Why 5.56?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Part of the reason...

As a farm boy growing up shooting head shots on squirrels and varmints....
Click to expand...

The service has been getting fewer and fewer recruits with your skill levels since the end of WW I. In WW II, a pretty good percentage of recruits still had fair rifle skills (southern boys had a higher percentage), but it was fading, as more and more came from urban/metro areas. Vietnam was worse, and the bean counters, who had been studying the statistics became firmly wedded to the idea that more ammo meant more effectiveness.

Today, our military is dominated by the concept that it's not the effectivness of the individual round that counts most, its the effectiveness of the weapon system that matters.

The 5.56mm system came about to fight a mechanised war, against a conventional army. High volume firepower per weight, works well enough, etc. Of course, our brass in their wisdom, thought it was perfect for everything, when logic says it cannot be, but that's the govt for you.

Personally, if I was relying on something to stop bad people from getting me, I would want the biggest round available. 155mm and airstrikes come to mind. But, when I have to carry it, other factors take precedence.

Yes, I'm one of those who think we ought to have a larger caliber round. Thought so when I was in the service, and still think so today, since my children are serving. But that's because I value my own, and the lives of our troops. The military does not put that same value on them. They do value them, but the mission comes first. And, in the end, its the right way to see it. Troops are expendable, if necesary, provided the mission succeeds. Thats what the military does. We take a lot of trouble to see that we don't expend our troops unless absolutely necessary, but sometimes it is.

Today, only a small fraction of recruits are skilled shots when they join up, and even if they are, how well they shoot in combat is something else entirely. The small caliber select fire weapons we use today maximize hits, even in the hands of those less than expert shots. And any hit is better than none.

The war we are fighting today is not the same as the wars we have fought in the past, and we are, slowly, changing our weapons and tactics to deal with it. Note that today, we have brought back the concept of sniper/designated marksman to deal with longer range targets, and are even equipping them with rifles up to the task. This was not the case for many years.

The AR system and the 5.56mm are not going away anytime soon, we have a huge investment in them, and economics rules mean we will keep them as long as we can make them work. But they are being supported (again) by other "systems", which is a good thing.

We got the 5.56mm because of the bureaucrats, both in and out of the military, and we are going to keep it for the same reasons. The good news is that as a system, it does work, acceptably well, after 40+ years of field trials.:rolleyes:
 
I love each time this tread crops up! :D what about 6.8 or .458 or etc... 5.56 is a fine round the military isn't going to re chamber every 5.56 for each new wonder bullet that comes out. And what about our stockpiles of ammo? just toss that away too and have them make piles of new ammo? Good god. Imagine taxes and ammo prices then!?

I'm not sure why I'm posting... Just have some time to kill I suppose.
 
Not in intrude, but only serviceman with experience should answer, if you know what I mean.

TBS, maybe a soldier can carry more 5.56s, than 7.62s. I call that fire power.
 
Wasn't the 5.56 round originally designed to "tumble" on impact, thereby intentionally making it a wounding round? That may or may not be a good thing depending on your immediate position in a battle, if i remember the strategy was to take a two or three enemies out of commission by severely wounding one.
Different ammo configurations can change that to a large extent, but in my opinion the 5.56 / .223 is light on the projectile weight end of things. Anyway, i think it's unarguable that as a consistent, multi-range, decisive killing round, it's comparatively low on the list.

Eli W.
 
Not in intrude, but only serviceman with experience should answer, if you know what I mean.
Click to expand...
Servicemen started the myth that the 30 carbine was ineffective and stopped by thick North Korean and Chinese clothing in Korea, so they are hardly infallible. Many, as other have pointed out, are not gun people and so have really limited knowledge on various bullet designs.
 
Doc TH: The 5.56 round is not impotent.
Most industrialized nations have gradually gone to rounds smaller than the 7.62, .303, 30-06 etc., for a number of reasons, including:
- most engagements occur at ranges of 300 meters or less
- large caliber rounds are heavy, infantry already carry a lot of weight, and
with semi- and fully auto rifles, troops need to carry more rounds; for the same weight more rounds of 5.56 can be carried
- marksmanship can be learned more easily with light-recoiling rifles for the majority of troops

The 5.56 will have less penetration of cover than the old battle rounds, but this is rarely a critical factor. For longer range sniping, specialized weapons are routinely used.

I get to talk to folks returning from Iraq and Afghanistan every week, with various backgrounds from regular infantry to Spec Ops people. I ask about their satisfaction with the M-4, M16A2 and A4, and no one has ever said they consider the rifle or the round to be unsatisfactory.
Click to expand...

This +100. Anyone who says the 5.56 NATO round is impotent is showing their a$$ and doesn't know any better. Soldiers who have seen the horrible wounds to flesh caused by this round will say otherwise. The new heavier grain bullets in use now are even more effective. The new rounds are also fairly effective against what is termed "hard targets" meaning lightly armored individuals and equipment.
 
I carried an M-16 in War and Peace and today no AR-15 or round of 5.56 resides in my collection. I found the cartridge lacked range and punch, useless against thin skinned targets. It often seemed to main function of M-16
armed riflemen in Vietnam was to point out targets to M-60 gunners. A rifleman need to carry 2-3x as many rounds to make up for the round's laco of effectiveness, and often troops carried much less ammunition due to fatigue, heat exhaustion, etc. Having rifleman and machine gunners using different rounds caused logistical problems. I just talked to a Marine veteran of both Irag and Afghanistan, he would have preferred something heavier. He said when you get a truly clear shot it works OK, but how often in combat do you get truly clear shots. Every conflict finds new faults with both the round and the rifle which results in new modifications to both. My personal opinion is that it is like the M-1 Carbine-a good weapon for someone whose function is to do something else. Everybody else adopting it? I note with wry amusement that despite our poor performance in battle over the last 50 years or so we do seem to have the trend and fashion setter in military things.
 
Useless against thin-skinned targets? Lots of people here have thin skin but thick heads.

Do you suppose the enemy (we have enemies, you know) sits around debating the effectiveness of a 7.62x39 versus a 5.45x39 versus (while we're at it) the 7.62x54r?

Perhaps a return to the 7.62 NATO would be in order were it possible for most soldiers able to utilize its potential, like the Marines presumably can, because they can outshoot the army. That is, if I'm not misinformed. The concept of the intermediate round goes back to before I was born and it didn't come from a front line soldier. It came from studying what actually happens in battle and not surprising, it came from the Germans. And what do the Germans use today?
 
I carried the M1, M14, and the M16 as a sailor and a soldier.

Of the three, . . . I'd drop the M1 first and foremost.

Of the other two, . . . depends on where I am, . . . what I am up against, . . . who I am up against.

Make it a push-come-shove argument, . . . I'm old school, . . . M14 would be my first choice. And I say that without denigrating the 5.56 round at all, . . . it is just a preference for me. If Uncle Sugar called my number today, . . . sent me to the sand box, . . . I'd be all right with the 5.56, . . . but I'd volunteer for the 7.62 if I got the chance.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
Useless against thin-skinned targets? Lots of people here have thin skin but thick heads.
Click to expand...
To dismiss such statements out of hand shows ones own ignorance. It all depends on what target we are talking about. Against auto glass, both the M193 & M855 have dismal performance, which is one reason for the heavier 77 grain loads.

Against cars, again the 5.56 has less than desirable performance. Over at the Buick-O-Truth, 5.56 would penetrate one car door, but not the other. So if you're in the car you may be SOL, but if you're on the other side of the car you do have a degree of protection from 5.56.

Against the common mud brick structures the 5.56 is again lacking in effectiveness. Which is why the LAW rocket is apparently so popular. Don't need to screw around with 5.56 or 7.62 when a jet of molten copper and blast overpressure will do a much better job.

The heavy 5.56 loads to a lot to correct some problems, but they are again crippled by the AR magazine limit.
 
Somewhere across the lonely dark moor, a dead horse is crying.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hear you but no one has gone nutty yet in the thread so let the endless discussion continue. Besides if you rack your M-14 it will scare away the bad guys - oops - wrong comment from another endless debate. :D
 
The 556 is acceptable but I'd prefer a 762 chambered rifle if given a choice if for no other reason then getting through baricades.
 
While some may say that I am not qualified to respond (I've never served in the military), I'll just go ahead anyway...

As a firearms enthusiast (AKA gun nut), I make a point to try to talk guns with any serviceman I meet. Giving that I live in San Antonio, with its huge military population, I get the chance fairly often. The anecdotal consensus among the folks that I've spoken with is that the 5.56 is adequate in most circumstances. The few times that it wasn't, they brought in a usually readily available alternate weapon. The theme seemed to be that the 5.56 is the right tool for the job MOST of the time, so why trade away its very positive aspects (light recoil, accuracy, light weight) that ALWAYS benefit you, for more punch that will benefit you seldom or rarely.

There is somewhat of an analogy here in the Sherman Tank of WWII. Military planners did not intend for the Sherman to go head to head with other tanks. It was to assist the infantry in battle against other infantry. If an enemy tank was spotted, you were supposed to call in a TANK DESTROYER. Why not just make all tanks tank destroyers? Well, they were bigger, heavier, slower, more expensive, and took longer to manufacture and ship across the Atlantic. Why handicap yourself this way when you could inundate the battlefield with tanks that were effective the great majority of the time? Sure, head to head with a Panther or Tiger, the Shermans were toast, but how many Panthers were there? Probably only a tenth of the number of Shermans. And they consumed much more fuel than Shermans; this was especially important since every bit of war materiel (including tanks and fuel) had to be shipped over from the U.S..

At the time, the Shermans/tank destroyers/firepower controversy was similar to that of the 5.56 round. 60 years later, there is still debate over this issue, though, thankfully, the debate is academic. I suspect the 5.56 debate will continue on for at least the same amount of time.
 
You may notice that no one uses something called a tank destroyer these days. It turned out to be a false economy, like battle cruisers. That is, that's how I see it. But you might say there are two ways to win, which is good, because your enemy isn't always the same. You can out number him or you can out class him. Either way, victory is not assured.

But time marches on. Technology is advanced, but also not with assurance.

Have you noticed that no one uses a 75mm field gun or a 105mm howitizer except when light weight is the overriding consideration? Why not? This is a case where the bigger is better crowd is right. Even in WWI a 75mm was on the light side. They still used them in large quantities, it goes without saying. The British standard field gun was the 18-pounder. On the Western Front 18-pounders fired 99,300,000 (99 million) rounds according to one source. And we talk about how many small arms rounds were fired.

But as I've just mentioned in another thread, optical sights are widely issued in the army nowadays and I believe that has contributed more the combat effectiveness of an infantryman's rifle than anything in the last 40 years. But I could be wrong.
 
Somewhere I have a study that indicates those who thought the 5.56 was ineffective were those who didn't hit the target. Those who hit the target said it worked just fine.

Mr. Miranda is correct. The service men I've shot with at SA matches thought that the round and also their M9 pistols were perfectly adequate.

Is Mr. Ed dead yet, Bud?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top