the military are only willing to show the M855A1 poking holes in steel plate, not people.

reply to post by LightFantastic


My point was that the ladies and gentlemen serving in the armed forces aren't shooting with intent to injure.

This is strictly my opinion and it's not based from combat experience since I have none.

The AR15 is light and in it's military form its a good close combat weapon. I have (3) civilian model AR15 of different configurations (two with match barrels and match triggers) and (2) civilian model AR10's configured differently (the AR10 shoots a .308 round). Accuracy declines rapidly as yardage increases. I'm a little biased because my preference is to accurately shoot a bolt action rifle at 600 and 1,000 meters. From a people killing perspective, the AR15 has decent killing power. The .223 round starts to tumble when it enters the body and therefore it makes a mess. However, the simple fact of the matter is that F=MV (force = mass x velocity). The itty bitty bullet that the AR15 shoots doesn't have a lot of mass. You're constrained in V by the longevity issues that shooting a bullet down a barrel at hyper velocities causes. You have to balance velocity against barrel life otherwise you end up replacing barrels with too much frequency.

There is a huge difference in the way the AR10 performs vs the AR15. It is a hoss... I wouldn't want to get shot by either weapon but least the AR10.

I'll bet the real reason for the new ammo is that it has serial numbers on it to help identify who is killing who.

reply to post by tooo many pills


they have caught troops useing m44 mosin nagant rifles(from ww1-ww2)i have one of these and i can attest to there power and range heavy as all hell bolt action but at range it will ruin your day
enfeilds(ww1-2) versions anything from old smgs and alota surplus ww2 goodies they may be old but they will still get the job done

the afghan people(say what you want about them) are some of the most determined fighters any one has encountered look at there history they are a almost the embodiment of swords into plow shares they go about there business until invaded and then eventually push there occupiers out now weather the us intendes to leave before getting kicked out remains to be seen but dont underestimate them or there "limited technology"

i forget what movie i saw it in but i rember the quote a bullet fired from a 13year old is as effective if not more then one fired by a 30 year old

03A3 was the best rifle I have ever owned. Full military stock. I was sorry to have to sell it when I lost my job.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by groingrinder]

Originally posted by CornerTech
reply to post by bekod

 

Really?!?!?!? Those weapon systems are obsolete to say the least. While the m14 may have some service life in specific situations, even it has seen better days. A better round might provide the solution, but in many cases, better training may be an advantage. Marines in contrast to Army Soldiers, learn to fire their weapons at ranges up to 500 meters. While the Marine Corps uses M16s, and the Army uses M4s, they are essentially the same weapon.

In any case, hopefully this proves to be as good as everyone thinks, but in the end its just a bullet.

The M-16 has a longer range than the M-4...which is mostly made for close quarters. Both are still very very accurate weapons; the problem in Afghanistan isn't the weapons, it's the terrain and processes and permissions required to fire on the enemy.

i am begging to think this is just FUBAR, ask to fire on the enemy? you have got to be kidding ? it is a good thing i am to old /worn out to join i would wind up being article 15 all day long and or in court Marshall. if i was on the front line i would get my own BAR M1 or get one of them Enfeild rifles.

reply to post by Mike6158


I understand your point. The point I was making is that the weapons we are using seem to be designed for full on warfare rather than guerilla battles, As pointed put by another poster, Afghans proudly display their pinprick scars.

This means the enemy is getting wounded and going back into battle. Ideally you would kill rather than injure in these situations.

Interestingly enough I also read that only low percentage of our guys actually shoot to kill, the rest deliberately miss despite training to counter this psychological effect. How they could measure this I do not know.




[edit on 2/7/2010 by LightFantastic]

[edit on 2/7/2010 by LightFantastic]