On bullets.

US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war.

Such was the headline that caught my attention over the weekend.

The article discussses the drawbacks to the M855 round for the M16/M4, which was designed (shudder, oh no!) for killing the masses of Cylons, er, body-armored Warsaw Pact troops back in the day. And clearly, it isn't suited for modern conditions. The AP conducted some interviews and says so. You can read it right here.

The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.

Such as the interview with Sergeant Joe Higgins:

As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor, a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies. As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry.

"Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice," says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. "It just has more stopping power."

Gag me. "Spits out bullets" Faugh. And then conflating "firepower" with "stopping power" as if the terms are interchangeable. The author has a tight grasp of hackneyed phrases. He should let go.

Now, me, I'm a *fan* of the M14. Bar none, my favorite US service rifle. I *like* the 7.62 NATO round it shoots, too. My M1A (civilian equivalent of the M14) is, bar none, my favorite shooter in the Arms Room of Argghhh!. Of all the 7.62 NATO rifles I've carried and fired, I still like the M14. Better than the FAL/L1A1. Better than the CETME. Better than the H&K G3. Tied with the Beretta BM59. Which isn't surprising, given the BM59 and M14 spring from the same heritage. But I also know that I was a big strong fella and humping the rifle and ammo wasn't the drag on me it can be on feathermerchants.

But I admit, while not a fan of the M16 particularly, I *did* like the amount of ammunition I could carry for it. And it was a fine shooter. And I *like* SWWBO's M4-clone. That rifle points extremely well for me, and is a good shooter. But I'd still rather carry an M14. Well, for city fighting, I might well prefer the Springfield Armory M1A SOCOM rifle - if the wound ballistics are still good from that short barrel, it would certainly be handier in close-quarter combat than the M14. Heh. Wonder if I could score one for a review? Prolly not. Booksellers will give books to blogs, but I'm not enough of a gunblogger to score a rifle, I'm thinking...

Do note the premise of the article - and then consider this factoid they snuck in...

In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets.

Meaning, um, 80% didn't express that opinion. Heh. In politics, that's a landslide. If you want to do a little poking at DoD and the Administration, one-fifth apparently represents the sum of expert opinion I suppose. And you'd be surprised how many of that one-fifth included Fobbits who rarely leave the wire but have fully tricked-out rifles.

The last bit in the article hits the nail on the head:

The arguments over larger calibers, Radcliffe says, are normal in military circles where emotions over guns and bullets can run high.

"One of the things I've discovered in guns is that damned near everyone is an expert," he says. "And they all have opinions."

The rest of the article (which, if you are interested in the subject, you should read in its entirety)
runs through the usual discussions of bullets, rifles, marksmanship, and legal issues, etc., that have dogged military rifle/ammunition choices since mankind started using projectile weapons.

And emotions on the subject always run high. Me? I'm not fighting in this war - that has to be my first caveat, I admit I am looking at this from a remove of relative safety. But I don't see a compelling need to shift to a new rifle or new ammunition in the midst of the war, needlessly complicating the supply and procurement issues. SOCOM, with essentially it's own, and much smaller, infrastructure is suited to changing horses in mid-stream. When you talk the rest of the Army, and toss in the Marines, you have complex problems to manage within the defense industrial base and DoD logistics. And then the whines when units go into the box with the "new and improved" rifles/ammunition vice the ones that don't have 'em. And DoD will get hammered either way - because it will either be a better rifle and the ones with old rifles are being discriminated against and put at a disadvantage - or it will have teething problems and the services will be playing contractor favoritism and putting troops lives at risk.

Oh wait, that's already happening. And does anyone remember the fiasco of fielding the M16 in the middle of a war?

For my money, the Infantry needs a new rifle. In that, I'm with the Generals, don't just tweak the current rifle, go ahead and try to get to the next generation. But - I wasn't with the Generals when they were trying to make the next generation rifle the equivalent of a Heinleinian Mobile Infantry weapon.