Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/29/2002 5:39:08 PM EDT
...just as good enough as something larger like .308?
Of course, I'd expect all of you to say .308 is a more powerful round, but if anyone has a 5.56mm bullet enter their body in a vital area, I would assume they will either die or be wounded to the point where they could not fight anymore. Maybe not as bad as if a .308 round hit them, but bad enough.
Most combat fighting today involves a 2nd or 3rd world enemy that does not have the luxuries of bullet proof vests and so forth. So you don't really need a more powerful round to go through raggedy clothing nor do you need a round that needs to travel 1000 yards. Most combat fighting today involves close quarters. In some cases maybe out to 300yards, if that. If there is an enemy out that far that needs to be killed that badly, then usually it's a special job for a sniper with an appropriate sniper-grade rifle to take care of.
In the heat of combat, a US soldier/Marine isn't going to have time to take precision sniper-like shots, but will more or less fire numerous rounds at the enemy looking quickly through his rifle's open sights or scope/dot-sight if his rifle is so equipped.
So in other words, having a rifle holding only 20 rounds of .308, compared to having a rifle capable of holding 30 rounds of 5.56mm or even a larger 90-100 round C-mag, you would have to be forced to make each one of those 20 rounds of .308 count and not afford to miss. With more 5.56mm on hand, you could afford to miss a few.
Just because you're shooting a larger round doesn't make you a more accurate shooter.
So in comparision, would you rather have one chance with just one .308 round that will DEFINATELY kill the enemy if you happen to hit him or would you rather have 2,3,4-6 more chances to hit the enemy with a 5.56mm that will PROBABLY kill the enemy.

ArmaLiter
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 6:04:00 PM EDT
this response is not from personal experience , but from info gathered from local indoor shooting range. they only allow lead point ammo on their rifle range. a few times customers have shot with military ammo (by mistake?)in both .223 and 7.62*59. the 7.62*59 did not have a signifigant effect on their steel backdrop. the .223 on the other hand came close to penetrating the backdrop after one customer firing military ball ammo. the range is convinced the smaller size and higher velocity of the .223 penetrates armor more effectivly than "larger" 7.62*59 round. again, this is not my own info , but i tend to believe the guy who has to replace the armor backdrop before rounds start finding their way outside the range.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 6:16:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2002 6:16:59 PM EDT by voilsb]
"cough" faq "cough" "cough" frangible round "cough" "cough"

and now, more politely, the 5.56 nato round fragments something fierce, like so:


i'm not sure, but i'm guessing that 7.62, with a lower surface-area-to-mass ratio, is going to take longer to fragment, and probably frag less.

troy or tat got any info for us on that round?

edited for: speeling
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 6:19:27 PM EDT



Eugene Stoner did not believe the 5.56mm round to be adequate for military use.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 6:51:00 PM EDT
I'm not sure if its adequate for combat or not, but it would sure suck royally to be on the recieving end.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 6:53:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
I'm not sure if its adequate for combat or not, but it would sure suck royally to be on the recieving end.



A .22 short would suck if it was my sorry ass on the receiving end !!
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:02:31 PM EDT
Both rounds have killed their fair share of folk.

I've had the choice pretty much made for me but before hand I had the best of both worlds running. I had the freedom to pick from an FAL, M1A, and AR's. I wouldn't feel under armed with either.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:31:33 PM EDT
At average combat engagements it does very well. When it falls below its fragmentation velocity, its lethality wanes considerably.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:41:17 PM EDT
whatever you hit someone with, if they get up and fight where not hit hard enough to begin with, or you should learn to hit what you point your rifle at.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:42:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mach1:
At average combat engagements it does very well. When it falls below its fragmentation velocity, its lethality wanes considerably.



Yep !
When you remove the HV from SCHV, all you have is a .22 cal projectile.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:57:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By biffy:
whatever you hit someone with, if they get up and fight where not hit hard enough to begin with, or you should learn to hit what you point your rifle at.



That's not always true. Your unfortunate target could be on drugs and be unaffected (for a certain amount of time) by a small 5.56 NATO round entering his chest.

It'll be awhile before the US or if we even do change to something other than the .223. I'd go up a caliber or two. Maybe the .243, 25-06, or doughtfuly the .257WbyMag. (I'm guessing .243)

The main reason we won't change is because the .223 is a NATO round. EXAMPLE: The WA2000 (sniper rifle) is chambered for the .300WinMag and .308, but because of the .308 being the NATO round, they (special forces around the world) use the .308 instead of the .300. Even though the .300 has a better "ballistics chart".
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 8:19:24 PM EDT

"Far and away the most disruptive bullet of those described is the West German 7.62 NATO round. Its fragmenting behaviour maximises utilisation of its much higher potential (bullet mass well over twice that of any of the 5.56mm bullets and velocity only about ten percent less than theirs) for tissue disruption."


From Martin...
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 9:00:33 PM EDT
1 million dead Vietnamese think its good enough.
GG
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 9:06:09 PM EDT
I was hoping someone would pickup on mental incapacitation of the advesary, though a violent disruption of there thought process.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 10:02:15 PM EDT
Apparently.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 11:15:18 PM EDT
The 5.56mm NATO round penetrates most substances well because it has a steel insert near the tip. The 7.62mm ball hasn't.

The 5.56mm inflicts nasty wounds at high velocity because it is designed to fragment.The standard 7.62 ball isn't (with the exception noted above).

Produce a 7.62mm ball to the same design as the current 5.56mm, and you will see some difference...

As to whether the 5.56mm is adequate; this has recently become an issue because of the popularity of short-barrelled carbines. These may be neat and handy but reduce the muzzle velocity to the extent that the bullets will fail to fragment except at close range (which may be as little as 50-100m). This is detailed in the FAQs on this site.

The evidence from combat use so far seems to be that sometimes the 5.56mm is very effective, sometimes it isn't. The conclusion which I draw from that is that it is really too marginal for comfort.

See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 1:07:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 6:53:13 AM EDT
When your enemy is high on opium and using vitamin K, a .50 BMG round won't stop him. Cutting him in two with the .50 will ruin his day. (Had an NVA get back up after I hit him with a .50).
Having one round designated by NATO didn't stop us from changing to a different round. 7.62 to 5.56.
Shot placement more than anything else.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 10:07:24 AM EDT
Either the .308 or 5.56 can and do work on the battlefield. They also can both fail at times. Shot placement is most critical. But one may be better suited to using the two different rounds in different situations or environments.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 10:27:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By voilsb:
i'm not sure, but i'm guessing that 7.62, with a lower surface-area-to-mass ratio, is going to take longer to fragment, and probably frag less.



Unless the W. German 7.62NATO is included, the 7.62 simply does NOT fragment. You might get a toothpaste effect where the lead is squeezed out the back end, kinda like Tatja and I got on Frag test #2 and #3 with Wolf and GP90.

The W. German 7.62, OTOH, is simply nasty. You can find a photo of it's fragmentation in the ammo FAQ. Too bad it's not made anymore...
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 10:28:29 AM EDT
Any round used in combat is going to have its compromises. I think that a better compromise is to restrict the caliber between: .257 - 7mm.

For example: .257 Roberts, 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser or .260 Remington are all very good calibers and will give better long range and penetration performance than a .223 caliber. Particularly if good bullet construction is used.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 2:05:47 PM EDT
cover your @ss, get both, layer your defenses and be effective with what you have.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 3:37:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/30/2002 3:44:52 PM EDT by usmc0311]
5.56 still out ranges the 7.62x39 round and is in a more accurate package than the 5.45x39 AK74.As far as lethality i have heard the 5.45 and the 7.62 are murderous rounds ya their wounding profile is boring but maybe just maybe the Russians know something about wound ballistics.Cause the Afghans Revere the 5.45x39 round and our own Veterans from Vietnam know the 7.62x39 works.

I still think pound for pound,rifle to rifle the American Sodier/Marine is by a very small margin outgunning the enemy with the M16.

The Cold War M14 thinking was it outranged the AK47 by a long shot and on the European battlefields the average rifleman could engage the Combloc forces before they could engage him.

Vietnam thinking was MORE FIREPOWER.In the dense
Jungles of Vietnam Range was not as important as firepower and the AK47 proved a very good weapon as did the M16 after the bugs worked were worked out.

Today we have all these MOUT situations and we have the Persian Gulf open spaces and Afghanistan mountainous areas with long distances too.I really dont believe that there is a silver/magic bullet that is gonna do it all.

We need to come up with the best compromise,I really dont think the 5.56 is the best compromise.Because i think the average soldier/Marine should be able to have the Firepower,Range advantage and lethality advantage over the enemy at all ranges.

A 6.5mm 104 grain bullet at 2,900 fps would be the perfect compromise between the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51.Semi Armorpiercing/FMJ that tumbles in a AR platform rifle it would be pretty bad.
Link Posted: 10/1/2002 6:29:04 PM EDT
The 5.56 round has had mixed results, but I'm sure if you could say the same about any other round. I'm sure there's instances where someone had been shot with 10+ rounds of 7.62x51 and still kept running, and other cases where they were hit once and didn't get back up. I read of an account where they found a dead Vietnamese soldier who didn't have a single mark on him, other than a fingertip missing on his left hand. The assessment was that the tissue-damaging hydrostatic shock of the .223 bullet passed right up his arm and stopped his heart. I think it's possible, but I wouldn't expect that performance on a regular basis.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 7:59:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Moondog:
I read of an account where they found a dead Vietnamese soldier who didn't have a single mark on him, other than a fingertip missing on his left hand. The assessment was that the tissue-damaging hydrostatic shock of the .223 bullet passed right up his arm and stopped his heart.


There is no such thing. That has been document and proven many times - consult the back issues of the IWBA's (International Wound Ballistic Associtaion) periodic.



I think it's possible



It isn't. Sounds like you're a victim of an 'urban legand' or in this case its a 'military legend'.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 1:42:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Moondog:
The 5.56 round has had mixed results, but I'm sure if you could say the same about any other round. I'm sure there's instances where someone had been shot with 10+ rounds of 7.62x51 and still kept running, and other cases where they were hit once and didn't get back up. I read of an account where they found a dead Vietnamese soldier who didn't have a single mark on him, other than a fingertip missing on his left hand. The assessment was that the tissue-damaging hydrostatic shock of the .223 bullet passed right up his arm and stopped his heart. I think it's possible, but I wouldn't expect that performance on a regular basis.



"Heel wound; the projectile entered the bottom of the right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip."
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 2:59:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/2/2002 3:10:57 PM EDT by CHUCK6419]

Originally Posted By prebanman:
this response is not from personal experience , but from info gathered from local indoor shooting range. they only allow lead point ammo on their rifle range. a few times customers have shot with military ammo (by mistake?)in both .223 and 7.62*59. the 7.62*59 did not have a signifigant effect on their steel backdrop. the .223 on the other hand came close to penetrating the backdrop after one customer firing military ball ammo. the range is convinced the smaller size and higher velocity of the .223 penetrates armor more effectivly than "larger" 7.62*59 round. again, this is not my own info , but i tend to believe the guy who has to replace the armor backdrop before rounds start finding their way outside the range.


- When I worked in an indoor range someone shot a .223 on our handgun only backstop,
and it puta nice whole through it, yet the onetime a .308 went in there, it just dented it and deflected.
So WHy would a .308 be better?
BECAUSE IT TRANFERS MORE ENERGY TO THE TARGET.

The Small Bullet of the .223 would be great if,
A) It did not deflect on every tree or limb
B) It Produced a large enough hole.
C) it used expanding bullets.

Edited to say: That shot-placement is everything, I have no problems taking my HOWA VArmiter .223 Deer HUnting because it is so daggum accurate, Much more so than I am!
Link Posted: 10/3/2002 6:41:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2002 6:42:22 PM EDT by ECS]
Under the right conditions either round is effective.

In Vietnam Army and Marine Scout/Sniper teams killed about 13,000 enemy using less than 2 rounds / kill. The ammo was M118 match (7.62 ball). Today you would probably hear many say this round is inferior, after all its a non-fragmenting FMJ round .
Link Posted: 10/3/2002 6:57:02 PM EDT
SEMANTICS: 5.56 vs. 7.62x51(not 59) has been done a million times. More importantly, it has been said by a few people here and that is SHOT PLACEMENT. I doubt very highly that you will find very many people walking the face of the earth that will tell you a 5.56mm rd felt different going through the head or heart than a 7.62mm round.
Link Posted: 10/3/2002 7:01:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CHUCK6419:
- When I worked in an indoor range someone shot a .223 on our handgun only backstop,
and it puta nice whole through it, yet the onetime a .308 went in there, it just dented it and deflected.
So WHy would a .308 be better?
BECAUSE IT TRANFERS MORE ENERGY TO THE TARGET.

The Small Bullet of the .223 would be great if,
A) It did not deflect on every tree or limb
B) It Produced a large enough hole.
C) it used expanding bullets.



1) any bullet that hits a tree branch or limb will deflect period.

2) The .223 or 5.56 makes a HUGE permanent cavity, in other words one big fucking exit wound.

3) the .223 bullet doesn't have to expand when the bullet FRAGMENTS.

The .223 or 5.56 will always be more effective then .308 within 200yards.


So WHy would a .308 be better?
BECAUSE IT TRANFERS MORE ENERGY TO THE TARGET.



no the .308 with FMJ can punch a hole through a bullet proof vest at over 1,000yards. it will rip right through the target transferring very little energy into the target.

a 5.56 transfer's almost all its energy into the target as the bullet fragments.

the .308 will be more effective at long range, the 5.56 is more effective close range.

GOD ARENT THERE ENOUGH POSTS ABOUT THIS TOPIC? I HAVE READ THIS LIKE A THOUSAND TIMES ON ARF.com AND STILL THE SAME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
Link Posted: 10/3/2002 8:30:51 PM EDT
I think that the 5.56 works great in combat providing that the twist causes the bullet to tumble more in flight. Therefore; you are going to lose long range accuracy. I think when the original 5.56 was design in mind for shooting engagements under 400 yrds.
Link Posted: 10/3/2002 8:36:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR18:
I think that the 5.56 works great in combat providing that the twist causes the bullet to tumble more in flight. Therefore; you are going to lose long range accuracy. I think when the original 5.56 was design in mind for shooting engagements under 400 yrds.



GO READ THE FAQ!

The twist rate has little to no bearing on the destructive properties of the 5.56 round.
Link Posted: 10/3/2002 8:44:13 PM EDT
Any rifle round that is fielded by any military today will get the job done, over its entire flight path. Provided, of course, that the round hits a vital area. Put the round in the diamond formed by the naval, nipples, and throat, or put one through the skull, or sever a major artery, and the job is finished. Hit a non vital spot and you will need to shoot again.
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 4:37:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR18:
I think that the 5.56 works great in combat providing that the twist causes the bullet to tumble more in flight. Therefore; you are going to lose long range accuracy. I think when the original 5.56 was design in mind for shooting engagements under 400 yrds.



The 5.56 bullet dose not tumble in flight, the bullet tumbles after it penetrates into the target.

Twist rate has nothing to do with it, as long as the 5.56 bullet is moving at 2,700FPS it will fragment, slower it will usually just tumble through the target after penetration.

fragmentation wont happen with all 5.56 or .223 FMJ ammo, read the FAQ's tatjana has all of that stuff covered.
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 8:00:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2002 8:03:43 AM EDT by Lumpy196]
To quote some guy that is an instructor somewhere (forget where I read this):

.223 sucks as a rifle cartridge, but its bitchin' at pistol range.
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 11:44:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2002 11:47:44 PM EDT by bobbyjack]
M K didn't like it but the soviets went to the ak74 because why? Was it because the Americans had the 5.56,and it was just so bad? Or did the ranges become more of an issue,and the ak47,and the 7.62x54r was not up to the challenge?

The 7.62x54r is much the same as the 7.62x51!

Yes the 5.56 is up to par as a combat rifle,before they(we)changed from stick to ball powder the cong would gather all they could of these(black death)rifles.

After the change the rifles were left where they lay next to there dead warriors!

But it's been forty years in the making,and still is the Armed Forces main battle rifle!

Not saying the Aug or FAM should not be acceptable here,just try and get congress to think the same way! Edited to say if the lobby or gongress had to put their ass on the line then things would change!

bob
Link Posted: 10/5/2002 8:50:42 AM EDT
In the Jungle, I'll take 5.56 (M193 or M855). The average shot range in the RVN was a couple hundred yards or less. The NVA and the VC fought close in. Snipers used 7.62.

In Afghanistan, the shooting has been in the longer ranges, better to have the 7.62 (M118?) round. Snipers use 12.7 BMG.

The M4 needs two accessories to be combat effective, air and artillery support.
Link Posted: 10/5/2002 1:56:18 PM EDT
usmc0311, you said what I have been thinking about for a long time: 6.5mm!

I have always thought that a round in 6.5mm, weighing around 90-100 grains, with a penetrator core like the ss109, on a cartridge about like the 7.62x39, or maybe x43 or so would be a great comprimise. It has a high sectional density, and a great ballistic coefficient. Maybe around 2600-2900 fps. Low enough recoil, should work well on hard and soft targets alike, and still be pretty good out to 600 yards. Maybe something on an AR platform that takes AK style mags.

I have no combat experience, I'm just a gunsmith who is also an avid handloader of many years.

Balming
Link Posted: 10/5/2002 5:40:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmaLiter:
you need a round that needs to travel 1000 yards. Most combat fighting today involves close quarters.

#1.In some cases maybe out to 300yards, if that.

#2In the heat of combat, a US soldier/Marine isn't going to have time to take precision sniper-like shots, but will more or less fire numerous rounds at the enemy looking quickly



#1. there were many many cases in afghanistan so far that the shots were to far for even a m24 chambered in 7.62 to take and canadian snipers had to take them for instance the now famous 2400 somthing meter made by a canadian sniper with a McMillian .50cal. this is also the reason why the army started issuing barret .50s to snipers. in the mountanous terrain of afghanistan there are tons of shots that range out to 800 meters or more. these shots are out of range of out m16's but they are not out of range for several of the old bolt action enfields that alquieda and remnants of the taliban posses. this was one of the major problems that the russians encountered when fighting the musia hadeen using ak74's. what I would like to see the army doing is adopting somthing like the marine dmr, or re introducing the m14 in a limited role like the seals have been doing for several years. keep the m16 but atleast give each squad some form of long range hitting power.

#2. yeah why the hell do we teach rifle marksmanship anyway .

I thought the era of spray and pray died back in vietnam. I'll bet if you ask any combat vet, they would tell you it is better to make your shots coun't, than to just shoot like mad and hope you hit your target. especially if since most battles we fight take place in the enemies backyard and where they probably cached ammunition. I don't know about you but I don't wanna give away my possition to get resupplied, nor do I wanna have to risk a bird just because I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. even worse I really wouldn't want to risk being over run because I wasted all my ammo and couldn't be resuplied in time.
Link Posted: 10/5/2002 5:53:49 PM EDT
ps you want to know if a 5.56 will kill? look at the recen shooting in maryland. all of the victims were shot either in the back or in the chest cavity. if you look at the blood pattern of the woman who was shot in the back while pumping gas you can tell she dropped right away.

the awnser is yes they will kill.

Link Posted: 10/5/2002 8:54:15 PM EDT
ballistics is something i'm not very good at. but i do know that people who use the round are often times the best sources for what a round can do.

my anecdotal evidence for one of the cons of 5.56 comes from one of the Delta soldiers in Mogadishu. he repeatedly lamented the lack of stopping power (ability to stop the bad guy in a single shot) in the 5.56 round, having to use 3 and 4 shots per target instead of 1 and 2.

take this with a grain of salt because the circumstances are hardly scientific: 1) targets were pissed and prepared to die, determination can go far in reducing the effects of bodily injury; 2) who knows how well said Delta was in shot placement (though given his status as Delta, i'd bet not too bad)

however, my thoughts on the matter are as follows: as a lethal weapon, it's got great potential. and just about every shot will result in serious (messy) damage due to the fragmentation. but if it's nothing more than a really messy flesh wound...is it doing it's job?

which brings us to shot placement. hmmmmm. imagine that!
Link Posted: 10/6/2002 12:02:38 AM EDT
Will you guy's please not step in the bullshit, and not say it's a .223 untill they know for sure it was .223
Top Top