Veterans pictures

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

My dad was an engineer (generators) attached to an infantry unit. He was partial to the M14. That's what he trained with and qualified expert with, but when he got to Vietnam they handed him an M16.

The M16 A1 and A2 were/are garbage. Now they have the M4 which is just a shorter version of the M16, never had those when I was in, so I cannot comment on their reliability.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

The M16 A1 and A2 were/are garbage. Now they have the M4 which is just a shorter version of the M16, never had those when I was in, so I cannot comment on their reliability.

Now, I've never battle tested any of these weapons but I've fired all of them. My favorite between the M14 and the AR-15 family of weapons is by far the M14, but I'm more of a one shot, one kill type rather than a spray and pray. The new assault weapons in use by the military are much more reliable than their predecessors, but a lot of that has to do with the realization that the weapons do need cleaning after all (something the military denied back with the M16A1).

Now, there are several new assault rifles out there based on the design of the AR-15/M16 that far exceed the the weapon in current use, IMHO. H&K makes one that looks similar, operates similarly, and with a few design tweaks has the reliability of an AK-47. They also need to look into really making the 6.8 SPC round the standard issue. It has the accuracy of the 5.56, but the stopping power of a 7.62x39. That 5.56 has always been my biggest issue with the weapons in use by our military.

[duke0476]

My father and all of his brothers served in each branch during the Vietnam war.

[THEBURG]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

Did you prefer the shaved head or your hair out?

I never ask vets this, and for some strange reason I'm rather curious lol

Just glad to have a head left, when I came back from Nam.

[THEBURG]

Originally Posted by TheBengals

I also got the pleasure of being stationed at Fort Lewis for a while. Mount Rainer is gorgeous, and Army food is better than Navy food!

I was at Ft. Lewis in 1961, our whole battalion was shipped out in Sept. 61, to Berlin, Lewis was a very old post when I was there, when was you guys there.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by THEBURG

I was at Ft. Lewis in 1961, our whole battalion was shipped out in Sept. 61, to Berlin, Lewis was a very old post when I was there, when was you guys there.

1987, for three months training

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Now, I've never battle tested any of these weapons but I've fired all of them. My favorite between the M14 and the AR-15 family of weapons is by far the M14, but I'm more of a one shot, one kill type rather than a spray and pray. The new assault weapons in use by the military are much more reliable than their predecessors, but a lot of that has to do with the realization that the weapons do need cleaning after all (something the military denied back with the M16A1).

Now, there are several new assault rifles out there based on the design of the AR-15/M16 that far exceed the the weapon in current use, IMHO. H&K makes one that looks similar, operates similarly, and with a few design tweaks has the reliability of an AK-47. They also need to look into really making the 6.8 SPC round the standard issue. It has the accuracy of the 5.56, but the stopping power of a 7.62x39. That 5.56 has always been my biggest issue with the weapons in use by our military.

The AR-15 is just an M16 with out the three short burst or full auto. However it can be converted to an M16 just by adding the selector switch. The 5.56 round is a NATO standard because it can do maximum damage with out going through and hitting someone behind them. Not good for a hostage.situation or with innocent civilians.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

The AR-15 is just an M16 with out the three short burst or full auto. However it can be converted to an M16 just by adding the selector switch. The 5.56 round is a NATO standard because it can do maximum damage with out going through and hitting someone behind them. Not good for a hostage.situation or with innocent civilians.

I know the difference between the AR-15 and the M16, but AR-15 is a designation that can encompass a whole family of weapons, both military and civilian, of that style. That was my intended use of it.

As for penetration, I have seen a 5.56 round penetrate and keep on going. Really it all depends on the velocity of the round upon impact and whether or not that velocity will cause fragmentation. That is when the round does it's most damage. If it does not make impact at a high enough velocity, you are going to get essentially a .22 through-and-through.

My preference is for a larger caliber and more stopping power. That being said, I know a lot of the dissatisfaction with the 5.56 from some grunts I know is due to unrealistic expectations. Not every single shot is a kill shot, but younger generations tend to think it is due to desensitization (IMO). You can hit a white tail with a .300 Win Mag in the wrong spot and it will keep running and you may never see it again, so a single 5.56 going into a person and they keep coming at you is not a far stretch.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

I know the difference between the AR-15 and the M16, but AR-15 is a designation that can encompass a whole family of weapons, both military and civilian, of that style. That was my intended use of it.

As for penetration, I have seen a 5.56 round penetrate and keep on going. Really it all depends on the velocity of the round upon impact and whether or not that velocity will cause fragmentation. That is when the round does it's most damage. If it does not make impact at a high enough velocity, you are going to get essentially a .22 through-and-through.

My preference is for a larger caliber and more stopping power. That being said, I know a lot of the dissatisfaction with the 5.56 from some grunts I know is due to unrealistic expectations. Not every single shot is a kill shot, but younger generations tend to think it is due to desensitization (IMO). You can hit a white tail with a .300 Win Mag in the wrong spot and it will keep running and you may never see it again, so a single 5.56 going into a person and they keep coming at you is not a far stretch.

I was under the impression that the M-16/AR-15 rounds were designed to tumble upon impact.

[wedebrook]

Gjilane, Kosovo, 2002:


Mosul, Iraq, 2004-2005:



Drill Sergeant Duty, 2006-2008:




Man, I miss those days.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

I was under the impression that the M-16/AR-15 rounds were designed to tumble upon impact.

The tumbling is due to rifling, bullet weight, and velocity. Over time, they have tightened the rifling in the barrel (from 1:14, 1:12, 1:10, to I believe a 1:7 as of now) and have used heavier bullets. This has resulted in higher accuracy and greater penetration, far superior now in comparison with the A1, but the wound performance has suffered for it. Now, instead of the tumbling you saw before, the reliability is on fragmentation creating multiple wound channels.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by wedebrook

Gjilane, Kosovo, 2002:


Mosul, Iraq, 2004-2005:



Drill Sergeant Duty, 2006-2008:




Man, I miss those days.

Drill Sergeant! Yes, Drill Sergeant!!!


I'll always remember that everytime I see a DI hat. I had a good DI... tough as nails, but always task and goal-oriented. I still remember him to this day.

This one time in basic, we were marching back to the barracks through a woods when the DI decided to simulate a gas attack. He tossed a tear gas grenade at us and yelled gas. The thing landed at my feet and, clearly without thinking, I kicked it like 10 yards down the road and started putting on my mask. Wrong move! The drill sergeant picked up a stick, used it to pick up the canister, made us bag our masks, and then made us double-time back to the barracks while he ran in front with the smoking canister.

Needless to say, the rest of the platoon was not very impressed with my "quick reactions".

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

I was under the impression that the M-16/AR-15 rounds were designed to tumble upon impact.

That is correct. I had a Sgt in my unit who served two tours in Nam with Special Forces. He shot a guy in the wrist and it came out of his neck. The chances of an 5.56 round going through are a lot less than the 7.62 rounds. The biggest gripe about the 16 was it's poor performance in the jungle and in the desert.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

The tumbling is due to rifling, bullet weight, and velocity. Over time, they have tightened the rifling in the barrel (from 1:14, 1:12, 1:10, to I believe a 1:7 as of now) and have used heavier bullets. This has resulted in higher accuracy and greater penetration, far superior now in comparison with the A1, but the wound performance has suffered for it. Now, instead of the tumbling you saw before, the reliability is on fragmentation creating multiple wound channels.

The fragmentation is a result of the tumbling. Yaw creates tumbling which causes increased wound cavitation and the central lead core of the round to rip through the soft copper jacket creating multiple fragments. The multiple fragments increases the chance of hitting a vital organ or blood vessel as well as transfering more of the kinetic energy from the round to the multiple wound channels. Additionally, what do you think is harder to treat surgically; 1) a wound with a single wound channel (possibly through and through) or 2) multiple wound channels which need to be explored for bleeding or perforation of organs and the removal of multiple fragments? The criticism of the current M855 5.56mm x 45mm round is that it doesn't tumble reliably. If it doesn't tumble reliably and create fragments like it should then you are more likely to get a through and through wound which is less severe and that is when the performance suffers.

The information you want to read is in Chapter 4, Conventional Warfare: Ballistics, Blast, and Burn Injuries for the Textbook of Military Medicine Series.

http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/...a-2a6747614173

This relates to our previous discussion of aiming center mass vs. aiming to kill.

This is interesting reading, but the results apply to CQB distances only.

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf