Small Caliber Lethality: 5.56mm in CQB

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
This article was originally published in Infantry magazine and discusses the Army's evaluation of 5.56mm ammunition in close-quarters battle.

I thought it would be a good article to share here because it explains why several ideas behind terminal ballistics are really nothing more than myths and because 5.56mm is a popular caliber for home defense and law enforcement, and this particular study examined its use in very similar circumstances.

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf
 
I've only read the conclusions paragraph... but I personally would venture to say small caliber high velocity rounds are very lethal. If you remove the fmj restriction from the conversation, expanding (or basically exploding at that velocity) bullets would be extremely lethal. I would def not want to get shot with a ballistic tip .204 Ruger. You'd have a .204 entry hole, some messed up "goo" behind it, no exit hole.
 
You'd have a .204 entry hole, some messed up "goo" behind it, no exit hole.
Click to expand...

When I worked in an ER I saw a man who tried to kill himself with a 17hmr. It wasn't a lethal shot (under the chin) but all you could see was a small little hole with no blood. However, the rest of his face was so swollen that you would have thought he was the elephant man. Needless to say, he was pretty miserable (and concious).
 
There's a big difference between .204/.223 and .17HMR in terms of velocity and energy. I'd say .17HMR is only like double a .22LR.
 
Yeah i know. All I was trying to say (and saying it poorly) is that those small little bullets leave small little holes but do some greusome damage on the inside.
 
Lethality does not mean stopping power! You can get shot with a .22LR and die a week later from infection. Its still lethal, just took a week to be terminal. I'd say high velocity small caliber expanding bullets have good stopping power. The crazy velocity creates hydrostatic shock in the body.
 
I agree lethal doesn't meen cold hard stoppin power...but there is alot of deer where I live that would disagree with anyone that says a. 22 isn't lethal....( I didn't shoot them so dnt hate on me )...and those deer where dead before they hit the groud...all was shot in back of the head precisely where the neck joins the skull in that little place...it works perfectly..or so iv been told :)
 
FMJ 5.56 is still pretty nasty stuff for CQB; it does some pretty horrific stuff at close range. Add in that it is extremely controllable, even in burst/auto, and I'd say it is very effective indeed.
 
I didn't read the Infantry Mag article, however I KNOW M193 (55 grn fmj 223) works at close quarters.

A bit about the Infantry Magazine. Somewhere out in my boxes of crap in my shop I have an Infantry Magazine that reports the M16s will start being issued to the troops in the Spring of 1976 that would be chambered for a 6 MM round.

I'm still waiting.
 
Shot placement is the key with any bullet or caliber. The old Mozambique shooting scenario works real well with small bore ammunition and rifles like the .223/5.56 bullet launchers.
 
Thank you for posting this. One paragraph stood out to me, something I've been saying for years... and have been heckled for saying it at times. Emphasis added:

The major problem occurs at the very beginning: What is effectiveness?
As it turns out, that simple question requires a very complex
answer. For the Soldier in combat, effectiveness equals death:
the desire to have every round fired result in the death of the
opposing combatant, the so-called “one-shot drop.” However,
death – or lethality – is not always necessary to achieve a military
objective; an enemy combatant who is no longer willing or able
to perform a meaningful military task may be as good as dead
under most circumstances. Some equate effectiveness with “stopping
power,” a nebulous term that can mean anything from physically
knocking the target down to causing the target to
immediately stop any threatening action. Others may measure
effectiveness as foot-pounds of energy delivered to the target – by
calculating the mass and impact velocity of the round – without
considering what amount of energy is expended in the target or
what specific damage occurs to the target. In the end, “footpounds
of energy” is misleading, “stopping power” is a myth, and
the “oneshot drop” is a rare possibility dependent more on the statistics
of hit placement than weapon and ammunition selection.
Click to expand...

I'll be keeping this handy for future discussions. While it's not the end-all/be-all scientific proof one would like to have, it's about as close as I could realistically expect to come.
 
Not Convinced

I was Army Infantry for 3 years, did a stint in Iraq. Absolutely hated the 5.56. Yes it was light weight and we could carry more, and yes it was fairly accurate out to 3-400 meters. But, I can't tell you how many times I heard or said, "dude you missed him!", only to hear, "BS I missed him, he's was holding his side while he ran away." That being said, I understand that the rounds I was using were designed to penetrate body armor (which the enemy didn't wear, so you think they would issue a hollow point or something right?), so when it hit someone not wearing any it tended to just punch a small hole through and through. I also understand that today they make a plethora of better ammo than the old green tip stuff, but I guess old biases die hard. Why not use a more powerful round? If you have a criminal, who is intent on harming you or a hostage or whatever, and he is on drugs, a 5.56 is not going to put him down, at least not fast enough. Why give him the opprotunity to keep shooting or advancing toward you after you've hit him?
 
WhiskeyTango, Viet Nam was the same way. Nobody would listen to us out in the field either. Most of the guys I served with ditched their .223/5.56 rifles for something more effective. I saw pointmen using some old M-1 Grease Guns in .45 caliber because they worked BETTER than the M-16 did at very close range. Some pointmen switched to 12 gauge shotguns when they could because the M-16 rifles did not work for them. Other guys used old AK-47s and so on when they could get them or find them. I conned my way into an XM-21 sniper rifle and never once regretted that move.

The only reason nobody listens to the infantryman is greed associated with political corruption. Those politicians have GOT to take care of those manufacturers so that they can get their lucre.
 
I knew a guy that killed his wife, brother, dog, shot and wounded one of his employees, and killed himself with 10rds. of .22lr ammunition. So yeah, I would say small caliber is lethal. That leads me to believe that 5.56 military ammo would have no problem in a CQB situation.
 
But, I can't tell you how many times I heard or said, "dude you missed him!", only to hear, "BS I missed him, he's was holding his side while he ran away."
Click to expand...

Well, I think that is one of the big problems with anecdotal reports of 5.56mm being ineffective. In a lot of cases, we don't even have good evidence that a hit was made, let alone where it was made or what kind of damage it did.

Why not use a more powerful round? If you have a criminal, who is intent on harming you or a hostage or whatever, and he is on drugs, a 5.56 is not going to put him down, at least not fast enough. Why give him the opprotunity to keep shooting or advancing toward you after you've hit him?
Click to expand...

In terms of power, there is no instant one stop shot unless you disrupt the central nervous system, which is a tricky thing to do in a gunfight. The authors of the article discuss this in some detail and explain why that is the case.

The authors also have a nifty graph showing how controlled pairs (with 5.56mm specifically, though they go on to state that the concept applies to any caliber) greatly increase your chances of immediately stopping a threat.

The article really is worth reading, regardless of whether you like or dislike 5.56mm. If you dislike it, it will explain in some detail how and why 5.56mm fails and what can be done to minimize it. If you like it, it explains in some detail how 5.56mm succeeds and what can be done to maximize it.

The caveat is that this article only looked at CQB and only against unarmored, standing/crouched opponents. The authors are careful to state that their conclusions in this arena should not be stretched too far and that even minor changes may give much different results.
 
W.T. - the US *MUST use FMJ based on the Hague Convention. I'm sure you are well aware of the insanity of war "law". Its a lot of political mumbo jumbo aimed to dance around the fact that there are two forces shooting guns at each other with intent to kill. Somehow the politicians think its "better looking" or "humane" if you drill a hole in someone with FMJ and let them suffer versus throwing HP's down range that will expand and cause more sudden death. Maybe part of it is tactics to wound enemy soldiers to take healthy men out of the fight while they aid their comrades? HP's are absolutely more effective at delivering "stopping power" and creating hydrostatic shock and damage in the body. I don't know anybody that would go deer hunting with FMJ for this very reason. If you are non-military using .223 HP's for self defense I think that would be a formidable round!
 
I'm not sure how many people here have hunted with FMJ .223, but if you've shot a pig at less than 50 yards, you know how destructive it can be. The bullets literally blow up into little shards, turning the lungs to mush. Past that range, they don't "blow-up" and the results are hit and miss. I wouldn't want to get shot by one at ANY range.
 
Well if you are gonna bet on a heart, neck/spine, or brain shot... then go ahead and use FMJ! HAH! I don't personally know anyone that hunts with FMJ, nor am I an advocate of it.
 
I agree whole-heartedly with one key point the artice makes: "We try hard to inculcate a “one-shot, one-kill” mentality into Soldiers." This is a mentality that has to be overcome in CQB. In SFARTEC and SFAUC soldiers are taught "double taps" or "controlled pairs" but the truth is you have to keep shooting until the threat is no longer a threat no matter how many rounds it takes. The standard Army rifle qualification is 40 rounds for 40 targets with lots of time. A lot of training is geared towards this test which perpetuates the "one shot, one kill" myth.

I also agree with kriagwy- even though this article seems well researched, Infantry Magazine is notorious for publishing articles by folks just trying to make a name for themselves with no peer review, fact checks, or opposing viewpoints. Not that it's not a good publication, you just have to take it at face value sometimes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top