Perhaps they should just arm the troops with .50 caliber rifles, the most powerful and frightening weapons in the universe.

Hand out a few BAR's and M-14's; that'll get an enemies attention real quick....

When I was there, every checkpoint we set up had to have a 240G (7.62mm GPMG) or a MK-19 40mm past the barracades, and usually several meters away from the road, so we could mow down any vehicle that looked suspicious. M-16's are medium range ANTI-PERSONELLE weapons. M-4's are SHORT range ANTI-PERSONELLE weapons, like pistols. I always thought of my M-16A2 as more of an overweight M2 Carbine than a full-powered rifle.
The problem is that the military doesn't want to admit that power levels are that low and change the training to empasize this very crucial point. You cannot use an M-16 on vehicle and expect the best results. For people, they work pretty good, trust me. For those who say they can't kill someone, I say, work on your marksmanship. Shot placement is vital, there's no such thing as a one shot stop (except headshots, C.N.S.).

An M-16 round is a 22, correct? Why would anyone expect a 22 to tear up a vehicle? We might as well be complaining that a VW Beetle lacks legroom.

Mike,

The problems of the M-16 have more to do with the gun than the bullet. When the AR-15 (predecessor to the M-16) was developed, it had fewer twists in the barrel (like 1:14"). The long, thin bullet wasn't as stable and would begin to tumble as soon as it hit the target. The tumbling created devastating results.

Unfortunately, when the military ordered them up, they demanded a shorter twist in the rifling (like 1:9" or even 1:7"). This meant the bullet spun faster and maintained it's stability. Now it's a bit like stabbing someone with an ice pick. It hurts, but the killing power is greatly reduced.

I used to believe that the instability of the round was responsible for intense wounding as well. It may be to a small extent. However, many of the respected sources whom I put much faith in, like Dr. Martin Fackler and websites like Ammo Oracle and "Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories" (both very informative) say that's bull. Each of them says that what causes fragmentation of an otherwise conventional round are the high velocity to bullet weight factor (not in those words, of course).

Since all rifle bullets yaw as they enter a fleshy medium, it's only one's which have too much kinetic energy to maintain structural integrity that fragment. You can do this with any caliber, or weight, regardless of how stable the round is in flight. But, with a bigger bullet, you must launch it much faster. Supposedly, a .300 Mag causes non-bonded bullets with thin jackets to cause explosive fragmentation even when stable and accurate in flight. This is very bad for big game hunting of course, so it's not advertised.
One of these sites (Ammo Oracle, I believe) also talks about a Swedish 7.62 NATO round that caused explosive fragmentation, so it can be done in other common calibers, I suppose. The problem is the poor weapons training our troops receive these days (I know, I was a troop!) and the fact that we have to train kids who've never even held a gun, much less fired one. People used to go hunting and use effective calibers. They learned to deal with recoil and muzzle blast long before they considered going overseas and killing armed bad guys. We now must train people how have never fired a .22LR how to shoot and hit with a serious cartridge. 5.56 maybe they best we can do. I would like to see the 6.8 SPC get more consideration by the military especially since they're all adopting or at least testing new rifles (USMC now issuing M-16A4, Army testing XM-8).

"Each of them says that what causes fragmentation of an otherwise conventional round are the high velocity to bullet weight factor"

So, then they should not have decreased the weight of the bullet and shortened the barrel, thus cutting down on both?

Steve, you really should read that Wounding Theory page. Study it. I've been in contact with the guy for years now. His theories are very accurate. What works for hunters will work for soldiers, especially if they are not bound by the Geneva FMJ bullet rules. Get a copy of Art Alphin's "Any Shot You Want" reloading manual and read it several times too.

The hunter's belief in sectional density is somewhat misplaced. Every bullet ever made will have an optimal impact performance velocity.

RE your last comment: increase the bullet weight only. For an equal pressure load, this will reduce velocity a bit. Shortening the barrel lowers velocity and adds to ease of use, but there are practical limits.