Prosser shot the man at least four times with his M4 rifle. But the American M4 rifles are weak--after Prosser landed three nearly point blank shots in the man’s abdomen, splattering a testicle with a fourth, the man just staggered back, regrouped and tried to shoot Prosser.The man had been shot four times with our battle rifle (US M16A4) and continued the fight.
Another example here with another terrorist:
Mark Bieger was overwatching from another Stryker and shot the man with the first two bullets, dropping him to his knees.Guys ask me why I use the .30-30 Win as my SHTF rifle. Because the 5.56mm cartridge used in the M16/AR15 platform is not a battle-worthy cartridge. Anytime you have a person sustaining multiple center mass hits and standing up, that battle cartridge isn't worthy of consideration.
...
Chris Espindola also shot the man. Amazingly, despite being hit by four M4’s from multiple directions, the man still lived a few minutes.
It is one thing to shoot someone in the legs, or arms, and have them continue the fight. It is something else entirely to get good abdomen shots and have them stand back up. I've said before on this blog, that I don't shoot to kill. I shoot to stop. If I wound the guy, I'll get him medical attention. Our troops in Iraq will do the same thing, but they need a better battle cartridge.
The M16/AR15 platform is an okay platform. We've had 40 years to get it right. It is light, maneuverable, and fairly accurate. We could easily and inexpensively upgrade it to use a better cartridge. Someone in a position of authority needs to made the decision and make it happen.
I won't carry one in the current configuration.
11 comments:
Yep. I have a picture of what happens when you shoot a .50 cal and get a direct hit. THAT's what I want in battle. In this picture, the guy shot is loaded down with C4..the only shot I could see was for them to take a head shot, which they did.
I was trained to use a gun during the first Gulf War and the protocol we were taught was shoot to kill or don't shoot at all. I should think the same protocol would be in effect against these people. Hell, they're going to kill themselves anyway.
I am NOT very informed when it comes to the history or performance of different rounds, so this may be wrong.
I heard once that the 5.56mm was developed it was specifically designed not to kill, but wound. On one hand, it is "humane" not to kill. On the other hand, it forces your opponent to expend manpower to remove and treat wounded soldiers. It is also very light, so NATO forces could carry a very large number of rounds.
A Vietnam Vet told me he had been given a non-rifled barrel for 'the jungle' to use in close combat. The rounds came out flopping end-over-end and would do tremendous damage. It was part of an experiment, but taken from him shortly later because it actually killed too often.
I just don't feel the love I guess.
MT. The post was designed to highlight what I think are the 5.56mm cartridge currently in use by the US military.
Sure, it is humane not to kill, and I would prefer not to kill. The enemy can quit fighting at any time. But, the soldiers in the field and the police on the street are handicapped by a round that allows multiple body hits and allows the enemy to keep on fighting.
I want a cartridge that will take the wind out of his sails and either leave him on the ground moaning or wandering off holding his wound. Either way, he is out of the fight.
I wasn't trying to disagree with your post, just to discuss how the US/NATO got to the 5.56mm.
I also read Michael Yon's description a few weeks back on the Deuce-4 troops trying to stop a car. I agree that I prefer want a heavier round and the extra weight would be worth the effort. I thought officers carry .45's.
By the way, I have been reading your blog every day for several months and have really enjoyed it.
What you want are soft point bullets. We can't do that due to the Geneva Convention.
There's a .270" replacement for the 5.56mm (.224") in the works. It's a little heavier and bigger around for better stopping power. It's called the 6.28 Rem (?), I think. The problem is, bigger means more weight to pack around.
These folks aren't even part of the Geneva convention, though. We have got to fight this one to win, and that means playing by their rules. Our troops need the equipment in order to get the job done. I would say those non-lethal bullets are ok if they find one of those prisoners that they need to interrogate and NEED to keep alive, but when you're getting shot at, you need some REAL bullets.
PawPaw, here is a link to the newest stuff they are gettin.. Right under the HK416 is the M107, dont miss takin at look-see at it.. 2400 meters!! Brings a whole new meaning to reaching out and touchin someone .. Have a goodun ...
Guess I better leave a link, huh .
http://www.military.com/soldiertech
It's not the rifle, It's the amo..Military amo is made to penetrate and disable in most cases..thus the steel with copper jacket..and the small exit hole..Why is it that way? Simple, if you seriously wound someone, how many others are needed care for him. active battle attrition and less effective unit..words from an old combat medic..
Wild Bill - You ever looked at a target at 2400 meters? I have. Damned hard to see even with a 16 power scope, unless you are in featureless desert. Any vegetation at all and the target washes out against the background.
Back in '76 we were firing tanks at Yano range, Ft Knox, KY and had a hard target at 2450 meters. It was an old Sherman tank, sitting under a tree. We had to paint the front of the target tank yellow to see it with the telescope on the M60A1. A man standing under that tree would have been invisible.
And guys, I'm not here to debate the effectiveness of any future rounds. The .308 and .30-06 work just fine, thank you. My whole point is that what we have isn't working, and we need to immediately adopt something that does. I think the new SOCOM variant has great possibilities.
Post a Comment