Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/22/2006 1:52:32 PM EDT
I am contemplating getting either an ar-10 or the ar-15. It will be used to plink and for defense. I do not think I have any plans to hunt with it. I really dont care about weight, and price is the weapon is not a huge factor. Also, price of ammo is close enough to where I don't care one way or the other.

So, should I just got with the 5.56? Is it suitable? I know this has been discussed numerous times, but I cant search so I figured I would open a discussion.


I do recall a post probably 4-5 months back in a thread similar to this where a guy that was in the military posted a rather long summary of his experiences with the caliber, and one of the replies to his post was something along the lines of "I NEVER want to hear about the viability of the 5.56 again." And, after reading this guys post, he had me pretty thoroughly convinced as well. Anyone know what I am referring to? I would really like to find it and save it.


Thanks in advance.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:03:04 PM EDT
it puts holes things and kills stuff, thats good enough for me
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:04:29 PM EDT
Are you referring to the post that basically said he saw people all the time who were shot with 5.56 and they were all kinds of fucked up? The conclusion of almost every informed discussion on the matter is that 5.56mm fucks people up, especially with heavy OTM bullets, and the increase in power you gain with the 7.62 is offset (for short range encounters) by the increased size, weight and recoil of the larger weapon.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:14:57 PM EDT
The 5.56 will do just what you want- plink and defense.

Get the AR-15 first.

Then get the AR-10 later.

CRC
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:18:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
The 5.56 will do just what you want- plink and defense.

Get the AR-15 first.

Then get the AR-10 later.

CRC



+1
i'm halfway through that plan myself!
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 4:11:42 PM EDT
Read all the info this site has. The 5.56 has numerous advantages as a SHTF and self defense round.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 4:53:19 PM EDT
I have used the 5.56 in a M-16 38 years ago to shoot people and it did a good job. The problem then was not with the bulklet, it was other factors that have since been corrected. If you can hit what you're aiming at, 5.56 is plenty good. If you can't hit what your aiming at, then you'd be better off practicing with a .22 rimfire. Sometimes a B-52 strike isn't enough! I have just started using the 62 grain, carbide tipped ammo from ADCOM and it shoots more accurately at longer (150 yards +) than the 55 grain and it really tears up a bowling pin. Read the Ammo Oracle for definitive review.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 3:24:21 AM EDT
Some guy in CA was shot 20+ times with 10mm Auto and still kept going. The police came to the conclusion (hopefully) that the caliber isn't as important as shot placement.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:44:45 AM EDT
The problem I have with the AR and .223 combo is this- the supposed "big" advantage of the AR is it's accuracy. However, most everyone shoots an Ubercool 16" gun. This decreases velocity-which is primarily how the AR kills. So....they take a "super accurate" rifle and make it into a 150 yard gun....Gee that makes sense.

Why not just get an AK? It's a 150 yard gun too though for different reasons.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:15:08 AM EDT
Why even try!

go to a range and try one!


set out a 5 gallon bucket off water at 50 yards and see what that tiny little 55grFMJ M193 can do even in 223 prssure loads its hits pretty hard!
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 6:24:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Will:
The problem I have with the AR and .223 combo is this- the supposed "big" advantage of the AR is it's accuracy. However, most everyone shoots an Ubercool 16" gun. This decreases velocity-which is primarily how the AR kills. So....they take a "super accurate" rifle and make it into a 150 yard gun....Gee that makes sense.
.



You rode the short bus as a kid, right?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 6:24:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Will:
The problem I have with the AR and .223 combo is this- the supposed "big" advantage of the AR is it's accuracy. However, most everyone shoots an Ubercool 16" gun. This decreases velocity-which is primarily how the AR kills. So....they take a "super accurate" rifle and make it into a 150 yard gun....Gee that makes sense.

Why not just get an AK? It's a 150 yard gun too though for different reasons.



Yeah...I hear that. Even the 16" seems too long to some around here, though I am not sure why. I have a 16" light barrel gun and while it is very handy, I feel better about the 20" A2 in terms of iron sight radius and bullet velocity. The 20" A2 also has a nice balance in my opinion. The 20" HBAR is a load to carry around...but it seems to have fallen out of favor (fortunately).

dvo
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 6:32:40 AM EDT
Short Bus!! +1 BURN LOL
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 6:45:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By Will:
The problem I have with the AR and .223 combo is this- the supposed "big" advantage of the AR is it's accuracy. However, most everyone shoots an Ubercool 16" gun. This decreases velocity-which is primarily how the AR kills. So....they take a "super accurate" rifle and make it into a 150 yard gun....Gee that makes sense.
.



You rode the short bus as a kid, right?




Get an AR.
There is a reason pretty much every military in the free world uses 5.56.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:19:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dvo:

Originally Posted By Will:
The problem I have with the AR and .223 combo is this- the supposed "big" advantage of the AR is it's accuracy. However, most everyone shoots an Ubercool 16" gun. This decreases velocity-which is primarily how the AR kills. So....they take a "super accurate" rifle and make it into a 150 yard gun....Gee that makes sense.

Why not just get an AK? It's a 150 yard gun too though for different reasons.



Yeah...I hear that. Even the 16" seems too long to some around here, though I am not sure why. I have a 16" light barrel gun and while it is very handy, I feel better about the 20" A2 in terms of iron sight radius and bullet velocity. The 20" A2 also has a nice balance in my opinion. The 20" HBAR is a load to carry around...but it seems to have fallen out of favor (fortunately).

dvo



optics negate sight radius
20" AR plus suppressor = ungainly rifle
who are what do yo uneed to defend against at over 150 yards? What AK can put up 1.5" groups at 150 yards?

What I would like to know is why you guys think over a 11.5" barrel is needed for self defense and plinking?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 8:43:04 AM EDT
"optics negate sight radius
20" AR plus suppressor = ungainly rifle
who are what do yo uneed to defend against at over 150 yards? What AK can put up 1.5" groups at 150 yards?

What I would like to know is why you guys think over a 11.5" barrel is needed for self defense and plinking?"

I say to each his own. Glad that we have choices. I'm old...and to me, 11.5" seems like a handgun. In fact, it wasn't too long ago that a carbine was defined as any length 20" and under. The short barrel probably works well inside of dwellings in terms of manuverability, but it gives up in terms of blast, flash, and velocity. Reliability may be a factor, but I am not sure about that.

Maybe we are dragging this thread off of topic. My now old Evan Marshall book gives one shot stops in the high 90 percent range for virtually any .223 loading when shots are under 100 yards (even the Federal 40 gr. Blitz loading). I'd say that the AR-15 is a pretty good stopper by any reasonable definition if you can bring it to the fight.

dvo

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 8:57:03 AM EDT
If you want an inexpensive 150 meter killing implement, try an SKS. It has much better ergonomics and accuracy than an AK and the ammo is about 1/2 the price/round of 5.56mm. On the other hand, I have been shot at countless times with a 7.62X39 with no effect. (God, it feels great to be able to say that!) I know of many VC and NVA who cannot say the same thing after a well placed 5.56 mm. The 5.56mm is ammo is easier to carry than the 7.62X39, so if you're not such a good shot, you get more bangs to the pound!
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 8:58:58 AM EDT
I think a shot in the belly will convince you
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 8:59:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 9:00:43 AM EDT by pyro6988]
Stick with 5.56mm for now. Worry about the ar-10 later
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:39:39 AM EDT
Ask anyone who says it isn't effective if they would stand downrange from you and let you shoot at them. My guess is that they may change their mind.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:46:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gmountain:
Ask anyone who says it isn't effective if they would stand downrange from you and let you shoot at them. My guess is that they may change their mind.



I won't stand downrange of .17 HMR. Is that a stone-killer round?

I use 5.56mm for defense because at short range it's very effective, it's light, it's not expensive to practice with.

If I were going to take on the Russian army floating in on parachutes at 300yards, I'll pick up my FAL.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:49:00 AM EDT
You should be asking youself why would you don't already have a 5.56 in your inventory. It's a very versatile cartridge, available, affordable, and a hoot to reload. Mild or even non-existent recoil on top of that. What's not to like?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:51:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Are you referring to the post that basically said he saw people all the time who were shot with 5.56 and they were all kinds of fucked up? The conclusion of almost every informed discussion on the matter is that 5.56mm fucks people up, especially with heavy OTM bullets, and the increase in power you gain with the 7.62 is offset (for short range encounters) by the increased size, weight and recoil of the larger weapon.



and ammo capacity
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:11:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cliph:
If you want an inexpensive 150 meter killing implement, try an SKS. It has much better ergonomics and accuracy than an AK and the ammo is about 1/2 the price/round of 5.56mm.

Not lately



With heavy bullets a 1:7 twist in carbine should be perfectly suitable for defensive measures and you will have less recoil to deal with during those 500-800rd plinking sessions. Get the AR.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:22:06 PM EDT

Governor: Convince me as to why 5.56 is "enough".


Because it's my round of choice. That should be enough for you.

____________________________


Link Posted: 2/23/2006 3:32:49 PM EDT
Yes, and it makes a very distinctive sound when fired at you.

Originally Posted By MTNmyMag:
it puts holes things and kills stuff, thats good enough for me

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:41:14 PM EDT
GO READ THE AMMO ORACLE!!!

The answers to all your questions will be there.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 2:40:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By Gmountain:
Ask anyone who says it isn't effective if they would stand downrange from you and let you shoot at them. My guess is that they may change their mind.



I won't stand downrange of .17 HMR. Is that a stone-killer round?




A head shot would put you down pretty quick. So would a shot to the vitals.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 5:12:30 AM EDT
I'm the wrong guy to ask - see my second sig line below.

That in mind I did buy an AR10 first, but that didn't stop me from getting an AR15 later! This IS arfcom, you know what you need to do - GET BOTH!
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 6:04:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2006 6:06:05 AM EDT by VARminator]
If you want self defense get a handgun, one for each hand! An AR is too big to swing in the hallway and cumbersome in a house. Its a only kewl factor, unless a perp is willing to line up for you and let you take target practice. As for self defense out of the house, doubt that will happen because by law you should run away.

If you want to have fun at the range the AR is the most fun by far except for autos.


I can feel the heat already
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 6:23:09 AM EDT
If everyone agreed the 7.62 was better, then someone would ask about the 338 Win Mag. At some point you need to say "this is enough". Personally I think that point is the 6.5 or 6.8, but those are not common enough for me to switch. So I stick with 5.56.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 6:24:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VARminator:
If you want self defense get a handgun, one for each hand! An AR is too big to swing in the hallway and cumbersome in a house. Its a only kewl factor, unless a perp is willing to line up for you and let you take target practice. ]





Going to have to hoist the flag on this one. I've cleared many a house with an M-4. No problems at all, I only transition to my handgun when clearing closets and other very small areas.

Link Posted: 2/24/2006 7:27:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2006 7:29:13 AM EDT by VARminator]
eXACTLY WHAT i AM SAYING. iF IT WAS BS you wouldn't be switching to a handgun then would you? Seriously anything that can hinder a quick shot should be avoided if you want every chance of surviving. Unless you just want to open up in your house and scare them out. Besides where do you hide that AR that isn't obvious to the perp so that he gets it before you do when you get home? Hell I can reach between the mattress if the perp is present but how you going to jump up and make a run for your long gun if he is in view. Its a great idea but in practice, the handgun is better suited for this. I know some of you are just die hards but logistically, unless you live in a wide open shooting range house you have toomany doorways, walls, etc. to impede your success.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 9:13:13 AM EDT
I love my M4/LMT 14.5 w/ phantom!

I use a handgun/surfire/even a mirror got to look good ya know!

because the WAY ME HOUSE IS BUILT! and I just stick my arm out instead of more body

But if different I would use a M4/ or a 11 incher!

The 5.56mm 55gr/77 in a M4 has enough power!

Like I said I think your mind was made up before your post!


Link Posted: 2/24/2006 9:32:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMJ:
Why even try!

go to a range and try one!


set out a 5 gallon bucket off water at 50 yards and see what that tiny little 55grFMJ M193 can do even in 223 prssure loads its hits pretty hard!



Take an old ammo can and fill it up with sand. then shoot it. the can will bulge from the shock, and the exit hole is about the size of a quarter or bigger...
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 9:52:15 AM EDT
How many claims of the innefectivness of the 5.56 are there that can be verified? Usually it's a reference to "Black Hawk Down," or some crap like, "there's been proof," but the person doesn't bother to state what it is. If it were really a bad round, at least some of the 130,000 Soldiers, plus the Marines and other services would be complaining about them. Not just a couple here and there. I know, I know, not everyone is actually engaging the enemy, but enough are, that if they were just going through and making only tiny holes, or whatever the claims are, that we'd be hearing about it a lot more. And I mean a LOT, with more proof than, well my buddy heard from his 4th cousin, who's girlfriends brother is in the airborne... blah, blah, blah.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 10:50:53 AM EDT
Chris Ive done it all one of my friends has a junk yard what fun!!
And in IN I lived in the contry and had friends with farms did alot of killing pigs/cows etc!
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 11:49:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By chris157c:

Originally Posted By FMJ:
Why even try!

go to a range and try one!


set out a 5 gallon bucket off water at 50 yards and see what that tiny little 55grFMJ M193 can do even in 223 prssure loads its hits pretty hard!



Take an old ammo can and fill it up with sand. then shoot it. the can will bulge from the shock, and the exit hole is about the size of a quarter or bigger...



I'm not a wound ballistics expert, but that sounds like a temporal/temporary wound cavity. Shooting ballistic clay with .223 will yield a large "explosion" or large cavity which, IIRC, wasn't a good gauge of wound ballistic performance.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 11:54:48 AM EDT
??
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 11:57:29 AM EDT
Dead on metroplex.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 12:12:40 PM EDT
AR15 will satisfy your addiction for now.
As the addiction grows you will need an AR10 Fix to satisfy your Needs
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 1:39:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chris157c:

Originally Posted By FMJ:
Why even try!

go to a range and try one!


set out a 5 gallon bucket off water at 50 yards and see what that tiny little 55grFMJ M193 can do even in 223 prssure loads its hits pretty hard!



Take an old ammo can and fill it up with sand. then shoot it. the can will bulge from the shock, and the exit hole is about the size of a quarter or bigger...



Go look at the ammo oracle. There is a lengthy explanation on 223 wound characteristics from ballistic gelatin, and fragmentation. The fragmenting will cause a worse wound than a typical 308 FMJ at ranges under 100 yds with M193. With M855 it usually doesnt fragment, and wont cause as much damage as a M193 at shorter ranges. This is due to the penetrator core, it usually makes a small entry wound, and relativley small exit wound. This makes sense in war, it is more likely to wound, and take more people out of the fight than killing would. It takes 2-3 men to provide a wounded soldier, as opposed to killing obviously only takes out one.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 2:25:44 PM EDT
M193 and M855 perform almost identically in tissue, except M855 has less velocity and wont do as well as range increases.

Per Doc. Roberts, some M80 7.62 ball fragments in some circumstances. Not NEARLY as common as with 5.56 bullets.

Whatever you use, be prepared to shoot until the other guy can't or won't continue the fight.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 2:40:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 6:57:41 AM EDT by jaymeister99]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
M193 and M855 perform almost identically in tissue, except M855 has less velocity and wont do as well as range increases.

Per Doc. Roberts, some M80 7.62 ball fragments in some circumstances. Not NEARLY as common as with 5.56 bullets.

Whatever you use, be prepared to shoot until the other guy can't or won't continue the fight.



I think the best thing the armchair commandos here can do if they want "SHTF" ammo is to get some 5.56mm 77gr TAP. I would think this would do the most damage, followed by some good old fashioned SP or SP hollow point ammo. If you want to get really industrious take a SP and put a cross across the top of it with a razor blade. That will make a nasty wound.

You put it best, keep shooting till they cant do anything else.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 11:47:29 AM EDT
There was a shooting at Roseburg, OR HS on Thursday. Report is that a 16 year old was shot in the back 4 times with 10mm HPs at pointblnk range. One bullet in the thorax, two in the abdomen and a grazing wound to the elbow. Two of the bullets had to be surgically removed. The victim is in serious but stable condition and expected to make a "full recovery". I guess you need to define "good enough" when you're asking about the sufficiency of a bullet type.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 12:07:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 12:09:09 PM EDT by Delta_3_63]
It was enough to put several hundred thousand communists into early retirement.

ETA: +1 on reading the Ammo Oracle. There is no better resource for straight up, no BS assessments of a rounds capabilities.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 12:55:09 PM EDT
Back to physics 101...... Force=mass times acceleration Small mass bullet going very,very fast equals a large force. To be very unscientific,when I got my first rifle that shot 5.56 rnds I shot into a muddy berm and it left holes 1ft round. That opened my eyes to what the round is capable of.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 11:13:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2006 11:18:02 AM EDT by Will]
No, I didn't ride the short bus but you obviously did as is evident in your short on facts or logic reply.

"I know you are but what am I?" OOOOO, good one -circa 3rd grade!

Hopefully mommy won't cut off your computer time for the week when she sees your substandard homework as I would like to discuss this further. If all you have to contribute is further evidence of the need for Chlorine in the gene pool please go back to your nose picking and knuckle dragging.

Start with what is factually incorrect about the statement I made- in essence that one of the primary virtues of the AR is it's accuracy and by shooting short barreled guns the operators were compromising it's effective range.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 11:25:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Will:
Start with what is factually incorrect about the statement I made- in essence that one of the primary virtues of the AR is it's accuracy and by shooting short barreled guns the operators were compromising it's effective range.



We'll to start with what the heck makes you think short barreled guns are not accurate?

AR does not kill by Velocity, it kills by destroying tissue (as do all firearms). One can do more dammage at typical engagement distances with a 14.5" M4 (hell with a 11.'5 too) using 75gr TAP than a 20" M16 shooting M193 or M855.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 11:56:30 AM EDT
Got nothing to do with accuracy. Short barreled guns can be very accurate, in fact there is some data -from benchresters etc....to suggest that rifles with short, stiff barrels have more repeatable harmonics and are therefore potentially more accurate.

My point was that the loss of velocity in using a short tube lessened the maximum effective range of the rifle-making it's accuracy at 500 yards etc... a moot point. Can you still shoot someone at a long distance with a short barreled .223 rifle? Sure, but the .223 as a round kills primarily by fragmentation or yaw which as we know -per the Oracle, happens within certain velocity parameters. Using a short barrel shortens the range at which the round will reliably fragment or yaw.

That was my only point really. By running a short barreled gun you are giving up effective fragmentation/yaw distance and so who cares if it will shoot moa out to 400 yards. Can you hit ? Sure, but the rounds on target wil NOT be as effective as they might otherwise be with more velocity-created by a longer barrel, behind them.

Fair enough?
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 12:10:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Will:
...That was my only point really. By running a short barreled gun you are giving up effective fragmentation/yaw distance and so who cares if it will shoot moa out to 400 yards. Can you hit ? Sure, but the rounds on target wil NOT be as effective as they might otherwise be with more velocity-created by a longer barrel, behind them.
...?



Go back and re-read the oracle and answer the following questions.

1) At what distance does M193 fragment from a 20" barrel?

2) At what distance does M193 fragment from a 16" & 14.5" barrel?

3) At what distances does 75gr OTm fragment from a 16" & 20" barrel?

You'll find none of them will fragment to 300y. With the best range comming from the 20" Tap at 225y followed by the 16" shooting 75gr TAP at roughly 200y (about twice the typical combat engagement range).

Any of the above rounds for all practical purposes make the same wound channel at ranges beyond 225yards. So barrel length is really irrelavlent when talking about terminal performance at medium to long range with the .223. Barrel length terminal advantage can also be negated by using better ammo (75gr OTM & 77gr Mk262 for example).

However no matter what you do a 20" rifle is still a PITA to weild in close quarters and will never be as light as a similarly equiped carbine.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top