What Happened with the M16 in Vietnam?

Anyway, to the bullet question. As you have noticed the fragmentation is one thing but the bullet speed which makes the bullet give more energy to destroy nearby soft tissues and even hard tissues (bone). The bullet is not the only problem. As many war films claim. Take the bullet away, which of course is necessary, but if the local soft tissues are damaged you cannot do a thing with the limb for a long time.If ever. The pressure from the bullet simply destroys the muscles etc to useless tissue. The faster the bullet, the more energy is released to the tissues.

 

You have to factor in Adrenaline...Soldiers would talk about the 7.62 being able to sit a man on his arse...and keep him there...

 

Admitted bring close to being dead give more strentgth. The shoot place means though everything. I learnt in the army how much the energy of the bullet caused damage not the bullet. Like in autopsys the bullet going inside Is small but the outside hole could be the side of two teacups.

 

Well the finns prove a point don't they? Give them any weapon and they'll kick anyone out they don't like...

 

Sure, lots of rounds will do the same thing by hitting brain stem, nervous system or load bearing bones. Unless the soldiers you refer to live somewhere that Newton's Third Law of Motion doesn't apply, then their accounts should include descriptions of the shooter also being forcibly seated if force alone caused the purported effect.

 

What? I mean that they go down from force, trauma and shock...not Hollywood BS...if the bullet hits something solid then the impact is spread like a punch...you calling soldiers liars? Pfft...

 

....no problem with the 5.56....in fact, it creates more damage
....3 round burst was introduced long after Nam
....I remember a quote that was something like: ''a mediocre weapon in trained/motivated hands is better than a great weapon in untrained/unmotivated hands.....
I've fired the M16A1 and A2.....no problems....

..I haven't read it in a long time, but I thought in Black Hawk Down, Durant said the MP5 was ''crap'' /''a toy'' [ only what I remember--something like that ] and he liked the CAR-15 he was given
MP5 =''''His own accounts state that he had to clear malfunctions constantly during the fight'''
H&K MP5 — History and Function

..M16s used in PG1, PG2, Afghanistan/etc-so, they can't be bad..... whereas , I read where the German rifles ''failed''' in Afghanistan?
Heckler & Koch G36: the rifle held in all the wrong places | DW | 23.04.2015


maybe someone has posted this already:
'''''The 5.56×45mm cartridge had several advantages over the 7.62×51mm NATO round used in the M14 rifle. It enabled each soldier to carry more ammunition and was easier to control during automatic or burst fire.[128] The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge can also produce massive wounding effects when the bullet impacts at high speed and yaws ("tumbles") in tissue leading to fragmentation and rapid transfer of energy.[''''
M16 rifle - Wikipedia

 

You can bring up all the stats and diagrams you like, the test is the battle...easy to carry or control doesn’t kill people, bullets do. Simple fact, the larger the projectile the bigger the hole. You can try to increase inertia by increasing velocity, with human flesh, this results in the round zipping right through a body with little time for cavitation. If your arguement is smaller is better, then you’re argueing with the wrong person, you won’t convince me.
I didn’t say it was introduced in Vietnam.

 

1.generally speaking, if an M16 round doesn't penetrate the helmet, the wearer will usually be incapacitated somehow....you just don't get up after your helmet has been hit by something traveling that fast
2. it can penetrate helmets
3. you should not be aiming for a head shot, but center mass
4. hits/penetration/depends on the type of combat/range/cover-bunkers-/etc:
with any rifle at combat range during combat conditions, even hitting center mass, much less a head shot, is very questionable.....here we go with the realistic thinking again....
..an M14 won't do much more if the enemy is in bunkers/concrete buildings/etc...at range, the riflemen are keeping the enemies' ''heads down''

 

..I was in the Weapons Co. which had the M60s ---which were ''based'' on the MG42, I thought...I don't recall the 0331 Marines complaining about it...but I thought it did have some problems before....?

 

...they've been using the M16 for a long time......if it was a problem, surely they would've changed it by now!
...do soldiers what more ammo which weighs less, that does about the same thing, or less ammo that weighs more?
...you are not getting much more of an advantage with the bigger round

 

Whatever you shoot, short bursts, short bursts or single shots. Or you are out of ammo fast. Not the movie style shooting.