How can ANYONE say the 5.56 round is weak!?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How can ANYONE say the 5.56 round is weak!?

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:22:29 PM EDT

There was some corrugated pipe where I was shooting today. This stuff is at least 3/16 to 1/4" thick steel and the pipe was 4' in diameter.

Disclaimer: Do not attempt this yourself! I am 10' tall and ricochet proof, your not!

At a distance of 5yds both 9mm and .45 bounced right off every time. 5.56 on the other hand BURNED/MELTED right through it! In fact it left a hole almost half again its size upon entry. This was done at the 5yds and 70yd mark.
Penetrating the other side was rather difficult for the Winchester 55gr round. One of us sat back and watched down the pipe (from a good distance) to see fragments go through the second wall and hit the ground on the other side, other times just it just didn't go through.

I use to buy into the hype that 5.56 was a weak round. Over time I have slowly realized that it isn't and today convinced me. Realistic combat ranges being under 400-500 meters I have no doubt that 5.56 performes as intended. Even if the round doesn't fragment theres definitely penetration and shock caused. I was just looking at those holes and imagining what that would do to flesh, bone and vitals.

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:24:21 PM EDT

[#1]

5.56 IS weak compared to other RIFLE rounds - like 7.62x51mm. .308 or .30-06 will tear through stuff that can stop 5.56.

Comparing a rifle round out of a long barrel to a pistol round out of short barrel is apples and oranges.

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:26:29 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Comparing a rifle round out of a long barrel to a pistol round out of short barrel is apples and oranges.

Even at near point blank range I expected the 9mm to go through. I fired the .45 and thought "Alrighty then, thats interesting, I bet 9mm will do it!" I was wrong wrong wrong!

I'm actually not comparing the rifle to the pistol rounds performance, I was just surprised the 9mm didn't at least puncture somehow.

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:29:29 PM EDT

[#3]

how'dja like to try a little underwater bumpfiring?

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:30:18 PM EDT

[#4]

NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN

Just a suggestion: Take it to the ammo forum

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:30:51 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
how'dja like to try a little underwater bumpfiring?

Thank God Darwin took the day off!!

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:31:53 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
how'dja like to try a little underwater bumpfiring?

Hehehe! That would be just a good as doing this------->

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:33:52 PM EDT

[#7]

Journal of Forensic Sciences:
Great controversy has surrounded the replacement of the 7.62-mm caliber by the reduced 5.56-mm caliber as the standard U.S. military rifle. Although its relevance to human wounding can be debated, the terminal ballistics of military small arms in ordnance gelatin remains a convenient medium for comparative testing. In the present study, 7- by 10- by 24-in. (18 by 25 by 61 cm) blocks of 20% ordnance gelatin were fired upon from a range of 19 ft (6 m) under high-speed cinemagraphic surveillance. The tendency of the M193 5.56-mm full metal jacket projectile to break up in soft tissue simulant was confirmed as a fundamental difference from the 7.62-mm M80 NATO ball.

Against soft targets 5.56 is optimal within effective ranges.

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:35:08 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
how'dja like to try a little underwater bumpfiring?

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:37:44 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Journal of Forensic Sciences:
Great controversy has surrounded the replacement of the 7.62-mm caliber by the reduced 5.56-mm caliber as the standard U.S. military rifle. Although its relevance to human wounding can be debated, the terminal ballistics of military small arms in ordnance gelatin remains a convenient medium for comparative testing. In the present study, 7- by 10- by 24-in. (18 by 25 by 61 cm) blocks of 20% ordnance gelatin were fired upon from a range of 19 ft (6 m) under high-speed cinemagraphic surveillance. The tendency of the M193 5.56-mm full metal jacket projectile to break up in soft tissue simulant was confirmed as a fundamental difference from the 7.62-mm M80 NATO ball.

Against soft targets 5.56 is optimal within effective ranges.

When surveyed 1 billion foreigners said they didn't like the 5.56 ball ammo as it left dead people laying everywhere it was used.

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:37:58 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

I use to buy into the hype that 5.56 was a weak round. Over time I have slowly realized that it isn't and today convinced me. Realistic combat ranges being under 400-500 meters I have no doubt that 5.56 performes as intended. Even if the round doesn't fragment theres definitely penetration and shock caused. I was just looking at those holes and imagining what that would do to flesh, bone and vitals.

Ok, now that you're done speculating I'll give you a first hand account of what it really does after a tour in Ramadi and Fallujah..... What you saw first hand is the short coming of the round. It is TOO fast. During alot of our intial engagments we thought we missed the bad guys....until we found them a day or two later in the hospital with several small "icepick" holes in them. 62grain round out of a 1:7 barrel is TOO fast. Contrary to the myth we are not looking "to wound them" so "4 people instead of 1" is taken out of the equation. BULLSHIT. If I'm shooting it's to STOP THE THREAT. I don't care if you live or die....so long as you stop doing what ever it is you are doing at that moment to threaten me. 5.56 is not such a bad CALIBER.....but the 62gr in a 1:7 is a bad bullet and bad twist. 45-55gr Open tip match or 45-55gr hollowpoint is not so bad.....or better yet the APLP (after personal testing I can say this IS the magic bullet it's all cracked up to be).

So in closing, what you saw was evidence to illustrate what a poor round it is, not evidence for it's "performance".

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:41:06 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
So in closing, what you saw was evidence to illustrate what a poor round it is, not evidence for it's "performance".

Remember the Iraqi RPG guy who sat out in the open? Did you see his arm break and twist as he leaned down on it? That was 5.56 out of the SAW I believe. If the round breaks bones I'd call that effective.

Posted: 10/30/2004 6:01:26 PM EDT

[#12]

Any deficiency with 5.56 is related to BULLET DESIGN.

62 gr. M855 is designed for penetration and not expansion. It's a somewhat fortuitous that it expands or fragments at all at relatively close range.

The 55 gr. FMJ tends to be better against soft targets because it's high velocity, out of the 20" barrel at least, tends to make the bullet fragment. But again, the FMJ design of the bullet is a limiting factor.

I believe that using controlled expansion bullets in 5.56 would great increase stopping power. AP ammo could and should be used against lightly armored targets. But, for the war we are fighting now, expansion in soft targets is what is needed.

Hornady's TAP ammo would fit the bill until perhaps a new design is developed.

Adhereing to the silly Geneva convention rules against "expanding bullets" is holding us back and getting troops killed.

Posted: 10/30/2004 6:06:55 PM EDT

[#13]

At what ranges were the engagements? Was this with M16s or M4s?

Quoted:

Ok, now that you're done speculating I'll give you a first hand account of what it really does after a tour in Ramadi and Fallujah..... What you saw first hand is the short coming of the round. It is TOO fast. During alot of our intial engagments we thought we missed the bad guys....until we found them a day or two later in the hospital with several small "icepick" holes in them. 62grain round out of a 1:7 barrel is TOO fast. Contrary to the myth we are not looking "to wound them" so "4 people instead of 1" is taken out of the equation. BULLSHIT. If I'm shooting it's to STOP THE THREAT. I don't care if you live or die....so long as you stop doing what ever it is you are doing at that moment to threaten me. 5.56 is not such a bad CALIBER.....but the 62gr in a 1:7 is a bad bullet and bad twist. 45-55gr Open tip match or 45-55gr hollowpoint is not so bad.....or better yet the APLP (after personal testing I can say this IS the magic bullet it's all cracked up to be).

So in closing, what you saw was evidence to illustrate what a poor round it is, not evidence for it's "performance".

Posted: 10/30/2004 6:13:30 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
5.56 IS weak compared to other RIFLE rounds - like 7.62x51mm. .308 or .30-06 will tear through stuff that can stop 5.56.

Comparing a rifle round out of a long barrel to a pistol round out of short barrel is apples and oranges.

Well, yes and no.

Q. Isn't 7.62 NATO much better for long range penetration than 5.56 anyhow? Why would I want to use 5.56 when I could send 7.62 downrange instead?
Well, yes and no. For some penetration mediums like mild steel, M855 is actually superior. Consider a recent research report:

The SS-109 can penetrate the 3.45mm standard NATO steel plate to 640 meters, while the 7.62mm ball can only penetrate it to 620 meters. The U. S. steel helmet penetration results are even more impressive as the SS-109 can penetrate it up to 1,300 meters, while the 7.62mm ball cannot penetrate it beyond 800 meters.

The current production 7.62×51mm NATO ball cartridge has remained unchanged since its adoption by NATO in 1953. As typified by the U. S. M80 ball and the Belgian M77 ball, this cartridge propels a 147-grain cupronickel-jacketed lead bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps (848 mps). Total cartridge length and weight are 2.80 inches and 386 grains, respectively. Utilizing a standard 22-inch barrel with a rifling twist of one turn in twelve inches (M14 rifle), the maximum effective range of the 7.62×51mm ball cartridge is listed as 620 meters (682 yards). The U. S. M80 and the Belgian M77 ball projectiles can penetrate the standard NATO 3.45 mm (.14 inch) thick steel plate up to a range of 620 meters and can penetrate one side of the U. S. steel helmet up to a range of 800 meters (880 yards). In barrier and fortification penetration tests, the 147 grain ball projectile can consistently penetrate two test building blocks.

The new SS-109 cartridge propels a heavier 62-grain semi-armor piercing projectile at an initial velocity of 3,050 fps (924 mps). The improved projectile contains a 10-grain .182 caliber hardened steel penetrator that ensures penetration at longer ranges.

The new projectile can penetrate the standard NATO 3.45mm steel plate up to a range of 640 meters (704 yards) and one side of the U. S. steel helmet up to a range of 1,300 meters (1430 yards). In tests of barrier and fortification penetration however, the steel penetrator of the SS-109 could not pierce any of the test building blocks.

The primary advantages of the intermediate power 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge are summarized as follows: (1) the penetration and power of the SS-109 version are superior to the 7.62mm NATO and more than adequate for the 300-meter average combat range documented in actual battle (ORO studies): (2) the lower recoil generated by the 5.56mm cartridge allows more control during full automatic fire and therefore provides greater firepower to the individual soldier; (3) the lesser weight of the 5.56mm ammunition allows the individual soldier to carry more ammunition and other equipment; (4) the smaller size of the 5.56mm ammunition allows the use of smaller, lighter and more compact rifles and squad automatic weapons and; (5) the lethality of the 5.56mm projectile is greater than the 7.62mm projectile at normal combat ranges, due to the tendency of the lighter projectile to tumble or shatter on impact. In summary, the 5.56mm NATO provides greater firepower and effectiveness than the larger and heavier 7.62mm NATO. 5.56-mm NATO ammunition weight only 47% as much as 7.62 mm NATO ammunition.

However:

These comparisons however, do not consider the fact that the SS-109 uses a semi-armor piercing, steel-cored projectile, while the 7.62mm ball uses a relatively soft antipersonnel, lead-cored projectile. A semi-armor piercing 7.62mm caliber projectile, using second generation technology as the SS-109, would easily outperform the smaller SS-109 projectile in penetration tests at all ranges. With respect to barrier and fortification penetration tests, the 7.62mm ball projectile can consistently penetrate two test building blocks, while the SS-109 semi-armor piercing projectile cannot penetrate a single block.

www.ammo-oracle.com

Posted: 10/30/2004 6:18:59 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Adhereing to the silly Geneva convention rules against "expanding bullets" is holding us back and getting troops killed.

that's not in the Geneva convention.

Posted: 10/30/2004 6:20:22 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
5.56 IS weak compared to other RIFLE rounds - like 7.62x51mm. .308 or .30-06 will tear through stuff that can stop 5.56.

Comparing a rifle round out of a long barrel to a pistol round out of short barrel is apples and oranges.

Well, yes and no.

Q. Isn't 7.62 NATO much better for long range penetration than 5.56 anyhow? Why would I want to use 5.56 when I could send 7.62 downrange instead?
Well, yes and no. For some penetration mediums like mild steel, M855 is actually superior. Consider a recent research report:

The SS-109 can penetrate the 3.45mm standard NATO steel plate to 640 meters, while the 7.62mm ball can only penetrate it to 620 meters. The U. S. steel helmet penetration results are even more impressive as the SS-109 can penetrate it up to 1,300 meters, while the 7.62mm ball cannot penetrate it beyond 800 meters.

The current production 7.62×51mm NATO ball cartridge has remained unchanged since its adoption by NATO in 1953. As typified by the U. S. M80 ball and the Belgian M77 ball, this cartridge propels a 147-grain cupronickel-jacketed lead bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps (848 mps). Total cartridge length and weight are 2.80 inches and 386 grains, respectively. Utilizing a standard 22-inch barrel with a rifling twist of one turn in twelve inches (M14 rifle), the maximum effective range of the 7.62×51mm ball cartridge is listed as 620 meters (682 yards). The U. S. M80 and the Belgian M77 ball projectiles can penetrate the standard NATO 3.45 mm (.14 inch) thick steel plate up to a range of 620 meters and can penetrate one side of the U. S. steel helmet up to a range of 800 meters (880 yards). In barrier and fortification penetration tests, the 147 grain ball projectile can consistently penetrate two test building blocks.

The new SS-109 cartridge propels a heavier 62-grain semi-armor piercing projectile at an initial velocity of 3,050 fps (924 mps). The improved projectile contains a 10-grain .182 caliber hardened steel penetrator that ensures penetration at longer ranges.

The new projectile can penetrate the standard NATO 3.45mm steel plate up to a range of 640 meters (704 yards) and one side of the U. S. steel helmet up to a range of 1,300 meters (1430 yards). In tests of barrier and fortification penetration however, the steel penetrator of the SS-109 could not pierce any of the test building blocks.

The primary advantages of the intermediate power 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge are summarized as follows: (1) the penetration and power of the SS-109 version are superior to the 7.62mm NATO and more than adequate for the 300-meter average combat range documented in actual battle (ORO studies): (2) the lower recoil generated by the 5.56mm cartridge allows more control during full automatic fire and therefore provides greater firepower to the individual soldier; (3) the lesser weight of the 5.56mm ammunition allows the individual soldier to carry more ammunition and other equipment; (4) the smaller size of the 5.56mm ammunition allows the use of smaller, lighter and more compact rifles and squad automatic weapons and; (5) the lethality of the 5.56mm projectile is greater than the 7.62mm projectile at normal combat ranges, due to the tendency of the lighter projectile to tumble or shatter on impact. In summary, the 5.56mm NATO provides greater firepower and effectiveness than the larger and heavier 7.62mm NATO. 5.56-mm NATO ammunition weight only 47% as much as 7.62 mm NATO ammunition.

However:

These comparisons however, do not consider the fact that the SS-109 uses a semi-armor piercing, steel-cored projectile, while the 7.62mm ball uses a relatively soft antipersonnel, lead-cored projectile. A semi-armor piercing 7.62mm caliber projectile, using second generation technology as the SS-109, would easily outperform the smaller SS-109 projectile in penetration tests at all ranges. With respect to barrier and fortification penetration tests, the 7.62mm ball projectile can consistently penetrate two test building blocks, while the SS-109 semi-armor piercing projectile cannot penetrate a single block.

www.ammo-oracle.com

My bad for not being more specific. I was talking about a FMJ vs. FMJ comparison between the .223 and the heavier .308 or .30-06.

The penetrator core of the ss-109 does level the playing field a lot - but it's still interesting that the ss-109 doesn't penetrate a single building block, but the 7.62 can penetrate both. So in terms of buildings and stuff, the 7.62 is deifnitely better for getting at people who are hiding behind walls, or beneath windows, because you can still reach them.

Posted: 10/30/2004 6:27:13 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Adhereing to the silly Geneva convention rules against "expanding bullets" is holding us back and getting troops killed.

that's not in the Geneva convention.

Umm, then explain why we don't use expanding ammo?

Ok, learned something, but you could have not been such a prick about it and just explained it.

"Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body" adopted at the First Hague Peace Conference of (29 July) 1899 which states:

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."

It's still idiotic not to use expaning ammo against soft targets.

Posted: 10/30/2004 6:29:58 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Umm, then explain why we don't use expanding ammo?

We want to kill them

yet not hurt their feelings

.

Posted: 10/30/2004 6:33:49 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I use to buy into the hype that 5.56 was a weak round. Over time I have slowly realized that it isn't and today convinced me. Realistic combat ranges being under 400-500 meters I have no doubt that 5.56 performes as intended. Even if the round doesn't fragment theres definitely penetration and shock caused. I was just looking at those holes and imagining what that would do to flesh, bone and vitals.

Ok, now that you're done speculating I'll give you a first hand account of what it really does after a tour in Ramadi and Fallujah..... What you saw first hand is the short coming of the round. It is TOO fast. During alot of our intial engagments we thought we missed the bad guys....until we found them a day or two later in the hospital with several small "icepick" holes in them. 62grain round out of a 1:7 barrel is TOO fast. Contrary to the myth we are not looking "to wound them" so "4 people instead of 1" is taken out of the equation. BULLSHIT. If I'm shooting it's to STOP THE THREAT. I don't care if you live or die....so long as you stop doing what ever it is you are doing at that moment to threaten me. 5.56 is not such a bad CALIBER.....but the 62gr in a 1:7 is a bad bullet and bad twist. 45-55gr Open tip match or 45-55gr hollowpoint is not so bad.....or better yet the APLP (after personal testing I can say this IS the magic bullet it's all cracked up to be).

So in closing, what you saw was evidence to illustrate what a poor round it is, not evidence for it's "performance".

I'm betting range was over 150 yards/ using an M4. The reason the round doesn't fragment very well out of an M4 at 130 yards plus is that it doesn't carry enough velocity to, thus making the ice pick like hole you described.

Also, M855 was designed primarily for added penetration at longer ranges, and not for added fragmentation.

Before you respond, here is the www.ammo-oracle.com for your pleasure.

Posted: 10/30/2004 6:38:57 PM EDT

[#20]

Well the reason that the M855 will not penetrate the building block is presisly because of its tendancy to fragment. At close range, the round is going so fast that it will fragment on striking a hard surface. There will be very little penetration at under 25m. Optimum penetration occurs at 200m.

Quoted:

My bad for not being more specific. I was talking about a FMJ vs. FMJ comparison between the .223 and the heavier .308 or .30-06.

The penetrator core of the ss-109 does level the playing field a lot - but it's still interesting that the ss-109 doesn't penetrate a single building block, but the 7.62 can penetrate both. So in terms of buildings and stuff, the 7.62 is deifnitely better for getting at people who are hiding behind walls, or beneath windows, because you can still reach them.

Posted: 10/30/2004 6:42:17 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Ok, now that you're done speculating I'll give you a first hand account of what it really does after a tour in Ramadi and Fallujah..... What you saw first hand is the short coming of the round. It is TOO fast. During alot of our intial engagments we thought we missed the bad guys....until we found them a day or two later in the hospital with several small "icepick" holes in them. 62grain round out of a 1:7 barrel is TOO fast. Contrary to the myth we are not looking "to wound them" so "4 people instead of 1" is taken out of the equation. BULLSHIT. If I'm shooting it's to STOP THE THREAT. I don't care if you live or die....so long as you stop doing what ever it is you are doing at that moment to threaten me. 5.56 is not such a bad CALIBER.....but the 62gr in a 1:7 is a bad bullet and bad twist. 45-55gr Open tip match or 45-55gr hollowpoint is not so bad.....or better yet the APLP (after personal testing I can say this IS the magic bullet it's all cracked up to be).

OH GOD...please make it stop.

This is the exact same argument I got into somewhere else. Thank you for your service, and I'm glad you made it back..but just because you shot someone doesn't mean you understand ballistics or why the round didn't work. As evidenced by what you wrote above.

Posted: 10/30/2004 6:44:14 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ok, now that you're done speculating I'll give you a first hand account of what it really does after a tour in Ramadi and Fallujah..... What you saw first hand is the short coming of the round. It is TOO fast. During alot of our intial engagments we thought we missed the bad guys....until we found them a day or two later in the hospital with several small "icepick" holes in them. 62grain round out of a 1:7 barrel is TOO fast.

Actually, while M855 DOES have stopping-power problems some times, most are due to it going too SLOW. In order to fragment reliably, M855 needs to be traveling +/- 2700 fps. or more. Sometimes (due to exiting the body too early, improper construction, or just random variables) it does not fragment, but this is NEVER because it is going TOO fast.

Also, no small arms bullet will deliver 100% "one-shot-stops."

Posted: 10/30/2004 6:55:10 PM EDT

[#23]

The frag threshold for the M855 out of an M16 is 120yd. Out of the M4 it is only 65yd.

Posted: 10/30/2004 7:13:38 PM EDT

[#24]

Even at near point blank range I expected the 9mm to go through. I fired the .45 and thought "Alrighty then, thats interesting, I bet 9mm will do it!" I was wrong wrong wrong!

I'm actually not comparing the rifle to the pistol rounds performance, I was just surprised the 9mm didn't at least puncture somehow.

There is a reason many police are now using .40 caliber, 9mm is pathetically underpowered. A SWAT officer once told me that he was firing a 9mm weapon at the head of person that was attacking him. Three rounds did not penetrate this person’s skull. He had to drop the barrel and fire into the BG’s groin to stop him. He is using an M4 now. I think one round to the head with a .45 or 5.56 would probably be sufficient in most any situation.

Posted: 10/30/2004 7:15:24 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Adhereing to the silly Geneva convention rules against "expanding bullets" is holding us back and getting troops killed.

that's not in the Geneva convention.

Umm, then explain why we don't use expanding ammo?

Ok, learned something, but you could have not been such a prick about it and just explained it.

"Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body" adopted at the First Hague Peace Conference of (29 July) 1899 which states:

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."

It's still idiotic not to use expaning ammo against soft targets.

the US didnt sign this treaty anyway.

Posted: 10/30/2004 7:17:28 PM EDT

[#26]

Wow I didnt know this was the ammo forum.

Posted: 10/30/2004 7:29:12 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Adhereing to the silly Geneva convention rules against "expanding bullets" is holding us back and getting troops killed.

that's not in the Geneva convention.

Umm, then explain why we don't use expanding ammo?

Ok, learned something, but you could have not been such a prick about it and just explained it.

"Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body" adopted at the First Hague Peace Conference of (29 July) 1899 which states:

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."

It's still idiotic not to use expaning ammo against soft targets.

the US didnt sign this treaty anyway.

Christ you fucking hard-ons I KNOW THAT!

I never fucking said we signed it.

I said we adhered to it anyway!

The US does not use "hollowpoint" or "expanding" ammo officially in war.

Fuck! Ass!

And while you pedantic boobs are pointing out minutiae about the Geneva/Hauge conventions, you don't have anyting constuctive to add re the ammo discussion at hand.

It is because we use 5.56 ammo (.223 calibre--very small bullet) that does NOT EXPAND or fragment beyond about 100 yards that there is the perception that the calibre itself is deficient.

It is the BULLET design and politics that are keeping this issue alive.

Let the military itself choose, and we'd have a better bullet design (well, might have anyway).

Posted: 10/30/2004 7:41:30 PM EDT

[#28]

Use the 77gr M262. ...prob solved.

Posted: 10/30/2004 7:58:29 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Adhereing to the silly Geneva convention rules against "expanding bullets" is holding us back and getting troops killed.

that's not in the Geneva convention.

Umm, then explain why we don't use expanding ammo?

Ok, learned something, but you could have not been such a prick about it and just explained it.

"Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body" adopted at the First Hague Peace Conference of (29 July) 1899 which states:

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."

It's still idiotic not to use expaning ammo against soft targets.

I think that non-expanding bullets kills CIVIES more too. The purpose of the Conventions was to limit civie and military casualties that they felt were particularly inhumane.

Now, a ball round that hits your target will not drop the guy: it will likely WOUND him and pass through him. What it WILL do is mushroom or fragment slightly and then end up in the civilian BEHIND your target, in a more-lethal state than it was before.

Another example of unintended consequences.

I personally think that the safest ammo for anyone other than the INTENDED target is limited armor-piercing frangible ammunition, also illegal under Geneva Conv. Devastating on initial-impact soft-target. Will penetrate one hard target and disintegrate immediately behind it. Won't ricochet.

I carry the stuff in my CCW gun because it will not only end the threat the bg poses but protect others around from overpentration, ricochet, etc. Obviously, I still will do my best to only shoot with appropriate backstop, etc. but in a combat situation, the ammo is the BEST, IMHO.

Posted: 10/30/2004 8:08:54 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

OH GOD...please make it stop.

This is the exact same argument I got into somewhere else. Thank you for your service, and I'm glad you made it back..but just because you shot someone doesn't mean you understand ballistics or why the round didn't work. As evidenced by what you wrote above.

If you are thinking about the thread I am thinking about - no, it is not. Many people in THAT thread were quite knowledgeable about the rounds in question, and had all done extensive testing - and I doubt any would say the M855 is "too fast."

The only thing I know for sure, is that I have yet to meet any APLP detractors who have ever tested the ammo themselves.

Posted: 10/30/2004 8:54:57 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:

OH GOD...please make it stop.

This is the exact same argument I got into somewhere else. Thank you for your service, and I'm glad you made it back..but just because you shot someone doesn't mean you understand ballistics or why the round didn't work. As evidenced by what you wrote above.

If you are thinking about the thread I am thinking about - no, it is not. Many people in THAT thread were quite knowledgeable about the rounds in question, and had all done extensive testing - and I doubt any would say the M855 is "too fast."

The only thing I know for sure, is that I have yet to meet any APLP detractors who have ever tested the ammo themselves.

Maybe that's because WE CAN'T GET ANY.

Posted: 10/30/2004 9:05:25 PM EDT

[#32]

5.56 is devastating if the round tumbles and breaks up. I shoot prarie dogs with M193 and if you get a thru hit from the front the round blows the dog about six feet in the air. Pretty much busts them open like a melon. Instant death.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How can ANYONE say the 5.56 round is weak!?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us