Why the .223 Rem for the Military?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

R&H

New member
I heard that one of the reasons the military choose the .223 Rem is that it was more likely to be non-lethal than a larger cartrige and incapacitate but only wound the enemy. The reason for this was that it would then cost the other side more in medical resources surgeons, medicine, ect. I was wondering if there was any truth to this or not.

I have already read about some of other requiremints the military had such as length, compatability with the action of the standard assault rifle, the bullet remaining supersonic for so far, and being able to penetrate a GI Helmet at 500 yards and so on.
 
Don't forget weight!!! Try carrying the equivilent of 8-10 30 round M16 mags (240-300 rounds) of .30-06 or 7.62x51 NATO (.308) in magazines, strippers, or enbloc clips and you will see reason numero uno. 240 rounds of .30 caliber rifle ammo is darn heavy.
 
The wound-but-not-kill thing is a persistent but very false rumor. The 223 does wound, and quite horribly, but it also kills quite effectively. The main reason for going with the 223 was the weight, plus the fact that it was much easier to fire full auto than a 308 rifle.
 
I am not trying to flame here. I think it is amazing that the .223 is considered a varmint cartridge anywhere else but put it in a black AR and it becomes a death dealer. This round is not even used as a deer cartridge. I realize it is very light and the rifles are lighter although if you grap most full size AR's they push 10-12 pounds. I believe that a shorter barreled M14 or FAL is the way to go for a battle rifle. I would classify the AR as a carbine. I realize it is deadly but how much more so is a .308? What do you all think? Am I out in left field here? Under 100 yards the AR is probably all right and most combat takes place at these ranges. Between an AR and an AK I would take the AK every time. It is at least .30 caliber. But I have to repeat, the .308 is the better battle round.

------------------
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times to spit on his hands,hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats." H.L. Mencken
 
The 5.56mm was adopted for several reasons. Its light recoil allowed development of a rifle that could be controllable in full auto fire, something that is nearly impossible (I know) with the M14. Secondly, the savings in weight allows the soldier to carry more ammo and support more rapid fire. Thirdly, the smaller size represents a considerable savings in manufacture. During WWII, Frankford Arsenal turned out 1.9 million rounds of .30 a day. When talking that kind of quantity, the lesser quantity of brass, powder and copper (all scarce resources in wartime) becomes significant.

The 5.56 mm is not a bad cartridge, but most of the "stories" are about the round when its muzzle velocity was over 3300fps. Since the reduction to 2800, its benefits are not obvious. Clearly, a 150 grain bullet at 2800 will do more damage than a 55 grain bullet at 2800.

It is not a "mouse gun" but neither is it a miracle cartridge. There is a lot of BS about "a hit anywhere in the body will kill instantly from shock" and "huge gaping wounds eight inches across". Nonsense. It is a medium power varmint round drafted into the service for the reasons stated.

Jim
 
When we (Strategic Air Command) first got the M-16 in late 65 or early 66 or so. We (instructors) had to go to a 3 day class on the weapon. When the class was over we got about a dozen issued to us to "play with" until the base started changing over from the M2 Carbine to the M16. Even the original round at the (stated) muzzle velocity of 3250 FPS was rather anemic. Wt tried em at 1000 yards and they had a hard time penetrating the wooden frames on the target holders [at 1000 yards they hit all over](that was after we managed to finally get them zeroed at that range). At 500 yards they WOULD NOT penetrate a steel helmet with regularity. A good dent for sure and a crater in the dent but no penetration. It would "ring your bell" but that was about it. What they will do today at that range with a heavier bullet but at a lesser velocity I do not know. I do know that on full auto they handle well, but lets be honest how often is full auto in a shoulder weapon really needed? Sometimes for sure but not all the time. They are accurate, easy to shoot, and you can carry a lot of ammo, but for my money give me an M1 or M14. At least when you hit the target it knows it has been hit! Even back then we were told about the wounding vs. killing thing. Wounding being better becuase it takes down 3 men instead of 1 (2 to help the wounded man). I think that is bull****, first lets face it the enemies we had then and now also view life as cheap. Maybe after the battle they will try to help their wounded but not during it, and secondly if that was really the case why change from the .30 Cal carbine? That was the wounding king!

------------------
Carlyle Hebert

[This message has been edited by Southla1 (edited May 28, 2000).]
 
Full auto - easier to hit a moving target, or while things are blowing up around you. "Intermediate Cartridges" like 5.56mmNATO are designed to be used with select-fire weapons.

Aimed shots - great for snipers. Harder to use against running and jinking enemy infantry. Also great for the qualification range. The targets don't take cover or return fire. 7.62mmNATO is proper fodder for "battle rifles" and sniper rifles.

(Chuck Taylor. The M16 is not a battle rifle. It is an assault rifle)

For the infantrymen an assault rifle is ideal. Hence it's invention.
Would you range mongers really rather assault an enemy held building with an M1 Garand instead of a Kalashnikov? Would you rather face a human-wave attack with an M1903 Springfield?
 
The .223 Remington and the AR15/M16 rifle came about as a resuit of the Army's Project Salvo. This was an attempt to improve the average soldiers hit probability. Experiments with the .30 caliber carbine round necked down to take a .22 caliber FMJ bullet led to the development of the .223 which ws a redesign of the .222 Remington Magnum so thst it would function well through an automatic rifle.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RikWriter:
Having used 223 55 grain military ball on deer, I can say that it can indeed take white-tail. [/quote]

Rik I hae no doubt about that. I have also seen whitetails taken with a .22 LR, but neither of these rounds is what I would choose for deer hunting!

------------------
Carlyle Hebert
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shin-Tao:
Would you range mongers really rather assault an enemy held building with an M1 Garand instead of a Kalashnikov? Would you rather face a human-wave attack with an M1903 Springfield?[/quote]

I would much rather take a conventional bldg with the Garand. Use 162 AP and just puncture the whole damn thing, as far as a human wave attack, that is what your machine gunners are for, besides that if you can get one behind the other, you may get 3 or 4 with one shot! :D

------------------
Carlyle Hebert
 
The ability to carry more of the relatively light weight .223 round has already been well explained.

As Jim mentioned, there was also the desire to have a standard issue weapon capable of full auto fire. The smaller round also allowed for the construction of a much lighter rifle than its predecessors - it was easier for smaller or less able bodied troops to hump around a 6 pound rifle rather than a 9.5 pound M1 or M14.

Then there are the wicked .223 'tumbling' bullet accounts. The initial barrel twist on the very early M16's was 1/14. The accuracy was not what was hoped for, but the marginally stabilized bullet, traveling at high velocity, did grievous damage upon impact. To improve accuracy, the twist rate was tightened to 1/12.

For some interesting reading, take a look at The Saga of the M16 in Vietnam by Dick Culver.

The .223 round meets the purpose for which it was intended. But for all around versatility and stopping power, I'll take the .30-06 or .308 any day.

Cliff

[This message has been edited by Cliff (edited May 28, 2000).]
 
Guys, I think the military has re-thought the full-auto issue. While I have no problem with grunts having full-auto on tap, the latest model M16 is limited to 3rnd burst. I believe that this was for the same reason that FALs were sold to third-world countries semi-only (per the FN manual)----lack of training and resources (read-ammo).
Unfortunately, we do not properly train our troops to handle their weapons full-auto, simply because we cannot 'afford' the expenditure. go figure....
And yes, I am a fan of the 7.62mm. A good 18" FAL with an optical sight is nice....

------------------
I don't CARE about pretty....I just want dangerous.
 
5.56mm well Kill.

On 16 June 1962, one platoon from the 340 Ranger Company was on an operation...and contacted three armed Viet Cong in heavily forested jungle. Two VChad carbines, grenades, minesand one had a sub-machinegun. At a distance of 15 meters, one Ranger firde an AR-15 full automatic hitting one Viet Cong with three rounds in the first burst. one round in the head took it completely off.Another in the right arm, took it completely off too. one round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about five inches in diameter...it can be assumed that any one of the three wounds would have caused death.
 
Ummm...I may be wrong, but I don't believe the Rangers existed in the Army in 1962---unless I am mistaken they reconstituted the LRRPs as Rangers in 68 or 69. I also don't believe the AR15 was being used by any unit in 1962.
Maybe you meant 72?
 
The Beta-test models were XM-177s with 10" barrels and five inch sound and flash reducers (which the BATF incorrectly labled as silencers, causing Armalite and Colt to redesign the flash suppressor to 4.5" with an 11.5" barrel so as not to have to serial number each flash suppressor). That is the story I saw on "Tales of the Gun" anyhow.

------------------
Guns cause crime like spoons cause Rosie O'Donnell to be fat!

I hunt, therefore I am.
 
The Rangers have existed since the French and Indian War, but they haven't existed constantly as an organized military unit. I am fairly sure there were no Rangers in Vietnam (or anywhere else in the army) in1962.
 
RikWriter did you look at the link? It has the same quote DUDE quoted. It was that report that really got the AR-15 off the ground, so to speak. It is possible that the "Rangers" mentioned were ARVN Rangers. I think they had some platoons designated as Rangers. It is also possible that our "advisors" consisted of a small Ranger Company, but they usually didn't have Co. numbers anywhere near 340.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top