Concerned about lethality of .223/5.56

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Te Anau

New member
Was watching a show several days ago on the Military channel where a guy was talking about how ineffective 5.56 was and has been on adversaries in Somalia and Afghanistan and it got me thinking that my whole "coming chaos" strategy is extremely flawed.If I'm going to have to hit someone rushing my home multiple times in order to turn them away,I can do that with a .22lr just as easily as .223/5.56 and I can stockpile 5500 rounds of .22lr for the cost of 1000 rounds of steel case .223 or 600 rounds of brass case .223
See below

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/lethalty.html
&
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html

I intend to keep my .223 rifles just to cover my bases,but my days of stocking up on .223 when I can are over.Yesterday I picked up a 525 round bulk pack of Federal .22lr and this will be my new focus.
 
This one's been beat to death. The military is still using it after all these decades and they seem to be doing fine with it. However, if you don't like the .223/5.56, you are free to step up to a bigger bore. There's lots to like in several bore sizes.
 
I just read the 1st link.

I am not going to bother reading the 2nd.

Go with what makes YOU feel confident in your ability to defend yourself. Remember Mindset, Tactics, Skill, then Gear.

That being said. If you are going to base your decision on information like this:

The .41 and .45 caliber bullets knock over a person and make large holes that cause heavy bleading and damage to any organs they encounter. The shock of the projectile hitting a person is very likely to knock the person out.
Click to expand...

:confused:

You should probably do more research.
 
The "Guy" on the history channel is probably an idiot. The 223 works as well if not better than most any other round at reasonable ranges. The larger rounds such as 308 that some want our military to use offer better peformance at long range.

As far as not stopping guys with the 223, sometimes, some guys just don't want to die. There are plenty of examples of US soldiers being shot multiple times with the 7.62X39 and continuing to fight as if they were not hit.

If you go back to WW-2 and Korea there are lots of examples of enemy soldiers being shot with the 30-06 or 308 that still didn't go down. Sometimes it just takes multiple hits and having more rounds available is never a bad idea.
 
So if the .223/5.56 is ineffective, the .22lr is better? Seems that logic might be flawed also although I can appreciate the price difference between stockpiling .223 and .22lr. Seems to me if you're concerned about the ineffectiveness of .223 then you should be stepping up to a larger caliber not stepping down to a rimfire. Personally I wouldn't be overly concerned about it, the .223 should be plenty effective if you need it and any gun is better than no gun in a crisis.

Stu
 
What I'm saying is this.If some thug is headed toward my house with bad intentions and I'm going to have to hit him several times to make him stop heading my way,I can do that many more times with 5500 rounds of .22lr than I can with 1000 rounds of .223
Crow Hunter should have read the second link.
 
I agree with PawPaw. If the round was ineffective I don't believe the military would keep using it for so long.
True, it's not the best at long range but for what you want it is just fine.
 
I"m a big 308 lover, but still think that for anything under 300 the 5.56 will do most that you ask it to. I think in this particular case the real worry should be shot placement, and possibly bullet type. Throw in some hollow points and make sure you hit em somewhere important on the first shot.
 
You are right, Te Anau. YOU ned a .22 for home defense given that a .22 lr and 5.56 NATO round have the exact same performance. I am surprised that nobody noticed this sooner. :rolleyes:
 
The owner of my hunt club hit a coyote with a 300 win mag and it ran 60 yards before dying. Some things don't go down easy.
 
Much of the marginality of the .556 the military uses is due to the limitations they work under.

A 75 grn hollow point is much more effective than the 55 & 62 grn ball ammo the military is limited too.

I prefer other rounds for most hunting applications, but have high confidence that my AR loaded with 75 grn hollow points along with the Eotech XPS2 would be VERY effective for home defense.
 
Actually I think YOU are missing the point. If you want to stockpile LR, no one is stopping you. If you want to spend a buck in ammo to stop a perp, no one is going to get in your way. Different strokes for different folks.

If you just want to pick a fight, well, there's a lot of people who will be happy to oblige. But comparing the .22 LR and 5.56 NATO in this manner is just silly.
 
Okay. I read it. Sort of... As soon as I read the term "knock down power" my eyes kind of glazed over. There is no such thing.

F=mA

If it knocks down a human target, it knocks down a human shooter.

Still doesn't change my stance. Go with what makes you feel confident.

If .085 inch larger diameter holes makes you feel more confident. Go with a .308 or a 7.62X39. Or .0447 inch go 6.8SPC.

There is no "magic bullet" out there.

If you are "confident" with a .22LR. Use that. Just keep in mind that .22LR bulk pack is notorious for failure to feed/fire due to inconsistent loading.

If you want to do some more research, go to Lightfighter.net and do some reading. (Don't ask this question there;))

Pat Rogers has an interesting account of his experience with the M14 and some VC during his time in SE Asia there. There are also lots of direct accounts from the current conflict available there as well.

(There is a reason he advocates the M16FOW)
 
You have the luxury of choosing your projectile design and composition. Our military does not because they are handcuffed by a bunch of feel-good hippies that believe someone shot dead with a full metal jacket is morally superior to someone shot dead by a jacketed hollow point.
Also, if ridiculous garbage like what crow hunter posted is included in your "source" I'd be finding a better source.
 
"...handcuffed by a bunch of feel-good hippies that believe someone shot dead with a full metal jacket is morally superior to someone shot dead by a jacketed hollow point..."

I wasn't aware that the Hague Convention was writte by hippies, or that they even existed back when it was written.
 
Te Anau, you have a level head. I typically agree with almost anything you post.

In this case, I feel you're overlooking something. In my view in order to stop the bad guy, the round has to hit a nerve center to make them unable to move, achieve an instant kill which makes them unable to attack, or break the skeleton rendering them unable to move.

Injured people can still harm you regardless of what you shot them with. Given the choice between .22 LR to do any of the above, and 5.56, I will choose the 5.56 all day long and twice on Sunday. Your standpoint is that it will require you to fill some evil-doer full of lead if you shoot them with a 5.56, and this is true of the .22 LR as well. Respectfully, on the one hand if you do your part shooting, it seems obvious that the 5.56 will be a superior choice if the alternative is .22 LR. On the other, it seems logical to me that your chances of fulfilling any of the three requirements I mention above is lessened if you rely on .22 LR
 
The second article is a good analysis of the problem - but, points more to the choice of bullets than caliber of the round. As was pointed out previously, the military is required to use full metal jacket rounds, which do in fact, punch holes and don't expand.

You, as and individual and not part of an army, are free to use any bullet type you'd like. Rather than using FMJ, try some hollow points - they don't pass through things, they expand and stop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top