What *is* the point of the .223/5.6 in combat?

"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."

This is an inaccurate statement. Some of the GIs who were issued the very first M16s had problems with them due to bad lots of ammo and lack of cleaning kits. These problems were corrected quickly and I have talked to many Vietnam veterans who were very satisfied with the M16.

"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."

An adjustment knob on the front sight would be a bad idea for durability questions. I can't think of a single issue military rifle by any major power that has this feature. The barrel being heavier greatly improves accuracy. I am MUCH more accurate with an A2 than an A1.
 
I will say it again. Anybody that ever carried a load into battle stops wondering about 5.56 vs 7.62. And anybody that says yeah but aimed 7.62 is better has never been in a firefight.
 
some of you have said that the 5.56mm can not go through cover, well i have shot 5.56mm SS109 round from a AR15/M16 at rocks from 50-yards and in the end there are no rocks left when the round hits them.
now in the end the .223 is here to stay, and is here to stay as a Military round to. haveing the .223 vs. the .308 is like haveing an old Ford vs. a new BMW they are not the same, and seeing that they are not the same they can not be put in the same roll. now the M16 it is not the best Rifle in the would but it's what we have, and it's what we will have for some time to come. we all need to get over this, the .223 and the M16 are here to stay for now, and thats that.
 
Spectre:

Quote: "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 was confused by your post, but flattered that you read mine and commented on it. Here's the part of my post you referred to:

"If you doubt the effectiveness of the .223, would you volunteer to be shot by one? NO! The .308 does have the advantage at about 300 yards and beyond. Statistics show that this is well beyond the typical engagement range. At ranges inside 100 yards where stopping a target is imperative, the Nato SS109 round will get the job done better than the 7.62x51. Beyond that, a casualty is a casualty. Give me a .223 any day. "

I thought I was making the case FOR the .223. In fact, I feel it is superior in 90% of the areas it's used for in modern combat. (still think the GPMG should be a .308) Anyhow, I wasn't suggesting that I or anybody else be shot with any gun. I was trying to make a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the whole argument. Of course nobody would volunteer. That makes this whole argment a bit absurd and bordering on purely academic from the wound-potential standpoint.

All this aside, I think we are in agreement on the general concepts we are discussing. I would argue, however, that the faster 1-in-7 twist was selected more for its effect on terminal ballistics than a need to stabilize the 62 grain SS109. Would be interesting to see some scientific study into 55 and 62 grain bullets shot from both 1-in-12 and 1-in-7 barrels to see what the accuracy/terminal performance curves told us about the whole situation. My 1-in-10 twist barrel is very accurate with 62 grainers.
 
This was me:

"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."

I beg to differ. The much-touted chrome-lined, forward-assist, powder fouling fixes were very early on in the war. Period reports almost always favor the gun over the M-14 in terms of ergonomics, firepower, and weight. I'll agree with you about the need for a replacement, but the GI's liked them for the most part. There are exceptions, and I would probably be one. I own an AR-15 now and love it. Don't have to worry too much about getting it dirty as I'm not humping a pack through the jungle, but the ergonomics are top-notch.

Give me an AR-18, FN FNC, G-36, AK-74, Stoner 63, Daewoo, or any number of other modern .223's any day over the AR-15 for a battle rifle though and I'd be happier.

And finally, much of the blame for adoption of the AR-15 can be traced to outlandish and greatly exaggerated reports of its effectiveness as well as Egotistical Butchers in the US Government. Reports had a single shot decapitating the enemy. Shots in the arm or leg were said to be fatal. Basketball sized exit wounds were reported. If you believe these reports, why in the heck would you stick with the .308! I remember reading that McNamara visited Armalite and got 'excited' by the AR-15. That's why we got the gun, not because of anything else but because that BASTARD McNamara shoved it down our throats. Hope he rots in hell. Just my Humble opinion.
 
Wuz reading some stuff on military philosophy just this very evening.

At one time, the idea of a soldier's ability to deliver aimed fire at long distances (over 500 yards) was prevalent. It definitely was still held during WW I.

Analysis of warfare during WW II and Korea indicated that most killing of the enemy was done by other means than rifle fire. Artillery was the primary killer/destroyer. The idea stemming from this was that a rifle which would be effective at ranges of no more than 200 to 300 yards would be adequate for use by Infantrymen.

It is believed that cartridges of, say, 6mm size and larger cannot be readily controlled when fired at full-auto from a shoulder-mounted rifle.

It seems to me that the M-16 is thus an effort to have the best of all worlds. A fairly large ammo load can be carried. Selective fire. Controllable when fired full-auto. Adequately accurate to 200 or 300 yards, and effective at those distances. The recent change to the three-round burst is apparently an effort to impose fire discipline...

One battefield philosophy, then, is to send out small units to find the enemy, and then use the primary weapon: The radio. Call in either artillery or air. This was becoming a primary methodology in Vietnam during the later years before we pulled out. In certain terrain, such as the Balkans, and absent the utility of mobile armor--tanks, etc.--this will probably be the way of future ground warfare.

FWIW, Art
 
when I arrived "in-country" they forced me on the M-60, a 30 cal machine gun, at first I was pissed cuz it weighed over 20 pounds and the ammo was heavy also. but after my first fire fight you would have had to kill me to get it away from me!!!I saw what 30 cal bullets vs. 223 do to man & machine!!!!plus I didn't need to reload as often as the grunts with the Matty Mattel. but on the other hand the human body is the most fragile animal out there. I have shot a heart/lung shot on a whitetail and had it go 400 yards before dying and have seen a human go 12 inches when shot in the meaty part of the calf we had to carry him 3 klicks,,,,,, so maybe the 223 is a good combat round but NOT FOR ME!!!!!!!
 
The "gyro" or spin-rate effect of rifling twist on terminal ballistics is a myth.

Flying through air, a 14-twist barrel will adequately stabilized a 55-gr M193 at temperatures above something like freezing or 20 degrees F. That's why they shortly changed to the 12-twist in the AR series.

M855 63-gr "SS109s" will stabilize Okay in a 1-9 twist barrel. BUT, the tracer bullet is about the same weight and noticeably longer. That's why the military went to the 1-7 twist. The twist rate needed to stabilize a given bullet is more a function of its length than its weight (make it a round nose and the 63-gr will shoot fine in a M16A1). I've examined the math behind this.

Once in tissue, every single one of these bullets becomes unstable and wants to tumble end-over-end. I've read the scholarly works. Inside 200 yards, the 55-gr breaks at the cannelure and the base often extrudes several chunks of lead. Even the 63-gr will tumble, but there's no difference in its in-target performance if it's fired from a 1-10, 1-9 or 1-7 twist barrel.

Fired from a 12-twist barrel, the 63-grain is unstable in air. Keyholes of at least 45 degrees of yaw and 12-inch "groups" at 100 yards are what to expect. Personal experience here. Yeah, having the bullet hit sideways may increase "wounding power," but that's a function of impact attitude.

Think about it--that zillion-rpm bullet is going to turn one rotation in seven inches of travel. I submit that the deceleration forces of hitting fluids and other bodily components are a thousand-fold more powerful than any spin-stresses.
 
Okay, you're missing a few factors here, Cheapo. For one, all of the testing you are citing does not take velocity into account. Rotational speed is a factor of muzzle velocity and twist rate.

Fired from an M-4, a 1-in-7 barrel might impart the same rotational speed as a 1-in-9 twist barrel does in an M-16. While a 1-in-14 twist is sufficient for a 24" sporter or Varmit rifle, to impart the same stability in a 20" barrel requires 1-in-12 twist.

My 1-in-12 SP1 20" upper produces good results with factory 63 grain rounds. I have no problems. No keyholing, good 2.0" groups at 100 yards. Personal experience here too.

I agree on terminal performance. That 100 yards is roughly true but only of the M-4. The 20" M-16A2 gives better terminal performance out to a greater range.
 
I think the bottom line here is "different calibres for different work". In some cases, .308 is better. In other cases, .223 is better. It isn't so much which is better, but how you plan to fight. In the desert, the .308 might have been better than the .223 because range was a factor (not as much limitation from terrain). In a wooded area, the .223 might be more appropriate.

Once again, it's HOW you fight that determines what you fight with. As far as the Hirtenberger .308, it is truly nasty stuff. Same wound profile as a .223, only more. breaks apart a few inches into the target, just like the .223. Lots more penetration through barriers. I'd be satisfied with either my AR or my FAL if I got put under the gun. I know how to fight either weapon.
 
I was reading a Forensic Pathology report from 1983 about the wounds causes by rifle rounds. In that report the 5.56 round produced a more serve wound then that 7.62 NATO round. I will post details from that report tomorrow.
 
The issue isn't what's "the best"

Look all you want, but you will *never* find the ideal military rifle. It doesn't exist and cannot exist.

A military weapon must be *sufficient* for many tasks even if it's not *ideal* for any of them. You can't expect the average grunt to be sufficiently proficient in a dozen different weapons and to pack them all along at all times. The logistics alone would preclude this.

For that reason, any primary military rifle must be a compromise. The M16A2 is a good compromise weapon in today's world, given today's likely uses, as was the M14 in its day and the M1 in its day. The M14 or M1 is better for some tasks (like long-range engagements), a shotgun is the best for some other tasks, and the M4 is better for yet others (like CQB), but the average Marine or Soldier needs *one rifle* that's suitable for pretty much everything.
 
Battler
Your post

"Remember that when talking about 223 in an M16 you're usually talking about several different rounds. . . .

Vietnam keyholing wounds - low twist rate/keyholing/horrendous wounds/low accuracy/bounces off leaves."

I don't know where you got your information about M-193 rounds that bounces off leafs but let me just say one thing that is pure nonsense. I'll give some good advice to all. Do not hide in the bushes from someone who's hunting you with a 16 and think that leave or foilage will deflect a round enough to miss you. Because if you do you will lose.

Turk
173rd Abn Bdge. (Sep)
Vietnam 68-69





[Edited by Turk on 03-22-2001 at 05:20 AM]
 
223/5.6 in combat

Turk, WELCOME HOME!! As in my prior post, the 16 and the M193 worked. D Co., 3/8th Infantry, 4th Infantry Division
(68-69).
 
Byron,

Something you’ll notice here on the FL is there is two schools of thought. First is the M-16 and the 5.56 NATO are varmint rounds and not up doing the job and the 7.62 NATO is needed. I’m of the 2nd school that the 16 and especially the M-193 ball will do what needs to be done in firefight. I was a 60 gunner for 4 months and if I had the choice between the M-60/7.62 NATO and the squad SAW/5.56 I’d take the SAW which is lighter and ammo is lighter. Guys will say the extra weight of the 7.62 NATO doesn’t matter, never humped the Central Highlands with a 60.

Did you ever work the Ankhe area? In the spring of 69 we pulled out and went north (Bong Son area) along the coast and the 4th moved into the Ankhe AO?

Ever been back? I'm currently working on projects in Vietnam. Rebuilding rural medical clinic's and other medical related projects. Someday hope to build a new clinic in the Central Highlands to give the Yards medical care.

Have good day brother,

Turk
 
You guys are missing the whole point....

This isn't so much a difference in the capabilities of the .308 and the .223, but instead a difference in the bullets used. This is an important distinction. You could lighten up the .308 to gain more velocity and increase the pressure a bit, then give it a canellure and all the other features of the 5.56 and it will do WAY more damage. The point here is not that .308 is less capable than 5.56, but that .308 manufacturers have been less creative. The penetration issue still has not been addressed by the .223 fans. Sure you can penetrate some cover with the 5.56, but the 7.62 is MUCH better at penetrating most types of cover, and as I stated earlier in the thread, I suspect a lot more killing is being done shooting THROUGH things than directly into the enemies. Anyone who has hunted deer in the thick forest at any sort of range knows how complicated that can get, and you bet your ass that a human enemy will use cover more effectively than a deer does...
 
223/5.56 in Combat

Turk, I agree that the M193 and 16 are at there best replacing the M14 and 308. Too many study ballistics without realizing what the 55 grain bullet will do.When I got to the field, our bolts were chrome plated. I kept mine clean and it worked. We had the LSA oil and ammo was loaded with Dupont powder.
I spent time in Ane Khe and think I walked most of III Corp. I was wounded in ane Khe. March 69 was bad. The 3/8th was hit hard. We lost A & D companies. Have you heard of "Operation Wayne Grey"? It involved the 1st Brigade of the 4th, the 6/29th Arty and part of a Cav unit.It is not written up but there were a lot of casualties. The 66th and 24th NVA were involved. The 16 proved itself on March 5th,69. Byron
 
Points of view

These .223 vs. .308 arguments seem to lack an explicit acknowledgement that the choice may strongly depend on one's point of view. Yes, the .223 does the job (sometimes very graphically), permits more rounds, has less recoil, etc.; yes, the .308 is more decisive, people can learn to shoot well, etc. A significant aspect is: who is chosing the weapon? you or someone else?

An individual outfitting himself may be expected to take the whole issue upon himself, learn to shoot well, be disciplined, want a more decisive round, not waste ammo, and thus may generally choose the .308. A key point is that the individual isn't (in this case) concerned about anyone else's needs or abilities, and if he dies in combat he won't have to worry about replacements.

Someone outfitting a large number of soldiers may conclude that he must plan for the lowest common denominator. The recipient is just taking what he's given, will likely not have time-motivation-affinity to train much, may be less disciplined, is likely to shoot more to compensate for lower accuracy, and thus the adequate-in-large-volume .223 is used. A key point is that should a given soldier be killed in combat, there's a good chance that the next guy will be even less skilled/trained/disciplined, so the superior officer has to worry about short-notice replacements.

Of course there will be many individuals who would choose the .223, and many <would-be> officers who would assing .308. In general though, I'd expect the choice of caliber depends on whether the choice is for one's self or for many others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top