Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 3/29/2002 2:59:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 3:03:05 PM EST by ipschoser1]
I've always thought the 556 was a decent round but this has me thinking about 762! www.pistolsmith.com./viewtopic.php?topic=8974&forum=24&10 BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with the statements made about 9mm ball.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 3:07:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 3:17:37 PM EST
An interesting note, the ammo that is being described, 5.56 and 9mm, are both FMJ. Those of us not assigned to active duty, wether or not LEO, who live in the US, and where local/state law allows, can enjoy carrying better ammo. There is JSP, JHP, or some other high performance ammo in both categories. I agree FMJ is not the best stuff to carry, but our military does not have this option. I have no concerns with carrying quality ammo in either the 9mm or in 5.56. Some of the hunting ammo in .223 is great. On the other hand, 7.62*39 is a GREAT deer round. A SKS is a descent hunting rifle. I also agree with Troy's conclusions.
Shoot Safe.
Art in KY
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 5:40:00 PM EST
If the 5.56 is so ineffective compared to a thirty caliber round, why did the Russians switch to a smaller caliber as well? They seem to have had good success with their version of a "mousegun".

Yes there are problems with certain barrel length and bullet wieght for maximum results. But in the real world people get shot with bigger bullets and still keep going as well.

Overall the 5.56 has been proven effective as a combat round the world over.

Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:37:21 PM EST
if you believe for an instant that a grunt in AFG wrote that then i have a bridge to sell you!!!

first off, i refuse to believe anyone is getting Blackhills 77gr ammo in AFG. try having your mom ship some ammo to an APO address and see what happens. its a FELONY punishable under the UCMJ.

unless youre a Marine whose primary weapon is an MP5 you are not being issued a 1911A1, the units with the lattitude to choose a sidearm have the excellent MK23 at their disposal.

while its true that the 9mm ball round may not be much, would you want to be shot with it? the M9 is an incredibly robust weapon second only to Glock and 1911A in durability but combining the best attributes of both. manual safety,hi capacity, external hammer. qualities that dont normally coexist in a military sidearm but executed by Beretta at the expense of caliber. possibly a decent trade.

in trying to read that thread i was getting queesy, all that psuedo-know-it-all crap. if you ask me some gun-nut wrote that to grind his own axe against 5.56 and it is circulating around the internet just like the story about someone seeing an M-16 stamped "mattel" or the 5.56 is actually designed to wound, so much drivel. thats why i read AR15.com. good people, good info.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:50:26 PM EST
The site must be down but I don't think I would read it anyways has anyone shot stuff with a 223 its pretty awesome just worry about placing your shots.
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 3:03:19 AM EST
1911's- The Marines who belong to MEU's (and were among the first to be deployed in Afghanistan), are an amphib ship based "package" of troops that includes ground troops, medical and support personnel,and even light air defense (LAAD) batallions, have access to 1911's tweaked by the armorers on board as of recent times, though I've only seen Marines with M-9's in my travels.

5.56 effectiveness- We are our own worst critics, though I can support the short barrel, lower velocity nay-sayers, I agree with the above poster about the Soviets and the 5.45 round. We've read in the 80's that the Afghans reported how effective the 5.45 round was when the Soviet's started to use it against them, and how they sought out AK-74's over AK-47's to gain this similiar advantage, without question, yet we doubt our own cartridge every time a bad report comes out.

I think the US military understands the need for a mix of 7.62 and 5.56. The M1 carbine had plenty of critics in WW2 and Korea, where oone could hear stories of hitting heavily coated N. Koreans at a distance with the .30 Carbine Ball ammo and having little effect.

Ultimately the 7.62 round rifle makes alot more sense for defending fixed positions in my mind, as you can keep a stockpile of ammo next to you, but for mobile situations where you're dropped in and have to carry everything of your own for days, the 5.56 round has it's place.
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 5:11:21 AM EST
I agree that the post mentioned above definately has a anti 5.56 and 9mm bias. Nothing in the world is perfect all the time. If they want reliablity and absolute terminal effect, might as well be shooting a K98 or a Garand still. I suppose that the weight of the weapon, ammo capacity and reload time, as well as number of rounds the individual can carry is a moot point to these folks. Clearly in a static battle line (i.e. inthe trenches), weight of the weapon and having to hump your own supplies really isn't a problem. But the nature of modern warfare (form WW2 onwards), with mobile battle lines, makes those battle rifles less suited for the job. It is a trade off of absolute firepower and what is practical for the individual soldier who has to carry it all. Afterall, in the ideal world, who wouldn't want the terminal ballistics of a 30-06 or 8x57 in a rifle of 7.5 pounds with minimal recoil and unlimited ammo? It is just not realistic, just as it is not realistic to expect a M4 to engage and drop people at long range, eg over 200M. That is not what a carbine is designed to do. just my .02
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 5:36:21 AM EST
Difficult to tell if that post is genuine or not. I agree about the difficulty of getting Black Hills ammo into the combat zone. It's not impossible, but difficult.

One thing I have noticed, though, is the tendency we have to immediately call bullshit on any post that says our pet weapons systems might not be the greatest. People seem to want to blindly and rabidly defend whatever system they use rather than examine its possible shortcomings. Just an observation.
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 6:12:27 AM EST
The only reason I even entertained these thoughts is that some of the info is coming from our elite spec war soldiers. They would definitely know. I think I'll stay with 55 grain ammo and 16" or longer barrels. Thanks for the input.
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 7:39:30 AM EST
5.56 NATO Ineffective? Tell that to the Deer I have shot with it. Have not had to track one yet.
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 8:12:23 AM EST
I'm no ballistics expert, But I did sleep in a Holiday in express last night!

Seriously though, I was Airborne Infantry (504th, 82nd ABN) and I was in the panama war and the gulf war. We had 20" guns, and they killed just dandy. I was on a '60 which of course there's no question as to its killing effectiveness, but the riflemen, my ag, etc used the 5.56 very effectively. From what I'm hearing, the carbines seem to be deficient. Has anyone ever did a study on the effectiveness of the CAR-15's used in vietnam? Aren't the barrel lengths similar? I also carried a M-9 as a sidearm, and, although I never had to resort to it, I was not too impressed with the gun itself. The open slide design seemed to cause it to fill up with sand easily. Sometimes to the point where it was nearly impossible to rack the slide, or disassemble it. Maybe if the Bianchi holsters were open bottomed? Of course then I guess I mad have ended up with a plugged barrel when I hit the dirt. Given the choice, I'd take a 1911A1, but as regular army we use what we're issued. I did have Hydra-shoks, but ditched them before we redeployed stateside.
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 10:50:01 AM EST
The Russians were impressed with the 5.56 NATO and designed their new cartridge to be similar, yes. However, their cartridge is more effective because the bullet is longer and the tip contains an enclosed hollow cavity, similar to a HP but enclosed, thus legal to use as a military cartridge (not considered a HP). This innovation makes it perform like a soft point, thus it deforms easily upon impact, yaws sideways, and breaks in two at the cannelure much more reliably than 5.56 NATO. The Russian cartridge may not be quite as powerful or accurate, but it does kill better. Newer versions of the cartridge retain the enclosed hollow bullet and add a steel penetrator at the rear of the round to increase AP ability. This is what I have found while doing some research - take it for what its worth.
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 11:19:05 AM EST
Every time there are critics always say that the 5.56 round is Ineffective, SORRY I'm a civilian and I don't really care! I am not out shooting people, so I can care less. all I can say don't like the gun get a FAL. but I imagine
every one here love's the AR15, and so do I.
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 1:56:53 PM EST
Good lord we've beat this one a lot haven't we?

Hehehehehhehe. Anyway, awhile back I remember CampyBob and Troy explaining how a 6 mm assault rifle round would solve most of our "issues" with 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.

When shooting the 5.56 round, it is important to remember what Troy pointed out. If you fire bullets that rely on fragmentation to kill, you need that 20" barrel to get more velocity. There is no real jack-of-all-trades bullet out there. You have to be aware of what barrel length you are using combined with the bullet type/mass.

As for the M-16 system itself, I don't want to start a flame war, but I found this article to be fairly informative:


This guy that wrote it was a Marine in Vietnam. I pretty much agree with him on a lot of things he says. With the amount of money we give to the Pentagon every damn year, our guys could be wielding a much better weapons system. I hope we start issuing modified G36s or FN F2000s to our troops soon.

Top Top