".223/5.56 isnt effective enough"

[the1kidd03]

I've read that the problem with the 5.56x45 ammo is when it's being shot out of barrels less than 20 inches, cause they lose velocity

the shorter the barrel, the more velocity is lost....but the military uses 20" and 16" barrels.......and really the velocity drop between them is not enough to matter...something like 50fps maybe give or take......and this slight alteration in velocity isn't going to have a significant effect on a rounds "knock-down power"

 

[Kase]

Someone should ask Charlie what he thought of the 5.56 round.

I bet they'd know a little about it

 

[the1kidd03]

I also have heard the negative reports about the 5.56mm. The information I trust the most comes from my brother who served 16 months in Iraq in 03-04 and then 2 more tours in Afghanistan in 06 and 08. He also has personal experience and witnessed the power of the 5.56mm on human targets. He has told me stories about one round from his M4 would immediately drop a threat. He has also stated that they have shot a threat 6-8 times before he completely stopped. He also stated that the threats struck multiple times took hits all over the body before taking 1-2 more in a vital area to stop them. Most of these incidents were with running enemies. He attributes they varying results to a couple of things.

1. Shot placement. He has even seen threats get hit with 7.62mm rounds and continue to try and move or fight. The round struck low in abdomen or hit extremity. A round in high center of mass or head by 5.56 or 7.62 will have a devastating effect and will most likely stop the threat.
2. Round interference: Several instenses of firing 5.56mm rounds through doors and walls slow the round and deflected it causing not as much power as a direct hit would cause on the threat. He has captured wounded enemies that were injured more by shrapnel thrown by rounds then the bullets themselves, or bullet fragments.
3: range of threat: in Iraq in close quarters or ranges of 400 meters or less the 5.56 was excellent. When in Afghanistan they began issuing 7.62 rifles to marksman for increased power at range. He said the 5.56 can get hits on targets beyond 400 meters easy, but the 7.62 dumps more energy into the target at long range increasing the possibility of stopping the threat. However, he stated the 5.56 does a good job for stopping a threat and has the added advantage of light weight and lighter recoil and carrying more ammunition.

Overall he was pleased with the 5.56 round in combat. It did it's job well. It kept him and the guys in his teams alive. If he had any real quarrels it was with the M4 rifle itself. Too sensitive to sand and dirt and took too much maintenance. But as long as it was kept clean it continued to fire.

They will always try and find fault in any rifle round used in combat. Until we have lasers there will be people going against them. Who knows they may have problems with laser rifles saying they don't burn the target enough. Battery goes dead too soon, etc.

All I know is I don't want to be shot with any of them.

Well said on all points....the only thing I'd add from my experience is that it's not necessarily the rifle that is too sensitive to sand....a lot of guys tended to "over-CLP" them which makes dusty sand stick to it in all of the places you DON'T want....in a desert environment you want to take it relatively light on the CLP and my men and I never had any issues to worry about really

 

[badmac183]

this brings into question the shooter(accuracy of the shot) and the round being used (velocity, FMJ/HP/etc)........small target, greater distance, excessive penetration through a non vital portion of a small animal.....there are far more variables which can't be accounted for in such situations.....I think this is why the OP was ideally looking for accounts of actual military experience...otherwise it's simply specualtion/theory of could haves/what if's/ etc

I always use v-max ammo for taking down varmints which I would assume has much more stopping power then whatever fmj round the military uses. I also know I hit the groundhog because I could see the animal fall and I also saw the blood splatter from where it hit. So if a hollow point .223 round won't keep a groundhog down I surely would trust it on taking down a 200+ pound man

 

[gunowner930]

umm idk about any of you but I have shot groundhogs with .223s and have had them run off before I can get out their with a shovel. I for one would not trust a round that can't stop groundhogs to stop a grown man with a gun.

Are you sure you hit them? Do you really believe that a 5.56x45 can't kill an animal as small as a groundhog? Less powerful .22 LR and .17 HMR seem to work pretty well on game that size.

 

[sgreen3]

Ive shot a few coyote on the farm from 50 to 100yrds out. The round was very effective. But I could see if you were needing to punch through a barrier, that could pose a problem with the lighter round

 

[the1kidd03]

Someone should ask Charlie what he thought of the 5.56 round.

I bet they'd know a little about it

I wouldn't doubt that a lot of this hype comes from the Nam days...when shooting through dense brush cause issues...also the AR design was relatively new and still getting the bugs worked out....if I remember my weapons history correctly the M16 was in service for 2-3 years before they had added the forward assist and a couple other design issues...but someone can correct me on that I'm sure.....in any case, I think a lot of the 5.56 and AR bad rep comes from those days and people tend to pass their opinions along and never let bad experiences die

 

[gunman41mag]

the shorter the barrel, the more velocity is lost....but the military uses 20" and 16" barrels.......and really the velocity drop between them is not enough to matter...something like 50fps maybe give or take......and this slight alteration in velocity isn't going to have a significant effect on a rounds "knock-down power"

50 FPS per inch = -200 FPS

 

[badmac183]

Are you sure you hit them? Do you really believe that a 5.56x45 can't kill an animal as small as a groundhog? Less powerful .22 LR and .17 HMR seem to work pretty well on game that size.

I am sure the animal crawled back to its hole and died but what I am saying is the animal still had the strength to go back to its hole. So I would assume a man would have enough strength left to pull a trigger on a gun.

 

[gunowner930]

I am sure the animal crawled back to its hole and died but what I am saying is the animal still had the strength to go back to its hole. So I would assume a man would have enough strength left to pull a trigger on a gun.

You can hit a man in the gut with a 30-06 and probably wont kill him instantly.

 

[the1kidd03]

50 FPS per inch = -200 FPS

yeah...I forgot the per inch part.....and that's +/- ...........actual results may vary..lol

 

[pinshooter45]

Never shot at anything more that paper with the 5.56 but I can tell you that at 300 yards in the pits at Wildcat in Layfayette that round is still supersonic and still kicks up a lot of dirt! Can't imagine that round not being effective. The articles I read that touched on the idea of using a 30 cal round was mainly focused on Afghanistan wher the Taliban was using guns like the Mosin and ones like it. And they were dropping our guys, but at the long distances like 4-600yrds + our guys were having trouble getting confirmed kills with the M4's. This Article I remember reading was about the army experimenting with what was labeled as the 6.8 SPC (special purpose cartridge) Because the 5.56 was having trouble at the longer ranges.

 

[chadc11]

Also, this IS BOOT CAMP we're talking about......they don't have to be infantrymen as it is their job to teach military BASICS......his MOS could have been administration for all we know.........he'll learn more and better information at infantry training if that's where he's headed, by more knowledgeable/experienced soldiers

Yea, he has done AIT and is awaiting a possible deployment. After AIT he said he wanted to get whatever civilian gun is closest to the M4. He loves that weapon.

 

[sonofagun]

I believe the 5.56 round gets its bad rep partly from the military itself. Let me start off by saying that I am not in the military nor have I ever served, so this is second hand knowledge. When my brother came back from basic at Ft. Benning, he told me the Drill Sergeants/rifle instructors told them the round is to wound not kill. They say this takes 3 men out of the fight: the wounded combatant and the 2 men it takes to drag him away.

Like I said, I don't have any personal experience with it. I am just relaying what my brother told me.

I went through Infantry Training at Camp Lejeune, NC (Marine Corps for those of you who don't recognize name) in 1971. The instructors taught, and relayed personal Viet Nam experiences, that the 5.56 was a highly effective anti personnel round in that it tended to tumble on contact with bone creating much more trauma than a 7.62, which would generally penetrate bone and tissue and exit the body.

 

[the1kidd03]

I went through Infantry Training at Camp Lejeune, NC (Marine Corps for those of you who don't recognize name) in 1971. The instructors taught, and relayed personal Viet Nam experiences, that the 5.56 was a highly effective anti personnel round in that it tended to tumble on contact with bone creating much more trauma than a 7.62, which would generally penetrate bone and tissue and exit the body.

it still does...sort of....your body is like 80% water or something like that....and so when you do the double tap, the first round creates a ripple effect in the soft tissue of the body and when the second round hits this "ripple" it tends to deflect it in a different direction.....or so is the latest theory.......also, bones deflect it as well

 

[esrice]

Thanks for the story Socomike. Often returning soldiers don't/won't talk about their direct involvement and share what they've learned (or when they do they sound awfully "embellished"). I find these lessons to be very valuable to those of us who choose to defend ourselves and families with firearms. I've never shot anyone, so I do put some amount of blind faith in the 9mm and 5.56 round.

 

[45fan]

As far as what a 5.56 is capable of in varmint size animals, I have hit groundhogs with my AR, using M855, and it did the job to the point of putting many graphic horror movies to shame.
As far as combat effectiveness, it does the job it is intended for. Anything lighter would lower effectiveness to unacceptable levels, and anything heavier would limit the number of rounds a soldier (or marine) would be able to carry on patrol.

In a dream world, every foot solder would carry an m2, with ammo that was as light as 22 lr. Trucks would use 10 inch guns with an unlimited ammo supply. Unfortunately, compromises have to be made, and the 5.56 is the most recent compromise that is widely used. There are other options that have trade offs that work better in there applications, but for the majority, the M4 in 5.56 does the job.

 

[Fenway]

Thanks for your service Mike!

 

[sonofagun]

This Article I remember reading was about the army experimenting with what was labeled as the 6.8 SPC (special purpose cartridge) Because the 5.56 was having trouble at the longer ranges.

I can't speak for how much energy the round has at 500 yards, but I can tell you that when firing at a man sized silhouette at 500 yards from the prone position most Marines on the firing line could hit center mass with every shot using iron sights.

 

[jblomenberg16]

OP-

Thanks for sharing your story on an open forum. Very few of us here have used any of our weapons to take another man's life, and we are all thankful folks like you are out there putting it all on the line to protect our freedoms!


Keeping in line with the effectiveness of the 5.56 round, we should all remember that the .30 caliber rounds used just a few decades before the 5.56 was adopted (30-06 M2ball in WWI/WWII/Korea, and .308 there after) weren't instant "man stoppers" either.

There are numerous stories from WWII where men were shot "through and through" at close range by M2 ball, or even 8mm Mauser, and with a little or no patching up were right back in the fight. At closer ranges the round was not tubling or yawing and creating a large enough would cavity to create an injury sufficient to completely incapacitate the soldier that was shot.


Yes, a .30cal round will have more energy at the same velocity as a .223 caliber round...the physics dictate that based on energy being equal to 1/2*mass*(velocity)^2. It does come down to shot placement. A well placed 5.56 round can be a one shot stopper, just like the OP shared. A poor placed .30 caliber round may do some damage, but won't always take a person out of the fight.


So, what does that mean to us civilians? Most of us will probably not be picking bad guys off from 175m like the OP in a combat situation. If we have to use our rifles, we'll be using them in a self defense situation. I heard a great point made by a Army combat medic in some recent carbine training, that was more or less summarized as:

"The more holes you can put in some body, in as many different places as you can put them, the more blood they are going to loose and the more likley they will be out of the fight."

The point being is that shots to the Fatal T are going to incapacitate someone instantly, but in the absense of a perfect head shot, the more rounds you can put on target means the more places they are leaking blood from, and the more likely they cannot continue to be a threat.