Marines shoot insurgent who was 'playing dead'

[Larry_Oldtimer]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1248394.htm

Excerpt: The US military says Marines in Fallujah have shot and killed an insurgent who engaged them as he was faking being dead, a week after footage of a marine killing an apparently unarmed and wounded Iraqi caused a stir in the region.

"Marines from the 1st Marine Division shot and killed an insurgent who while faking dead opened fire on the marines who were conducting a security and clearing patrol through the streets," a military statement said.

I agree with Thomas Sowell . . . you have to play by the rules to benefit from the rules. Our Marines can take no stupid risks where these people are concerned. >:(

[WCP]

Anyone ever seen what a .223 does to a head? :o :o :o

Awesome.

[backlash]

Anyone ever seen what a .223 does to a head? :o :o :o

Awesome.


Isn't a .223 a necked-down .30-06?

[Observer]

Everything you want to know about the round is here (http://www.thegunzone.com/556faq.html).

[backlash]

Everything you want to know about the round is here (http://www.thegunzone.com/556faq.html).


Thanks. The article mentions Springfield in its lineage, so I assume it is.

[SamHill]

Isn't a .223 a necked-down .30-06?


The 5.56mm (.223) round is much smaller and less powerful than the 30.06 round. the 5.56mm round was developed from a varmit hunting cartridge. Eugene Stoner tweaked it up a bit and used it to chamber the final version of his Armalite rifle that eventually became the M 16. The current loading used by most ground troops in Iraq is the M855, which has a 62gr bullet, with a steel penetrator inside.

On soft targets, such as a human head, it is less damaging than the previously used M193 round which uses a 55gr jacketed bullet.

In my opinion, both are only marginally adequate for combat usage, especially when fired from the standard M4 carbine, with it's 14.5" barrel.

[suny]

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

The libs need to get over it.

[backlash]

The 5.56mm (.223) round is much smaller and less powerful than the 30.06 round. the 5.56mm round was developed from a varmit hunting cartridge. Eugene Stoner tweaked it up a bit and used it to chamber the final version of his Armalite rifle that eventually became the M 16. The current loading used by most ground troops in Iraq is the M855, which has a 62gr bullet, with a steel penetrator inside.

On soft targets, such as a human head, it is less damaging than the previously used M193 round which uses a 55gr jacketed bullet.

In my opinion, both are only marginally adequate for combat usage, especially when fired from the standard M4 carbine, with it's 14.5" barrel.


Scratch the -06 assumption. A lot of civilian Armalites are chambered in .308. Would that be a better combat load or is it too powerful?

[SamHill]

Scratch the -06 assumption. A lot of civilian Armalites are chambered in .308. Would that be a better combat load or is it too powerful?


The 7.62 x 51mm Nato, or .308 Win round is, again in my opinion, a superior combat round. Until Robert Strange MCNamera became S.O.D. in the 1960s, the M14 battle rifle, chambered in .308 Win was the standard rifle for our armed forces.

The original concept for the M16 was as a survival rifle for downed AF personnel. The bean counters and brass hats working for McNamera were impressed by the rifle's light weight, and fact that a soldier could carry more rounds into combat. That thinking won the day. There is also a whole mythology about the 5.56mm round's terminal ballistics, giving it a "unique" ability to yaw and take irregular paths in soft targets, which was said to increase it's lethality.

[LanceALott]

Some of you seem to forget the difference in velocity of an M-16 round and an M-14 round. (From memory it seems like 3300 fps compared to about 2200.)

And the smaller M-16 round, if it did not tumble, would be a superior round for combat. With the steel jacket, a non-tumbling high speed round would most likely go all the way through an enemy soldier, and would not kill him, unless it hit something vital; AND THAT MAKES IT A SUPERIOR COMBAT ROUND.

Not because we are more humane, but because if you only wound the guy, it takes about four of his buddies out of combat to take care of him. Whereas if you kill the bastard, they can just leave him where he falls. -- And in addition, the round would most likely penetrate the guy, there is the additional chance it will hit someone standing behind him.

Some of you combat weapons "experts" here don't know your ass from a hole in your head.

[WCP]

Some of you seem to forget the difference in velocity of an M-16 round and an M-14 round. (From memory it seems like 3300 fps compared to about 2200.)

And the smaller M-16 round, if it did not tumble, would be a superior round for combat. With the steel jacket, a non-tumbling high speed round would most likely go all the way through an enemy soldier, and would not kill him, unless it hit something vital; AND THAT MAKES IT A SUPERIOR COMBAT ROUND.

Not because we are more humane, but because if you only wound the guy, it takes about four of his buddies out of combat to take care of him. Whereas if you kill the bastard, they can just leave him where he falls. -- And in addition, the round would most likely penetrate the guy, there is the additional chance it will hit someone standing behind him.

Some of you combat weapons "experts" here don't know your ass from a hole in your head.


Totally concur with this post. It is far superior to wound the enemy (presuming the enemy gives a shit enough to take care of their wounded, of course) than it is to kill them.

If they don't care about their wounded, kill the wounded. <shrugs>

[SamHill]

Some of you seem to forget the difference in velocity of an M-16 round and an M-14 round. (From memory it seems like 3300 fps compared to about 2200.)

And the smaller M-16 round, if it did not tumble, would be a superior round for combat. With the steel jacket, a non-tumbling high speed round would most likely go all the way through an enemy soldier, and would not kill him, unless it hit something vital; AND THAT MAKES IT A SUPERIOR COMBAT ROUND.

Not because we are more humane, but because if you only wound the guy, it takes about four of his buddies out of combat to take care of him. Whereas if you kill the bastard, they can just leave him where he falls. -- And in addition, the round would most likely penetrate the guy, there is the additional chance it will hit someone standing behind him.

Some of you combat weapons "experts" here don't know your ass from a hole in your head.


Try using your head for something besides a door-stop Lott.

I don't know of a single person who has ever gone into combat, who shot an enemy thinking only to wound him, so others could carry him off. In combat, we shoot to kill every time, except for special mission snipers.

The M16 A2 rifle, with 20" barrel, firing the 55 gr M855 ammunition has a chronographed muzzle velocity of 2800 ft per second. The M14 battle rifle fires a 150 gr bullet at 2750 ft per second.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16.htm

Most of our troops in Iraq are carrying the Colt M4 carbine, which has a 14.5" barrel. Shorter barrels produce less muzzle velocity (2640 f/ps) than longer barrels of the same caliber. They also use the M855 ball ammunition, which fires a lslightly heavier bullet, with a tighter twist on the rifling. It is better for penetrating light armor, such as used in vests, but it tends to shoot through a target, producing less wound damage than it's predecessor, and a great deal less that the venerable 7.62 x 51 Nato round.

[Observer]

The M193 chronographed at 3250 fps when fired from the A1.

[LanceALott]

The M193 chronographed at 3250 fps when fired from the A1.


Yours is the figure I learned, Observer.

Wonder where Sam got his numbers?

[Observer]

2800 sounds about right for the heavier M855 62 grain round that is standard issue today. That could be where it came from.

[LanceALott]

2800 sounds about right for the heavier M855 62 grain round that is standard issue today. That could be where it came from.


Why did they go to a heavier slug?

The velocity gave a flatter trajectory so you did not have to be so accurate on estimating distance to the target.

[Unca Walt]

badnews: The armchair REMF idiocy of trying to "wound" your enemy instead of kill him (so that more of his comrades are distracted by having to help him) is maniacal stupidity carried to idiotic excess.

The M-14 used the .308 round. Essentially a 30.06, essentially the same round yer grampa or daddy used in his Garand.

You shot the enemy. *IF* you hit him right, he fucking DIED. But most of the time, you DIDN'T HIT HIM LIKE HOLLYWOOD PERPETUALLY SHOWS. So he was badly wounded, and it took some of his comrades out of the fight helping him.

Maybe.

Sometimes.

Other times, they said "tough shit, buddy. See you later. Maybe."

But with the Mattel Toy, *IF* you hit him Hollywood-perfect, he may or MAY NOT die.

IF you hit him just exactly in the same place that say, your daddy hit Hans Kraut... well Mr. Charlie just said, "Ow! You Yankee Imperialist Running Dog! Now you have angered me!"

And HE fired back with a REAL bullet.

Do not take the input of a mailman REMF bullshit fantasy artist for your info.

The actual problem with the M-14 round is that you cannot carry as many of them. But the ones you carry are FAR, FAR, FAR more lethal and effective than the BB's popped out of the Mattel Toy.

In the Korean thing, the M-1 Carbine was found to be ineffective in stopping the Chinois. The M-1 Carbine fired essentially a pistol round. It sucked.

So what did they do? Yeah... they put in a .22 caliber gun. Jeez.

I threw mine under a tank and got an M-14. Happily carried the heavier load of ammo.

Unca Walt

[SamHill]

2800 sounds about right for the heavier M855 62 grain round that is standard issue today. That could be where it came from.


The M/V figure that I quoted was for the M855 round, and it came from this web page:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16.htm

I know that the listings for the M193, 55 gr ball ammo round advertises a M/V of around 3100 to 3300 F/ps from the A2 version of the M16 rifle. I also own a printing chronograph, and several configurations of the M16/AR15 rifle, including one of the old slab-side M16 A1s, with the standard 20" barrel. I have had occasion to chronograph several versions of the 5.56 Nato round, which were purchased as military surplus.

I recall that the highest reading we graphed for the 55 gr ball round was around 2950 f/ps. I understand that many variables can effect chronograph readings, but still, from personal experience, I have difficulty believing the advertised claim of 3300 f/ps from a standard issue 20" barreled rifle.

I am fiercely pro-American, and I don't take lightly to knocking American military gear, but I, and many others with combat experience, truly believe that we could have done better, than to equip our troops with an over-hyped "squirrel gun."

The problems with the M16/M4 rifles were, and some continue to be legion. I could list the problems ranging from the "gas impingment" system of operation, to the marginally effective ammunition assigned to it, but I'm fairly sure that you've heard them before.

[truelies]

Isn't a .223 a necked-down .30-06?


This one is not- its a totally different round

[LanceALott]

I am fiercely pro-American, and I don't take lightly to knocking American military gear, but I, and many others with combat experience, truly believe that we could have done better, than to equip our troops with an over-hyped "squirrel gun."

I have seen a firepower demonstration where six concrete blocks were turned to dust in a few seconds firing on fully automatic with an M-16.

I personally shot a hole in quarter inch boiler plate steal which was on a 45 degree angle .

That ain't no squirrl gun.



But, I can see why a nut like you might fear squirrels.

[SamHill]

But, I can see why a nut like you might fear squirrels.



He said what!?! ;D ;D ;D

When it comes to certifiable nuts; Lott, you are in a league all of your own. :o