"special operations types are highly capable and have proven it... the sub ran aground... recon team executed the sailors... Most of the recon team was killed..."
"Highly capable" doesn't mean what you think it means.
You ignored the relevant part.
"... evaded the South Korean military for over a month... killing and wounding several dozen South Korean soldiers in the process..."
Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles, nor even nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons include dirty bombs, nuclear dusting and various other things. Some of the later only require WW2 era technology. North Korea is capable of attacking the US with these older technologies.
Dirty bombs are the strategic equivalent of poking a polar bear with a small twig.
Good thing NK is run by a rational grounded person who would never do something so stupid, no matter how desperate.
Technically the FBI has some independence from POTUS. The FBI director is appointed by the President but serves a 10 year term and cannot be dismissed by the President. Obviously not so with the DoJ as the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President.
The FBI operates under the Department of Justice and reports to the Attorney General. The Attorney General, acting on her own initiative or under the President's orders, could order the FBI not to force Apple to comply. Or the FBI may have been ordered to force Apple to comply. Either way, this type of action by the FBI is under White House control. Either explicitly or implicitly through non-interference.
Sorry I don't give NK military the level of credit you do. I doubt that they are particularly well trained or well equipped. They are also not combat tested to any degree.
Do not confuse the NK military in general with the NK special operations types. Its night and day. They're special operations types are highly capable and have proven it in South Korea. For example in the 1990s a NK reconnaissance team infiltrated South Korea by submarine and successfully surveilled a navy base for several days. When the sub came back to pick them up the sub ran aground. Classified equipment was destroyed and then the recon team executed the sailors and tried to make it to NK on foot. They were discovered and evaded the South Korean military for over a month, killing and wounding several dozen South Korean soldiers in the process. Most of the recon team was killed during this long hunt, one is thought to have made it to NK.
On another occasion a NK sub got caught in a fishing vessels nets. Its seems to have scuttled itself when the South Korean Navy tried to take it. The water was shallow enough for divers to search it. Evidence of numerous successful recon mission on South Korean territory was found.
No, not really. The only real nuclear risk to the US would be a bomb smuggled into a port. I'm sure this is possible but the actual damage from that would be minimal. Also the risk of getting caught is extremely high. That sort of operation would produce too much chatter to not get detected.
Do not confuse the operational skills of NK operatives with the idiot jihadists in the middle east. The NK operatives are highly trained and extremely proficient special forces types. The NK's aren't very chatty.
Also don't fixate on city killers. Contaminating a city block or even a room would have a massive effect in the US. And a massive response.
A single crop duster aircraft would do. Although the WW2 idea was on a larger scale and used a formation of bombers for "dusting".
For even lower tech there is a simple dirty bomb. A regular bomb encased in radioactive material. Delivered like any other bomb, methods subject to its size.
Whether you take out a room, a city block or an entire city won't make much difference to how the US reacts though. Radioactive material should be traceable back to NK reactors.
There is no real risk of a nuclear strike coming out of NK.
Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles, nor even nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons include dirty bombs, nuclear dusting and various other things. Some of the later only require WW2 era technology. North Korea is capable of attacking the US with these older technologies.
Republicans are terrible no matter where in the world they are.
You do realize that President Barrack Obama and his Attorney General are Democrats, very liberal Democrats at that, and that they control the FBI that is currently pushing Apple to comply and proposing that Congress pass legislation to require compliance?
So you don't understand the meaning of that quote. That writers are killed in mass doesn't matter...
And you failed to comprehend the original point. That a pen can only succeed with friendly swords to protect it. Reality is that pens are secondary to swords. Your own argument admits that.
The audience isn't the government; it's the populous.
You are missing the part about being executed before having a following.
And given that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were ultimately unsuccessful -- and only one by armed conflict -- I think it's safe to say that superior ideas triumphed over superior physical might.
Stalin was unchallenged until death. Mao was set aside in old age by other men with swords, others of power in Mao's government, not the populous. To this day those who speak out against the government in Russia and China risk jail or death. The Tiananmen Square massacre of peaceful protesters calling for communist party reform occurred in 1989, long after Mao, long after the party moved away from his extremism. But one thing remained, absolute control by the party, by the swords. The fact that not all swords think alike does not change this.
Over and over and over, the pen is secondary to the sword.
Only if you are incapable of understanding the concept.
Actually all it takes is seeing reality rather than poetry. The pen can only express power when protected by friendly swords, or tolerated by somewhat morale swords. In either case the swords remain primary, the pen secondary.
Nuclear armed India, India who fights over Kashmir? Apparently not.
You know that 'India' is not a person right? And the entire Indian race don't all share the exact same philosophical views yeah? Or are you really that ignorant?
Gandhi's creation, an independent India, abandoned his non-violent philosophy, immediately committed atrocities and ethnic cleansing upon itself, split into two countries, two countries that periodically war with each other. Seems a new sword triumphed as soon as the old sword, the British, left.
Hitler, Stalin -- Are you seriously saying their philosophies are not being followed? Both were role models to various strong-men dictators of recent times.
Yes because their "philosophies" is their pen. Their tanks and bombs were their swords (see how it works now?)
Yes, sword wins. Hitler was only defeated by those who put away the pen and picked up swords.
Mao -- Tiananmen Square protests/massacre of 1989. Can the Pen in China even mention the actual events?
If you've ever been to China you would see that since the 80's China's rule has become more benign. This didn't happen with guns or swords.
Nice dodge. More benign is an extremely relative thing, besides being a highly debatable claim. There is little room for criticism of the CCP today. And the question remains, how many Pens in China are telling the truth of Tiananmen. Swords rule in China.
Over and over and over, the pen is secondary to the sword.
Which breakfast cereal generates more methane released by the bodies of those consuming this cereal? That cereal may be putting thousands of car-equivalents back on the road.
Gandhi's struggle would have turned out very, very differently had he been dealing with Hitler or Stalin or Mao instead of the British Empire. His methods only work against an adversary who has at least SOME heart or nobility you can leverage and exploit.
I don't think you fully grasp the concept. ie Gandhi's philosphy is still be taught, supported, and followed. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao not so much. So yeah I think his pen still beats their swords.
Gandhi's philosophy is being followed by who? Nuclear armed India, India who fights over Kashmir? Apparently not. The Tibetans being ethnically cleansed by China? Maybe them. The ethnically cleansed Christian communities of Iraq? Maybe them too.
Hitler, Stalin -- Are you seriously saying their philosophies are not being followed? Both were role models to various strong-men dictators of recent times.
Mao -- Tiananmen Square protests/massacre of 1989. Can the Pen in China even mention the actual events?
Maybe. Had Ghandi simply been executed (ie martyred) that might have catalyzed change as well; although the transition would have been very, very, different.
Doubtful in the Hitler, Stalin, Mao context. Sadly he would likely have been martyred long before he had a following. Ghandi's own strategy suggests that you are mistaken. First you need to be ignored, then you need to be laughed at. Hitler, Stalin, or Mao would have used a different strategy and started with execute rather than ignore. For moral persuasion to work the audience needs to be somewhat moral.
Didn't burst mode replace full auto on many M16s in later variants because they found that troops in Viet Nam tended to use the rifles on full auto too much and ended up wasting ammo and wrecking rifles?
The M16A2 in the 1980s substituted burst for full auto. My understanding is that the Marines led the A2's development, or at least had more say than they usually did, and their opinion was that after three rounds you were no longer accurate so what's the point - we're here to hit targets not make noise. In close quarters, ambush, if necessary multiple bursts had the same effect as full auto. There was supposedly also the statistic that full auto fire was rare in actual combat. Someone firing on full auto attracted the enemy's attention and became a magnet for enemy fire, Darwin discourages making oneself the center of attention on the battlefield. True for the BAR guy in WW2 and Korea and the Vietnam trooper who went full auto with his M16. Full auto may be fun on the training range but of limited value in combat for a regular infantryman with a magazine fed weapon. A designated machine gunner may be all that is necessary and they are carrying something belt fed with swappable barrels for truly sustained fire.
I believe it has been observed in ballistic gelatin tests. YouTube?
It was also mentioned in a book we read in college that among other things traced the development of the M-16 rifle. The effect was noticed when early research was being done at Armalite, before the Army's involvement. Early Special Forces units experimented with the Armalite AR-15 in Vietnam. Their praise is one of the things that brought the rifle to the attention of Secretary of Defense McNamara who then forced the rifle upon the Army. The Army did not want the AR-15/M16. It was replacing their beloved M14 that was developed internally. The Army brass did everything they could to derail the M16 project and dismissed it as a "squirrel gun" given its.223 caliber ammunition being similar in diameter to.22 LR used for squirrels.
Keep in mind that modern M16/AR-15 rifles have greater rifle twisting and use heavier 5.56mm bullets. Both of these increase effective range but decrease tumbling and lethality. The Vietnam era weapons and ammo did the greater damage. Inexpensive civilian ammo (.223 Rem) is often 55 (?) grain in weight as opposed to the modern 62 (?) grain military ammo. Not sure what the respective barrel twist rates are off hand. The Vietnam era rifles are M16 and M16A1 and the more modern more accurate rifles are M16A2, A3, A4, etc. One visual clue for older M16s and AR-15s is a triangular forward grip / heat shield rather than a round one with ridges.
I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the "old stuff" that was accurate at 700-800 yards. Yeah, 1/3 the mass in the projectile has its limitations. But as the Army data suggests those limitations seem beyond practical needs. As others pointed out a designated marksman with an M16 HBAR and a known lot of ammunition the rifle has been dialed into is probably sufficient for those rare long range shots.
I think they may have gotten cheap and skipped chroming the barrel at some point.
The part breaking would have been original M16, first attempt at "militarizing" the Armalite AR-15, not even M16A1. My former boss and his fellow Marines were literally some of the first to take the M16 into combat. Swapping their M14s for M16s less than a day before getting on the plane to Vietnam, only a few hours on the range for familiarization. They were replacing ARVN for DaNang airbase security. The Air Force guys slept much better.
With respect to the word "sabotage" that was something used by one of the Congressman who investigated the M16 failures and resulting troop casualties. He may have doubted the power of plain old stupidity.
Besides the former Marine I had worked for my recollections are based on a book I read in college. I think the author's name was "Fellows", "Fallows", maybe, circa 1980. The book took a look at the modern US military. The Army's tendency to promote "managers" and drive out "soldiers". The f'ed up procurement process. For the later he covered the development of the M16 rifle and the F-16 fighter. It was an interesting read.
While the AK's rep may be inflated I think it would be safe to assume it more reliable. Simplicity of design and such, much like a Garand. Greater tolerances to deal with accumulated crud at the price of accuracy. Although I do expect manufacturing related issues. I expect a Czech manufactured AK would be quite different than a Chinese manufacture AK. But even a Czech AK would eventually have problems when maintained by someone barely removed from the stone age and little trained in maintenance.
For close range you are effectively describing the characteristics of a shotgun. Which is popular with police and the military for these reasons. The first marines to drop into Iraqi trenches and bunkers during the first gulf war were as likely to be armed with pump shotguns as M16s.
The shock effect is larger with the flattening bullets. This is the main concern for the police. Soldiers need the maximum penetrative power and the full metal jackets provide just that.
No. The penetrator tip or steel core do that. That thin copper jacket adds little to penetration.
he 5.56 or.223 boat tail round that the M16 or AR uses tumbles once it penetrates the skin.
This is totally a myth - deliberately spread to soldiers in Vietnam who were very disappointed by the early M16s (and for some good reasons).
Not penetrates the skin but when traveling through the body. Special Forces troops evaluating the Armalite AR-15 in Vietnam noticed the affect and it overcame their skepticism. Armalite AR-15s, and their cleaner burning ammo, were highly prized by SF troops long after the introduction of the troublesome M16.
The army distributed little brochures and everything, but it was a lie.
The brochures I've seen were about cleaning the M-16. They issued rifles before they had cleaning kits and before troops were properly instructed in maintenance.
"Dum dum", or more generally, safety rounds were banned by the Geneva convention for the same reason most weapons are on the banned list: they aren't good weapons for war.
Such rounds are far more lethal than traditional military ammunition. Note that hunting ammunition is based on such expanding rounds. "Safety rounds" sound like it refers to over penetration in a modern law enforcement context but that is certainly not what British colonial troops were concerned about. They were excited by the extra wounding potential of these expanding rounds. Its pretty well documented as such.
If you were using the M16A1 back in the day you might find it easier now. Starting with the M16A2 barrel twist increased and standard ammo increased from 55 to 62 grain (?). The goal was making the rifle more accurate. Critics point out these changes also made it less lethal, less tumbling upon impact.
The designated marksman is likely to have a personal cache of ammunition from the same manufacturing lot. Its not necessarily more "accurate" but the DM is more interested in consistency, having the rifle dialed in for that batch, familiar with how that first cold shot will perform, and the next couple rounds if necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Reference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"special operations types are highly capable and have proven it ... the sub ran aground ... recon team executed the sailors ... Most of the recon team was killed..."
"Highly capable" doesn't mean what you think it means.
You ignored the relevant part.
... killing and wounding several dozen South Korean soldiers in the process ..."
"... evaded the South Korean military for over a month
Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles, nor even nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons include dirty bombs, nuclear dusting and various other things. Some of the later only require WW2 era technology. North Korea is capable of attacking the US with these older technologies.
Dirty bombs are the strategic equivalent of poking a polar bear with a small twig.
Good thing NK is run by a rational grounded person who would never do something so stupid, no matter how desperate.
Technically the FBI has some independence from POTUS. The FBI director is appointed by the President but serves a 10 year term and cannot be dismissed by the President. Obviously not so with the DoJ as the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President.
The FBI operates under the Department of Justice and reports to the Attorney General. The Attorney General, acting on her own initiative or under the President's orders, could order the FBI not to force Apple to comply. Or the FBI may have been ordered to force Apple to comply. Either way, this type of action by the FBI is under White House control. Either explicitly or implicitly through non-interference.
Sorry I don't give NK military the level of credit you do. I doubt that they are particularly well trained or well equipped. They are also not combat tested to any degree.
Do not confuse the NK military in general with the NK special operations types. Its night and day. They're special operations types are highly capable and have proven it in South Korea. For example in the 1990s a NK reconnaissance team infiltrated South Korea by submarine and successfully surveilled a navy base for several days. When the sub came back to pick them up the sub ran aground. Classified equipment was destroyed and then the recon team executed the sailors and tried to make it to NK on foot. They were discovered and evaded the South Korean military for over a month, killing and wounding several dozen South Korean soldiers in the process. Most of the recon team was killed during this long hunt, one is thought to have made it to NK.
On another occasion a NK sub got caught in a fishing vessels nets. Its seems to have scuttled itself when the South Korean Navy tried to take it. The water was shallow enough for divers to search it. Evidence of numerous successful recon mission on South Korean territory was found.
No, not really. The only real nuclear risk to the US would be a bomb smuggled into a port. I'm sure this is possible but the actual damage from that would be minimal. Also the risk of getting caught is extremely high. That sort of operation would produce too much chatter to not get detected.
Do not confuse the operational skills of NK operatives with the idiot jihadists in the middle east. The NK operatives are highly trained and extremely proficient special forces types. The NK's aren't very chatty.
Also don't fixate on city killers. Contaminating a city block or even a room would have a massive effect in the US. And a massive response.
A single crop duster aircraft would do. Although the WW2 idea was on a larger scale and used a formation of bombers for "dusting".
For even lower tech there is a simple dirty bomb. A regular bomb encased in radioactive material. Delivered like any other bomb, methods subject to its size.
Whether you take out a room, a city block or an entire city won't make much difference to how the US reacts though. Radioactive material should be traceable back to NK reactors.
There is no real risk of a nuclear strike coming out of NK.
Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles, nor even nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons include dirty bombs, nuclear dusting and various other things. Some of the later only require WW2 era technology. North Korea is capable of attacking the US with these older technologies.
Republicans are terrible no matter where in the world they are.
You do realize that President Barrack Obama and his Attorney General are Democrats, very liberal Democrats at that, and that they control the FBI that is currently pushing Apple to comply and proposing that Congress pass legislation to require compliance?
So you don't understand the meaning of that quote. That writers are killed in mass doesn't matter...
And you failed to comprehend the original point. That a pen can only succeed with friendly swords to protect it. Reality is that pens are secondary to swords. Your own argument admits that.
The audience isn't the government; it's the populous.
You are missing the part about being executed before having a following.
And given that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were ultimately unsuccessful -- and only one by armed conflict -- I think it's safe to say that superior ideas triumphed over superior physical might.
Stalin was unchallenged until death. Mao was set aside in old age by other men with swords, others of power in Mao's government, not the populous. To this day those who speak out against the government in Russia and China risk jail or death. The Tiananmen Square massacre of peaceful protesters calling for communist party reform occurred in 1989, long after Mao, long after the party moved away from his extremism. But one thing remained, absolute control by the party, by the swords. The fact that not all swords think alike does not change this.
Over and over and over, the pen is secondary to the sword.
Only if you are incapable of understanding the concept.
Actually all it takes is seeing reality rather than poetry. The pen can only express power when protected by friendly swords, or tolerated by somewhat morale swords. In either case the swords remain primary, the pen secondary.
Gandhi's philosophy is being followed by who?
Seriously?
Nuclear armed India, India who fights over Kashmir? Apparently not.
You know that 'India' is not a person right? And the entire Indian race don't all share the exact same philosophical views yeah? Or are you really that ignorant?
Gandhi's creation, an independent India, abandoned his non-violent philosophy, immediately committed atrocities and ethnic cleansing upon itself, split into two countries, two countries that periodically war with each other. Seems a new sword triumphed as soon as the old sword, the British, left.
Hitler, Stalin -- Are you seriously saying their philosophies are not being followed? Both were role models to various strong-men dictators of recent times.
Yes because their "philosophies" is their pen. Their tanks and bombs were their swords (see how it works now?)
Yes, sword wins. Hitler was only defeated by those who put away the pen and picked up swords.
Mao -- Tiananmen Square protests/massacre of 1989. Can the Pen in China even mention the actual events?
If you've ever been to China you would see that since the 80's China's rule has become more benign. This didn't happen with guns or swords.
Nice dodge. More benign is an extremely relative thing, besides being a highly debatable claim. There is little room for criticism of the CCP today. And the question remains, how many Pens in China are telling the truth of Tiananmen. Swords rule in China.
Over and over and over, the pen is secondary to the sword.
Which breakfast cereal generates more methane released by the bodies of those consuming this cereal? That cereal may be putting thousands of car-equivalents back on the road.
Gandhi's struggle would have turned out very, very differently had he been dealing with Hitler or Stalin or Mao instead of the British Empire. His methods only work against an adversary who has at least SOME heart or nobility you can leverage and exploit.
I don't think you fully grasp the concept. ie Gandhi's philosphy is still be taught, supported, and followed. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao not so much. So yeah I think his pen still beats their swords.
Gandhi's philosophy is being followed by who? Nuclear armed India, India who fights over Kashmir? Apparently not. The Tibetans being ethnically cleansed by China? Maybe them. The ethnically cleansed Christian communities of Iraq? Maybe them too.
Hitler, Stalin -- Are you seriously saying their philosophies are not being followed? Both were role models to various strong-men dictators of recent times.
Mao -- Tiananmen Square protests/massacre of 1989. Can the Pen in China even mention the actual events?
Maybe. Had Ghandi simply been executed (ie martyred) that might have catalyzed change as well; although the transition would have been very, very, different.
Doubtful in the Hitler, Stalin, Mao context. Sadly he would likely have been martyred long before he had a following. Ghandi's own strategy suggests that you are mistaken. First you need to be ignored, then you need to be laughed at. Hitler, Stalin, or Mao would have used a different strategy and started with execute rather than ignore. For moral persuasion to work the audience needs to be somewhat moral.
Didn't burst mode replace full auto on many M16s in later variants because they found that troops in Viet Nam tended to use the rifles on full auto too much and ended up wasting ammo and wrecking rifles?
The M16A2 in the 1980s substituted burst for full auto. My understanding is that the Marines led the A2's development, or at least had more say than they usually did, and their opinion was that after three rounds you were no longer accurate so what's the point - we're here to hit targets not make noise. In close quarters, ambush, if necessary multiple bursts had the same effect as full auto. There was supposedly also the statistic that full auto fire was rare in actual combat. Someone firing on full auto attracted the enemy's attention and became a magnet for enemy fire, Darwin discourages making oneself the center of attention on the battlefield. True for the BAR guy in WW2 and Korea and the Vietnam trooper who went full auto with his M16. Full auto may be fun on the training range but of limited value in combat for a regular infantryman with a magazine fed weapon. A designated machine gunner may be all that is necessary and they are carrying something belt fed with swappable barrels for truly sustained fire.
Is that documented, or rumor?
I believe it has been observed in ballistic gelatin tests. YouTube?
.223 caliber ammunition being similar in diameter to .22 LR used for squirrels.
It was also mentioned in a book we read in college that among other things traced the development of the M-16 rifle. The effect was noticed when early research was being done at Armalite, before the Army's involvement. Early Special Forces units experimented with the Armalite AR-15 in Vietnam. Their praise is one of the things that brought the rifle to the attention of Secretary of Defense McNamara who then forced the rifle upon the Army. The Army did not want the AR-15/M16. It was replacing their beloved M14 that was developed internally. The Army brass did everything they could to derail the M16 project and dismissed it as a "squirrel gun" given its
Keep in mind that modern M16/AR-15 rifles have greater rifle twisting and use heavier 5.56mm bullets. Both of these increase effective range but decrease tumbling and lethality. The Vietnam era weapons and ammo did the greater damage. Inexpensive civilian ammo (.223 Rem) is often 55 (?) grain in weight as opposed to the modern 62 (?) grain military ammo. Not sure what the respective barrel twist rates are off hand. The Vietnam era rifles are M16 and M16A1 and the more modern more accurate rifles are M16A2, A3, A4, etc. One visual clue for older M16s and AR-15s is a triangular forward grip / heat shield rather than a round one with ridges.
I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the "old stuff" that was accurate at 700-800 yards. Yeah, 1/3 the mass in the projectile has its limitations. But as the Army data suggests those limitations seem beyond practical needs. As others pointed out a designated marksman with an M16 HBAR and a known lot of ammunition the rifle has been dialed into is probably sufficient for those rare long range shots.
I think they may have gotten cheap and skipped chroming the barrel at some point.
The part breaking would have been original M16, first attempt at "militarizing" the Armalite AR-15, not even M16A1. My former boss and his fellow Marines were literally some of the first to take the M16 into combat. Swapping their M14s for M16s less than a day before getting on the plane to Vietnam, only a few hours on the range for familiarization. They were replacing ARVN for DaNang airbase security. The Air Force guys slept much better.
With respect to the word "sabotage" that was something used by one of the Congressman who investigated the M16 failures and resulting troop casualties. He may have doubted the power of plain old stupidity.
Besides the former Marine I had worked for my recollections are based on a book I read in college. I think the author's name was "Fellows", "Fallows", maybe, circa 1980. The book took a look at the modern US military. The Army's tendency to promote "managers" and drive out "soldiers". The f'ed up procurement process. For the later he covered the development of the M16 rifle and the F-16 fighter. It was an interesting read.
While the AK's rep may be inflated I think it would be safe to assume it more reliable. Simplicity of design and such, much like a Garand. Greater tolerances to deal with accumulated crud at the price of accuracy. Although I do expect manufacturing related issues. I expect a Czech manufactured AK would be quite different than a Chinese manufacture AK. But even a Czech AK would eventually have problems when maintained by someone barely removed from the stone age and little trained in maintenance.
For close range you are effectively describing the characteristics of a shotgun. Which is popular with police and the military for these reasons. The first marines to drop into Iraqi trenches and bunkers during the first gulf war were as likely to be armed with pump shotguns as M16s.
The shock effect is larger with the flattening bullets. This is the main concern for the police. Soldiers need the maximum penetrative power and the full metal jackets provide just that.
No. The penetrator tip or steel core do that. That thin copper jacket adds little to penetration.
he 5.56 or .223 boat tail round that the M16 or AR uses tumbles once it penetrates the skin.
This is totally a myth - deliberately spread to soldiers in Vietnam who were very disappointed by the early M16s (and for some good reasons).
Not penetrates the skin but when traveling through the body. Special Forces troops evaluating the Armalite AR-15 in Vietnam noticed the affect and it overcame their skepticism. Armalite AR-15s, and their cleaner burning ammo, were highly prized by SF troops long after the introduction of the troublesome M16.
The army distributed little brochures and everything, but it was a lie.
The brochures I've seen were about cleaning the M-16. They issued rifles before they had cleaning kits and before troops were properly instructed in maintenance.
"Dum dum", or more generally, safety rounds were banned by the Geneva convention for the same reason most weapons are on the banned list: they aren't good weapons for war.
Such rounds are far more lethal than traditional military ammunition. Note that hunting ammunition is based on such expanding rounds. "Safety rounds" sound like it refers to over penetration in a modern law enforcement context but that is certainly not what British colonial troops were concerned about. They were excited by the extra wounding potential of these expanding rounds. Its pretty well documented as such.
If you were using the M16A1 back in the day you might find it easier now. Starting with the M16A2 barrel twist increased and standard ammo increased from 55 to 62 grain (?). The goal was making the rifle more accurate. Critics point out these changes also made it less lethal, less tumbling upon impact.
The designated marksman is likely to have a personal cache of ammunition from the same manufacturing lot. Its not necessarily more "accurate" but the DM is more interested in consistency, having the rifle dialed in for that batch, familiar with how that first cold shot will perform, and the next couple rounds if necessary.