Why the .223 Rem for the Military?
- Thread starter R&H
- Start date
- Status
For a cheap, reliable, effective field battle rifle - the AK47 beat the original M16's and still bests them. Weigh 1000 rounds of .223 and weigh 1000 rounds of 7.62 x 39. They come in at 11 kilos vs 15 kilos. Was the 4 kilos worth it? (I admit that it may have been worth it for the savings of half the weight of 1000 rounds of 30-06 {25 to 30 kilos more or less depending on bullet weight). Also, was it worth gambling lives on a new rifle and cartridge when the AK was and is a proven battle rifle?
Sure, the AK is reliable...but the 7.62x39 is a lousy combat round. It has a trajectory like a rainbow and trails far behind the 223 in wounding effectiveness. It is a better penetrator but only at short ranges and lacks quite a bit in inherent accuracy.
The BEST choice for a combat rifle would be something along the lines of a Galil 223...the reliability of an AK with the quality of a FAL and the ballistics of a 223.
Unfortunately, it is heavier than an AR...maybe a Galil with a polymer folding stock?
Anyway, the Galil wasn't around when we chose the M16...and I think we made the right choice.
The BEST choice for a combat rifle would be something along the lines of a Galil 223...the reliability of an AK with the quality of a FAL and the ballistics of a 223.
Unfortunately, it is heavier than an AR...maybe a Galil with a polymer folding stock?
Anyway, the Galil wasn't around when we chose the M16...and I think we made the right choice.
RikWriter:
I believe the South African R4 is based on the Galil and has a larger, but lighter polymer folding stock.
BTW, talking about all these "assault" rifles make me drool. Sometimes I fantasize about the "Assault" weapon ban not existing and being able to buy the semi-auto versions of these (Galil, R4, DR200, G44 and etc.) at more reasonable prices (under $1,000).
Skorzeny
------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu
I believe the South African R4 is based on the Galil and has a larger, but lighter polymer folding stock.
BTW, talking about all these "assault" rifles make me drool. Sometimes I fantasize about the "Assault" weapon ban not existing and being able to buy the semi-auto versions of these (Galil, R4, DR200, G44 and etc.) at more reasonable prices (under $1,000).
Skorzeny
------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu
Why does the military use the .223?
*pound for pound, grunts can carry butt-loads more .223 ammo on their person than .308
*30 round magazines (usually loaded with 28)
*Lighter recoil than .308
*less raw materiel needed to make a cartridge
*volume of fire...although we did go to 3 round burst on the M16A2 didn't we
After seeing the steel parts of a HMMWV that can be penetrated through-and-through by ball ammo from an M16A2... I would not want to be on the receiving end of this round!
True, it ain't a .308, but the grunts turn to the M60 MG or snipers for that, and the tankers have the M240 coax.
After slogging many miles with M14s and M16s, and given the nature of "the threat", I will take an M16A2 over an M14 any day of the week.
Just my 2 cents, and worth just that!
*pound for pound, grunts can carry butt-loads more .223 ammo on their person than .308
*30 round magazines (usually loaded with 28)
*Lighter recoil than .308
*less raw materiel needed to make a cartridge
*volume of fire...although we did go to 3 round burst on the M16A2 didn't we
After seeing the steel parts of a HMMWV that can be penetrated through-and-through by ball ammo from an M16A2... I would not want to be on the receiving end of this round!
True, it ain't a .308, but the grunts turn to the M60 MG or snipers for that, and the tankers have the M240 coax.
After slogging many miles with M14s and M16s, and given the nature of "the threat", I will take an M16A2 over an M14 any day of the week.
Just my 2 cents, and worth just that!
MountainGun44
New member
Studies have shown that something like 80% of battlefield hits were not the result of "aimed" fire. The ability to carry and therefore fire more rounds towards the enemy's position is an important combat tactic.
I have never served in the military, let alone been in combat, but I understand that an engagement with the enemy is nothing like a 1000 yard shooting competition from the bench. I have been told that in Vietnam, where we were usually outnumbered on the ground, it was often a spray and pray proposition. The more rounds you could get out towards the enemy the more likely you would be to pin him down.
As far as the weight of AK rounds vs. .223 rounds is concerned, there is an 11 pound difference between *just the bullets* for 1000 rounds. That is huge when you are carrying it. I don't know where this "4 kilo" number is coming from.
125 grains X 1000 / 407 grains per ounce / 16 ounces per pound vs. 55 grains
I have never served in the military, let alone been in combat, but I understand that an engagement with the enemy is nothing like a 1000 yard shooting competition from the bench. I have been told that in Vietnam, where we were usually outnumbered on the ground, it was often a spray and pray proposition. The more rounds you could get out towards the enemy the more likely you would be to pin him down.
As far as the weight of AK rounds vs. .223 rounds is concerned, there is an 11 pound difference between *just the bullets* for 1000 rounds. That is huge when you are carrying it. I don't know where this "4 kilo" number is coming from.
125 grains X 1000 / 407 grains per ounce / 16 ounces per pound vs. 55 grains
Nestor Rivera
New member
Goat:
A brief synopsis, The AR10 was originally meant as a weapon for the American military, it was never adopted for various reasons (it was tested against the FN-FAL, M-14 and I think G-3). When Armalite went on a world tour showing off both the AR15 and the AR10 for foreign sales they found that the smaller stature Asians preferred the AR15, less recoil, less muzzle blast. Etc. Armalite attempted to get the AR15 purchased for military aid to Asians nations. Colt eventually bought the rights for the weapon, I can't remember if it was before or after Gen Lemay wanted to buy thousands for the Air Force, but was refused because of having thousands of M1 and M2 sitting around at the time. The army also got a few for SF to test in Vietnam. Than MacNamara and his whiz kids got into the project and the rest is history.
80 percent of causalities aren't caused by aimed fired or small arms for that matter. Most battlefield causalities are caused by explosives, the majority being indirect fire, artillery, mortars and NGF. Small arms cause the remaining, most of those being crew served weapons, like machine-guns, very, very few are caused by aimed fire by riflemen.
A brief synopsis, The AR10 was originally meant as a weapon for the American military, it was never adopted for various reasons (it was tested against the FN-FAL, M-14 and I think G-3). When Armalite went on a world tour showing off both the AR15 and the AR10 for foreign sales they found that the smaller stature Asians preferred the AR15, less recoil, less muzzle blast. Etc. Armalite attempted to get the AR15 purchased for military aid to Asians nations. Colt eventually bought the rights for the weapon, I can't remember if it was before or after Gen Lemay wanted to buy thousands for the Air Force, but was refused because of having thousands of M1 and M2 sitting around at the time. The army also got a few for SF to test in Vietnam. Than MacNamara and his whiz kids got into the project and the rest is history.
80 percent of causalities aren't caused by aimed fired or small arms for that matter. Most battlefield causalities are caused by explosives, the majority being indirect fire, artillery, mortars and NGF. Small arms cause the remaining, most of those being crew served weapons, like machine-guns, very, very few are caused by aimed fire by riflemen.
Rob Pincus
New member
***- My bad... I Misread the Armalite site while I was over there the other day.... it says that AR does not stand for "Armalite Rifle"....******
R&H,
To address your original question: Yes, it is true that one factor in the adoption of the 5.56mm round was the wounding effect. It is true that you hinder the enemy more with a wounded man than you do with a dead one. To say that it was the primary factor though would be wrong. The military perceived many benefits to the 5.56 over the 7.62 round... as noted in many of the above posts.
------------------
-Essayons
[This message has been edited by Rob (edited June 01, 2000).]
R&H,
To address your original question: Yes, it is true that one factor in the adoption of the 5.56mm round was the wounding effect. It is true that you hinder the enemy more with a wounded man than you do with a dead one. To say that it was the primary factor though would be wrong. The military perceived many benefits to the 5.56 over the 7.62 round... as noted in many of the above posts.
------------------
-Essayons
[This message has been edited by Rob (edited June 01, 2000).]
To quote a pamphlet put out by the infantry board in the late 1950s "small caliber bullets propelled at blistering velocity are equal in lethality to larger, heavier projectiles out to about 400 meters." When the AR-15/M16 was originally looked at the lethality was thought to be as good as larger rounds, they old myth of wounding being the primary reason for the smaller round seems to always rear its ugly head.
The AR was the Armalite of old. The current Armalite is a recent company. The original Armalite went out of business many years ago. The current company took their name in the late eighties or early nineties and started to produce AR-10s.
The AR was the Armalite of old. The current Armalite is a recent company. The original Armalite went out of business many years ago. The current company took their name in the late eighties or early nineties and started to produce AR-10s.
Please go easy on me guys, I'm new here.
I am a dedicated varmint and predator hunter so the .223 is a natural caliber. We all know the effects of premium bullets such as sp, hp and polymere tips. All will shred thier thin jackets in flesh on 50# coyotes and 150# deer. The explosive bullets send shards outward from the bullets path and will turn chest cavities into jello. The bullet rarely exits on either animal, so in turn all of the small pills energy has been delivered to the target. This translates to pure knockdown power that anchors them right now.
I will not use fmj bullets on either of these animals. The shot can not be put into the chest cavity and expected to down the animal everytime. A major organ or artery must be hit, then the animal still usually makes it 30-100 yards while bleeding out. A fraction of an inch off and the animal is lost.
I would presume someone in a firefight would need the same results. The enemy should be taken out as soon as possible to stop the hazard of being shot at.
To me an effective caliber would be one that requires the least shots to put an asailant down quickly. From what I have learned the mushrooming ammunition holds this key by transferring it's power to the target. Also from what I've gathered fmj rounds transfer little energy to the target, in soft flesh they over penetrate. The point of hitting more than one target can be argued, but 3 or 4 wounded men still have the ability to return fire.
I mean no disrespect to anyone, and as sated these are only my oppinions derived from hunting animals.
My father served in Vietnam from 69-70 as a m60 gunner in the First Cavalry, 3rd Heard. I know there were some bugs with the M16 at that time, but he has preached for years the innefectiveness of the fmj rounds on men. That was the reason for him carrying a 20 some pound machine gun. He witnessed several direct body hits at close range where 3 or 4 rounds were pumpped into a person to only witness them still standing and firing. In turn he said one or two rounds of 7.62 Nato would at least knock them down so you had a small window of oppurtunity to finish the job.
I am sorry to speak in such a graphic sence. But after all bullet performance is directly related to this issue. If I am wrong in my assumption of the .223 fmj please shed some light on this issue.
I am a dedicated varmint and predator hunter so the .223 is a natural caliber. We all know the effects of premium bullets such as sp, hp and polymere tips. All will shred thier thin jackets in flesh on 50# coyotes and 150# deer. The explosive bullets send shards outward from the bullets path and will turn chest cavities into jello. The bullet rarely exits on either animal, so in turn all of the small pills energy has been delivered to the target. This translates to pure knockdown power that anchors them right now.
I will not use fmj bullets on either of these animals. The shot can not be put into the chest cavity and expected to down the animal everytime. A major organ or artery must be hit, then the animal still usually makes it 30-100 yards while bleeding out. A fraction of an inch off and the animal is lost.
I would presume someone in a firefight would need the same results. The enemy should be taken out as soon as possible to stop the hazard of being shot at.
To me an effective caliber would be one that requires the least shots to put an asailant down quickly. From what I have learned the mushrooming ammunition holds this key by transferring it's power to the target. Also from what I've gathered fmj rounds transfer little energy to the target, in soft flesh they over penetrate. The point of hitting more than one target can be argued, but 3 or 4 wounded men still have the ability to return fire.
I mean no disrespect to anyone, and as sated these are only my oppinions derived from hunting animals.
My father served in Vietnam from 69-70 as a m60 gunner in the First Cavalry, 3rd Heard. I know there were some bugs with the M16 at that time, but he has preached for years the innefectiveness of the fmj rounds on men. That was the reason for him carrying a 20 some pound machine gun. He witnessed several direct body hits at close range where 3 or 4 rounds were pumpped into a person to only witness them still standing and firing. In turn he said one or two rounds of 7.62 Nato would at least knock them down so you had a small window of oppurtunity to finish the job.
I am sorry to speak in such a graphic sence. But after all bullet performance is directly related to this issue. If I am wrong in my assumption of the .223 fmj please shed some light on this issue.
You guys wanna talk about full-size rifle caliber vs. "assault weapon" caliber? Let's talk about why the Germans adopted the 7.92mm Kurz cartridge for the MP43/StG44.
The Germans did a battle analysis during the war and found that majority of fire fights took place in short to medium range where the long-range (500-1000 yards) accuracy of their traditional 98K/7.92mm wasn't much of a benefit.
With a full-auto assault rifle (Sturmgewehr) with a large magazine capacity, they found that infantry could make advances w/o necessarily having to have the machine gun support, by generating a sufficient volume of fire to create suppression and the oft-touted "shock" effect.
At the same time, the short cartridge had enough oomph and accuracy (better than a SMG) in the medium distance to allow aimed single-shot fire during defensive missions.
This assault rifle/short cartridge combo wasn't pushed from the top. The field people in the Eastern Front absolutely adored it and requested more despite Hitler's initial refusal.
I suspect that, had M-16 been more reliable (for whatever reasons) in Vietnam, most of us would be singing a different tune about the .223 cartridge.
Skorzeny
------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu
The Germans did a battle analysis during the war and found that majority of fire fights took place in short to medium range where the long-range (500-1000 yards) accuracy of their traditional 98K/7.92mm wasn't much of a benefit.
With a full-auto assault rifle (Sturmgewehr) with a large magazine capacity, they found that infantry could make advances w/o necessarily having to have the machine gun support, by generating a sufficient volume of fire to create suppression and the oft-touted "shock" effect.
At the same time, the short cartridge had enough oomph and accuracy (better than a SMG) in the medium distance to allow aimed single-shot fire during defensive missions.
This assault rifle/short cartridge combo wasn't pushed from the top. The field people in the Eastern Front absolutely adored it and requested more despite Hitler's initial refusal.
I suspect that, had M-16 been more reliable (for whatever reasons) in Vietnam, most of us would be singing a different tune about the .223 cartridge.
Skorzeny
------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu
M1235:
Projectiles designed to deform or mushroom are violations of the rules of war.
Skorzany:
The Germans did their study on small arms use following the first world war and prior to the Second World War, unfortunalty for them the war started prior to the adoption of their first intermediate round. And with a war in full swing it was hard to convince the leadership to switch to another caliber that equipment to load was not already in the system.
Projectiles designed to deform or mushroom are violations of the rules of war.
Skorzany:
The Germans did their study on small arms use following the first world war and prior to the Second World War, unfortunalty for them the war started prior to the adoption of their first intermediate round. And with a war in full swing it was hard to convince the leadership to switch to another caliber that equipment to load was not already in the system.
>>M1235:
Projectiles designed to deform or mushroom are violations of the rules of war.<<
Well, not really. There has been no agreement signed that outlaws mushrooming bullets. The Hague Accords outlawed dum-dum bullets specifically, which were lead bullets cut into four sections to fragment in the body. And, we never SIGNED the Hague Accords.
Projectiles designed to deform or mushroom are violations of the rules of war.<<
Well, not really. There has been no agreement signed that outlaws mushrooming bullets. The Hague Accords outlawed dum-dum bullets specifically, which were lead bullets cut into four sections to fragment in the body. And, we never SIGNED the Hague Accords.
Scenario and what I want....
Building assault: Neither, I want an MP5 in .40S&W!
Jungle combat: M-16A2 Nice quick and controllable. Devastating terminal ballistics (to a few hundred yards).
Open combat (i.e. Desert Storm): M-14, I'd like to hit and kill them at 500 yards or more so I didn't need a quick controllable rifle in up close battle.
------------------
I thought I'd seen it all, until a 22WMR spun a bunny 2 1/4 times in the air!
Building assault: Neither, I want an MP5 in .40S&W!
Jungle combat: M-16A2 Nice quick and controllable. Devastating terminal ballistics (to a few hundred yards).
Open combat (i.e. Desert Storm): M-14, I'd like to hit and kill them at 500 yards or more so I didn't need a quick controllable rifle in up close battle.
------------------
I thought I'd seen it all, until a 22WMR spun a bunny 2 1/4 times in the air!
- Status