Have we regained (or exceeded) Stoner's .223's original effectiveness?

Floating barrels, Wylde 223 match chambers and 2 stage match type triggers greatly improved the platform. I have an old A2 that I might get 2" group with it. The rest of my ARs float, have Wylde chambers and match 2 stage triggers. All <moa. Just be sure floating forearms have holes or heat will build up.
 
By and large The Atlantic wrote a good article on the M16 rifle.

1. The US Army made some serious changes to the M16 rifle and it's ammunition. The Army ignored Gene Stoner in making those changes. The most serious was the change to ball powder.

1. With ball powder the rifle ran much dirtier.

2. Ball powder burned in the gas tube.

3. The cyclic rate increased from the designed 850 rounds to 1,000 rounds per minute. Malfunctions happened twice as often with ball powder.

The M16 became a very good rifle with the M16A2. Then along came the M4 with other problems.

Here is the link to the Ichord committee report on the M16 rifle. i've read it through several times:

https://archive.org/details/M16IchordReport1/page/n11/mode/2up
 
Last edited:
The army ignored Stoner in favor of manufacture who had financial leverage (bribes) over congressional oversight? Or, someone was not very smart. I am still mystified why the manufactures cannot make ss109 projectiles more accurate?
 
Unfortunately, technology advances lightyears before production. By the time anything reaches the public or military, it is already obsolete.
 
What I have read, which may well be wrong, is that they chose the .223 because it was less likely to kill people. The idea is that a wound removes at least two people from action, while a dead soldier can be ignored during a battle. If this is true, then the .223 is a sorry choice for home defense, because a private citizen needs to incapacitate as quickly as possible. You need something that kills people fast.

I have been an AR-15 owner for almost a month now. The seller, who also manufactured the gun, told me to get a chamber brush before leaving the factory. He said dirty chambers are why AR-15's fail to extract.

I've bought dozens of guns, and no one has ever felt the need to warn me that any other gun was going to malfunction. To me, that said the AR-15 still had problems.

I keep a Vz58 or an AK by the bed. The AR-15 is just for fun. I don't trust it.

AR-15 ammo is really confusing. We are told not to use varmint ammo for self-defense, but Hornady makes TAP Urban, which is really varmint ammo in a different box, for law enforcement. As a new AR-15 shooter, I can't make any sense out of the ammo picture, and I kind of wonder if anyone else has.
 
http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/is-there-a-problem-with-the-lethality-of-the-5-56-nato-caliber/
1. The 5.56 round -- especially coupled with the M4 platform -- is a superb battle rifle/system in a combat environment
2. The 5.56 military round (or any of the 55gr & up) hunting rounds will kill you (and anyone else) deader than a doornail -- right there/right then.
3. The modern M4/M16 AR variants will shoot all day long and into the night with minimal maintenance -- just don't do a dozen mag dumps at the range and go home/leave the bolt carrier group/carbon to turn into Concrete-in-the-Closet over the next 6-9 months.
4. Shot wet/the M4/AR15/16 innards literally wipe clean with a paper towel.
5. Save for other shooters occasionally having problems with steel-cased Eastern Bloc ammunition -- which I never recommend in do-or-die situations, I have never encountered a stoppage from chamber conditions,

YoungSon is alive after 7 combat tours & multiple firefights each tour due to the M4.
When asked, his response was "no complaints"
 
Last edited:
The 5.56mm round was absolutely not designed to wound.

Been shooting 5.56mm ammunition from AR-15/M16 series rifles since about 1965. My godson recently retired from US Army special operations with 11 combat tours since 9/11. He has no complaints about the M4/M16 weapons.


mehavy is correct, the round is capable of killing a person graveyard dead right on the spot. The 55 grain bullet of the M193 military round has killed dozens of large hogs for me.

Military surgeon Martin Fackler treated wounded troops during the Vietnam war. He later ran the US Army wound ballistics lab.

The M193 round:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?...martin+fackler+on+wound+ballistics&ajaxhist=0




The M856 round:


https://www.bing.com/images/search?...martin+fackler+on+wound+ballistics&ajaxhist=0
 
Last edited:
What I have read, which may well be wrong, is that they chose the .223 because it was less likely to kill people. The idea is that a wound removes at least two people from action, while a dead soldier can be ignored during a battle.
Click to expand...

The entire "chosen because its less likely to kill" thing is BULLCRAP. It's an armchair expert's assumption, based on the bean counter's defense of the light caliber weapon. They came up with the "wounded guy takes 2 or 3 guys out of action" as a justification that the small caliber round would not just still be military effective, but was actually better because you carried more rounds and each round could take 2 or 3 guys out of battle.

This idea is not 100% false, but its a long, long way from being 100% true.

The idea of a wounded solider, needing a medic and a couple of guys to carry the wounded guy/stretcher is valid, but one works in the real world when you are fighting people who place the same approximate value on their troops lives that we do.

When fighting Soviet/Chi-com type human wave attacks, and Asians with a cultural ethos of "death before dishonor", or anyone who isn't an organized military with a medical component in action, its a moot point.

We have, and are fighting people who mostly only treat their wounded AFTER the battle, IF they can.

When you're fighting a "civilized" war by the old European rules, and the other side is ALSO doing that, THEN the "wounding takes 2+ guys out of action" MAY apply. When you aren't, that "benefit" of the light caliber weapon is lost.

If this is true, then the .223 is a sorry choice for home defense, because a private citizen needs to incapacitate as quickly as possible. You need something that kills people fast.
Click to expand...

this needs some correction, especially in terms used.

A private citizen does need to incapacitate an attacker as quickly as possible. BUT, they don't need "something that kills people fast".

BECAUSE, private citizens are NOT authorized to kill. Ever. This may seem like a minor point of language, but its not a minor point in the law.

A private citizen can be justified using deadly force to STOP an attacker. Not kill them. If they happen to die, as a result of being stopped, that's their tough luck. It's a quirk of our language, and the way the law interprets it, but it can have huge legal consequences if you use the "wrong" words.

You shoot to STOP the attack. Nothing else. If you say you only meant to wound, that is admitting you did not believe deadly force was justified, and that changes self defense into assault, at a minimum.

If you "shoot to kill" that changes justifiable self defense into premeditated murder. It may not be what you meant, but the law will take what you say at face value (THEIR face value) and charge you, accordingly.
 
AR-15 ammo is really confusing. We are told not to use varmint ammo for self-defense, but Hornady makes TAP Urban, which is really varmint ammo in a different box, for law enforcement.
Click to expand...

TAP Urban is designed for a very specialized role where limited penetration is a major concern and it is being used by teams of assaulters with rifles and wearing rifle plates and armor. If you don’t understand what the limitations are, your best option is to use any barrier-blind round (Gold Dot, TSX, GMX, M855A1, TBBC, etc.) designed for the velocities out of your barrel.

As a new AR-15 shooter, I can't make any sense out of the ammo picture, and I kind of wonder if anyone else has.
Click to expand...

https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top