223/5.56: underrated or overrated?

Status
Not open for further replies.
overated

It seemed to me that the original question addressed the 5.56mm's overall rating as a cartridge, and just not the combat/military/LE use.

What is driving the .223/5.56mm is the popularity of the AR. With the advent of the affordable AR, and it's overall wide acceptance as a general purpose rifle by its many fans, the .223/5.56 has seen more use in the past decade or so than ever before. In terms of general purpose use, I think the popularity of the AR has thrust the .223/5.56 into enough areas where we can see the cartridges limitations and strengths better than we could twenty years ago.

Standard cup and core/HP/SP bullets allow common .223 sporter/varmint rig to take varmints out to 300 yds or more. Ammo is plentiful at this time, and allows practice at such range mimicking heavier calibers.

Modern bullets, and I'm talking here bonded/partitioned, monoalloy types,or heavy for caliber types, will allow the cartridge to take medium game( by that I mean deer/hogs) satisfactorily under ideal conditions and placed well. Other posts and wide experience (including my own with bamaboy as lad) prove that the .223 will take deer.

Get a long enough tube, with a fast enough twist, and needle like bullets, and I read you can punch paper in competition far better than when the cartridge first hit the scene some forty years ago. I dunno, say to 600 yds?

But.....the rifle and the cartridge are not the end all do all. And I think there are those who would have us believe that the AR /.223 is pretty close to that. There are cheaper plinkers (if we ever get ammo again) faster and flatter varminters, harder hitters for medium game upto and beyond whitetail size (nobody recommends the .223 as an elk rifle),and the bigger centerfires will take the competition to 1000yds and beyond.
 
Get a long enough tube, with a fast enough twist, and needle like bullets, and I read you can punch paper in competition far better than when the cartridge first hit the scene some forty years ago. I dunno, say to 600 yds?

But.....the rifle and the cartridge are not the end all do all. And I think there are those who would have us believe that the AR /.223 is pretty close to that. There are cheaper plinkers (if we ever get ammo again) faster and flatter varminters, harder hitters for medium game upto and beyond whitetail size (nobody recommends the .223 as an elk rifle),and the bigger centerfires will take the competition to 1000yds and beyond.
Click to expand...

Just going to point out that in Service Rifle, the AR in 5.56 dominates out to 600. And that's with 20" barrels and generally slower than Milspec twists (most Service rifle competitors are using a 1:7.7 or 1:8 twist barrel).

Other than that, pretty much spot on. It's not the best at any one thing, it was designed from the beginning as a military cartridge and that is where it does best. It has had a much tougher time making the transition to "sporting" use than the 30-06 and 308 (and 30-40 Krag and 45-70) before it, mainly because of the number of states that require 24 caliber centerfire or larger for hunting.

On the flip side of that though, very few people are going to argue for a cartridge optimized for elk as a standard issue infantry cartridge (and there are plenty of folks that insist the 308 Win is on the light side of elk cartridges).

Jimro
 
The cartridge is overrated from a technical angle, but not as an economic one as long as it is the standard and I can occasionally buy contract seconds or over-runs dirt cheap. If the US military had not adopted it no one would be talking about it. Since they did everyone will be for at least another 50 years.

I don't think it takes a genius to figure out an injury costs more than a death in warfair. Thump chests all you want, but wars generally end when one side runs out of one or more non-human resources. Gold, oil, steel, etc. The triangle bayonet was designed with a high maintenance wound as part of the consideration. That works both ways, so why would you tell a front line soldier?
 
johnwilliamson062

I don't think it takes a genius to figure out an injury costs more than a death in warfair.
Click to expand...

Once again, if you have ANY actual evidence to support the idea that the military wanted a bullet to "wound" the enemy by all means bring it up. I would be very interested in seeing that.

But given the history of the 30 Carbine and the reputation it developed, I'd say that the military already had a pretty effective cartridge at wounding but not killing the enemy (I still wouldn't want to get shot with a 30 carbine though).

Otherwise, please let that tired old "wound but not kill" myth die.

Jimro
 
The big problem with "wound not kill" is that a person who is only wounded is much less likely to be immediately incapacitated. It doesn't take much review of military records to note it's not uncommon for someone to get a purple heart or equivalent and a commendation for subsequently killing the enemy. This applies to your opponent too - leave them alive, and you may well come to regret it.

In the end it doesn't matter whether our intention was to make a round that produces insufficient wound effects. We did it (twice as Jimro points out). That's not a good thing. It's somewhat counterbalanced by the light weight and light recoil of the round, but not really.
 
Why would you want someone possibly still shooting at you even though they are wounded and not mobile?
 
kcub,

If you are tired of listening to an American on the subject, here is a Swede's take on 5.56x45 ammunition.

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=769

I honestly think the vast majority of the "doesn't kill" mythology surrounding the 30 Carbine and the 5.56x45 is really just a product of crappy marksmanship. The wire stock option for the M1/M2 Carbines didn't do the platform any favors in the marksmanship department, and the state of Army marksmanship training during Vietnam (when the M16 made its combat debut) was simply horrendous.

Jimro
 
Jimro's Linked Article said:
There has been small arms lethality discussions within NATO for several years, but to clarify things once and for all a NATO Workshop on Small Arms Lethality was hosted by the United Kingdom in February 2009 at their Defence Academy in Shrivenham. The conclusion was that shot placement is the most important parameter, and that this is achieved through good and realistic training.
Click to expand...

Shot placement? Who'da thunk?:D;):rolleyes:
 
I've been with people that missed a pig with a Big-Ole-Honkin of a caliber in a cartridge full of testosterone that I in turn followed up with a .223 and dropped it.

Same thing happened when I took my BIL coyote hunting, I pointed out a sitting coyote that would have been an easy shot for me. I let him take the shot and his .270 hit the dirt two feet to the left of the coyote. Of course I lied, and told him he hit it but it ran off, lol. I pretended to look for the carcass for a while.
 
As Brian said, shot placement is key. Other than that it is merely effective enough given all of its other benefits. I don't think anyone is trying to claim the actual round is more effective than 308. Given all its other benefits, it makes it a strong consideration.

By the same logic that bigger is better, why aren't we advocating that everyone carry 50 cals. That would be rediculous. However everything does have its place. If it were up to everyone's personal preference, and it is for sd, anyone should have what they can control and what they are comfortable with. I think peace of mind and effiency with whatever caliber is more important than caliber size. It's always a compromise and neither is right or wrong just different. I wouldn't feel disadvantaged with either but they do have their different limitations.
 
The big problem with "wound not kill" is that a person who is only wounded is much less likely to be immediately incapacitated.
Click to expand...
After fighting Moros in the Philippines and the failure to stop an attacker with 38 Colt revolvers, I doubt the US Army would ever intentionally subscribe to "wound not kill" doctrine.

It won't work very well today either when you need to drop a suicide bomber ASAP.
 
Sorry...

I'm not interested in the 5.56 x 45mm cartridge. Let's face it, the "poodle shooter" has become so ensconced in military life that to replace it will take a certified miracle. (This coming from an old VIetnam-era Navy man).

I'm with my late father (Underwater Demolition team/ Navy Rifle Team) on this one. A small, .30 Caliber rifle (M4 in 7.62 x 51) seems to be the way to go. To the devil with full-auto fire and concentrate on markemanship. I wish the miltary had stuck with the AR10 (the "original" AR before the AR15/M16). It reaches farther, shoots accurately and kills better.

That's life.
 
A small, .30 Caliber rifle (M4 in 7.62 x 51) seems to be the way to go.
Click to expand...
I'll agree with that. I think the LMT MWS the brits are issuing as a DMR or something of the same general dimensions and capabilities is a pretty ideal infantry weapon. It's the same size as an M4, and heavier but not nearly into machine gun territory. Add suitable marksmanship training and an appropriate optic, and you're good to go.

Full auto seems to be of very dubious military utility on personal arms.
 
I know that they wanted men to have the capability of carrying more ammuntion, but if shots are placed well, more ammunition won't be needed.

Marksmanship, marksmanship, marksmanship... Did I mention marksmanship?
 
Once again, if you have ANY actual evidence to support the idea that the military wanted a bullet to "wound" the enemy by all means bring it up. I would be very interested in seeing that.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to say they specifically did in this case. I'm saying there is rarely a negative to the enemy combatant surviving wounded and some benefit. Intelligence prospects of a corpse are limited also. It isn't that they wanted to wound the enemy and leave them alive as much as there is no real benefit to killing. Incapacitation is sufficient. I'm speaking generally, not specific to the 556. The goal isn't really to kill people. I mean, you might tell a soldier on the front lines that in order to get them into an extreme mental state, but the reality is, in all of history, there have been very few orders written to the effect of 'go into battle and kill x number of enemy.'

"doesn't kill" mythology surrounding the 30 Carbine and the 5.56x45 is really just a product of crappy marksmanship.
Click to expand...
I agree.

It doesn't take much review of military records to note it's not uncommon for someone to get a purple heart or equivalent
Click to expand...
Rare to what standard? That is wars with hundreds of thousands of casualties there are hundreds such cases? Now eliminate those cases where someone was hit by an intermediate cartridge, not disabled, but would have been disabled by a high powered round. They give purple hearts for any injury from the enemy. Many of them aren't for bullet wounds in the first place.

Why would you want someone possibly still shooting at you even though they are wounded and not mobile?
Click to expand...
If the people making these decisions were the people being shot at I am sure many of the decisions would change.
 
The nightmare scenario is not fighting an army of Shaquille O'Neals. It's being in Alamo mode and running out of ammo. In that scenario I want as many pounds of 223 as I can schlep vs. as many pounds of 308.
 
I know that they wanted men to have the capability of carrying more ammuntion, but if shots are placed well, more ammunition won't be needed.

Marksmanship, marksmanship, marksmanship... Did I mention marksmanship?
Click to expand...

Surely there are times when volume of fire is more important than marksmanship such as suppressive fire, no?

I'd imagine a lower quantity of ammo would limit that capability....
 
It is funny that people stress marksmanship in one breath and then immediately praise the 7.62x51 as "better."

Not a lot of 30 cal rifles taking home Service Rifle records any more. The "poodle shooter" has been dominating 600 yards and under across the course matches for decades now.
As far as less than match quality ammunition goes.... Everybody can't be a sniper. 3 to 4 MOA with standard military ball ammo is the norm for pretty much every military organization on earth (there are/were exceptions), so the effective range of engagement based on ammunition dispersion on target puts the 5.56 and 7.62 on equal footing. Only when you get to match loads can you get an extra 200 yards or so more than the 5.56x45 way on the back end of the engagement range (Mk262 goes subsonic just shy of 800 and Mk316 subsonic just shy of 1000).

The 5.56 won't carry the energy at any range that 7.62x51 will, but it will give anyone hit a pretty bad day. At distance, the 7.62 bullets just punch holes through tissue as well, very little in the way of anything beyond the permanent wound cavity. Sure it makes a bigger hole, and a bigger hole bleeds more, but an extremity hit from either is unlikely to be a fight stopper at long range.

Jimro
 
"Interesting discussion. I do remember hearing, in USMC basic training, that baloney about wounding being good for tying up more than one enemy combatant.
A

Our enemy doesn't put the value on life that we do and would leave their comrade to die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top