M193 question

P

Polinese

New member
Was doing a bit of reading and I read on the super reliable wikipedia that M193 wasn't adopted by nato because of the horrific wounds it caused in Vietnam... is there any actual truth to this?
 
Sounds like a myth. In spite of a lot of printed nonsense, all soldiers know that the purpose of a rifle bullet is not to shoot off the enemy's boot laces, or exert gentle persuasion on his psyche, but to kill him. The better a bullet does that, the better it is.

Jim
 
yeah.... I'll call that a wikimyth.

nato uses the SS109 which if I'm not mistaken is a 62 grain FMJ. as I understand it the M193 was retained as a cheaper to produce alternative that uses less materials. the US is the only one to use M193 because the rest of nato became too heavily invested in SS109 and felt that we should conform to them rather than the rest of them conforming to us.
 
Last edited:
I kind of assumed it had to be a myth even with the whole ban on expanding ammunition but just wanted to get some verification.
 
The M193, 55 grain bullet does have an excellent reputation at ranges under 200 yards due to it's tendency to fragment into many small fragments, which do extensive damage to organs from the many fragments penetrating organs.
The bullet does not "explode" it fragments.

Here's some good info on the fragmentation wounding abilities of the M193 and a picture of one fragmented into over 150 fragments in ballistic gel.

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m193orm855.html
 
The M193, 55 grain bullet does have an excellent reputation at ranges under 200 yards due to it's tendency to fragment into many small fragments, which do extensive damage to organs from the many fragments penetrating organs.
The bullet does not "explode" it fragments.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

i've killed numerous wild hogs with the M193 round; some weighing over 300 pounds. IME: At ranges less than about 175 yards, when fired from a 20" or longer barrel, that bullet penetrates 5-7", yaws 90 degrees and fragments. Those fragments often shred the heart, lungs and diaphragm.

Hogs hit in the heart/lung area often bang flop.
 
IIRC
The 855 was developed to increase penetration of soft body armor and extend the range of the M249 SAW. Doing so decreased the on target performance of the short barreled 5.56 carbines many troops are issued.
 
So which is better in your home defense carbine (16" to 16.5" barrel)?

If you mean which is better, M193 or M855, the M193 will be better at closer home defense ranges due to the fragmentation effects.

If you want to know what 5.56 ammo is best for home defense, that would be a soft point, expanding sporting bullet load.
Here's some good info on "the best":

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/
 
The "night gun" is an 11.5" AR equipped with light and laser and loaded with Federal AE 50 grain JHP. Bad guy @ 10' or coyote in the moonlight @ 100 yards works the same. I have better choices for longer ranges or holster carry but this one definitely covers the bases around the house and yard.
 
I wouldn't put a lot of faith in Wiki, who, like the History channel usually get the major facts right, but often get the minor ones wrong.

And anything they say about not adopting the 55gr .223 due to "horrific wounds in Vietnam" seems like pure BS to me.

The original ammo for the 5.56mm was the 55gr bullet. The 62gr "penetrator" load was developed later, after it was discovered that Warsaw Pact forces were beginning to wear "bullet proof" vests (now called body armor). The heavier bullet, with its (steel) penetrator insert was designed to defeat these vests, without technically being armor piercing ammo.

NATO was slower to adopt the 5.56mm than we were. By quite some time. And, the main threat to Europe in the last 50 years was the Warsaw Pact.

Not sure of the exact timing, but NATO was firmly committed to the 7.62 NATO round for its rifles until after the 62gr 5.56mm came out. They never had a desire or need for the 55gr 5.56mm (which doesn't mean it was never used, just that it wasn't the preferred standard).

When they finally did shift from 7.62 to 5.56 for their infantry rifles, and facing the Warsaw Pact, adopting the 62gr round (over the 55gr) only made sense.
 
Interesting, if you look at the footnotes for the statement,
The wounds produced by the M193 round were so devastating that many[12] consider it to be inhumane.[13][14]
Click to expand...

Two of them refer to "International Legal Initiatives to Restrict Military Small Arms Ammunition, W. Hays Parks∗ Copyright 2010 by W. Hays Parks" and footnote makes the claim that "Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Romania, Samoa, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. as parties that consider the 55 gr M193 round to be inhumane"

Well, that document is available from the U.S. Defense Technical Information Center here:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkBHaysParks.pdf

And that is not what the document actually says. Only one nation argued against the M193, Sweden:

International Legal Initiatives to Restrict Military Small Arms Ammunition W. Hays Parks∗ Copyright 2010 said:
First was Sweden’s opposition to United States’ support for the Government of the Republic of Viet Nam against the war being waged against it by the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam. Although that conflict had ended, the U.S. M16 rifle in part was seen as symbolic of that war and one of many weapons critic ized by Sweden during that conflict.

Second, exaggerated terminal ballistics claims by Colt to sell their weapons to the U.S. military provided Sweden and other perpetual U.S. critics political “ammunition” to challenge the legality of the U.S. 5.56x45mm cartridge and weapons systems, alleging “inhumane” wounding.

Finally, the Swedish arms industry had its 4.5x26R MKR assault rifle under belated development for the on-going NATO second rifle caliber competition. Realizing the U.S. 5.56x45mm caliber and other competing cartridges (the Belgian 5.56x45 SS-109, French 5.56x45mm steel case with M-193-type projectile, Netherlands M-193 type, British 4.85mm and German 4.7mm) had a head start in consideration, the 5.56 “legality” issue was intended to slow the second rifle caliber decision as Sweden continued development of its candidate. It became all for naught when NATO adopted the 5.56x45mm (Belgian SS-109) as its second caliber on October 28, 1980.
Click to expand...

Switzerland later complained about the 5.56 round in general, not the M193 in specific.

There is some other stuff in there on how the ICRC was trying to get into the international lawmaking business. Interesting read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top