223/5.56: underrated or overrated?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

Lets address this point by point.

1, Tactical support, if your pistol is "good enough" for self defense then by extension so is 5.56x45 for "tactical" civilian use.

2, Logistical support, 5.56x45 is cheaper to buy AND cheaper to handload than 7.62x51. When it is on your own dime and your own time, you are logistically better shooting 5.56x45 in any situation except big game hunting. If you are supporting yourself you can still carry more 5.56x45 in a smaller, lighter package than you can a 7.62x51 option.

3, other support, right now the cost of a quality 5.56x45 platform is much cheaper than the equivalent 7.62x51 platform in semi-automatic form because lots of people are buying AR-15s and not so many AR-10s (although the 10s are growing in popularity). The parts to repair your AR-15 are plentiful and available from multiple vendors with many different options.

4, The caliber and its performance is fine for self defense, varminting, and hunting deer or hogs with appropriate bullets from an appropriate twist barrel where legal to do so.

5, if we are addressing the "adequacy" but divorcing the conversation away from the situations where "adequacy" is defined, it seems like you want to have it both ways, either you want to bring up Iraq and Afghanistan until people with experience there tell you how things were, or you don't want to bring up Iraq and Afghanistan because it doesn't support your argument. The 5.56x45 isn't an elk cartridge, but neither is the 30-30 when it gets down to it and I don't think a 30-06 or the 30-06 Short (aka the 308 Win) is necessary for personal defense for any civilian situation you come across not involving a bad Hollywood script....

6, we get it that you aren't a fan of the 5.56x45 round. However that doesn't change the fact that the 5.56x45 solution is working here and now in a lighter, handier platform than anything we have in 7.62x51. There are still some situations where 7.62x51 IS a better option, such as living in bear country, big game hunting, or Palma competition. If those situations don't apply to you, then maybe 5.56x45 isn't so bad after all.

Jimro
 
Last edited:
Watching 5.56 fans dance around the garbage terminal ballistics is hilarious. If it's not suitable or legal for a 90lb deer, it's certainly not going to be my choice for a 250lb human. If you LIKE being right on the edge of inadequacy to save a few ounces or a few dollars, well, more power to you. I'll take something I KNOW will work.
 
Well, I've seen its terminal effects in combat...
I've seen it hunting as well. Works so good on pigs that I quit using anything but .223 in hog eradication in Texas. Unless something has magically changed in the last two years, I still stand by the usefulness of .223/5.56. I've seen plenty of it that I wish I hadn't.

Of course there's a range limitation... I don't plan to claim self defense at any distance further than me to the front door.
 
Horses for courses. You're right, I don't like the 5.56/.223 round as I don't feel it does what I need & as I cant get full auto 7.62, 40mm grenades, or 155 mm howitzers for that matter I'll stick to my 7.62 in hog & bear country, which is where I go in the Ozarks.

If I ever feel that 300Lb drunken bulls-eyes are a realistic threat I'll rethink my choice though!
:p
 
Last edited:
Old Soldiers are incredibly loyal to the hardware they used. Serving Soldiers are the same. They always come up with reasons not to change. I think for the retirees, changes in equipment just increases the distance between their memories and the active Army. I have talked to many retirees, they miss stuff like running in formation, being part of a unit, the comradery. They really resent uniform changes, I think because many joined after looking at a recruiting poster and they don't want that image to change. They are also loyal to their trucks and tanks and side arms.

So, in retirement they argue for no change. Not that it makes any difference what they think or say, for unless they are in the service now, they are not real Army. They were real Army at one time, but not anymore.

Anyway, 60 years ago the same sort of tempests would have occurred on the web, if there was a web then, between those who used the 30-06 and did not see a reason for change. Actually, it would have gone back to the end of WW1 when the Ordnance Corp was forward leaning and realized that a better combat round than the 30-06 was needed. The 30-06 was long and automatic weapons were the future. Long cartridges add un necessary weight and make for a slow cyclic rate. The rim was thin, which is fine for bolt guns, but a thicker rim is harder to pull off, and automatic weapons will pull rims off. It is too bad, but the Army should have adopted the 276 Pedersen, but did not. I am of the opinion it was due to ingrained attitudes against change that you find on the Infantry Board. After WW2, it became apparent that the 30-06 had to go, but the Army did not want a round of lesser power. The 7.62 Nato pushes a bullet the same velocity as the issue 30-06, it is just shorter.

I am of the opinion the 223 was a mistake and the ballistic studies that justified it were a fraud. You can read the history on the web. However, I have pulled targets with many a veteran, some claim that people they shot, never got up again. One, who was a battalion scout sniper, he said that over 100 yards, those hit with the M4 "just did not stay down.". He preferred his scoped m14. The 7.62 is not the lighting bolt of God, but it does carry more zap, the cases are heavier, so the combat load is less, and that was important to one Vietnam Veteran. He said the combat load for the 7.62 was 200 rounds but the 5.56 was 400. I asked him if he had ever fired 400 rounds in a day, and he had! Must have been one hairy day!!!! However, the picture he carried, was of himself with his M14E2. He loved that weapon, it really rocked and rolled.

By the way, as for accuracy, I asked Bud just how he sighted in Vietnam and what sort of accuracy he expected, and he said "minute of oil drum". To mean, at the time, if his weapon hit an 55 gallon oil drum at 50 yards, he considered it sighted in!
 
Watching 5.56 fans dance around the garbage terminal ballistics is hilarious. If it's not suitable or legal for a 90lb deer, it's certainly not going to be my choice for a 250lb human. If you LIKE being right on the edge of inadequacy to save a few ounces or a few dollars, well, more power to you. I'll take something I KNOW will work.
Click to expand...

Not a "fan", Jimro and myself are just witnesses to its effects on human targets. And the thicker the person the better 5.56 actually works due to having more time to fragment, so your 250lb man argument is invalid. Also your deer argument is invalid, I've seen plenty of deer larger than 90lbs taken with 5.56, if you need a .300 win mag to take a deer at 100yds because you're a terrible shot that's your problem, not the cartridge.

Btw, I put a 165gr .308 Federal TBT right under a 90lb doe's left armpit at a distance of maybe 40yds and she ran about 150yds. No cartridge is infallible.

Slamfire:
You can pretty much find whichever version of history you like on the web. One thing I find interesting about the M16's adoption was that nobody was complaining about the round doing its job. They were complaining about the M16's reliability. Plenty of reports suggest the M16 was plenty lethal with M193 ammo when it ran, so much so that, apparently, when it came time for the rest of NATO to adopt it several European nations objected to the M193 cartridge as "inhumane". So... There's the version of history I was able to hunt down with Google, who's got something better? I've yet to see someone back up their theories about the .308 with something better than what is essentially a "bigger is better" argument. If that were the case we would still be using .45-70 Sharps rifles.:rolleyes:
 
I've been thinking about this thread....An individual survivalist vs military are apples and oranges.

In Vietnam when grunts got caught in a poop storm they called in air or artillery strikes.... if feasible and at all possible

If you ran out of ammo, magazines, or your weapon broke, you had armorer/supply support or buddies in the field to fall back on.

The civie doesn't have that kind of support. Probably not even anything close to squad rifle support to rely on.

What then is the best weapon? Is the 5.56 over or underrated in this capacity? I would say the weapons reliability and the rifleman's ability are more important than any choice of caliber.
 
Is there a 5.56/.223 loading that will NOT tumble or NOT fragment, or NOT veer way off course inside the target, that can be fired accurately from a standard 1:9" twist rifling barrel? This is the main reason I don't like this cartridge, I want my bullet to drill in as straight a path as possible through as much meat and bone as possible. Every .223/5.56 loading I have seen tested either fragments, veers horribly off course, or tumbles like a field goal kicked football.
 
The partition is probably the best available bullet in terms of terminal characteristics.

And yes, .223 terminal performance is horrible, especially with ball and penetration rounds. Tumbling is actually an improvement over what it wants to do, which is punch a .22 hole and move along.
 
You can pretty much find whichever version of history you like on the web. One thing I find interesting about the M16's adoption was that nobody was complaining about the round doing its job. They were complaining about the M16's reliability.
Click to expand...

The Army was not collecting information about the unreliability or lack of lethality of the M16. One Vietnam Veteran here, wrote he worked in Communications, and that all the messages that dealt with M16 failures were classified "TOP SECRET". This would indicate the Army wanted to bury all negative information on the M16, and from what we know, (read the book The Gun) that is exactly what the Army did. It stood by its Contractors and let good American Boys die with jammed rifles in their hands, because it represented the interest of its Contractors over the interest of its troops.

I have talked with Bud's who had anecdotal stories on the lack of stopping power of the M16. Like all anecdotal stories they can be dismissed. One bud told me how his squad was arranged to ambush VC coming down a trail. Bud was prone with a sling and down the trail comes a VC holding a AK47. Bud said he put the post in the middle of the VC's chest and double taps him. We of course asked "What Happened?". Well the VC threw down his rifle and ran back up the trail! At which point the ambush squad, ran the other direction down the trail! Anyway, hear enough stories like this, and I don't have a lot of faith in the 5.56 round.

I never heard the WW2 generation share the same sort of stories about the 30-06, 303 Brit, 7.7 Arisaka, or 8mm Mauser. One Bud, a USMC Rifle Team member prior to fighting in the Frozen Chosin, those human wave attacks, as fast as he put the post on them, pulled the trigger of his Garand, the Chinese fell.

Based on Louis LaGarde's book, Gunshot Injuries: How They are Inflicted, Their Complications and Treatment, Civil War weapons produced worse wounds than the service rifles of 1900. That is something to think about, how things would look after a Minie ball the size of a thumb hit someone.
 
Last edited:
Love the cartridge a lot, personally just think the whole AR craze is overrated. I donot own a AR nor plan to. I am a bolt action guy for most calibers and such and the .223 is awsome to me in a bolt gun. So much more conservative , better performance and accuracy by design(which can vary vs the type of ar or upgrades but dollar for dollar the bolt action does that better) and versatility. I know that the .223 was designed around that platform and military use is that but it's not just ARs only. Yet many people think that or act that way about it. When I decided to get my first .223 in a bolt people told me all sorts of crap and tried to sway me otherwise. However I am much more happy with the bolt, for longer barrel, accuracy conservation of ammo and variety of useage. Your typical 1000$ ish AR is mil spec and best used shorter barreled for plinking , tactical or such. Not for performance of the round, twist rate being for tactical ammo and only advantage is semi auto in "tactical ". There's a big tactical craze nowdays and how many people actually engage in tactical besides law enforcement or military? Even still people gotta have it or use it to be cool or just the only form of shooting is to mindlessly mag dump ammo. I have 10x more fun myself precision shooting with 5 rounds at a time in my bolt thank you and don't waste tons of ammo doing so.

I think it's more people being hung up on ARs than the round IMHO. Not realizing the round has a lot of great use in other types of guns. Or the mentality .223 is a weakling no good for much when it's not true they don't try to think outside the box or try to stretch things. A lot of people use ARs with stub barrels and low power optics maybe 100-200 yards and mag dump then say the round is dumb. Not saying that's always bad to do or not a way to shoot but it's a very narrow part of it. Whereas I have a 4x16 scope on my .223 and I try to do with various loads and types of shooting anything I've researched the round can do and then my own experimentation.
 
Lange, that's a very narrow minded view. I only have access to a 100yd range, and I enjoy shooting the AR carbine for groups using the irons. No mag dumps, thank you.
 
I was the biggest resistor to AR type rifles. I love bolt guns and still do.
But I could no longer deny the versatility and ergonomics of the rifle.
I can order anything I want to configure anything that I desire. Heck, I could make one a straight pull bolt gun if I wish.

I'm a varminter and a pig hunter at heart, and that I'll remain till death, even if I never hunt again. .223 will remain at the center of that, even in defense of my home. That's because I know that it's good enough and I can afford buckets full of ammo to feed the guns that I do own.

I do have .308, .303 shotguns and others; they will get bypassed as I grab my .223.... That's if my pistol is somehow out of service.

We can debate military applications all day, but tomorrow I'll buy another few hundred rounds of .223 to add to the stash. They will feed more than just ARs.
 
There's a big tactical craze nowdays and how many people actually engage in tactical besides law enforcement or military?
Click to expand...

How many actually engage in trench warfare? Bolt guns are a previous century's tactical. Someday today's tactical will be archaic.
 
I think it's more people being hung up on ARs than the round IMHO.
Click to expand...
Exactly the opposite. The round is dubious unless you've got raccoons to shoot. But the AR platform is great. If the popular chambering was something like a 6mm WOA we'd be singing its praises not only for the capabilities of the rifle but for the lethality and long range capability of the load.
 
I've been thinking about this thread....An individual survivalist vs military are apples and oranges.

In Vietnam when grunts got caught in a poop storm they called in air or artillery strikes.... if feasible and at all possible

If you ran out of ammo, magazines, or your weapon broke, you had armorer/supply support or buddies in the field to fall back on.

The civie doesn't have that kind of support. Probably not even anything close to squad rifle support to rely on.

What then is the best weapon? Is the 5.56 over or underrated in this capacity? I would say the weapons reliability and the rifleman's ability are more important than any choice of caliber.
Click to expand...

The civilian won't also find him or herself fighting charlie in the jungles of southeast Asia, or terrorists in the sandbox of the middle east, on the orders of Uncle Sam.

To be honest I think a lever action 30-30 is dang near the perfect combination of handy to use, adequate firepower, and cost of ammunition for most civilian uses. Sure it isn't the best at any given thing, but it is adequate for most (obviously the big bear country in Alaska or Canada is outside the realm of "adequate"). It isn't a long range option by any means, but most situations, EVEN COMBAT, aren't generally long range.

Of course the sales of 30-30 ammunition keep holding steady, so plenty of other people must see the value of a moderate power and recoil cartridge in a light handy platform.

Jimro
 
To be honest I think a lever action 30-30 is dang near the perfect combination of handy to use, adequate firepower, and cost of ammunition for most civilian uses.
Click to expand...

Which is ballistically similar to 7.62x39 so maybe an AK or SKS. Someone should make a scout rifle that takes SKS stripper clips.
 
There's a BIG difference between 5.56 and .30-30 though. Roughly 50% more energy, up to 3x the bullet weight with corresponding higher sectional densities, and soft point bullets that radically improve terminal performance (which exist in 5.56 but are rare in anti-personnel applications).

If it was easy/common to get .30-30 performance in an AR15, we'd be talking about a VERY different gun.
 
Last edited:
Which is ballistically similar to 7.62x39 so maybe an AK or SKS. Someone should make a scout rifle that takes SKS stripper clips.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, although although the 7.62x39 sucks at longer ranges where the 5.56x45 does well.

For anything under 150 meters, they'll all do fine for most anything. But no cartridge is going to be perfect for everything.

Jimro
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top