Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/23/2005 5:13:44 AM EDT
Evidently many, many people seem to think that the .223 is an uber round. Citing about 1 or 2 tests into ballistic gellatin.

Please read, and don't kill the messenger... but I do believe that the .223 is a varmit round.

Most of these quotes are from the book "The Black Rifle, M16 Retrospective", Collector Grade Publications, Inc.,

First:

The book Black Hawk Down quotes SFC Paul Howe’s description of SFC Randy Shughart, a soldier who elected to carry the 7.62mm M-14 into the urban battlefield of Somalia in 1993 rather than the 5.56mm CAR-15 (M-16-variant):

“His rifle may have been heavier and comparatively awkward and delivered a mean recoil, but it damn sure knocked a man down with one bullet, and in combat, one shot was all you got. You shoot a guy, you want to see him go down; you don’t want to be guessing for the next five hours whether you hit him, or whether he’s still waiting for you in the weeds.”

These Heros got the Medal of Honor for thier service, God Bless them. -1 for .223 (empherical 2nd person account).

Then theres:
(From Black Rifles)
The purpose of this test, as set forth in, ARPA, “Report of Task 13A, Test of ArmaLite Rifle, AR-15,” dated 31 July 1962, was “ . . . a comparison between the AR-15 and the M2 Carbine to determine which is a more suitable replacement for shoulder weapons in selected units of the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces (RVNAF).” The Project AGILE results were summed up, in part, by ARPA as follows: “The suitability of the AR-15 as the basic shoulder weapon for the Vietnamese has been established. For the type of conflict now occurring in Vietnam, the weapon was also found by its users and by MAAG advisors to be superior in virtually all respects to the M1 Rifle, M1 and M2 Carbines, Thompson Sub-Machine Gun, and Browning Automatic Rifle.” NOTE: This study and its recommendations concerned the suitability of the AR-15 for Vietnamese soldiers, who were described by the testers to be of “small stature, body configuration and light weight,” NOT larger stature United States soldiers. [5]

This passage states that the AR-15 was desinged for asian troops, as ARPA was looking for a REPLACEMENT for RVNAF.. thats the asian folks I mentioned.

As for wounds and tumbling:

The Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory at Edgewood Arsenal attempted to do just that. Using .223 caliber Remington ammunition provided by Colt’s representative, they conducted their “standard lethality trials that consisted of measuring the cavitational and other effects of firing at known distances into blocks of ballistic gelatin, and where necessary, anaesthetized goats.” They failed to duplicate the explosive effects reported by Project AGILE. In November 1962, the Army initiated “Worldwide” tactical and technical tests of the AR-15 using U. S. soldiers. Edgewood was tasked to perform further lethality tests using modified .223 caliber ammunition. Ezell and Stevens describe the modifications: “They had modified some 55-grain .223 caliber ball bullets of Remington manufacture by cutting approximately 1/4 inch off the nose and drilling a 3/32-inch-diameter hole about 1/4 inch deep into the lead core of each bullet.” The results? The authors continue, “As it turned out, even the hollow-points failed to duplicate anything like the spectacular effects recorded by the Vietnamese unit commanders and their American advisors, which had subsequently been taken as fact and much used as propaganda

As for all you 'We were young movie buffs... Col. Moore even noted the poor .223 performance:

As is usually the case, a judgment based on lies was to adversely affect those at the “pointy end of the spear.” American warriors reported enemy soldiers continuing to close and fire their weapons after sustaining multiple hits by 5.56mm bullets. This happened as early as 9 December 1965 in the official “After Action Report of the Ia Drang Valley Operation . . ..” popularized by the movie and book We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young. The commanding officer of the battalion engaged there, Col. Harold G. Moore, USA, writes of assaulting enemy soldiers being hit by 5.56mm rounds: “Even after being hit several times in the chest, many continued firing and moving for several more steps before dropping dead.” [9.]

But what about the heavier, newer .223 rounds:

In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the DoD increased the weight of the 5.56mm 55-grain bullet (M193) to 62-grains, replaced some of its lead core with a tungsten steel core, painted the bullet tip green and designated the new cartridge M855. In 1991, the Pentagon sent its warriors to the Gulf War with this new green-tip cartridge. Maj. Howard Feldmeier, USMC (Ret.) was there: “ . . . several Marines commented that they had to shoot Iraqi soldiers 2-3 or more times with the 62-grain 5.56mm green tip ammo before they stopped firing back at them . . ..” That report is exemplified by one of an Iraqi officer who was thrown from his vehicle and set afire by an explosion: “Somehow he managed to hold on to his AK-47. He also got up, still on fire, faced the firing line of Marines and charged forward firing his weapon from the hip. He didn’t hit anyone but two Marines each nailed him with a three round burst from their M-16A2s. One burst hit him immediately above his heart, the other in his belly button. [He] . . . kept right on charging and firing until his magazine was empty. When he got up to the Marines two of them tackled him and rolled him in the sand to put out the fire. . . . He was quickly carried back to the battalion aid station . . .. The surgeons told me he certainly died of burns, but not necessarily from the six 5.56mm wounds . . ..”

So then the Marines request a new, heavier round:

Additional observations of the impotence of the 5.56mm round soon appeared in official and professional publications. In their official briefing “Lessons Learned in Afghanistan” dated April 2002, LTC C. Dean, USA and SFC S. Newland, USA of the U. S. Army Natick Soldier Center reported: “Soldiers asked for a weapon with a larger round. ‘So it will drop a man with one shot.’” In the October 2002 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette magazine, Capt Philip Treglia, USMC reflected on his Afghanistan experience in December 2001 by reporting that, “the 5.56 mm round will not put a man to the ground with two shots to the chest.” Capt Treglia’s men were trained to fire two bullets into an enemy’s chest and if that did not knock him down, they were to shift fire to the head. This is the corrective action implemented for these Marines and many others in the Armed Forces for the impotent 5.56mm cartridge rather than equipping them with a rifle that fired a bullet with one-round knockdown power. And, as Capt Treglia reported, multiple hits with the 5.56mm bullet didn’t work any better in Afghanistan than it did anytime in the past.

Heres where the .45ACP save the day:

Recent combat operations have highlighted terminal performance problems, generally manifested as failures to rapidly incapacitate opponents, during combat operations when M855 62gr. “Green Tip” FMJ is fired from 5.56mm rifles and carbines. Failure to rapidly incapacitate armed opponents increases the risk of U.S. forces being injured or killed and jeopardizes mission success. [13.]



That statement was prophetic.



On 12 September 2003, in Ar Ramadi, Iraq elements of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group engaged enemy forces in a firefight. An insurgent was struck in the torso by several rounds of 5.56mm ammunition from their M-4 carbines (this is the current shortened version of the M-16 Service Rifle). He continued to fire his AK-47 and mortally wounded MSgt Kevin N. Morehead, age 33, from Little Rock, Arkansas. The engagement continued with the same insurgent surprising SFC William M. Bennett, age 35, from Seymour, Tennessee from a hiding place and killing him instantly with a three-round burst to the head and neck. SSgt Robert E Springer, threw away his M-4 carbine, drew an obsolete WWI/WWII vintage .45 caliber pistol and killed the insurgent with one shot. A close inspection of the enemy’s corpse revealed that he had been hit by seven 5.56 mm rounds in his torso. Also, in this engagement, these soldiers were provided with a commercially produced 5.56mm round of 77-grain weight vice the 62-grain bullets in use by general-purpose forces. Obviously, the larger 5.56mm round was of little consequence. [14.]

As stated, even when the 'NEW 77grain' .223 is used is STILL fails to put a man down... where is the 'yawing'? The large wound cavity?

Here are some cites used:

Anonymous, E-Mail to MILINET, 26 March 2002.
Roberts, USNR, LCdr. Gary K., Brief to RAdm Albert M. Calland, CMDR NAVSPECWARCOM, “Enhancement of NSW Carbine & Rifle Capability” brief, 3 March 2003.
14. Jones, Bruce L., “MILINET: Case Studies in Combat Failures of 5.56mm Ammunition,” 3 November 2003

Have I made my point? This is not made up movie references. These cites are from either Army studies, Actual participants in the event or official military publications.

.223 is not as good as it should be... yes it light weight, but who cares when the can't kill the enemy with it?

Link Posted: 12/23/2005 5:39:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2005 5:40:44 AM EDT by photoman]
You do realise tht someone much much more knowledgeable then I about ammo will come and rip this to shreds right?

About the only thing I'm going to comment on is the BHD referance that doesn't say shit. It's sure not a -1 for .223 simply because one man chose a 308 rifle for a job over a .223 rifle. It's a tool ask any sniper and I bet they will tell you that for the majority of the stuff they'd prefer a 308 over a .223 given those two choices. Remeber it's not thier job to close with an kill the enemy like it is the infantry, their job is to take out threats with well aimed fire usualy from a distance.

If you really look at the book BHD and Howe is the ONLY person who complains about the 5.56mm round. Lets think about this for a second. The vast majority of US troops involved were shooting 5.56mm, and the Somalis were using comblock and other assorted weapons, so generaly they were armed with .30 cal weapons. of the over 100 US troops who went into that battle only 12 came out with no wounds. So well over 90% of US troops were hit by .30cal rounds, RPGs etc. and those hits were not that effective at all in taking Soldiers out of action. So the BHD referance is a weak argument sorry about that.

Most of the other examples you give ar epretty weak as well, but I'll let someone else deal with those.


Oh and I'm not of of those 5.56 is an uber round guys, I just like to use the best tool for the job and according to the experts, for what my primary reasons for having my rifles are, personal protection and home defense the 5.56 IS the best choice.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 6:03:23 AM EDT


Most of the other examples you give ar epretty weak as well, but I'll let someone else deal with those.



Official publications rarely include empherical or observed results that are not in a controlled situation... that's not good science. The official reports are to confirm or deny the reported situations. So if Col's are reporting in AAR's that it takes 2 to 6 shots to kill an enemy, a report would officially confirm or deny it. And from the OFFICIAL documents by ARPA or the ARMY the history of the .223 (in 55gr 62gr or 77gr) has been shown that it is not a 'one shot knockdown round'.

The fact that special ops are dumping the .223 and going back to .30cal weapons is just those reports being confirmed by the troops.. .223 is not putting the enemy down.

There was a whole section about the mythical yawing actions that I left out. The yawing is the 'main' reason for thel arge would cavity, but it appears that the conditions that cause the yawing either don't happen as often or are easily overcome. Drop under 2700fps, or thin, malnurished body types all significantly degrade yaw perforance and rsult in through and through wounds that fail to incapacitate the enemy.

Yes, the .223 is killing the enemy. But its INEFFECTIVENESS is also killing US Troops.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 6:14:55 AM EDT
#1 Read my signature

#2
Before:

and after:


And that's through Level 3 body armor.

When people learn how to shoot a gun they live to fight another day.

1 shot 1 kill not spray and pray
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 6:33:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2005 6:36:16 AM EDT by 1IV]
Our Doc got tagged above the heart in mogadishu Somalia non a street patrol. The fugger that sprayed at us took 2 to the upper torso from a 5.56 had a simmilar wound. He was cold dead right now, while our Doc stayed concious long enough to walk us thru stabilizing him for the medivac. Doc Gonzales you hung tough with that wound, and if it had been a 5.56 he was hit with he would be dead. Wound cavity is everything when shot placement is close but no cigar.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 6:34:59 AM EDT
Whats that prove? You can hit a vest? I bet if I shoot a mellon with a .223 it will fly apart... but thats not a human body either.

A vest does not simulate human flesh. If you read my post you would (or should) have realized that the high velocity .223 rounds, of any weight, are simply going through a body. Thats the main complaint. Troops want a heavy bullet that can knock a man down, not simply enter/exit them.

Link Posted: 12/23/2005 6:45:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1IV:.


Was first aid given to the enemy? Did you put forth an effort to save the enemy as you did your doctor? I am not a bleeding heart, but you are saying the enemy died, but after first aid the GI lived. See how this contributes nothing to the published ARMY reports about the non-lethality of the .223 round.

Wound cavity with .223 *can* be lethal under the right conditions. Problem is that those conditions are not always prevelant.

High power large calibure bullets use simple force and shockwave to destroy tissue. Not a tumbling effect. The large calibure bullets are more lethal becuase as long as they impart thier energy to the target, significant damage will be done.

Small calibure high velocity bullets impart little enegy to thier targets, but rely on fragmentation to establish a wound cavity. when it works, it works great. But as the Army has learned (yet many people seem to not want to) the a tumbling/yawing/fragmentation characterists can be negated by outside factors.

Link Posted: 12/23/2005 6:57:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pfarber:
Whats that prove? You can hit a vest? I bet if I shoot a mellon with a .223 it will fly apart... but thats not a human body either.

A vest does not simulate human flesh. If you read my post you would (or should) have realized that the high velocity .223 rounds, of any weight, are simply going through a body. Thats the main complaint. Troops want a heavy bullet that can knock a man down, not simply enter/exit them.




Tell you what. Since it's getting close to Christmas let's agree on a cartridge that NOBODY can argue with. My friend and yours...
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 7:02:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pfarber:
Whats that prove? You can hit a vest? I bet if I shoot a mellon with a .223 it will fly apart... but thats not a human body either.

A vest does not simulate human flesh. If you read my post you would (or should) have realized that the high velocity .223 rounds, of any weight, are simply going through a body. Thats the main complaint. Troops want a heavy bullet that can knock a man down, not simply enter/exit them.




Have you ever been shot before? There is a lot that happens when a person catches a bullet that effects how they react and if they go down right away or not, and a lot of that has nothing to do with the size of the bullet but rather the mindset of the individual who was shot.

There are a lot of factors that play into the effects of a bullet strike on an individual.


As for all you 'We were young movie buffs... Col. Moore even noted the poor .223 performance:

As is usually the case, a judgment based on lies was to adversely affect those at the “pointy end of the spear.” American warriors reported enemy soldiers continuing to close and fire their weapons after sustaining multiple hits by 5.56mm bullets. This happened as early as 9 December 1965 in the official “After Action Report of the Ia Drang Valley Operation . . ..” popularized by the movie and book We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young. The commanding officer of the battalion engaged there, Col. Harold G. Moore, USA, writes of assaulting enemy soldiers being hit by 5.56mm rounds: “Even after being hit several times in the chest, many continued firing and moving for several more steps before dropping dead.”




First off just because they were hit in the chest it doesn't mean they were hit in a vital place.

Also if your moving when you get shot your going to continue to move as your momentum is going to carry you forward if it's not an immediatly incapacitating shot like a head shot. It's possible to continue to live long enough to do some serious shit even after having a round go through your heart. Two cases in point from very recent events, two NYPD offciers who were killed in the line of duty according to the articals posted here on this board both had been shot through the heart, yet both continued to fight/persue suspects. They had the will to keep fighting till they could not any longer. Were animals, when our fight or flight mechanisms kick in we can do some pretty impressive shit inluding continuing to fight with what wounds that should be deadly. It happens you can't explain that stuff.


prety ,much every example you give isn't so much showing a failure of the round, because for each of those there are 100 where the bullet worked and did it's job. No what yer pointing out is examples of people who were determined to carry on, to do what they had to do.

Hell in most of yer examples we really don't know where the person was hit but for a general area, it's possible to be shot in the chest and not have the bullet do any damage to any vital organs, thus, yer not going to go down.
We'll not get into the druged up fighters and shit like that in Somalia or Iraq and Astan. As those things effect how one reacts to being shot as well.

Yer not even considering the psychological aspects of it at all.

Some people get shot and thier reaction is OMG I've been hsot and they go down. Otheres take a bullet and don't give a shit becuase they have a job to do. They may or may not even know they took that shot but they don't associat being shot with being down and out of the fight.

There are a lot of things that you are not even considering at all in all this and a lot of it has not to do with the bullets, but the persons.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 7:05:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2005 7:07:56 AM EDT by 1IV]
Nice soapbox / ammo can your standing on, but the honest truth is any ammo will have tales of ineffectiveness when not aimed properly. Why do you think so many deer rifles get sold every year after someone wounds a deer and it runs off. "That damn 30.30 / 30.06 is crap man. my gandpa dropped his witha 7mm mag! Im gonna go get me one of them thar guns..." And so on and so forth.

Our troops are shooting at people who want to die. They want to take as many people with them as possible. When they do not get turned off right now by a single shot to the chest, or belly, every one yells "weak ammo!"
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 7:06:41 AM EDT

If the 5.56 IS so effective, why look for another round? ref: 6.5 and 6.8 comes to mind.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 7:07:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pfarber:

Originally Posted By 1IV:.


Was first aid given to the enemy? Did you put forth an effort to save the enemy as you did your doctor? I am not a bleeding heart, but you are saying the enemy died, but after first aid the GI lived. See how this contributes nothing to the published ARMY reports about the non-lethality of the .223 round.

Wound cavity with .223 *can* be lethal under the right conditions. Problem is that those conditions are not always prevelant.

High power large calibure bullets use simple force and shockwave to destroy tissue. Not a tumbling effect. The large calibure bullets are more lethal becuase as long as they impart thier energy to the target, significant damage will be done.

Small calibure high velocity bullets impart little enegy to thier targets, but rely on fragmentation to establish a wound cavity. when it works, it works great. But as the Army has learned (yet many people seem to not want to) the a tumbling/yawing/fragmentation characterists can be negated by outside factors.



Um thats where you are wrong sir.

I think you need to go and read up on wound ballistics and such before you even try to get tinto this whole argument on this board.

Link Posted: 12/23/2005 7:11:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By danpass:
If the 5.56 IS so effective, why look for another round? ref: 6.5 and 6.8 comes to mind.



Why not look for something thats better and yet still useable in the same weapons systems you already have?
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 7:11:22 AM EDT
I think good and bad can be said about the 5.56 as a combat round.

I also think that it is more of a "trade off" issue when selecting the 5.56 over the 7.62, not which one is more effective. If that's the case, move up to the Magnum series cases.

Given the weight/size of "common" non-specialized 7.62 weapons and the weight of say 200 rounds of 7.62 ammo, there begins to be a benefit to switching to a lighter and more compact rifle which the ammo carrying capability increases. You "give up" something to gain something else.

Does this mean that the 5.56 is better or worse than the 7.62... IMO no. It simply means that one has to evaluate and consider the "totality of circumstances" when deciding which weapon/ammo to use.

I have shot plenty of deer using .223, .308, .30-06, etc to appreciate the effects of the various rounds. I believe a deer's ability to survive when hit is much greater than a humans... just my opinion.

In woodland areas, urban areas, and swamp areas I'll take the AR15/M16, in open desert or rolling plains give me an M1A/M14.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 7:21:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2005 7:23:43 AM EDT by 1IV]
If they were honestly looking for a new round they would have one. Experimenting with alternative ammo on a test bed is not honest looking. It is experimenting.

If the round was as bad as you believe it would have been pulled. but the .308 used the Hivelocity shock combined with a .30 cal ball, and it works except ......oops you cant have every jane and small johny shooting it. 5.56 is a great ballance of shock vs ammo capacity. Your making it seem like 9mm is more effective. Just cuz it is bigger. Low tech reliablility of 7.62 ammo out of an Ak-47 is legendary and comendable, but I would take either calibres to battle and sleep well. .223 works. There is no debate on that. To argue an inflated ineffectiveness on it's part is willful ignorance and arrogance bred from an insecurity that needs to be dealt with before it becomes a gunshow joke on this board. Stop before you get caught wearing marpat with a dive knife strapped to your ankle.

I've said my peace.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 7:34:03 AM EDT
I shot a deer through both lungs with a 300 grain 45 call bullet with a velocity at impact of 1400-1500 fps. The deer ran over 100 yards. I destroyed a deer's liver and got a part of lung with the same load. That deer didn't drop for over 20 seconds. My friend shot a deer through both lungs and destroyed the half the heart with a 12 Gauge slug , that deer ran 150 yards.

Living things are not gelatin or computer simulations. When you shoot living things with bullets strange things can happen.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 7:35:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By danpass:
If the 5.56 IS so effective, why look for another round? ref: 6.5 and 6.8 comes to mind.



Why not look for something thats better and yet still useable in the same weapons systems you already have?



My first post on this board was about how effective the 5.56 is. Here is the article I had referenced for everyone:

www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_178_29/ai_n15628941


Yet I am confused why there is a search for different round. It is interesting that the search is for a larger round.

[sarcasm] Why not smaller and faster [/sarcasm]
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 7:37:22 AM EDT
I'm gonna add my 2 cents about the 223/5.56 round.

My dad served for a year in vietnam at the rock pile (arty base). He was a generator opperator for the battery , which meant he dumped diesel fuel in a generator every 8 hours to make sure no one ran out of power. Anyways , in his spare time he assisted medics on thier treatment of combat troops/enemy troops. He came in contact alot with wound victims that were shot with 55gr 5.56/223 ammo and chineese/russian 7.62x39. What was his opinnion on the 2 calibers? Both were 'extremely lethal' the only deciding factor in his opinnion between the 2 was the ability of the 7.62 round to penetrate trees. Other than that the 5.56/223 round was extremely lethal , he told me he encountered more than one person who had died instantly from 1-3 shots from the 223/5.56 in the general torso region. He always told me (long before i ever touched an ar15) that in general the round would keyhole on impact. He's told me specificly about some FF incidents where people were turned into mush from F/A m16 bursts. He really liked his m16 and that's sorta why i got my ar15 now. From the bit of shooting that i've done against non paper targets at 100yds , the 223/5.56 round seems to be a extremely effective round. Just as well as the other rifles i use , 7.62x39-7.62x54r-223-6.5x55. All the 'big' rifle calibers seem to be effective as long as shot placement is good. A person 'can' go on while being shot in the gut ,they can't go on much farther if they're shot in the heart or lungs ,and are instantly dead 98% of the time with a general head shot.

I don't think anyone expects to shoot a person in the leg and expect them to die instantly and not have to worry about it. I think most combat soldiers are A-OK with firing at a guy twice in the chest and then going onto the next guy. Go take a look at the video of the guy with the RPG in iraq that encountered 2 , 3rd bursts from a SAW. After the initial burst to his chest region , it really really really didn't look like he was gonna get up after that. In fact , a 3rd burst from a saw ( you can figure on 2 of thoes rounds being m855) he fell down! Now , everyone talks about mythical knockdown power of a bullet but the guy was phyisicly knocked down from the burst.

my .02 cents
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 7:56:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pfarber:
... Troops want a heavy bullet that can knock a man down, not simply enter/exit them.




Huh?

Read Newton's Third Law.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 8:13:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pfarber:
Citing about 1 or 2 tests into ballistic gellatin.



How about decades of testing and compareing said test to autopsies and surgery results?

How about the report for the worlds foremost authority on the subject, Dr Facker? Wounding patterns of military rifle bullets You'll find some good info on the older military rounds. There is info on the newer rounds (MK262 & TAP) but I'll leave it up to you to do some REAL research on the subject.

Want to talk about Black Hawk Down? Fine I'll play even though I think using a novel is piss-poor way to prove your point. For every negative refernce in teh book about 5.56 I'll bet I can 5 or 6 showing the round being effective - want proof? Black Hawk
Down Weapon References


Want to use other books? Well I got friends who already played that game: Problems with 5.56? Where? By Chad Anderson

Are there better rounds? Damn right there are! But there are worse rounds too - several that are larger .30 cal rounds too. If you want to discuss the subject then start comparing loads (i.e. M193 vs M80 or Mk262 vs M1) not calibers. Also you better include a discussion on what kind a load a soldier needs to carry, and how much of a soldiers 'weight budget' is allocated to ammo & weapon.

Then let's have a meaningful discussion.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 8:16:01 AM EDT
Problem is that .223 REQUIRES that yawing/tumbling for any significant damage.

But one of the main points from my original post, and not mentioned by most (yet I am trying to point out) is that under 2700fps EVERY TEST notes that there is a SIGNIFICANT reduction in wound cavity and fragmentation. From our own ammo-oracle:

Testing by combat surgeon Col. Martin L. Fackler, MD (USA Medical Corps, retired), determined that M193 and M855 bullets need to strike flesh at 2,700 feet per second in order to reliably fragment. Between 2,500 fps and 2,700 fps, the bullet may or may not fragment and below 2,500 fps, no significant fragmentation is likely to occur. If there isn't enough velocity to cause fragmentation, the result is a deep, 22 caliber hole, except an area where the yawing occurred, where the diameter of the hole grows briefly to the length of the bullet.

An AR with a barrel of less than 11.5 shooting M883 is under 2700fps at just 12meters. A 14in barrel is only 50meters. So with an M4 setup, at less than 50 meters (think a street block) your .223 is already under the 2700fps MINIMUM REQUIRED for fragmentation... which is the only way a .223 has any lethality.

If the AR-10 is ever polished up and made ready for prime time it would make a great addition to combat loadouts. Many are already demanding larger calibures. Its (yet again) up to the politicians to deliver. And to date nothing put forward by the ARMY has made any progress despite MILLIONS in R&D.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 8:21:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pfarber:
Problem is that .223 REQUIRES that yawing/tumbling for any significant damage.
.



ALL rifle bullets require yaw/fragmentation to do significant damage - see Fackler's paper on 'Fragmentation - a significant source of dammage', it is available on this site. Otherwise they poke a tiny .30 cal hole through you (see Fackler's data on the M43 round). Or you have to use an expanding (Hauge convention prohibited) round which again requires a certain striking velocity to work.

There aint no free lunch.

Best you can do is find projectiles that yaw early (hmm 75gr OTM comes to mine, as does the 6.8 110gr OTM) and fragment at low velocities (those same OTMs) so they work in short barrel carbines.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 8:25:18 AM EDT
THis topic has been beaten to death too many friggin times. Pick a round you like and train with it. If it's a 50BMG, great. If it's a 22lr, that's fine too. The "5.56 vs x.xx" argument has been repeated ad neuaseum and it's always the same old shit.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 8:28:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2005 8:29:38 AM EDT by pfarber]

My first post on this board was about how effective the 5.56 is. Here is the article I had referenced for everyone:

www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_178_29/ai_n15628941


Yet I am confused why there is a search for different round. It is interesting that the search is for a larger round.

[sarcasm] Why not smaller and faster [/sarcasm]



At close range, at sufficient velocity the .223 will fragment. Had the shooter been farther back, say back 50 meters, that same ammo could have simply entered/exited unless bone was hit.

When used within its paramters, .223 works. The problem is that those paramters are to narrow for all around (ie general purpose, close/long range) work.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 8:31:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cmm:
THis topic has been beaten to death too many friggin times. Pick a round you like and train with it. If it's a 50BMG, great. If it's a 22lr, that's fine too. The "5.56 vs x.xx" argument has been repeated ad neuaseum and it's always the same old shit.



Thanks for contributing, your intellerent addition is duly noted.

I'm just asking questions... feel free to ignore this thread.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 8:34:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2005 8:35:54 AM EDT by Forest]

Originally Posted By cmm:
The "5.56 vs x.xx" argument has been repeated ad neuaseum and it's always the same old shit.



Yep, but every newbie thinks they have a new angle...

I wish I kept some links to STRLNS posts on what he saw in Iraq with people being blown litterally in half and still fighting back or taking multiple .50BMG hits. There isn't a majic bullet that with 1 shot will stop everyone all the time. To get better performingrounds there are always tradeoffs in weight, recoil, cost, hit ratios*, and sadly politics.

* Note: "Large Wound" bullets don't mean $h!t if you don't hit the target. Since pfarber has access to a copy of the TBR I'd suggest he look at the summary's of the tests that showed the .22 program to have higher hit ratios than the .30 cal rounds. A hit with a .22 beats a miss with a .30 anyday.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 8:34:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pfarber:


Most of the other examples you give ar epretty weak as well, but I'll let someone else deal with those.



Official publications rarely include empherical or observed results that are not in a controlled situation... that's not good science.



Since you've done this twice, I just had to post- empherical is not a word. The word is empirical.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 9:24:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 9:36:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pfarber:

Originally Posted By cmm:
THis topic has been beaten to death too many friggin times. Pick a round you like and train with it. If it's a 50BMG, great. If it's a 22lr, that's fine too. The "5.56 vs x.xx" argument has been repeated ad neuaseum and it's always the same old shit.



Thanks for contributing, your intellerent (sic) addition is duly noted.

I'm just asking questions... feel free to ignore this thread.



It's my perogative to point out when I feel bandwidth is being wasted on garbage. As far as contributing intelligently, look in the mirror. Your post is not exactly an "intelligent" topic.


Originally Posted By brouhaha:
Crap like this is why I rarely post anymore.

It's simply become tiresome.



+10000000000000000000
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 10:10:10 AM EDT
Another ".223 doesn't kill but .45 acp takes them down every time" post?

2 words: armchair commando
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 10:11:33 AM EDT
I trust that the military weighed out a lot of issues, including the ability to carry lots of ammo, and decided on the 5.56 on BALANCE. Yeah, I'm sure some folks could weigh the argument one way or another but until it's their call their opinion doesn't really matter, does it?

As for me, the .223 is great. I use my AR as a plinking/fun shooting gun. The .223/5.56 round is cheap and easy on the shoulder. It's great for what I use it for. Yeah, I know that if .308 were the standard service round it would be cheap too but still not as easy to shoot repeatedly as the .223.

Personally, I hope I never have to use a firearm in any kind of defensive way. I'm committed to never using it an an offensive manner. If something happens where I need a firearm to protect me and my family I'm going to grab a shotgun. If someone doubts the .223 will serve their purposes for their "go-to" gun in the event of marauding zombies, then, well, they can chose a different rifle. Just because the military trusts it doesn't mean you have to.

But, for me, the "effectiveness" of the .223 is not an issue. As for the military, I'm confident that they're OK with with their decision and I'm not going to waste my time or energy questioning it.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 10:36:23 AM EDT
NOTHING one man can carry and shoot is ever going to guarantee a one shot stop...until we have a death beam, this debate will rage forever. Even then the death beam is going to have to penetrate 49 feet of armor, bricks, dirt, shoot around corners, discriminate friend and foe....and someone will be posting on deathbeam.com that it still ain't worth a shit
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 10:43:24 AM EDT
In about 6 months I've not read posts about .223 not being the optimal round. Maybe peoples dimentia is acting up today? I am not an active ar15.com member, but am active in reloading and learning about history.

In another post I stated that the AR-15/M16 was designed for asian troops. Project ABLE, done by the Army in the 60's clearly stated that was thier intention. Thats when I read that the Army DECIDED to use a probibly not gonna kill the bad guy in one shot round. The Army fessed up to this in its offical reports (that the .223 is not as lethal as .30 cal, but the tradeoff of light weight was worth it). These are Army studies not mine. THEY say its not an optimal killing round.

Now the keyboard commandos are flaming me for asking why, when its a KNOWN LESS THAN OPTIMAL ROUND why the Army doesn't go back to .30 cal. M4's are PROVEN to have less than 1 shot/kill effect at more than 15 meters (consult the ammo oracle). 15 meters is ACROSS THE STREET.

So when the Army, the Troops and lab rats all say its a trade off, and not an optimal killing round, why blame me? I'm just passing on the info for discussion.

I'm sure .223 is killing bad guys, but given the choice, troops would rather have a heavier bullet, and the lab rats prove that even the 77gr is not as lethal as it needs to be in close combat/street fighting.

Not sure if the many nay-sayers are trying to protect thier stock in AR manufacturers, or will simply not admit to what the Army already knows... for whatever reason.


Link Posted: 12/23/2005 10:45:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 10:52:39 AM EDT
Do you guys remember a few years ago... The sniper in the Washington Metro area??
John Mohamod and his sidekick shot @ 10 people from approx 100 yards all died but one.
That is one shot one kill. He did not take head shots they were body shots.
They used an AR15 with a 16inch barrel.

After speaking with a combat Veteran who carried a M14 his comments were that the 308 round
did not do a great job of killing inside of 100 yards. Many times multiple rounds were needed
to keep the bad guy down.

Both are real world...
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 10:56:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 10:58:48 AM EDT
While that could be true...

I was talking with my neighbor whose accountant's son had a dog whose vet had a 2nd cousin. This guy had coffee with the gym teacher of a a guy who was in his class in high school but is now a Seal. He basically could not confirm nor deny what has been said.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 11:17:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2005 11:21:20 AM EDT by RolandofGilead]

troops would rather have a heavier bullet

What makes you think you speak on the behalf of all troops?

BTW there is no such thing as a SURE THING 1 SHOT STOP others have said it before but I don't think you get it. 5.56 is effective, there may be something better as in the 6.8 or 6.5- we'll see. If there is something better, I'm all for it, as would be most others I think, however 7.62X51 is not going to be that round. It's great for DMs and such but I don't think the pros outweigh the cons to use it as a main rifle cartridge.

Basically, I think the whole thing about "the 5.56 is ineffective" is blown way out of proportion.

Oh yeah, this reminds me of that video where the apache pilot whacks those guys in the truck. Remember that? There is the one guy who gets his leg blown off thats crawling around on the ground...what was that a 20 or 30mm right? Wow, even that's not a one shot stop....hmmmm
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 11:43:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By middy:
Another ".223 doesn't kill but .45 acp takes them down every time" post?

2 words: armchair commando



You said it not me(but I kinda wanted too)
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 11:45:00 AM EDT
PFarber,
Could you tell us, in one sentance, just what your point is?

I get the feeling there is a big disconnect going on here.

-Forest
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 12:00:05 PM EDT
You know what else sucks? 12 guage with Buckshot. I don't know why anyone would every use such a PROVEN INEFFECTIVE ROUND.

My college roommates father was in the FBI, and this one time a member of his team shot a guy with 12 guage buckshot, but the guy was so doped up, that his reaction was to say "fuck you" and shoot an officer. Obivously, this one example proves how inadequate the 12 guage is.

Link Posted: 12/23/2005 12:10:08 PM EDT

someone will be posting on deathbeam.com that it still ain't worth a shit



There's a Deathbeam.com.......?. sweet..I'm outta here....

Yawn...on this whole thread. like the man says..no deathbeam, no one shot drop, no "magic"bullet you shoot til the threat is gone.period

Christ. I 've read anecdotal stories about Korean War vets seeing multiple hits from 30/06's rds in to hopped up Chinese Soldiers that kept on coming......

Link Posted: 12/23/2005 12:14:15 PM EDT
Shockwave not tumbling? What about yaw and fragmentation? This chooch needs to visit the ammo oracle.

Link Posted: 12/23/2005 12:30:25 PM EDT
tag for later reading
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 1:20:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bryan:
Do you guys remember a few years ago... The sniper in the Washington Metro area??
John Mohamod and his sidekick shot @ 10 people from approx 100 yards all died but one.
That is one shot one kill. He did not take head shots they were body shots.
They used an AR15 with a 16inch barrel.

After speaking with a combat Veteran who carried a M14 his comments were that the 308 round
did not do a great job of killing inside of 100 yards. Many times multiple rounds were needed
to keep the bad guy down.

Both are real world...



He did at least one head shot. I believe the one at the home depot parking lot in Arlington was a head shot.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 1:30:50 PM EDT

In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the DoD increased the weight of the 5.56mm 55-grain bullet (M193) to 62-grains, replaced some of its lead core with a tungsten steel core, painted the bullet tip green and designated the new cartridge M855.


NOT. The front half of M855s core is mild steel, not tungsten.


Originally Posted By pfarber:
A vest does not simulate human flesh. If you read my post you would (or should) have realized that the high velocity .223 rounds, of any weight, are simply going through a body. Thats the main complaint. Troops want a heavy bullet that can knock a man down, not simply enter/exit them.




There is no rifle round on earth that can "knock a man down", any round that could knock the target down would also know the shooter down. Simple physics.


Originally Posted By pfarber:

Was first aid given to the enemy? Did you put forth an effort to save the enemy as you did your doctor? I am not a bleeding heart, but you are saying the enemy died, but after first aid the GI lived. See how this contributes nothing to the published ARMY reports about the non-lethality of the .223 round.



AARs are hardly rock-solid proof of anything.


Wound cavity with .223 *can* be lethal under the right conditions. Problem is that those conditions are not always prevelant.


You're damn right it *can* be lethal.

Lets go back to Somalia for a minute:

Death toll, American: 18, most of which were caused by RPGs.

Death Toll, Somali: 1,000+/- as a result of ground fire, 1-2,000 more as a result of littlebird gunships.

That's at least a 100-1 radio on 5.56mm kills vs. 7.62x39 kills.


High power large calibure bullets use simple force and shockwave to destroy tissue.



Hardly, the "shockwave" from a bullet does little real damage, that's why it's called the "temporary wound cavity", as opposed to the "permanent wound cavity".


Not a tumbling effect. The large calibure bullets are more lethal becuase as long as they impart thier energy to the target, significant damage will be done.


Actually, if 7.62x51mm doesn't fragment, it just leaves a .30 caliber hole in the target, rather than a .224 caliber hole... Big F'ing deal. On top of that the bullet still tumbles, and exits the target backwards most of the time, it just has too thick a jacket and too low a velocity to fragment.

That's why the west German 7.62x51 proved so much more deadly than American 7.62x51, the German ammo had a thinner jacket, and thus fragmented in the target.


Small calibure high velocity bullets impart little enegy to thier targets, but rely on fragmentation to establish a wound cavity.


Your ignorance is impressive. 7.62 also relies on fragmentation to create permanent wound effects, period.


when it works, it works great. But as the Army has learned (yet many people seem to not want to) the a tumbling/yawing/fragmentation characterists can be negated by outside factors.


And the same is true for 7.62x51mm, if it doesn't fragment, it leaves a pathetic .30 caliber hole.



Look, I really don't like 5.56x45mm, it's a light round, and somewhat weak. It's got far too short an effective range for my liking. That's why I like 6.5 Grendel and 6.8mm SPC. I like 7.62x51mm too, for its long range effectiveness. But your arguments are just plain wrong.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 3:21:45 PM EDT

If you read my post you would (or should) have realized that the high velocity .223 rounds, of any weight, are simply going through a body. Thats the main complaint. Troops want a heavy bullet that can knock a man down, not simply enter/exit them.



That right there is a pretty good indicator that he cannot comprehend basic physics.

In any case, you can hardly call a .223 wound with ball ammo inside fragmentation range "simply entering and exiting" -- but what the hell does he think .308 ball does?
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 3:57:59 PM EDT
lets all remember, fmj ammo and non expanding hollow points are the only bullet allowed for use in combat per various treaties and laws of war.

the rounds are not supposed to always kill what they hit(THE INTENDED RESULT) when in fighting a conventional enemy, it takes a bigger toll hearing your buddy scream after being shot than if bang he is dead.

it also takes more soldiers to care for wounded soldiers thus taking more out of the fight.

yes it would be nice if we could use great hunting bullet, more enemy would be taken out of action. plus, if cops can use hollow points on us why cant we use them on others
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 3:59:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2005 4:11:21 PM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 4:04:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2005 4:06:31 PM EDT by remedy]

Originally Posted By Tweak:

Originally Posted By Bryan:
They used an AR15 with a 16inch barrel.



and SIMPLYDYNAMIC used a 20"




One thing I still dont get with the infamous "turkey shoot" was that he was firing at a minimum of 500m, if you listen to the dialog in the video carefully. He was shooting at some targets that were 800 meters out.

I find it kind of hard to believe with a 20" AR he was dropping targets in 1-2 shots at those ranges.


- rem
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 4:11:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtscott:
lets all remember, fmj ammo and non expanding hollow points are the only bullet allowed for use in combat per various treaties and laws of war.



I've read in a few articles, most recently this one:

American Handgunner: "One night in the war on terror"



"The rules of warfare that demand ball ammunition apply only to declared war between nation-states, and thus, there is no reason that the kind of police ammunition used by Bret could not be used by our military forces overseas."



Basically they are saying since we are not at war with Iraq anymore, we could issue different ammo to our troops without violating any treaties or agreements.

Also, in that article they seem to rave about the Federal 55 grain JHP:



Bret's experience with the Federal 55 grain .223 hollowpoint confirms the general consensus coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan about enemy personnel absorbing multiple hits from M4 and AR15 rifles with NATO ball and staying on their feet: The problem lies with the ammo, not the caliber. Constraints of time, mission, and human dignity did not allow for "field autopsy" of the men Bret shot. However, I have talked with US SWAT cops who use the Federal 55 grain JHP .223, and who have been present at the legally required autopsies of felons shot with it. They describe a wound cavity inside the chest the size of a soccer ball. Since these projectiles almost always disintegrate and stay in the body, they are safer for the bystander public.




- rem
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top