Skip to comments.Soldiers Want a Bigger Bang
Posted on 05/30/2007 7:12:47 AM PDT by Sergio
Nearly 80 percent of Soldiers said in a recent survey they are satisfied with their weapons, though almost half recommended a replacement for the standard-issued M9 pistol or ammunition with more stopping power.
Additionally, nearly 30 percent of Soldiers in the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analyses, said the M4 carbine should be replaced or more deadly ammunition fielded.
"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said. (excerpt)
I wonder who started this myth. I've heard it so many times over the past 17 years from differing sources. This supposed rationale will never die, it seems.
The object of shooting any assailant is to effectively stop them. The same holds true for self-defense. Stop, not necessarily kill, although in war I'll take the stop/kill.
The 5.56Nato was desirable because a soldier could handle a weapon so chambered when the selector switch is set to full-auto, which was untrue for the M14 (7.62Nato) which tended to walk-away. Also some of the first reported terminal ballistics were impressive--a barely stablized 55gr projectile in a 1/14 rate-of-twist barrel--ripping limbs off. We messed this up by improving the rifles "long range" performance by going to a 1/12 and then subsequently to a heavier/longer projectile(62gr M855/SS109) in a 1;/7 twist to improve penetration on helmets at 300 meters. After 75 yards the bullet became a drill losing its "explosive" terminal performance. (see Gabriel Suarez' "Tactical Rifle")
One can never carry too much ammo, even 5.56 Nato. But can you carry 2x or 3x's as much 5.56Nato to achieve the same results of the 7.62Nato? No. And only hits count. For stopping effectiveness we should adopt a projectile with a longer/heavier softnose design OR neck the existing case up to 6mm (80/85/90 gr) which are adequate for smaller spieces of deer and presumably two-legged game.
The 6.8SPC effort seems the right way to go, but it requires more mods to the underlying platform: new upper/barrel, new follower, new magazines. With the 6mm upgrade, only new barrel is needed. Of course this is a nighmare waiting to happen: chambering 6mm projectiles in your 5.56 chamber. It probably wont go into battery and will create weapon-neutralizing jam.
They need to change to the 6.8SPC caliber round like theyve been playing with forever...its had some devastating results against the Talibanskis in Afghanistan.
Let them adopt the new HK 45 auto. It would seem that it would fill the requests of everyone.
40 S&W is too finicky for a combat round.
H&K 45 (new, will be released this summer), SIG P220, Taurus 24/7-OSS and other .45’s designed for the SOCOM/JCP requirement are hitting the market this year.
DelFatti Ankle Holster. :~)
Just a question ... since stopping power is in part a function of energy delivered to the target, is it possible to get better results by just creating a heavier 5.56 round?
The H&K .45 Tactical? I saw that on their US website.
CT law states I don’t have to own a weapon to get a permit to own one, or even for a CC.
I just wish firearms weren’t so darn expensive. At that I wouldn’t want a 9mm, due to stories of little stopping power. Mark 23 MOD 0 is 12-round .45 ACP. I know H&K makes a .40 with 12 rounds. That would be a nice little friend to have when it gets hot.
Exactly. But that's just one more reason why someone shooting a .45 ACP should stick to a proven manstopper - the heavy and slow 230 grainer. (IMO)
It's pretty well established that felt recoil out of a modern, non-1911, service pistol will be manageable for most anyone in uniform.
As far as rifles go, a gas-piston AR chambered in 6.8 SPC is just what the doctor ordered. However, politics and the inertia of military logistics will probably render this entire conversation pointless.
I don’t know if “softnose” ammo is a good idea, given the effectiveness of modern body armor, or if it would pass muster with the Geneva Convention. The rest I agree with.
For a handgun there is **ZERO** wrong with the 1911 Government Model in .45acp.
Some people could put 3 rounds in somebody’s head pretty quickly in SOCOM: Combined Assault, though I think the SEAL player’s favorite is the Sig P226. I know it’s my pistol of choice when I play.
The opposition leaves their own bleeding on the ground for US to take care of, or puts a round in their heads if they suspect that leaving one of their own is a danger to their opsec
Theres a new HK 45 auto out there, based loosely on the 1911, but with a polymer frame.
I DO think they ought to adopt the 416...but in 6.8 caliber.
Do a google search on the new HK 45, it’s really cool, and Im a dyed in the wool 1911 man.
The coast guard just adopted the Sig 226 with the DAK trigger in 40 cal.
Not the SIG, the .40.
I wondered when someone would mention the M14. With hundreds of thousands still in inventory it shouldn’t be a problem other than the ammo and repair logistics.