US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war (AP Article)

[old farmer]

If the army forces changes to a larger round, would the price of .223 go down?

[KD5NRH]

Very interesting article..... - Ryan

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_ ... _bullets_3

"If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn't matter what you shoot him with," said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small arms division at Fort Benning, Ga., home to the Army's infantry school.

Give the major a cigar.

...and a box of 22 CB caps, then drop him in a combat zone with a copy of his quote.

Very few people are able to continue the fight after a single solid .30-06 or .308 hit. I've heard tons of anecdotal evidence of guys having to empty a mag of .223 into an enemy combatant before he would stop shooting.

[KBCraig]

Give the major a cigar.

...and a box of 22 CB caps, then drop him in a combat zone with a copy of his quote.

Very few people are able to continue the fight after a single solid .30-06 or .308 hit. I've heard tons of anecdotal evidence of guys having to empty a mag of .223 into an enemy combatant before he would stop shooting.

And I've heard tons of anecdotes about emptying a magazine (or three), and failing to hit any enemy combatant.

My point in agreeing with the major was: it matters more that you hit them in the first place, than what you hit them with. Military marksmanship is abysmal, even in the "every man a rifleman" USMC.

I strongly support returning to a .30 caliber main battle rifle, and .45 caliber sidearms, but the truth is that training in those calibers is more expensive, and there will be a problem with recoil for many trainees, which just doesn't exist with the current calibers. As much as we need more training, returning to larger calibers would add at least those two major hurdles to the pursuit of improved marksmanship.

[Liberty]

My point in agreeing with the major was: it matters more that you hit them in the first place, than what you hit them with. Military marksmanship is abysmal, even in the "every man a rifleman" USMC.

I strongly support returning to a .30 caliber main battle rifle, and .45 caliber sidearms, but the truth is that training in those calibers is more expensive, and there will be a problem with recoil for many trainees, which just doesn't exist with the current calibers. As much as we need more training, returning to larger calibers would add at least those two major hurdles to the pursuit of improved marksmanship.

but if they start off better to begin with think how good they would be with both the existing calibers and the extra range time. Todays soldier;/Marine carries a lot of equipment with armor, communications equipment,weaponry etc. A few ounces spared is all appreciated. In combat the last one with ammo is the winner. Everything is a trade off. The 45 isn't a magic bullit. Having qualified with .45 in thE Army what they were using in the early 70s was not a Kimber, it was was crappy to shoot, crappy to field strip, and crappy to carry (heavy) and limmited in ammo to carry to this day I can't bare to touch a 1911, While the M14 was a joy to shoot, I don't think I would select it for combat over the original M16 even though it tended to jam (the A1 fixed a few things). The truth is in this war, the combatants are pretty much taken out with the first bullet hole, The terrorist don't have much fight in them once they get shot.

Light is good. More ammo good.

[DParker]

Give the major a cigar.

...and a box of 22 CB caps, then drop him in a combat zone with a copy of his quote.

Very few people are able to continue the fight after a single solid .30-06 or .308 hit. I've heard tons of anecdotal evidence of guys having to empty a mag of .223 into an enemy combatant before he would stop shooting.

And I've heard tons of anecdotes about emptying a magazine (or three), and failing to hit any enemy combatant.

That additional bit of info always seems to be missing from the former sort of anecdote.

When I took my S&W M&P 9mm out for a spin the first time it was getting fairly late, so my son and I were the only ones on the pistol range at the time. The range officer, who was standing around watching us, inquired about the gun...and when I told him what it was he informed me that he would never carry a 9mm because he thought it was not enough to take down a human. When I asked what his assertion was bawed on he recounted for me an anecdote about a law enforcement incident he'd heard about in which several officers had unloaded the magazines of their 9mm service weapons at a perpetrator, but he never went down. When I asked him how many of those rounds actually HIT said perpetrator...let alone how many had struck him in a vital area...he just shrugged his shoulders and walked away, apparently considering that little detail to be irrelevant.

[solaritx]

First: there is a correct tool for every job, but every job is different. Because of cost, some tools are required to be utilized on some jobs where they might not be the best tool but generally still get the job done (sometimes better and sometimes worse)

Second: typically those that make such statements (as the Major did) rarely have been shot at or been in an acual situation where the tool they used determined how fast and efficently it worked when THEIR life was on the line. Of course the basis of his statement is correct as a .22 that hits is always better than a .44 mag that misses. The problem is that the VAST majority of fire in a military situation is suppressive fire and that is rarely surgically aimed.
That, and the generally poor marksmanship of the general individual holding the rifle compounds that problem. The army obviously understands this, because look at the sight systems that are NOW on a majority of shoulder weapons. It is much cheaper to provide ACOGs than new .308's

Third: the real problem is cost. The services provide equipment in a general manner (except in special units) making a general tool fit all situations. This tool is a piece of safety equipment (it safely keeps them alive by allowing them to fight back) and in every situation where cost is a higher consideration than safety.....well we all know who suffers.

Respectfully
Garry N

[stroo]

My son-in-law, a Marine who did two tours in Iraq, one as a machine gunner and the second as a team leader, tells me that the insurgents rarely fall with one shot. They typically are so doped up that they need to be shot a lot to be stopped. He is one of those who would prefer a .308 to the .223.

[KD5NRH]

I strongly support returning to a .30 caliber main battle rifle, and .45 caliber sidearms, but the truth is that training in those calibers is more expensive, and there will be a problem with recoil for many trainees, which just doesn't exist with the current calibers. As much as we need more training, returning to larger calibers would add at least those two major hurdles to the pursuit of improved marksmanship.

Ever look at some old uniforms? The average soldier these days is bigger than a lot of the guys who carried Garands, and huge compared to the ones who lugged those .45/70s around various fields. I just don't see recoil being more of a problem now than it was then.

Besides, when every shot punished the shooter, they tended to make all of them count.

[KBCraig]

Ever look at some old uniforms? The average soldier these days is bigger than a lot of the guys who carried Garands, and huge compared to the ones who lugged those .45/70s around various fields. I just don't see recoil being more of a problem now than it was then.

I've seen itty-bitty women handle shotguns that made big ol' cornfed boys flinch. Being bigger can actually make the recoil more painful, because it's absorbed in the shoulder instead of the whole body and legs.

Soldiers up through Korea were more likely to be accustomed to shooting before entering the service. Not to mention, they expected to have to actually shoot -- many of today's recruits think that because they're supply clerks, mechanics, or personnel specialists, they shouldn't have to actually learn shooting.

It would be an adjustment the services could overcome, but they would have to address recoil on the range, where they don't today. Except for those who think the M9 "kicks a lot".