Dangus, I agree, a 308 or larger caliber would be superior for gunfights at 500 meters. The problem is, the vast majority of military fights happen at 100 meters or less. Should the military pick a caliber and weapon based on the least likely scenario that its troops are going to face?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What *is* the point of the .223/5.6 in combat?
- Thread starter Cosmoline
- Start date
sundance43.5
New member
5.56 replicates JHP
I would agree with whoever said this. The military is no slouch when it comes to ballistics. They did years of research on this, and found, that making minute changes to the 5.56 round(like using 62 grains) will greatly alter the 5.56's ability, to outperform the .308. At ranges deemed combat ranges, 100-300yds, the 5.56, upon entering the body, serves as a hyper kid in a candy store. It bounces around, fragments, and causes hell, making a tremendous wound. Remember, it's not always what you can see, it's on the inside that's more important. Then, like the previous poster said, within these combat ranges, the .308 doesn't dump enough energy, and goes on through.
This is my understanding of it.
Chris
I would agree with whoever said this. The military is no slouch when it comes to ballistics. They did years of research on this, and found, that making minute changes to the 5.56 round(like using 62 grains) will greatly alter the 5.56's ability, to outperform the .308. At ranges deemed combat ranges, 100-300yds, the 5.56, upon entering the body, serves as a hyper kid in a candy store. It bounces around, fragments, and causes hell, making a tremendous wound. Remember, it's not always what you can see, it's on the inside that's more important. Then, like the previous poster said, within these combat ranges, the .308 doesn't dump enough energy, and goes on through.
This is my understanding of it.
Chris
Benchrest1000
New member
Interesting post. I believe the 308 and 5.56 have their own benefits, that's why I own both. I have an MForgery and an AR10 and I like both of them. As much as I like 30 caliber bullets for the accuracy potential they have, I have to admit I'd pull the M4. It weighs a ton less and produces great results out to 300 yards or so. A long time ago I shot a quarter inch thick steel target expecting to see a pock mark in it when I went down to check it at about 80 yards. To my surprise, a big mushroom with a hole clean through it was there in it's place. I've admired the 5.56 ever since. Same thing with the 308 Win. My AR10 hits whatever I aim at as long as I can see it in the scope. Knocking chunks off rocks at 300 yards is a cool thing indeed.
Anyone see an article a while back (Not certain of the periodical) about testing the military did on the 6mm? It appears that testing concluded that the optimum round for ballistic performance was a 100 grain 6mm bullet at 3000 fps. Sectional density played a big part in this. All this would point to something right around the .243 Winchester! Neat stuff.
Anyone see an article a while back (Not certain of the periodical) about testing the military did on the 6mm? It appears that testing concluded that the optimum round for ballistic performance was a 100 grain 6mm bullet at 3000 fps. Sectional density played a big part in this. All this would point to something right around the .243 Winchester! Neat stuff.
When the switch from large caliber, black powder cartridges(45/70 etc.) to smaller caliber, jacked bullet, smokeless powder cartridges (.303, 30/06,7.92x57,8mm Lebel etc.) was made the military didn't have rapid fire artillery and machine guns. Troops were expected to engage the enemy at very long range(rifles of that era were sighted to 2000 meters and longer) in volley fire and calibers like the above mentioned(similar in ballistics to the 7.62x51 NATO) were needed. After the introduction of rapid fire artillery and MGs onthe battle field( Russo-Japanese war of 1905 and WW1) the powerful rifle cartridges were not needed and more importantly, analysis found that most infantry engagements occured at under 300 meters ( more likely at 100 meters). All this led to the SMG and the assault rifle with intermediate cartridges that allowed auto fire and were optimal up to approx. 300 meters. Smaller cartridges are lighter and allow the infantry man to carry more shots per pound. The more powerfull cartridges have hung on for the general purpose machine gun and sniping.
Lately, there has been some discussion on needing a more powerfull cartridge for the infantry because of the increase in urban warfare and the need for good penetration against barriers.
Lately, there has been some discussion on needing a more powerfull cartridge for the infantry because of the increase in urban warfare and the need for good penetration against barriers.
Badger Arms: I have come to expect better from you, sir. It is ridiculous to suggest that sane individual would volunteer to be shot with any military round. Discussing the merit of one cartridge as opposed to another has nothing to do with "wanting" to be shot with either. .22LR probably wouldn't be your defensive round of choice, but I rather doubt you'd volunteer to be shot with one, just because you didn't want to stop "motivated" adversaries with one.
I believe the choice of the 5.56x45mm was caused by:
1. the much greater controllability of the round on full-auto
2. fitting into a smaller and lighter weapon
3. the ability to move many more of them for the size and weight than the .308 or other "high-powered" rounds
4. the idea that hitting targets beyond 300 yards was not a need for the infantry rifleman.
I do not believe that the under-stabilization was deliberate, and I think the oft-repeated legend that the ".223 was designed to wound and not kill, because it will tie up more enemy..." is just plain damn silly, a terrific example of armchair commandoing.
I personally feel that any centerfire rifle round is sufficient for use on light-skinned bipeds. I would tend to favor lighter rounds, because I could then carry more, and therefore make more holes in the enemy. I do not favor varmint rounds as survival rifles, because they have less versatility. I believe a compromise round should be found, one with greater sectional density and downrange energy than the .223, but with smaller mass and less recoil than the .308. This projected round would ease logistics demands, due to a single round functioning well for the current light and medium machine guns, as well as working well for sniper usage. (A 100 grain 6mm bullet @3000 fps will have a similiar flight path to a 190-grain .300 Winchester Magnum.) This round would also be ideal for the most commonly hunted North American big game, the deer.
Oh, since we're giving opinions, the M-16 has been made to work, but is a poor design, despite its great ergonomics.
Incidentally, wounding is in large part a function of bullet design. There are .308 rounds with considerably greater wound profiles than the most horrific .223 wound- the German 7.62 bullet is one.
I believe the choice of the 5.56x45mm was caused by:
1. the much greater controllability of the round on full-auto
2. fitting into a smaller and lighter weapon
3. the ability to move many more of them for the size and weight than the .308 or other "high-powered" rounds
4. the idea that hitting targets beyond 300 yards was not a need for the infantry rifleman.
I do not believe that the under-stabilization was deliberate, and I think the oft-repeated legend that the ".223 was designed to wound and not kill, because it will tie up more enemy..." is just plain damn silly, a terrific example of armchair commandoing.
I personally feel that any centerfire rifle round is sufficient for use on light-skinned bipeds. I would tend to favor lighter rounds, because I could then carry more, and therefore make more holes in the enemy. I do not favor varmint rounds as survival rifles, because they have less versatility. I believe a compromise round should be found, one with greater sectional density and downrange energy than the .223, but with smaller mass and less recoil than the .308. This projected round would ease logistics demands, due to a single round functioning well for the current light and medium machine guns, as well as working well for sniper usage. (A 100 grain 6mm bullet @3000 fps will have a similiar flight path to a 190-grain .300 Winchester Magnum.) This round would also be ideal for the most commonly hunted North American big game, the deer.
Oh, since we're giving opinions, the M-16 has been made to work, but is a poor design, despite its great ergonomics.
Incidentally, wounding is in large part a function of bullet design. There are .308 rounds with considerably greater wound profiles than the most horrific .223 wound- the German 7.62 bullet is one.
I believe that there are great arguments for both, thats why I think the DMR concept is a great one. Give your best shots a full size rifle, everybody else gets an assault rifle. Lots of little bullets, and some big ones thrown in for when they are far away or hiding behind stuff. Neither one is perfect.
I read once that some Austrian special operations groups kept their FALs after the rest of the army had gone to Augs. They figured that anybody they would be likely to fight would be armed with AK74s, and that way they could pick fights at longer ranges with impunity.
The only people that that complicates life for are the supply people. But if stuff goes to hell that badly there would be plenty of people lying around who wouldn't need their weapons anymore (what ever caliber they might be).
I read once that some Austrian special operations groups kept their FALs after the rest of the army had gone to Augs. They figured that anybody they would be likely to fight would be armed with AK74s, and that way they could pick fights at longer ranges with impunity.
The only people that that complicates life for are the supply people. But if stuff goes to hell that badly there would be plenty of people lying around who wouldn't need their weapons anymore (what ever caliber they might be).
Not attacking the .223, just some of the arguments for it ...
Is anyone else bothered by the "wounding the enemy is better" theory?
I'm not as up on this subject as any of you guys, but I'm thinking that the wounded are going to be ignored until the end of the battle, so it's not going to make any differnce right then. Therefore, they must be counting on bleeding the enemy government's coffers dry with hospitalization costs, etc. I call this the "Economist's Argument"
I ask you, since when are wars won by the economists?
Silly me, I thought winning was done by grunts winning battles.
Additionally, I see numerous advantages to having round that is capable of killing the enemy vs. just wounding them.
In an actual battle, killing someone is guaranteed to take them out of the action, whereas history is replete with stories of wounded soldiers fighting on even after being mortally wounded. Not everybody we'll face is as half-assed about being soldiers as we are, many rebel factions woldwide are religious zealots/fanatics figting for a "cause" and are not looking for a wound as an excuse to leave the fighting. They are hate groups and that leaves ordinary logic behind.
Another argument that worries me is the "no one can or will ever be able to learn how to shoot straight" theory. Just because some or even most of the troops can't learn to shoot, why handicap those who CAN shoot? Why is the bar set "where everybody's at" instead of "where everyone should be"?
Typical government thinking, equalize everybody into mediocrity instead of bringing everyone up to speed.
And another thing that bothers me - if it's true that nobody in combat uses aimed fire anyway, then why does it matter if soldiers develop a flinch from the .308?
Rant off.
Is anyone else bothered by the "wounding the enemy is better" theory?
I'm not as up on this subject as any of you guys, but I'm thinking that the wounded are going to be ignored until the end of the battle, so it's not going to make any differnce right then. Therefore, they must be counting on bleeding the enemy government's coffers dry with hospitalization costs, etc. I call this the "Economist's Argument"
I ask you, since when are wars won by the economists?
Silly me, I thought winning was done by grunts winning battles.
Additionally, I see numerous advantages to having round that is capable of killing the enemy vs. just wounding them.
In an actual battle, killing someone is guaranteed to take them out of the action, whereas history is replete with stories of wounded soldiers fighting on even after being mortally wounded. Not everybody we'll face is as half-assed about being soldiers as we are, many rebel factions woldwide are religious zealots/fanatics figting for a "cause" and are not looking for a wound as an excuse to leave the fighting. They are hate groups and that leaves ordinary logic behind.
Another argument that worries me is the "no one can or will ever be able to learn how to shoot straight" theory. Just because some or even most of the troops can't learn to shoot, why handicap those who CAN shoot? Why is the bar set "where everybody's at" instead of "where everyone should be"?
Typical government thinking, equalize everybody into mediocrity instead of bringing everyone up to speed.
And another thing that bothers me - if it's true that nobody in combat uses aimed fire anyway, then why does it matter if soldiers develop a flinch from the .308?
Rant off.
"Is anyone else bothered by the "wounding the enemy is better" theory?"
I am not bothered by it because it played no part in the military's decision to adapt the M16. When people mention the term "wounding effect" they don't mean that the bullet will just wound the enemy, they are using the term to compare the effects of the round on the human body.
"I'm not as up on this subject as any of you guys, but I'm thinking that the wounded are going to be ignored until the end of the battle, so it's not going to make any differnce right then."
Historically, that is not true, at least not for European armies. The wounded are tended during the battle, on the battlefield by field medics.
"Therefore, they must be counting on bleeding the enemy government's coffers dry with hospitalization costs, etc. I call this the "Economist's Argument"
I ask you, since when are wars won by the economists?
Silly me, I thought winning was done by grunts winning battles."
Well, to be frank, it isn't. The grunts are necessary, but most wars are won by reducing the enemy's ability to field an army. Soldiers are the last thing a country runs out of, the first things usually being fuel and spare parts.
"Additionally, I see numerous advantages to having round that is capable of killing the enemy vs. just wounding them."
Already addressed this. The 308 is not a superior killing round at closer ranges. It is a better penetrator and has a longer range.
I am not bothered by it because it played no part in the military's decision to adapt the M16. When people mention the term "wounding effect" they don't mean that the bullet will just wound the enemy, they are using the term to compare the effects of the round on the human body.
"I'm not as up on this subject as any of you guys, but I'm thinking that the wounded are going to be ignored until the end of the battle, so it's not going to make any differnce right then."
Historically, that is not true, at least not for European armies. The wounded are tended during the battle, on the battlefield by field medics.
"Therefore, they must be counting on bleeding the enemy government's coffers dry with hospitalization costs, etc. I call this the "Economist's Argument"
I ask you, since when are wars won by the economists?
Silly me, I thought winning was done by grunts winning battles."
Well, to be frank, it isn't. The grunts are necessary, but most wars are won by reducing the enemy's ability to field an army. Soldiers are the last thing a country runs out of, the first things usually being fuel and spare parts.
"Additionally, I see numerous advantages to having round that is capable of killing the enemy vs. just wounding them."
Already addressed this. The 308 is not a superior killing round at closer ranges. It is a better penetrator and has a longer range.
The round was adopted to kill people and break things.
Other tools may be better at breaking things, but given our easy availability of crew-served weapons and air support to break things, the 5.56 *appears* to be handicapped to a measurable though insignificant degree, in the final strategic analysis.
For certain individual troops, it's just too bad that it took 20+ years to field ammo that was decent beyond 300 yards and (barely?) adequate for barrier penetration.
There are better solutions available and the optimum military round using cased ammo is probably still not developed (I vote for the 6mm as described above, having studied into that conclusion about 15 years ago). BUT, the difference between the "best" and even the short-range M193 55-gr round has not typically been big enough to turn the course of any major battles.
However, that difference *might* have helped a few moments before the Beruit truck bomb hit the USMC barracks. They *did* fire a couple shots from their condition zero M16s, didn't they?
Other tools may be better at breaking things, but given our easy availability of crew-served weapons and air support to break things, the 5.56 *appears* to be handicapped to a measurable though insignificant degree, in the final strategic analysis.
For certain individual troops, it's just too bad that it took 20+ years to field ammo that was decent beyond 300 yards and (barely?) adequate for barrier penetration.
There are better solutions available and the optimum military round using cased ammo is probably still not developed (I vote for the 6mm as described above, having studied into that conclusion about 15 years ago). BUT, the difference between the "best" and even the short-range M193 55-gr round has not typically been big enough to turn the course of any major battles.
However, that difference *might* have helped a few moments before the Beruit truck bomb hit the USMC barracks. They *did* fire a couple shots from their condition zero M16s, didn't they?
Thanks, RikWriter
I can see where you're coming from now.
'"Is anyone else bothered by the "wounding
the enemy is better" theory?"
I am not bothered by it because it played no
part in the military's decision to adapt the
M16. When people mention the term
"wounding effect" they don't mean that the
bullet will just wound the enemy, they are
using the term to compare the effects of the
round on the human body."'
Um, Rik, I didn't confuse the two concepts. I never made any claims at all about the adoption of the M16, and only brought up the point because advocates of the .223 for military service like to tell .223 haters that "a wounded enemy is even better than a dead one." This very argument I believe has been used in this thread. Additionally, the soldiers I have spoken with like to bring it up when asked about the .223's stopping power, so I'm assuming that this is an "army-sponsored" type of thinking.
"Historically, that is not true, at least not for European armies. The wounded are tended during the battle, on the battlefield by field medics."
Rik, the argument has been proposed here that one wounded enemy ties up 3 of his buddies. I proposed that this was not the case, and you proved my point by mentioning that this is the medic's concern. Since medics aren't involved in the combat, no gunners are pulled off the line to assist the wounded.
"Well, to be frank, it isn't. The grunts are
necessary, but most wars are won by
reducing the enemy's ability to field an army.
Soldiers are the last thing a country runs out
of, the first things usually being fuel and
spare parts."
I didn't know this. Thanks.
"Already addressed this. The 308 is not a
superior killing round at closer ranges. It is a
better penetrator and has a longer range."
It may not be a superior killing round. But the fact that it's not doesn't mean that the .223 IS the wonder round we're looking for. I'm afraid the jury's still out on this, or else there wouldn't be so much disagreement among combat veterans who've used the .223. With all due respect to those veterans here on this thread who like it, there are a great many other vets out there who found it lacking.
I can see where you're coming from now.
'"Is anyone else bothered by the "wounding
the enemy is better" theory?"
I am not bothered by it because it played no
part in the military's decision to adapt the
M16. When people mention the term
"wounding effect" they don't mean that the
bullet will just wound the enemy, they are
using the term to compare the effects of the
round on the human body."'
Um, Rik, I didn't confuse the two concepts. I never made any claims at all about the adoption of the M16, and only brought up the point because advocates of the .223 for military service like to tell .223 haters that "a wounded enemy is even better than a dead one." This very argument I believe has been used in this thread. Additionally, the soldiers I have spoken with like to bring it up when asked about the .223's stopping power, so I'm assuming that this is an "army-sponsored" type of thinking.
"Historically, that is not true, at least not for European armies. The wounded are tended during the battle, on the battlefield by field medics."
Rik, the argument has been proposed here that one wounded enemy ties up 3 of his buddies. I proposed that this was not the case, and you proved my point by mentioning that this is the medic's concern. Since medics aren't involved in the combat, no gunners are pulled off the line to assist the wounded.
"Well, to be frank, it isn't. The grunts are
necessary, but most wars are won by
reducing the enemy's ability to field an army.
Soldiers are the last thing a country runs out
of, the first things usually being fuel and
spare parts."
I didn't know this. Thanks.
"Already addressed this. The 308 is not a
superior killing round at closer ranges. It is a
better penetrator and has a longer range."
It may not be a superior killing round. But the fact that it's not doesn't mean that the .223 IS the wonder round we're looking for. I'm afraid the jury's still out on this, or else there wouldn't be so much disagreement among combat veterans who've used the .223. With all due respect to those veterans here on this thread who like it, there are a great many other vets out there who found it lacking.
"Um, Rik, I didn't confuse the two concepts. I never made any claims at all about the adoption of the M16, and only brought up the point because advocates of the .223 for military service like to tell .223 haters that "a wounded enemy is even better than a dead one." This very argument I believe has been used in this thread. Additionally, the soldiers I have spoken with like to bring it up when asked about the .223's stopping power, so I'm assuming that this is an "army-sponsored" type of thinking."
It is not Army-sponsored, though most people get the idea while in the Army. It's one of those myths that drill sergeants and know-it-alls love to spread in the Army, just like the idea that hollowpoints are banned by the Geneva Convention. But the fact is, the idea that a wounded soldier is better than a dead one had no factor (as far as anyone can tell, anyway) in the adaption of the 223. It was purely done for weight, handiness, control in full auto fire and ease of training.
It is not Army-sponsored, though most people get the idea while in the Army. It's one of those myths that drill sergeants and know-it-alls love to spread in the Army, just like the idea that hollowpoints are banned by the Geneva Convention. But the fact is, the idea that a wounded soldier is better than a dead one had no factor (as far as anyone can tell, anyway) in the adaption of the 223. It was purely done for weight, handiness, control in full auto fire and ease of training.
It is all about weight. When your are humping around in the boonies moving to contact, you carry a "battle pack" of 7 30 round mags on your LBE and a nice light M16. The same load in 7.62 of equivalent weight would be 70 rounds (3 to 1 if I remember correctly), not to mention the heavy M14/L1A1/G3 etc. I don’t know about you, but I will take the extra rounds in the 5.56 magazines and the 140 rounds of ammo in my LBE. Just carry more 7.62 you say? No thanks, too heavy.
Grunts don't just carry a rifle and a couple of spare mags. Add to the equation a ruck with a couple of mortars, a spare battery for the RTO (or god forbid you are the RTO), a claymore, grenades, etc. Now, don't forget all the crap to sustain you for 3 days: MREs, water, sleeping stuff. etc. You are talking about some serious weight. Not only do you have to hump around with all that crap but you have to be fresh as a daisy to fight when you make get there…
The SS109 coming out of the A2 does a great job. I sure don’t want to get hit by one.
Also it is much easier to teach people to shoot the Mattel than a "real" main battle rifle. Remember most of the military folks are support, i.e., clerks, cooks, mechanics etc. they only qualify at the range once or twice per year. The 5.56 is great for recoil conscious folks who don’t shoot often. Not only do most kids coming into the military not shoot as civilians, most don’t like guns anyway.
Lets face it with the "oprah-fication" of our culture and social experimentation with the armed forces today’s military is a "kinder and gentler" one. The SS109 coupled with the A2 is a great solution to the general needs of the military.
Now a better question is whether it is a stupid idea to dump the pig (M60) 7.62 in favor of the SAW (M249) 5.56?
IMHO bad idea. Rather haul the pig around and have some 7.62 than nothing but 5.56... but I digress...
Evening gentlemen,
~lurker
[Edited by lurker on 03-19-2001 at 10:21 PM]
Grunts don't just carry a rifle and a couple of spare mags. Add to the equation a ruck with a couple of mortars, a spare battery for the RTO (or god forbid you are the RTO), a claymore, grenades, etc. Now, don't forget all the crap to sustain you for 3 days: MREs, water, sleeping stuff. etc. You are talking about some serious weight. Not only do you have to hump around with all that crap but you have to be fresh as a daisy to fight when you make get there…
The SS109 coming out of the A2 does a great job. I sure don’t want to get hit by one.
Also it is much easier to teach people to shoot the Mattel than a "real" main battle rifle. Remember most of the military folks are support, i.e., clerks, cooks, mechanics etc. they only qualify at the range once or twice per year. The 5.56 is great for recoil conscious folks who don’t shoot often. Not only do most kids coming into the military not shoot as civilians, most don’t like guns anyway.
Lets face it with the "oprah-fication" of our culture and social experimentation with the armed forces today’s military is a "kinder and gentler" one. The SS109 coupled with the A2 is a great solution to the general needs of the military.
Now a better question is whether it is a stupid idea to dump the pig (M60) 7.62 in favor of the SAW (M249) 5.56?
IMHO bad idea. Rather haul the pig around and have some 7.62 than nothing but 5.56... but I digress...
Evening gentlemen,
~lurker
[Edited by lurker on 03-19-2001 at 10:21 PM]
If you feel like reading, these are very interesting perspectives:
http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html
I think that the battlefield wounding/killing potential of both rounds is ridiculous to argue for ranges within about 200 meters. I think that for targets behind cover or beyond 300 meters, the 308 has a definite advantage. Otherwise, the 223 gives higher capacity, both in the magazine and in the bandoleer.
Having a designated marksman is a good idea from a capability standpoint, but it causes a supply/logistics problem from adding another type of ammunition. Also, the DM may be singled out on the battlefield for having a different sounding/looking rifle, but that's not a very strong argument.
http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html
I think that the battlefield wounding/killing potential of both rounds is ridiculous to argue for ranges within about 200 meters. I think that for targets behind cover or beyond 300 meters, the 308 has a definite advantage. Otherwise, the 223 gives higher capacity, both in the magazine and in the bandoleer.
Having a designated marksman is a good idea from a capability standpoint, but it causes a supply/logistics problem from adding another type of ammunition. Also, the DM may be singled out on the battlefield for having a different sounding/looking rifle, but that's not a very strong argument.
but all this is assuming that you even have a clear shot. I would be willing to wager that more kills during a war are kills from rounds going THROUGH cover than directly into the enemy. 5.56 does not have good ballistics against bricks, trees, etc. Guy hides behind a tree or a cinderblock wall and you have .308... you shoot through it. With 5.56 you have to wait till he pops out from cover...
Nightcrawler
New member
Just need to add my $0.02
Someone said "The GI's simply liked the guns more than the M-14 they were using"
No, no they didn't. The GI's in Vietnam HATED their M16s, as Bobby MacNamara's Whiz Kids sent the thing into the field before it was developed completely, inlcuding the lack of a crome lined bore/chamber and cleaning kits.
The M16 has been improved, to some extent, although the A2 is heavier than the A1 and I see NO reason for this. It doesn't NEED a heavier barrel. And they STILL haven't figured out that they ought to put a knob to adjust the freaking front sight.
As for the weight of the weapon, this isn't really an issue today. If they actually tried, I'll bet they could make a state of the art .308 rifle that weighed about as much as an M16. And the M16 could be a lot lighter, too. Ever fired a Carbon-15? It's got some flaws, but the damn thing weighs just a hair under four pounds. That's impressive. I would venture to say that seven pounds, maybe eight, would be as high as you'd want to go for an individually issued rifle.
On the other hand, they DO issue 15 pound SAWs to individual troops, and expect them to walk just as far, so I have to wonder if the weight argument is really valid at all.
The United States never signed the Hague Treaty banning "dum dum bullets". But, like the land mine treaty, we follow it anyway, which is really stupid, because the effectiveness of .223 could really be improved with the use of hollow point rounds. (Not to mention 9x19mm...)
Not mentioning whether I agree or not, but Colonel Jeff Cooper seems to not like the .223 cartridge at all, referring to it as a poodle-shooter. If nothing else, he does have quite a bit of combat experience and it is food for thought.
Seems to me, that if we are, in fact, going to stick with .223 as a service cartridge, then perhaps a more modern rifle ought to be adopted. Sure, sure, if properly maintained and in good condition, and AR can be good enough, but I maintain that our troops deserve the BEST, not "good enough". Besides, we don't all have the benifit of a new out of the box M16. My unit still has old A1s. REALLY old. Hell, my rifle was DEADLINED last drill. But I digress.
Someone said "The GI's simply liked the guns more than the M-14 they were using"
No, no they didn't. The GI's in Vietnam HATED their M16s, as Bobby MacNamara's Whiz Kids sent the thing into the field before it was developed completely, inlcuding the lack of a crome lined bore/chamber and cleaning kits.
The M16 has been improved, to some extent, although the A2 is heavier than the A1 and I see NO reason for this. It doesn't NEED a heavier barrel. And they STILL haven't figured out that they ought to put a knob to adjust the freaking front sight.
As for the weight of the weapon, this isn't really an issue today. If they actually tried, I'll bet they could make a state of the art .308 rifle that weighed about as much as an M16. And the M16 could be a lot lighter, too. Ever fired a Carbon-15? It's got some flaws, but the damn thing weighs just a hair under four pounds. That's impressive. I would venture to say that seven pounds, maybe eight, would be as high as you'd want to go for an individually issued rifle.
On the other hand, they DO issue 15 pound SAWs to individual troops, and expect them to walk just as far, so I have to wonder if the weight argument is really valid at all.
The United States never signed the Hague Treaty banning "dum dum bullets". But, like the land mine treaty, we follow it anyway, which is really stupid, because the effectiveness of .223 could really be improved with the use of hollow point rounds. (Not to mention 9x19mm...)
Not mentioning whether I agree or not, but Colonel Jeff Cooper seems to not like the .223 cartridge at all, referring to it as a poodle-shooter. If nothing else, he does have quite a bit of combat experience and it is food for thought.
Seems to me, that if we are, in fact, going to stick with .223 as a service cartridge, then perhaps a more modern rifle ought to be adopted. Sure, sure, if properly maintained and in good condition, and AR can be good enough, but I maintain that our troops deserve the BEST, not "good enough". Besides, we don't all have the benifit of a new out of the box M16. My unit still has old A1s. REALLY old. Hell, my rifle was DEADLINED last drill. But I digress.
These discussions about the 5.56mm round are usually the most confusing I have seen on this board. My understanding is that the early model M-16's had a very low twist rate, which made them inherently unstable and when they hit soft tissue, they tumbled around their center of mass. Thus, devastating wounds. Later models (i.e., today's models) have a high twist rate, so they don't tumble, but rather twist so fast that they break apart on impact, especially at the cannelure. Thus, devastating wounds. Is this summary correct? BTW, these are different mechanisms, so which makes the more damaging wound?
One last question, what is the twist rate of today's military-issue M-16 - 1/7 or 1/9?
One last question, what is the twist rate of today's military-issue M-16 - 1/7 or 1/9?