223/5.56: underrated or overrated?

[P71pilot]

I say the 5.56/.223 is over rated. I dislike the cartridge, always have, always will. To me it lacks in power, I could give a darn about bullet speed or trajectory, I like bullet Mass and diameter and momentum. I also hate the AR platform.

If I EVER got an AR, it would not be in 5.55, I would never own a .223/5.56.

Now the 6.8spc or 6.5grendel or .458 socom or .50 beowolf are more my taste, but then I don't really trust ARs in general. It would have to be piston operated and proven reliable/torture tested and passed

 

[Theohazard]

I say the 5.56/.223 is over rated. I dislike the cartridge, always have, always will. To me it lacks in power, I could give a darn about bullet speed or trajectory, I like bullet Mass and diameter and momentum.

And yet it's one of the longest-used calibers in military history, and -- like Jimro pointed out -- it has been adopted or copied by some of the most powerful militaries in the world. You may not like it, but countless military branches and police agencies around the world have decided it's the best overall choice for their needs.

I don't really trust ARs in general. It would have to be piston operated and proven reliable/torture tested and passed

You mean almost 60 years of proven reliability of the direct-impingement AR platform isn't enough? So you're saying it's simply a fluke that it's by far the longest-serving military rifle in American history and there's zero sign of it going away any time soon?

My M16A2 was extraordinarily reliable when I was in the Marine Corps infantry. And the various direct-impingement ARs I've owned since I've gotten out have been the most durable and reliable firearms I've ever owned. If had to go back in and deploy tomorrow and I could choose my issue rifle, I'd choose a DI AR platform rifle in 5.56mm, hands down.

Anyone who makes the claim that a properly-made DI AR rifle isn't extremely reliable has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. If you don't like the AR, that's just fine. But the 5.56 is a very successful infantry caliber and the AR design is extremely durable and reliable in all sorts of conditions.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Well, this thread has just convinced me to save up and buy another AR if possible.

I had to sell mine for various reasons, but I can say it performed flawlessly when I had it and I was impressed by the design of it, ergonomically and technically.

Big thumbs up, whilst wiping a tear away for my re-homed M400 somewhere in Southern Estonia...

 

[CaptainO]

Let's go back to "personal use".

How many of the "average" civilian (even us that have spent time shooting in the Military and long after) are going to be involved in extended firefights at 600 yards?

On a practical level, I think that perhaps a .30 caliber rifle at ranges up to 150 is doing to be more useful. It is highly likely that we will fire at our combatant a maximum of two times. IMHO, they will likely stop the agressor in short order.

I was taught to "double tap", move, looking for the next threat. (This is done in order to reduce my exposure to fire). If I have 20 rounds at my immediate disposal, that allows for ten cycles of to rounds fired before the rifle requires a magazine change. If I have two magazines in my possession, this will allow me to fire 20 cycles of "double taps". Unless were in a "battlefield scenario" it will probably be sufficient to either kill, or dissuade a small squad of "civilian-type" combatants.

 

[Tucker 1371]

Ok CaptainO,

First off you are assuming perfect accuracy in a high stress situation. That happens next to never, even Tier 1 operators miss occasionally.

Second, this:

it will probably be sufficient to either kill, or dissuade a small squad of "civilian-type" combatants.

"Probably Sufficient" doesn't work when my life is on the line. There is no such thing as enough ammo, the more you can feasibly have the better.

Moving on, we can safely say that LEOs and civilians in need of a rifle in a defensive scenario will have many of the same needs.

1. The odds that your threat is outside of the 5.56's useful range are VERY slim. Self defense is kind of hard to justify at over 500m.

2. Overpenetration and collateral damage are absolutely unacceptable due to the threat of criminal and civil liability afterward.

3. Maneuverability in tight quarters (a cruiser or truck, inside a house) are desirable traits for this rifle to have.

4. The ability to quickly administer follow up shots in a situation where threats may be ducking in and out of cover are also desirable characteristics.

5. Noise and muzzle blast are bad, exponentially so indoors, and should be mitigated.

Now... You tell me, what .308 rifle better fulfills these requirements than an AR15 or similar modern 5.56 rifle?

You can believe all you want that the 5.56 is a "poodle shooter" or that it isn't terminally effective, but there are a lot of dead bad guys that speak (or don't, actually) to contrary. Even conventionally constructed 5.56 FMJ bullets do horrifying things to ballistics gel. Rounds specifically tailored for personal defense needs are even worse.

Here is a quote from a report by US advisor to the South Vietnamese Army on the M16's effectiveness.

(2.) (C) “On 9 June a Ranger Platoon from the 40th nf Regt was given the mission of ambushing an estimated VC Company. The details are as follows: a. Number of VC killed: 5 b. Number of AR-15’s employed: 5 c. Range of engagement: 30-100 meters d. Type wounds: 1. Back wound, which caused the thoracic cavity to explode. 2. Stomach wound, which caused the abdominal cavity to explode. 3. Buttock wound, which destroyed all tissue of both buttocks. 4. Chest wound from right to left, destroyed the thoracic cavity. 5. Heel wound, the projectile entered the bottom of the right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip. These deaths were inflicted by the AR-15 and all were instantaneous except the buttock wound. He lived approximately five minutes.

sourced from http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/02/13/weekly-dtic-ar-15-vietnam-1962/

I doubt the wounds described were actually that extensive, quite likely there was some hyperbole involved in the writing of that report. But I do believe the advisors reporting liked what they saw enough that they wanted the rifle to stay in service.

Here is an excellent demonstration of what 5.56 55gr M193 FMJ is capable of.
http://youtu.be/6hJZdtPcVdE

**EDIT TO ADD**

Now if we're talking NON defensive personal use, i.e. Plinking, hunting, and target shooting, that brings up an entirely different set of requirements.

Advantages of 5.56-
-Cheaper to shoot and practice with
-Less recoil and therefore better to learn and develop good marksmanship skills on
-Less expensive rifle platforms chambered in 5.56 allow more money for optics and ammo

Advantages of 7.62 NATO/.308 Win
-hunting (although 5.56 is perfectly capable of taking Whitetail with judicious ammo selection and marksmanship and is much better for new or smaller statured hunters)
-better accuracy past 600yds due to higher BC bullets for long range competition shooting

 

[Pond James Pond]

I was taught to "double tap", move, looking for the next threat. (This is done in order to reduce my exposure to fire). If I have 20 rounds at my immediate disposal, that allows for ten cycles of to rounds fired before the rifle requires a magazine change. If I have two magazines in my possession, this will allow me to fire 20 cycles of "double taps". Unless were in a "battlefield scenario" it will probably be sufficient to either kill, or dissuade a small squad of "civilian-type" combatants.

By that logic, could one not argue that an AR platform would afford you 15 such engagements before a mag needed changing?

And it is easier to manoeuvre in a confined space...

I doubt there is much difference in affect on a person at such close range: both devastating: Images of 5.56 injuries are horrific in the damage inflicted: I would not want to be on the receiving end...

 

[rickyrick]

.223 is very devastating at close range as is anything similar in a small caliber with high velocity.

 

[wogpotter]

I see a lot of "fudging" from those in favor of the 5.56 round, with a lot of "up close" or "Bad Breath close" type ranges being mentioned. Hmmm "methinks she doth protest overly" comes to mind. Paper at 600 yds is not flesh at 10~20'

Also my point which is being sidestepped is that there is a world of difference between a thin sheet of cardboard & a 12" thick living organism.Lots of squirming I see, but all from the sub-caliber group who seem to need to limit range, penetration, target type & hole size in order to justify the faith.

Sure I wouldn't want to be shot with any of the calibers under discussion, but that includes the air guns & .22 RF so that's not really saying anything decisive is it?

 

[Jimro]

Also my point which is being sidestepped is that there is a world of difference between a thin sheet of cardboard & a 12" thick living organism.Lots of squirming I see, but all from the sub-caliber group who seem to need to limit range, penetration, target type & hole size in order to justify the faith.

I assure you that the 5.56x45 will in fact produce significant lethal results on a 12" thick living organism.

I assure you that even at 600 yards the 5.56x45 will have more energy than a 9x19 at the muzzle and will make sufficient holes in 12" thick living organisms, in face it is about the same energy as the 147gr 9x19 load at the muzzle....

All bullets are lethal, and inside a 22lr range, it will kill me just as dead as an elephant gun. Dead is a binary state, either you is or you isn't.

Jimro

 

[Tucker 1371]

I haven't "fudged" a single thing, in fact I've backed up everything I've said with evidence, so where's yours?

Paper at 600 yds is not flesh at 10~20'

Your point? That reads like an argument in favor of the 5.56. I did specifically mention that the 7.62 had the advantage on 5.56 past 600yds. I think everyone here has largely agreed that the 7.62 does have an advantage over the 5.56 past a certain range, and the military has figured that out, for the occasions we do get engaged by a threat from 600m (and that's about the max the Taliban could harass us from with a PKM) we have the M240 in every squad and occasionally have DM's with an M14 EBR or Mk11 (SR25).

Even still, that is more for accuracy reasons than anything else, the M249 SAW is considered effective on area targets out to 800m. I've made hits on groups of green Ivan pop ups with it at that range.

5.56 was perfectly lethal until it was adopted by the rest of NATO and the M855 was demanded by countries that
a.) Thought M193 was "inhumane" because of its devastating terminal effects
b.) The ability to penetrate a Soviet steel helmet at 600 yds was more important than terminal effectiveness in soft tissue.

Not that M855 is 100% ineffective, it's just inconsistent. That's why you read one or two stories from every conflict we've taken the M855 to about how 5.56 supposedly sucks because it failed to stop Somali Steve or Iraqi Bob this one time. This situation has been addressed and more lethal yet still barrier blind rounds are being adopted, M855A1 for the Army and Mk318 SOST for the Marines.

The "glory days" of the .30 cal battle rifle as standard issue are over, and never coming back. Even if you went back to those glory days I'm sure you can find a WWII vet or two who's Garand didn't stop a German one time. The 5.56 is here to stay, world wide it seems. As Jimro stated the Chinese and Russians have adopted similar rounds in the 5.45x39 and 5.8x42. I find it highly unlikely that three major world powers, have ditched .30 cal for an ineffective "poodle shooter" and stuck with it for over 50, 40, and 29 years (US, Russia, China).

 

[P71pilot]

I am a one rifle for everything type of guy. I do not have much money. I want my one rifle to be extremely reliable first and foremost (capable of feeding and firing any type of ammuntion, steel cased, lacqer Coated, soft point, hollow point, and also be extremely resistant to failures due to lack of cleaning/maintenance, and failures due to mud or dirt in the action). Next the rifle must have decent power, which to me is enough power to go all the way through an elk or black bear if shot broadside into the heart/lungs. And finally accurate, which to me is 4" or less 5shot groups at 100yds. My eyes aren't so good and the maximum distance I could even see a human without glasses is about 300-400yds.

I just don't like the 5.56 or AR and never will, I do not disrespect it, and I realize there are lots of militaries and police forces using it. I also don't like 9mm in a full sized gun, but respect it and don't want to be shot by one, and it also is used around the world by military and police.

I choose Kalashnikov, and prefer the 7.62x39 but would be content with 5.45 if it was in a genuine izhmash rifle

 

[gw44]

I came home with a new 243, and my dad said I hope that you did not buy that to hunt deer with, that was 50yrs ago, now if one of my son showed up with a 5.56 I would the same thing !!!

 

[JJ45]

The nature of warfare has changed over the last century.

The 30-06, 8mm, 303, 7.62x54r, etc. were designed with trench type war and similar battle scenarios where long range accuracy and striking power were considerations.... At that time CQB mean't the bayonet, rifle butt, entrenching shovel.....the longer, heavier shoulder arm was better at it.

WWII evolved into armored assault accompanied by motorized infantry where firepower became an advantage....that's why the German's fielded the STG 44, even over the initial reluctance of Hitler....the AK was developed with this purpose in mind 2 years after the end of the war.

The.308 (7.62 NATO) seems to be a transitional cartridge, caught in the middle.

We can't really own real military weapons (select fire or full auto) as the AR platform actually is. So IMO a bolt action scout type carbine such as the Steyr or Ruger is probably best for an individual civilian survivalst.

Vs multiple assailants, I would do my best to avoid at all costs so as not to risk a hit and live to fight another day.

 

[Tucker 1371]

JJ45,

The military retains the 3 round burst capability on their M16A4s and M4s but it goes largely unused. Even in 5.56 FA fire isn't very accurate and the same result can be achieved using controlled and hammer pairs, also referred to as double taps. The only useful place for full auto is from a bipod attached to a 15+ pound weapon being fired with the intent to suppress incoming fire or catch groups of targets in the open (My opinion only, FWIW). Thus this statement I take issue with.

We can't really own real military weapons (select fire or full auto) as the AR platform actually is. So IMO a bolt action scout type carbine such as the Steyr or Ruger is probably best for an individual civilian survivalst.

As I mentioned above the 5.56 is hardly used in full auto but is still highly effective as a defensive or offensive cartridge.

For a survival rifle the 5.56 will work but you'll be limited in the game you can take, nothing bigger than white tail deer. If hunting to survive was my primary concern I may go with a .308, or better yet a 12ga shotgun with a wide variety of ammo.

 

[JJ45]

Tucker...that's the point...military hardware is not available to us (now) civies.

So we don't own an AR, so to speak. A major concept of the "assault rifle", was at least, the ability to put down a volume of suppressive fire by motorized troops supporting armored vehicles.

Of course the tactics of Viet Nam and the desert as well as urban combat need also be taken into account, not just battle formations that would have been the rule in Europe.

I have been hunting deer for many years. Certainly the .223 will kill deer. But so will the .22LR (sound familiar)...in my neck of the woods, if you don't anchor a deer quickly or don't have a decent blood trail to follow, you may not find it, tracking skill aside....but I don't think deer killing is the primary purpose of the survivalist.

As well as a "scout rifle" a good SKS and the use of 10 round strippers would give you a better round for penetrating barriers and vegetation and eliminates the need of detachable mags that catch on vegetation, what to do with when empty, keeping separate loaded from empty, maintenance, lees conducive to prone shooting etc....you don't have burst or select fire from your AR anyway which was ONE of the main features of the AR and the assault rifle cartridges when conceived.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Certainly the .223 will kill deer. But so will the .22LR (sound familiar)

A sling and stone has probably killed a few too...

I think the point is getting diluted. The OP was all about it being over- or underrated.

There are certain things that .308 will do better than .223 (effect on larger targets, greater range without losing efficacy) and no one disputes that and there are things that .22LR will do better (carried capacity, weight of the weapon) which again is not something that people refute.

However, the .223 has significant cross-over into both these realms of superiority to make it a very good multipurpose round.

It may not be everyone's favourite, but I find it hard to understand how some seem not to recognise this pretty wide range of competencies:

It is apparently deadly on mid-szed targets out to 600m (which means regular hunting ranges are easily within its remit), available in fairly light, reliable rifles that can carry 30 in the mag yet not be unwieldy, another 6 mags would be heavy but not unmanageable, and it provides the ability to take rabbits (head-shots only, I think) to deer which covers everything from a meal over a campfire to a fortnight's worth of meat for a family. Recoil and trajectory make it easier to use for a range of abilities and users: novices to experts, lightly-built to well-built.

That is a pretty wide scope.

It may not be the best stopper ever, but it is close enough to meet most likely scenarios. It may not be the lightest, but it is light enough to carry/store plenty.

That is a pretty good jack-of-all-trades for most of the needs a civilian could ever be confronted with and beyond.

Not recognising this breadth of abilities does qualify it as an underrated cartridge IMHO.

 

[wogpotter]

The "glory days" of the .30 cal battle rifle as standard issue are over, and never coming back.

So the reason the troops in Iraq & so on want a "better rifle" is what exactly? A Rifle is in essence a long range weapon, if it cant do long range its not a good weapon.

 

[Jimro]

So the reason the troops in Iraq & so on want a "better rifle" is what exactly? A Rifle is in essence a long range weapon, if it cant do long range its not a good weapon.

That is ironic considering Tucker1371 and I have actually been troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the USMC finally adopted the M4 as the general issue rifle for the USMC Infantry last year (replacing the M16A4). It's like you are so tone deaf that you don't realize you are saying, "don't rely on your own experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan! I'll tell you what your opinion should be cause even though you were their your experiences don't support my argument!!!"

At every level of war you want the right mix of capabilities. Every once in a while that right capability is a 7.62x51 rifle that weighs twice as much as an M4 when loaded, and carries half the ammo for weight.

At the strategic level we need things like nukes and stealth bombers and billion dollar aircraft carriers. At the operational level of war we need things like heavy mech brigades and an air operations cell with fighters and tankers and AWACs and drones. And things like air defense artillery with a theater ballistic missile defense system all the way down to Stinger units that it can use to control air corridors.

At the tactical level we need young American men and women without adequate adult supervision to kill the enemy, and those men and women sometimes carry M4s, M16s, M110s, M14s, M107s, M500/M590 shotguns, M249s, M240Bs, AT-4s, Javelins, SMAWs, XM25s (now to be type classified and adopted Army wide), M9s, M11s, MP5s, Mk20s, Mk17s, and sometimes they mount M2s, Mk19s, or use vehicle based cannons like 25mm, 30mm, 105mm, and 120mm. And sometimes they use indirect fire like 60, 81, 120mm mortars, or 105 or 155mm artillery.

In this big selection of available weapon systems, it is important to remember that the right mix of systems is what is important. Having a 30 cal battle rifle won't do you any good when a horde of BMPs starts rolling in on your position. Nor will having a Javelin system do you any good if the enemy is strafing you with a frogfoot.

The M4 is not an ideal weapon because there is no such thing as an ideal weapon. Platonic ideals exist only to allow us to understand that things can be improved. And the M4 can be improved, but the question then becomes "by how much and at what cost?" And we have clearly passed the realm of diminishing returns for replacing the M4. It just isn't cost effective to do so because there isn't anything out there that is worth it. Even then the replacement still won't be ideal.

The Army has been working on lighter weight replacements for the M2, but considering how well they've served, it doesn't make sense to fix what ain't broken. http://bearingarms.com/world-warcold-wargulf-war-veteran-retire-94-years-service/

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things the Army should upgrade, but across the entire "ecosystem" of weapons, I'd pick the TOW and Javelin missiles as more important, the Stryker 30mm upgrade as more important, the BFV 30mm upgrade as more important, the next gen thermal sight (MDS) upgrade for the Apache helicopter as more important, the transition of sniper rifles from 7.62x51 to 300 Win Mag, the acquisition of better, lighter, more secure radios, lighter but stronger body armor and helmets, upgraded armor for our medium trucks, and upgraded field communications for command and staff with LOS redundancy with low probability of intercept antenna designs. Upgrading to something other than the M4 is less needed than almost anything else in the pipeline.

If I had my way, I'd cancel the current pistol trials as well. No point in just getting yet another 9mm when we already have two in the inventory (M9 and M11).

Jimro

 

[wogpotter]

In a military situation I can see that.
However the average civilian isn't in a military situation & so can't count on all the tactical, logistic & other support.

Its of topic to me as we're discussing the caliber & its performance, so the support behind it isn't really addressing the issue.
The question was the adequacy (or not) of the 5.56mm round, not tactical deployment of other assets.

 

[Tucker 1371]

I think you missed Jimro's point wog, to break it down:

For 75% of situations the individual rifleman will encounter in combat the 5.56 round is nearly ideal. For those other 25% we retain a 7.62 belt fed (M240) and 7.62 scoped rifle (M110, M14, Mk11) to handle the situation. If it gets bad enough that that combination can't do it, you probably need fire support... Or a lot of 40mm.

On the civilian side there are even fewer instances where I would consider the 7.62 to be superior to the 5.56... Like hunting deer and...... Yeah that's about it.