Why the .223 Rem for the Military?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rik you are correct partially correct.

the FM 27-10, The laws of land warfare.
“Section III. FORBIDDEN MEANS OF WAGING WARFARE
33. Means of Injuring the Enemy Limited
a. Treaty Provision.
The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited. (HR, art. 22.)
b. The means employed are definitely restricted by international declarations and conventions and by the laws and usages of war.
34. Employment of Arms Causing Unnecessary Injury
a. Treaty Provision.
It is especially forbidden * * * to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. (HR, art. 23, par. (e).)
b. Interpretation. What weapons cause "unnecessary injury" can only be determined in light of the practice of States in refraining from the use of a given weapon because it is believed to have that effect. The prohibition certainly does not extend to the use of explosives contained in artillery projectiles, mines, rockets, or hand grenades. Usage has, however, established the illegality of the use of lances with barbed heads, irregular-shaped bullets, and projectiles filled with glass, the use of any substance on bullets that would tend unnecessarily to inflame a wound inflicted by them, and the scoring of the surface or the filing off of the ends of the hard cases of bullets. “

HR referred to is the annex to the Hague convention No IV, 18 October 1907, embodying the Regulations respect to the Regulations Respecting the Laws of Land warfare.

“The 1949 Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims have been ratified by the United States and came into force for this country on 2 February 1956. The effect of these four conventions upon previous treaties to which the United States is a party is discussed in detail in paragraph 5 of the text. Each of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and each of the Geneva Conventions of 1864, 1906, and 1929 will, of course, continue in force as between the United States and such of the other parties to the respective conventions as have not yet ratified or adhered to the later, superseding convention(s) governing the same subject matter. Moreover, even though States may not be parties to, or strictly bound by, the 1907 Hague Conventions and the 1929 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the general principles of these conventions have been held declaratory of the customary law of war to which all States are subject. For this reason, the United States has adopted the policy of observing and enforcing the terms of these conventions in so far as they have not been superseded by the 1949 Geneva Conventions which necessarily govern the relations between the parties to the latter (see par. 6 and 7 of the text).”

Although he US never signed the initial accords, by signing off on the latter accords we agreed to the previous. The JAG of the US Army has taken the meaning of intentionally designed to cause more suffering to mean any projectile not purpose built to fragment or mushroom is acceptable. This is because the M852 special purpose ball that uses the 168 gn BTHP is not specially designed to fragment, but is a hollow point. And since M193 and M855 are not designed to fragment but however do, we take it that they are legal under the rules of land warfare.
 
M135 - I agree with what you say. "Blackhawk Down" cites a couple of instances in Somalia where combatants hit with FMJ showed no almost evidence of being struck because the bullet skated through without stopping. If the advesary is not wearing body armor, then an expanding bullet would be the way to go. Geneva Convention aside, I wonder if the .223 would still be considered a "mouse gun" if Nosler Partitions or Ballistic tips were used in a few firefights.....
 
MountainGun44, I arrived at the 4 kilos difference in 1000 rounds by weighing ten rounds each of 7.62x39 and .223 on a triple beam (in grams) and scaling up by 100. For international folks, 4 kilos is an understandable figure. FWIW, there are 437.5 grains in an kitchen ounce (480 in a troy ounce). Okay, I agree that the difference may be 10 lbs or up to 5 kilos per thousand rounds

Nevertheless, my point was the pros of using what already worked rather than inventing and adopting a new weapon in the middle of war. But that could be a plus since the side with superior logistics would benefit from a non-standard cartridge & weapon because it could supply the ammo. Whereas the guerilla forces would be prevented from scavenging or stealing ammo to make up for their inferior logistal. support.

The lesson, perhaps, is for guerillas to use what their enemy is using, but for the dominate force to try to use something entirely different because they have the manufacturing base to make it and the logistical support to deliver it.
 
The controversy continuous. Let me say I’ve used the 16 in combat and make no doubt about it, a hit will take down your oponent. Did VC/NVA take multiple hits for the 5.56 and continue to fight. Sure it has happened but I think this is the exception not the rule. I’ve seen and NVA soldier hit by one round of a 50 cal. and he was still able to fight. So what’s the point. Do you go to something bigger ? I carried an M-60 for 4 months and to be quite frank If I would of had a choice between the M-60 or one of the new 5.56 NATO SAW weapons. I would take the lighter weight gun. Going up and down mountains in the Central Highlands with a 23 lb. Machine gun, 300 rounds of belted ammo and a rucksack was not fun. The key to a machine gun in a war like Vietnam was its sustained fire rate not how big its bullet was.

My only concern is today with the new bullet 62 gr. SS 109 at a lower MV just how good is it? In the early days the 16 was so lethal due to its high MV and twist in the barrel 1/14” then to 1/12” which didn’t stabilize the bullet as well in flight and it could and would become unstable (keyhole) at impact. The 1/12” twist wasn’t as lethal but had better accuracy (that’s what I was told).

I’ve seen on news, grunts wearing new types of body armor it looks like there are plates in the vest? But as body armor improves how far can the 5.56 NATO go in defeating it ??. It will be interesting to see what the future brings.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if years down the road the military goes back to the 7.62 NATO or cranks up the 16.

If we are putting our people in Harms Way we must give finest in equipment and supplies. Lets face it war on the movie screen is glory, but in real life war stinks.

You All Have a Good Day.

Turk
 
DELL - "Dave... Dave... Topic has reached maximum allowable lenght."

Dave - "I noticed that DELL, but thank you for bringing it to my attention."

DELL - "Dave, do you want me to close the topic?"

Dave - "No DELL, I'll do it."

DELL - "Dave, should I start a Part II?"

Dave - "No DELL, we'll let the Members do that if they want to continue the discussion."

DELL - "Dave, you never let me do anything automatically on TFL. This causes me to wonder if I'm really needed."

Dave - "DELL, I use you to connect to TFL and the Net, you are needed. If you continue to bitch I'll trade you in for a PIII 800 mgh Gateway or IBM! What do you think of that DELL?"

DELL - "I understand Dave. What Website would you like to go to now?"

Dave - "Censored



------------------
Schmit
GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top