.45, or Browning Hi-Power?

There was a sniper documentary on the discorver and history chanels, that when covered the vietnam war they said on average a sniper used 1.3 rounds per kill and infantry 200,000 per kill. It seems kind of ridiculous. But than again.... It was hard enought to see the enemy in the jungle.
Do these figures sound true?

 

It certainly doesn't sound too unreasonable that this might be the case.

People tend to forget that a very significant part of the role of GPMGs which form a not insignificant portion of the armament in a standard platoon is suppressive fire, not even trying to hit let alone wound, just put enough lead in the air around the enemy to force them to keep their heads down and stop them firing back.

4 GPMGs firing bursts at around 600 RPM will use a lot of ammunition very quickly, and that's without considering the ammunition fired by the individual riflemen, who are sweating, running, diving for cover, possibly firing bursts themselves, and will naturally be taking less care over their shots than a sniper relatively safe half a kilometre away with a specially selected rifle and a high powered scope.

 

It is. Kudos for catching that.

The kicker is that I was watching a documentary on a major police raid one time, and a sergeant, who should have known better, reported capturing X number of rounds of 5.56, as well as Y number of rounds of .223. None of us could believe he said something so dumb on camera.

 

Who cares if the M16's lighter? That's a moot point. Lighter does not mean a thing when you're in a battlefield about to be shot and have to shoot back and kill the enemy. Power matters, not ammo or weight!

 

Sounds familar, I've heard somthing like WW1 100,000 per soldier killed, WW2 200,000 per soldier killed, Vietnam 250,000 per soldier killed. But I've no idea how they arrived at those numbers since artillery is usually the biggest killer anyway, so the usual large grain of salt applies.

 

Individual soldier cares after he had to carry that thing for a while...

 

The question remains: why isn't the M14 the principle rifle of the US infantry today? It has all the power and reliability needed. If ammo was a problem, why not put a 3-shot setting in an M14, huh? Why was money wasted in order to come up with a piece of garbage that possesed way inadequate stopping power?

 

This is a good answer...

 

Who says the M-16 is a piece of garbage Blaster? If it was so bad the British SAS wouldn't use it that's for sure, so I'll take their experience over yours for now.

The M-16 is at least as reliable as the M-14, carries 50% more ammunition per magazine, is lighter (and fires lighter ammunition), shorter, is plenty accurate at combat ranges, can fire controlled bursts without excessive muzzle climb, fires a round with at least adequate stopping power for most circumstances and is capable of accepting add-ons such as underslung grenade launchers.

It is a much better weapon on the whole for a modern mechanised/heli-bourne force.

It is not more powerful than the M-14, but then so what? It is a better alround weapon for the standard infantryman.

 

The lesson to learn here is this:

Both the M14 and M16 have good points and bad points relative to each other. For most modern combat, it is generally thought that the M16's good points outweigh those of the M14. Joe Infantryman tends to hanker after the M14, as it has a bigger, more powerful cartridge. I would be prepared to take a bet that if they were re-issued with the M14, and the M16 was only available to select numbers of troops, after about a year Joe Infantryman would be hankering after the M16 because it is lighter, shorter, you can carry more ammo, etc etc.

 

I thought they prefer the Diemaco version the C7 and C8. Or so the bolding guy states in those SAS shows.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

I'll take this as a sort of thanks, I think...

 

I recall hearing a similar thing too. According to at least one book I read a while back (Don't ask me the name, I really can't remember!), the 5.45mm round for the AK-74 was developed as a result of Soviet tests on M-16s and 5.56mm ammunition captured in Vietnam and sent back to Moscow.

...and now for the disclaimer...

That said, I can't recall that the book concerned cited any particular evidence for this and may have just been leaping to conclusions based on the convenience of a similar time period, plus this was towards the tail-end of the eighties or early nineties and may well have just been Cold War era propaganda.

To be honest, I doubt this to be the case. If it were true, why not simply copy the 5.56mm altogether? Afterall the Soviets weren't above copying Western designs wholesale when it suited them (Tu-4 and RR Nene spring to mind), so unless there is any reason the AKM couldn't have been adapted to 5.56mm NATO, why not use that rather than come up with the 5.45mm which is in any case a very different round (In appearance if nothing else) to the NATO standard?

 

This is a forum, not a place where you order people around and tell them exactly how you want your answers. Doing a little research yourself helps too, something I have not seen you do...

 

I wasn't ordering anyone.

 

True. Blaster is within his rights to request a detailed answer. You are within your rights to refuse to give one.

 

Well, this is fair.