Gun Thread (ar-15 everywhere)

[Cue1*]

I think I want a vz 58.

Why not AKM?

Maybe he wants a short stroke piston? They're a lot lighter on recoil.

I'm not sure why people still carry guns for self-defense when tasers are perfectly good tools to use, with less physical trauma and what I assume is lower lethality rates. Tasers > guns.

The same reason why you carry extra mags. What happens if there's more than x attackers? For a taser, that's more than 1 attacker. In a situation where you're in a back alley or something it's pretty likely there is more than one. The argument against carrying extra mags isn't quite as strong, but still pretty sturdy anyway. Yea, it's pretty likely that there's not more than 9 targets(My CWP pistol holds 9+1), but what are you going to do when there actually ARE 10 targets? Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

Additionally, if I reach a point where I need to use force against someone, why wouldn't I use lethal force? Honestly, what gain do I have by using a taser or pepper spray on a target who's intentions were to kill or harm me? Even if it does stop him, he'll just sue me for everything I'm worth in court, claiming he was just trying to bum a smoke or something. If you kill him, it's your word against a dead man's, and stiffs don't talk much. It may sound brutal, and maybe it is, but when put in the position of my life or someone else, I'm going to choose my life over his every time.

[LancerSix]

I think I want a vz 58.

Why not AKM?

If you're in the states, I believe the only importer of the vz58 is Century, who aren't known for their flawless 922r conversions.
I have an AKM, an Izhevsk AK-103 imported and converted by Arsenal as an SGL-21. It's fucking pristine. I'd go with one of those.

Maybe he wants a short stroke piston? They're a lot lighter on recoil.

With a '74-style brake like on the 103, it's pretty tame anyway with military ball. Could be wrong, but I doubt the piston length makes all that much difference. If it's that big of an issue, go with a 5.45.

[Keorythe]

Czechpoint (hahaha) is actually where a lot of people get their rifles from. Those are all 922r compliant. Century while doing a shitty job of quality control on their AK line has to have everything 922r compliant or they can't sell it period. The only issue with the VZ being non-compliant is that the magazine floorplate counts as a piece so you have to make sure that all of your mags have a US made floor plate.

I like the VZ. It was lighter than the Romanian AKM we brought out to the range and was deadly accurate. No issues showed up and it had much less muzzle rise than the AKM despite not having a muzzle brake. Honest to god I don't know why those things aren't more popular. It's a solid little gun. Granted, the entire thing is milled where as the AK series is mostly stamped. And stamped is easier to make in both cost and required tools. If it wasn't for the crap 7.62x39 round I imagine pinch hitting as a DM rifle by putting a scope and better barrel on the thing for 500m+ shots would be viable. Sort of like a SAM-R or something.

One thing to note though that I didn't like about it. When we were done shooting, my AR-15 handguards were warm. The AKM was much warmer. But the VZ handguard were too hot to hold and the finish was starting to bubble off. When we popped off the handguards we noticed no heat shield. While the AKM had no heat shield either the guards were made of solid wood and would take longer for the heat to diffuse through them. The VZ had particle board handguards and would heat up rapidly. I know that should be a simple fix with aftermarket parts but that sort of stuck out to me. We had only fired approx. 300 rounds that day each.

[RazoR]

crap 7.62x39 round

I see you trollin'.

[Cue1*]

crap 7.62x39 round

I see you trollin'.

No matter how heavily it's liked, it's still got shit ballistics and doesn't carry much beyond 300m.

[RazoR]

crap 7.62x39 round

I see you trollin'.

No matter how heavily it's liked, it's still got shit ballistics and doesn't carry much beyond 300m.

No matter how heavily 9mm para is liked, it's still got shit ballistics and doesn't carry much beyond 100m.

herpaderp

Okay, right. M43 could stand some updating. Much like the whole 5.56 and 7.62 NATO debauchery.
But somehow neither .280 british nor grendel/spc see the light of day much.

Russians were satisfied with it because 300m+ was SVD territory.

Besides it is an excellent hunting round. All you faggots can't deny that.

[sarabando]

9mm is shit at 100m? well dont use it at 100m derp same with all calibre can expect 1 calibre to be 100% effective at all ranges and all situations same with the whole 9mm vs 45acp (357sig ftw)

[Keorythe]

Okay, right. M43 could stand some updating.

Why? Russians and any East Bloc remnants of note have already transitioned to the 5.45x39 7N6 round. Even the Afghans are showing interest in trading out their old AKM's. However, the 7n6 round could do for some updating.

Besides it is an excellent hunting round. All you faggots can't deny that.

Nope. Not going to deny that. For medium game it does a decent job. I've dropped many a hog and deer under 100m with Barnaul softpoints and a Russian made SKS with receiver scope combo. But note that range. It really drops like a rock past 200m and loses a lot of it's energy quickly. It was designed for close range assaults and does a good enough job at that.

[Ophichius]

The point to '7.62x39 is shit at 300m' is that there's evidence that the Vietnam-era school of thought regarding rifle engagement ranges is not working.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

Fairly good white paper by a US Army officer addressing current US military infantry engagement capability. Summary: Poor beyond 150m, shit beyond 200m, virtually non-existent beyond 300m, and half our fights in Afghanistan are beyond 300m

I don't know the exact ballistics for the 7.62x39, but being an intermediate cartridge it's not going to be too markedly different from 5.56x45, especially as the rounds rely on tumbling and fragmentation for wounding capability in both cases.

People occasionally seem to forget that the whole reason intermediate range cartridges were developed was to bring automatic fire capability to medium-range combat, not to be some mystical does-everything-well round. If your needs include long range shooting, then yes the 7.62x39 is a crap round.

On a side note, 9x19 is pretty crap too, not reliable at inducing hydrostatic shock, and doesn't induce enough overpressure to be instantaneously incapacitating. I agree that .357 Sig is pretty solid as a defensive load though.

-O

[RazoR]

That table is cool and stuff but there may be soft cover and/or light armor before the target.
In which case the emphasized stability and impulse come into play and prove a just trade-off for worse ballistics and harder recoil.

Also +1 to Ophi.
If you are going to fight on open terrain bring more marksman rifles (or air support).

M4 is just as bad thanks to the shorter barrel.

[Keorythe]

I don't know the exact ballistics for the 7.62x39, but being an intermediate cartridge it's not going to be too markedly different from 5.56x45, especially as the rounds rely on tumbling and fragmentation for wounding capability in both cases.

Actually yeah, the difference is pretty big. 7.62x39 ball doesn't fragment and the way it acts in tissue is also different. A 5.56mm and 5.45mm comparison would be better, but we weren't comparing the two. Also, I was specifically talking about a platform and round acting as a 300m+ Designated Marksman substitute. In which case, yes the 7.62x39 is a crap round for that and I stand by my statement.

inducing hydrostatic shock

GET OUT!!

For those that don't get it.

FBI Handgun Wounding factors and effectiveness.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first, or crush mechanism is the hole the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second, or stretch mechanism is the temporary cavity formed by the tissues being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism, the result of penetration and permanent cavity, is the only handgun wounding mechanism which damages tissue.

[RazoR]

Those are all hollow points. Point is invalid.

[Ophichius]

Hydrostatic shock isn't a wounding mechanism, it's an incapacitating mechanism. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of plenty of gun-nut types, yourself apparently included that it somehow has anything to do with the size of the permanent wound cavity.

I really can't be arsed to go look up all the papers I had to look up the last time I got into this debate, but if you really care start at the citations here and go track down the rest of the medical literature from there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

Hydrostatic shock isn't about lethality, because up until you're punching full-power rifle rounds through people it doesn't generally cause major remote wounding effects, in a handgun round the primary point to hydrostatic shock is the instant pressure spike in the circulatory system. Overpressure waves are transmitted quite efficiently through the blood vessels and into the brain, causing disorientation and temporarily disrupting blood flow. The overall effect isn't too far off from a swift kick in the head.

-O

[RazoR]

I don't know the exact ballistics for the 7.62x39, but being an intermediate cartridge it's not going to be too markedly different from 5.56x45, especially as the rounds rely on tumbling and fragmentation for wounding capability in both cases.

Actually yeah, the difference is pretty big. 7.62x39 ball doesn't fragment and the way it acts in tissue is also different. A 5.56mm and 5.45mm comparison would be better, but we weren't comparing the two. Also, I was specifically talking about a platform and round acting as a 300m+ Designated Marksman substitute. In which case, yes the 7.62x39 is a crap round for that and I stand by my statement

I don't know of any 5.56 designated marksman rifles, do you? In fact i am not sure you can reliably hit targets at 500m with M16.

The spc and grendel programs were launched specifically to provide accurate fire up to marksman ranges with relatively little recoil. Their energies are pretty much the same as M43s.

[Samp]

I'm from a civilized country and even I know HP are prohibited by the Hague Convention. Not to be pissing in anyone's shit-flakes but isn't the performance of one cartridge vs another irrelevant? The system goes beyond the round, the rifle and the man; it is about how many personnel are doing what at what sustainable cost isn't it?

If a section of Russian infantry shot me - I'd be pretty dead, and I guess that goes for American or British infantry. AFAIK no-one bar snipers plans to engage at 300m; the art of planning is getting to 100m before being dead.

Because I'm a weirdo who likes to know in detail what people I don't agree with think, I watch a lot of gun videos and there is a bizarre level of fixation on the technical; penetration and destruction characteristics of a round which hits, and an equally bizarre fixation on ignoring how many rounds hit, which becomes less and less explicable the more people are shooting.

I guess in the American mythos a 'good guy' pops one round into the devil and the wound channel is sufficient that he staggers and falls, saving the south forever. I can't help thinking in actual battle it's more likely that everyone in the squad shoots a fucker until he stops moving, rendering the cost, weight and accuracy at practical range of a weapon system more relevant, though still not as relevant as the attrition ratio.

Did any American or Russian General ever say 'we need the rifles they've got'?

I know this is the internet and such arguments are what it's for, but really does it matter which round does what better? Is there a battle in history which would have been different if you swaped the rifles used on either side?

[RazoR]

AFAIK no-one bar snipers plans to engage at 300m; the art of planning is getting to 100m before being dead.

Multiply that by 3.

Oh and put artillery or air support instead of planning.

Is there a battle in history which would have been different if you swaped the rifles used on either side?

The whole vietnam war, m8.
It is the story of 5.56 ricochets and low dirt resistance or too long rifles with too heavy rounds.

In jungles.

[Ophichius]

I'm from a civilized country and even I know HP are prohibited by the Hague Convention. Not to be pissing in anyone's shit-flakes but isn't the performance of one cartridge vs another irrelevant? The system goes beyond the round, the rifle and the man; it is about how many personnel are doing what at what sustainable cost isn't it?

If a section of Russian infantry shot me - I'd be pretty dead, and I guess that goes for American or British infantry. AFAIK no-one bar snipers plans to engage at 300m; the art of planning is getting to 100m before being dead.

Numerous field reports contradict this, with targets taking 3-7+ 5.56 rounds before stopping, often living long enough to continue returning fire and wounding or killing soldiers in the process. Yeah, they'll kill you eventually, but if you're carrying an AK-47 you'll do some real damage before you go down.

Because I'm a weirdo who likes to know in detail what people I don't agree with think, I watch a lot of gun videos and there is a bizarre level of fixation on the technical; penetration and destruction characteristics of a round which hits, and an equally bizarre fixation on ignoring how many rounds hit, which becomes less and less explicable the more people are shooting.

The point to obsessing over the mechanical details of cartridges and platforms is that the ideal weapon has one-hit stopping power, so that you can minimize the amount of time and ammunition spent killing any one target. Yes, six guys plugging five rounds each into someone will almost assuredly stop them, regardless of what they're firing, but that time and effort is much better spent putting one round each into 30 different targets and stopping them.

I guess in the American mythos a 'good guy' pops one round into the devil and the wound channel is sufficient that he staggers and falls, saving the south forever. I can't help thinking in actual battle it's more likely that everyone in the squad shoots a fucker until he stops moving, rendering the cost, weight and accuracy at practical range of a weapon system more relevant, though still not as relevant as the attrition ratio.

Nice completely counter-factual jab at Americans. Excuse me while I take a break to tell you 'fuck off, you bigoted asshole.', alright back to our scheduled rant. The point to trying to optimize lethality is that an infantry soldier can only carry so much ammo for the one weapon they have. Ideally, you want a soldier to be carrying very little weight for good mobility, but a light-weight weapon must fire a lower-energy round or be uncontrollable in automatic fire. So the questions then become 'How far do we need to be able to engage out to? How much energy must a bullet have at that range in order to be sufficiently lethal? How much will each of those rounds weigh?', Yes gun geeks can get pretty deep into numbers, but that's a common trait in any technological field.

Did any American or Russian General ever say 'we need the rifles they've got'?

Not that I know of, but it's never the REMFs who say that anyways. It's the poor guys in the field getting shot at with said better rifle. And they generally don't want that guy's rifle, they want one better than what he has.

I know this is the internet and such arguments are what it's for, but really does it matter which round does what better? Is there a battle in history which would have been different if you swaped the rifles used on either side?

Sure, exchange the M1 Garand with the Japanese bolt-action rifles used during the Pacific Campaign. The overall course of the war likely wouldn't have changed much, but individual battles would have gone overwhelmingly to the Japanese who were already entrenched on the islands. The US would have had to resort to starving them out by blockading the islands, possibly firebombing them to remove cover and sources of food.

-O

[Cue1*]

Since my comment kind of started this, I feel compelled to say, shit ballistics doesn't mean it's a shit round. Having really shitty ballistics means it tumbles early and creates nice wound cavities.

No matter how heavily 9mm para is liked, it's still got shit ballistics and doesn't carry much beyond 100m.

Apples and oranges. 100m is pretty good for a handgun round. Hell, it's an auto pistol round, 100m is fucking awesome.

I don't know of any 5.56 designated marksman rifles, do you? In fact i am not sure you can reliably hit targets at 500m with M16.

Yea, In fact, I know of a few.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_12_S..._Purpose_Rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Marksman_Rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Marksman_Rifle

Each reaches out to 550m supposedly, not sure on the realism, but I have a marine buddy who claims to have hit a towelhead at 600m with the USMC SAMR.

I'm from a civilized country and even I know HP are prohibited by the Hague Convention. Not to be pissing in anyone's shit-flakes but isn't the performance of one cartridge vs another irrelevant? The system goes beyond the round, the rifle and the man; it is about how many personnel are doing what at what sustainable cost isn't it?

If a section of Russian infantry shot me - I'd be pretty dead, and I guess that goes for American or British infantry. AFAIK no-one bar snipers plans to engage at 300m; the art of planning is getting to 100m before being dead.

Because I'm a weirdo who likes to know in detail what people I don't agree with think, I watch a lot of gun videos and there is a bizarre level of fixation on the technical; penetration and destruction characteristics of a round which hits, and an equally bizarre fixation on ignoring how many rounds hit, which becomes less and less explicable the more people are shooting.

I guess in the American mythos a 'good guy' pops one round into the devil and the wound channel is sufficient that he staggers and falls, saving the south forever. I can't help thinking in actual battle it's more likely that everyone in the squad shoots a fucker until he stops moving, rendering the cost, weight and accuracy at practical range of a weapon system more relevant, though still not as relevant as the attrition ratio.

Did any American or Russian General ever say 'we need the rifles they've got'?

I know this is the internet and such arguments are what it's for, but really does it matter which round does what better? Is there a battle in history which would have been different if you swaped the rifles used on either side?

(Ignoring you're massive bigotry here)
When discussing handgun rounds, many times you're talking about civilian usages as well. For civilians, JHP are pretty much the standard for self defense. They create larger wound cavities, transfer more of the bullet energy, and have less chance of creating an exit wound(don't want to hit bystanders).

The idea of evaluating the performance of a single round for civilian use is knowing that when you put two in someone's chest cavity they stop being a threat. For military purposes, engagements happen to occur at varying ranges with varying accuracy of the shooter. At 300m, can you promise that you'll hit your target with 10 rounds in an engagement. Also, what's to say that everyone in the squad is shooting at that one guy? MOUT environments basically require each person in a squad to shoot a different guy. Dunno about you but if it's me vs that other guy, I want to know that each round I put in said other guy does some serious damage. Yea, I'll put 3 or 4 in him, but I'd like to know that the first was enough to stop him from getting a good shot or two off on me.

Honestly, I don't know why this argument is even occurring. A 7.62x39 was designed to be a big bullet with enough umph to carry to somewhere between 200-300m and be lethal at that range. The weight of the round wasn't significantly considered because at the time of it's invention, soldiers carried a lot less in the way of ammo. The concept was closer ranges and bigger holes. The 5.56 was adopted for it's lighter properties and higher velocities. Lighter rounds means a soldier could carry more. Higher velocities allowed it to hit to longer ranges. Remember at the time of it's adoption the US was using the 7.62x51, which reaches a lot farther out. The military wanted lighter ammo that could still reach respectable ranges. Seriously we're comparing apples and oranges here. Each round serves it's purpose.

[Keorythe]

[QUOTERazor]Those are all hollow points. Point is invalid. [/QUOTE]

Considering they mushroom and would theoretically "transfer energy" (yes I'm looking at you Ophichius, no I don't buy into energy transfer) better than a FMJ, I don't see what the problem would be. If you're talking about just FMJ's in handguns...well they generally suck across the board.

Hydrostatic shock isn't a wounding mechanism, it's an incapacitating mechanism. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of plenty of gun-nut types, yourself apparently included that it somehow has anything to do with the size of the permanent wound cavity.

I really can't be arsed to go look up all the papers I had to look up the last time I got into this debate, but if you really care start at the citations here and go track down the rest of the medical literature from there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

Hydrostatic shock isn't about lethality, because up until you're punching full-power rifle rounds through people it doesn't generally cause major remote wounding effects, in a handgun round the primary point to hydrostatic shock is the instant pressure spike in the circulatory system. Overpressure waves are transmitted quite efficiently through the blood vessels and into the brain, causing disorientation and temporarily disrupting blood flow. The overall effect isn't too far off from a swift kick in the head.

-O

This has been debunked by Fackler, Roberts, Wang, Tulley, and so forth. They where as wound surgeons will point out mildy damaged nerves from tissue caught directly in the elastic tissue cavitation, this isn't the kind of hydrostatic shock people are trying to pawn off. Michael Courtney still hasn't been able to prove that the ancillary hemorrhaging causes incapacitation. Only that it sometimes occurs. Every 6months or so someone posts this stuff on M4carbine.net, or Lightfighter and gets stomped on by real trauma surgeons. Even if by some chance it did provide some form of incapacitation the effect is so unreliable and unpredictable as when it will occur.

I don't know of any 5.56 designated marksman rifles, do you? In fact i am not sure you can reliably hit targets at 500m with M16.

Mk12 mod0 and mod1
SAM-R
SDM-R
SeAL Recon Rifle

The USMC qualifies on a 500m range.

Here's a bonus. 860yrds The plate is the about the same size as a SAPI body armor plate. 11x17in. So a medium to skin guy's torso. Energy is still pushing 220-240j, about the same as a .38 special. Remember, the 5.56mm had to be able to penetrate a steel helmet at 600m (old steel pots will stop .45 and 9mm at near point blank).



Also

When a five-man Special Forces team looking for Scuds in Iraq ran into a reinforced Iraqi infantry company, the future looked grim for the Americans. Facing overwhelming odds, it was quickly decided that three men armed with sniper rifles would cover a hasty retreat back to the LZ. With these odds death--or worse--seemed certain.

Yet the ensuing firefight did not go as the Iraqis had planned. Rather than being overwhelmed, the three Americans instead put down a hail of highly accurate rifle fire. Advancing against this murderous wall, entire sections of Iraqi infantry were simply cut down. Screaming and rattling away with their Kalashnikovs on full auto, they were knocked from their feet by carefully aimed shots. When staggering losses finally broke their spirit, the surviving Iraqis either threw down their weapons or simply ran away. Scattered about lay the bodies of 167 of their comrades. The Iraqi dead lay in mute testimony to the Americans' tenacity and marksmanship skill.

With the criticism of poor terminal performance leveled by many on the 5.56x45, you would think those 167 Iraqis were cut down by 7.62mm M14s. Such was not the case. They fell to 5.56 Mk 12 sniper rifles firing 77-grain Mk 262 Open Tip Match ammunition. Developed to offer increased accuracy, range and improved terminal performance over the standard 62-grain M855 load, the Mk 262 has performed quite well in actual combat.

http://archives.gunsandammo.com/cont...s-mk-262-mod-1

Numerous field reports contradict this, with targets taking 3-7+ 5.56 rounds before stopping, often living long enough to continue returning fire and wounding or killing soldiers in the process. Yeah, they'll kill you eventually, but if you're carrying an AK-47 you'll do some real damage before you go down.

Actually no there aren't. In fact that is a single story that dates back to the Spanish-American war when we were still using the Krag. You see the Krag was "too small" of a bullet so they wanted everyone to be issued .45 ACP handguns. It's popped up during WWII, Vietnam, Somalia, and now the Middle East. It's always the same story and usually attributed to second and third hand information. But even the white papers that add that little tidbit will never give a solid name. It's more likely that if there was any truth it was due to hitting a non-critical area or just missing altogether. Dr. Fackler, the father of modern wound trauma studies gave the closest similar account where as a trauma surgeon he speaks of a negligent discharged leg shot where the round failed to yaw or fragment despite being close. However, the context was about showing the unreliability of the m855 round to fragment.

While the M855 failures to fragment and yaw at longer ranges are well documented, plenty of other rounds have been doing a damn fine job of killing people including the original 55gr M197. It's why the Army has now transitioned to the M855a1 round and the USMC has gone to the Mk318 SOST round, both of which are devestating, have good barrier penetration, and are still FMJ that full under the Hague Conventions. Although ironically the Mk318 SOST has given up it's ability to penetrate Russian 6B5-13 body armor while the M855a1 still has the hardened steel penetrator. Both of these round will yaw reliably at longer ranges where as the original m855 did not. Note: the .7.62 NATO, 7.62x54R, and 7.62x39 all rely solely on yaw to do damage.

Example of a 55gr m197 5.56mm hitting a guy in the leg out of a 20in M16a1 at a range of 30m. While not the best defense round, it did the job pretty admirably and shows substantial fragmentation. This is why the Swedish tried to have it banned as being an "inhumane" bullet.

  Spoiler:

Six weeks later

If a section of Russian infantry shot me - I'd be pretty dead,

Maybe. Maybe not. Thanks to Hollywood people seem to think that taking a hit is the end. Far from the truth. Plenty of guys have been hit in the chest with rifle and handgun rounds and not died. In fact I posted a few law enforcement stories earlier in this thread where not only did they catch a burst to the chest but they were conscience and talking with the shooters. Shot placement is the biggest factor and it's simple enough to be shot literally a dozen times in non critical areas with huge rounds and still be alive and kicking. It's why so much emphasis is put on designing rounds that maximize their damage in the case of an imperfect shot.

SgtMajor Brad Kasal is a prime example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Kasal

[Ophichius]

This has been debunked by Fackler, Roberts, Wang, Tulley, and so forth. They where as wound surgeons will point out mildy damaged nerves from tissue caught directly in the elastic tissue cavitation, this isn't the kind of hydrostatic shock people are trying to pawn off. Michael Courtney still hasn't been able to prove that the ancillary hemorrhaging causes incapacitation. Only that it sometimes occurs. Every 6months or so someone posts this stuff on M4carbine.net, or Lightfighter and gets stomped on by real trauma surgeons. Even if by some chance it did provide some form of incapacitation the effect is so unreliable and unpredictable as when it will occur.

Got any names for those papers? I'm really not up for a hunt through the internet's incredibly shitty collection of medical paper search sites.

Just every serious medical paper I've read on hydrostatic shock has concluded that it exists, it has serious remote wounding capability, and it can cause rapid incapacitation at high overpressure. If you've got papers that prove otherwise I would very seriously be interested in reading them. My support of the hydrostatic shock model of incapacitation comes from the fact that there are loads of studies that have proven it exists and works, if you can shed any light on why this isn't the case I would appreciate it.

With the criticism of poor terminal performance leveled by many on the 5.56x45, you would think those 167 Iraqis were cut down by 7.62mm M14s. Such was not the case. They fell to 5.56 Mk 12 sniper rifles firing 77-grain Mk 262 Open Tip Match ammunition. Developed to offer increased accuracy, range and improved terminal performance over the standard 62-grain M855 load, the Mk 262 has performed quite well in actual combat.

To quote from the linked article: "Terminal performance drops off rapidly past 300 meters." i.e. It's still a shitty round at range.

Actually no there aren't. In fact that is a single story that dates back to the Spanish-American war when we were still using the Krag. You see the Krag was "too small" of a bullet so they wanted everyone to be issued .45 ACP handguns. It's popped up during WWII, Vietnam, Somalia, and now the Middle East. It's always the same story and usually attributed to second and third hand information. But even the white papers that add that little tidbit will never give a solid name. It's more likely that if there was any truth it was due to hitting a non-critical area or just missing altogether. Dr. Fackler, the father of modern wound trauma studies gave the closest similar account where as a trauma surgeon he speaks of a negligent discharged leg shot where the round failed to yaw or fragment despite being close. However, the context was about showing the unreliability of the m855 round to fragment.

Ah, I guess all the reports from Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan from soldiers complaining that it takes multiple hits from 5.56 rounds to drop a guy are just fabrications then? I don't have any hard data to back this up, just anecdotal stories from friends in the service, but I've heard plenty of complaints about failure to stop. Worst offender seems to the the M4 with green tip ammo, but I've heard it about the M16 too. Never heard it about the SAW, but I suspect you don't notice if it takes a few more rounds to drop a guy when you're firing that.

To be honest it'd be nice to see some actual studies on failure to stop instead of anecdotes, but I've been having trouble finding any. It seems this is an area of study that military research is either uninterested in exploring, or not interested in publishing the results of.

Example of a 55gr m197 5.56mm hitting a guy in the leg out of a 20in M16a1 at a range of 30m. While not the best defense round, it did the job pretty admirably and shows substantial fragmentation. This is why the Swedish tried to have it banned as being an "inhumane" bullet.

  Spoiler:

Six weeks later

This begs the question then of why we're not using rounds that work. If the issue with 5.56 performance is primarily one of shitty ammunition, why are we still issuing our guys ammunition that has known defects instead of ammunition that gets the job done properly?

-O