Army to use 'Dirty Harry' bullet against the Taliban

Originally posted by fritz
reply to post by proteus33[/url]

Couldn't agree more!

THAT is what I thought the newish 7.62 milly rifle was supposed to do for we Brits.

Paddy, you there to shed some light on this matter?

The L129A1 is fulfilling the role nicely, thanks very much. We are now engaging targets at 800m-ish with this and the GPMG, and out to 300-400m with the other weapons in the section.

Couple of points. The AK47 is not the wonder weapon everyone makes it out to be. While the 7.62x39 does in theory have better long range effects, you need to hit the target with it first. The AK is not an accurate weapon. Its sight radius is short and the tollerence are too loose in most of the examples encountered in the field to be capable of any sort of realistic accuracy. Bullet effectiveness only comes into play if you can hit what you're firing at.

As for this new 5.56mm round, I don't know much about it. I believe we won't get much more performance out of the 5.56 than we already have. If we want longer ranges and better long range terminal effects we need a bigger bullet. However I don't think 7.62 is the answer. It is too heavy and has too many control issues. One of the new intermediate calibre options may be a choice, such as the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel.

We're stuck with the 5.56x45 for the meantime. I think it's doing a great job at its effective range, but something for the 500-600m bracket would be nice.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by PaddyInf]

Originally posted by fritz
Let's get one thing straight, shall we? The AK 47 is no good at long range shooting, especially at any range over 300 metres unless it is one of the newer selective fire weapons. Other than that, on full auto, all the AK does is convert live rounds to empty cases - 1st round on target, the rest shooting empty air.

a) I've never heard of AK-47 used in full auto. Why do mention this? This isn't even what they teach you in the class, about that weapon (one is supposed to use bursts).

b) Selective fire is nice, but it's still not difficult to squeeze a burst out of AK-47 anyhow.

c) Depending on your firing position, it's entirely doable to hit a profile target at 400m, I know because I did and I'm not an expert shooter

d) It kicks like a mule


[edit on 23-8-2010 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

a) I've never heard of AK-47 used in full auto. Why do mention this? This isn't even what they teach you in the class, about that weapon (one is supposed to use bursts).

I have, plenty of times, usually coming my way. Admittedly it is more of an Iraq thanan Afghanistan thing (the Taliban are much more efficient and disciplined than any of the Iraqis I encountered).

c) Depending on your firing position, it's entirely doable to hit a profile target at 400m, I know because I did and I'm not an expert shooter

Absolutely, assuming you are using a zeroed weapon that is in good condition and using decent quality ammo. Fortunately Terry usually isn't. the fact is the majority of service weapons are more accurate than the AK. Most of our long range incoming was from snipers, RPDs or other medium machine guns. The AKs may have scored some hits at these ranges, but this was usually down to a combination of volume of fire and luck.

As an aside, the Taliban are very good at working within the effective ranges of their weapon systems. They generally don't engage with rifle fire past 300m, relying on machine gun fire past this.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I think the full automatic would only ever be used for cover fire. Spray over the top and get your men into position, for the reasons you rightly mentioned.

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Originally posted by buddhasystem

a) I've never heard of AK-47 used in full auto. Why do mention this? This isn't even what they teach you in the class, about that weapon (one is supposed to use bursts).

I have, plenty of times, usually coming my way. Admittedly it is more of an Iraq thanan Afghanistan thing (the Taliban are much more efficient and disciplined than any of the Iraqis I encountered).

Ah, but that's exactly what I'm saying! One can use a weapon in a way that it was not really meant to, and get suboptimal results. In fact, you typing at the computer now proves exactly that! Which I'm happy to be a witness of

c) Depending on your firing position, it's entirely doable to hit a profile target at 400m, I know because I did and I'm not an expert shooter

Absolutely, assuming you are using a zeroed weapon that is in good condition and using decent quality ammo.

Again, I won't argue because I used a well maintained like-new original Soviet AK with original ammo, and I was lying prone. It's not the best but I can imagine better than many. I was just talking about the weapon capability under favorable conditions. Any weapon can be mucked up or off-zero or ammo can be bad.

And thank you for your comment, it's a valuable one.

I'm a tad late for the show, but I was wondering...........

Why do you suppose this calibre is referred to as the "Dirty Harry"?

I have to guess that it's purely for the implied brutality of the movie character -- in other words, no relation at ALL to the .44 magnum truncated-nose round fathered by Elmer Keith -- a larger-than-life-Stetson-clad man who was a key player/role model of my youth.

It seems like serious hype and nothing more to characterize the round in this way, IF the DM story has any shread of truth to it.

I'm pretty sure Elmer wouldn't approve. Neither would Frank Church, but that's another story.

PaddyInf is sharing very good information.

In Iraq, I'd have traded my M16A4 in a heartbeat for an AK. Most engagements in Iraq were 100m or less, anything beyond that and their accuracy, which was already atrocious, went out the window.
Although I've never graced Afghanistan, it seems reasonable that the range and accuracy of the 5.56 would be preferable.

The problem with 5.56 is that it was designed for long-distance, conventional warfare. Such is not really the case anymore. It's penchant for passing right through a turd's body without dropping him is notorious.

Originally posted by Gainsayer
PaddyInf is sharing very good information.


The problem with 5.56 is that it was designed for long-distance, conventional warfare. Such is not really the case anymore. It's penchant for passing right through a turd's body without dropping him is notorious.

The 5.56 was designed for short range jungle warfare IE Vietnam M16
This was the 5.56 round with a 55 gr bullet. M193
Them to increase range they went to a 58 gr bullet the M202
Then the M855 at 62 gr.
There is also the 77gr M262 for special forces use.
www.thegunzone.com...

This was just after the M14 that was designed for long-distance, conventional warfare.

Short range warfare....uh-huh. Tell me another.

The 5.56mm was adopted for a variety of reasons.

Research at the time demonstrated that the great majority of contacts/firefights were sorted out at ranges of less than 100m and that it was usually volume of fire that determined the winner. It was therefore argued that there was no need to arm the troops with a round that was difficult to control just because it was more accurate and/or maintained its lethality at longer ranges.

The 5.56mm is optimised for target engagements at sub 300m. From a 20" barrel it will fragment reliably out to around 200m, maximising its lethality. This fits in nicely with the above requirement. Unfortunately it bleeds off energy quickly past 300m, so that by the time it reaches 500m its wounding charicteristics are dramatically reduced. This does not mean that it will not kill at these ranges, just that it is less efficient at doing so.

The 7.62 on the other hand is heavier and thus maintains its kinetic energy at longer ranges. The extra weight means that it is less affected by wind, theoretically making it more accurate. However it does this at the price of increased recoil and a heavier overall weapon/ammunition load for the infantryman to carry. Again this is sub-optimal. It has also been suggested that the 7.62 is actually a bit of over-kill, as it actually wastes a great majority of its energy by passing through the target. I would be skeptical of this view though, because as far as I'm concerned you can't kill the enemy too much.

I wonder what bible scriptures will be imprinted on these new bullets?
At a loss for second line.

reply to post by Alethea


I very much doubt that particular debacle will be repeated. If memory serves that was put down to the suppliers slipping one past the military weapons buyers right? Hopefully they will have a little team now that reviews little issues like that.

Originally posted by p51mustang
i'm working on the stab round-basically a small guided munition that
enters the body- backs up -and re-enters the body over and over..
until they are just a sack of meat. and i hope this will finally satisfy
the wargasm set,
the war pornographers that get excited about
turning a human being into exploding parts-
for their sick pleasure.

I find this amusing.... especially since the screen name of this user is "P51mustang".... arguably one of the most aesthetically pleasing, may I say, beautiful killer of both man and machine ever built. It was equipped with SIX .50 cal machine guns that are quite capable of turning a human being into exploding parts.

Originally posted by ZodiacFlyer

Originally posted by p51mustang
i'm working on the stab round-basically a small guided munition that
enters the body- backs up -and re-enters the body over and over..
until they are just a sack of meat. and i hope this will finally satisfy
the wargasm set,
the war pornographers that get excited about
turning a human being into exploding parts-
for their sick pleasure.

I find this amusing.... especially since the screen name of this user is "P51mustang".... arguably one of the most aesthetically pleasing, may I say, beautiful killer of both man and machine ever built. It was equipped with SIX .50 cal machine guns that are quite capable of turning a human being into exploding parts.

It seems that you know much about that weaponry

reply to post by argentus


This is the DAILY MAIL we're talking about. A good rule of thumb is to ignore the title, read the first few sentences to figure out what the blazes they're talking about, and then looking it up on another news website. Even the Telegraph is better. It's like the entire staff of the Daily Mail cannot understand anything they're told so they make up a pithy title put down a few solid facts they gathered, and then blather on about whatever comes to the top of their heads when they think about what they heard.

Originally posted by Big Raging Loner I think the full automatic would only ever be used for cover fire. Spray over the top and get your men into position, for the reasons you rightly mentioned.

That is what I was saying - Spray and Pray!

No weapon other than sustained fire machineguns, will keep more than the first round on target.

It is simple physics that prevent the firer from keeping rounds on target and returning the muzzle to the POA.

Forward mounted pistol grips do very little other than provide a more stable firing platform for rapid or snap shooting.

People tend to forget one of the maxims I used to pound into the heads of my recruits:

As an infantryman you are to engage the enemy infantry and kill him. As an individual rifleman, I expect you to be able to engage targets, accurately, up to 300 metres! I expect you to hit what you're aiming at 9 times out of10. After that, you become a section asset and must be able to put down accurate harassing fire out to 600 metres.

Of course I was talking about the FN SLR, but the theories have remained the same.

When my unit was issued the L85, we did not have Gucci SUSAT sights. I did, 'cause I was an LSW gunner but even so, many of my friends and quite a few girlies could hit targets at 400 metres using iron sights.

But we were Donkey Wallopers and not mud skipping, puddle jumpers.

I would expect infantrymen who have SUSAT on their weapons to be able to engage and hit targets at ranges up to 400 metres.

Yes, go for it.

I am a peacemaker normally.

But the taliban cuts womens' noses and ears off. Imagine the agony, and then your life is ruined.

The taliban tortures people.

It seems that is what they live for.

So, go and kill them with this weapon - the world needs to be rid of these people. They are vermin, and that is insulting to rats.

GO FOR IT!

reply to post by catwhoknows


yup, that's right. Just go for it.

Originally posted by p51mustang
turning a human being into exploding parts-
for their sick pleasure.

They got that...its call an IED...

Originally posted by Big Raging Loner

Lastly are the US and other forces fightning in Afghanistan being equipped with these new rounds too? Or do they already have small arms munitions to match the Taliban? As it seems illogical for the UK to be the only forces using the 'new' ammunition.

The US is also seriously out-gunned. The Erhart report, from May 2010 outlines the reasons ( www.dtic.mil... ), but contrary to what they say in the UK it is not just an ammunition problem. Current training and strategy/tactics revolve around suppressive fire and maneuver warfare, as opposed to marksmanship and the paper goes on to state that WW II era weapons had 4x the effective lethal range (12000 vs 300 yards). One solution mentioned is to issue one $8000 sniper rifle per squad, but IMHO that's ridiculous. A better weapon for each soldier, with more range and additional marksmanship training prior to shipping out is necessary. It would not require a change in strategy/tactics, but would allow more flexibility. Just makes more sense to me than giving 1/10th of the troops a better weapon that costs $8k.