".223/5.56 isnt effective enough"

[Socomike]

Thanks for your service Mike!

No problem to everyone thanking me.
I started this thread to do my part to kill this ridiculous rumor. Im just so tired of armchair quarterbacks saying "dat der round aint killin no man!" The fact is that the 62gr M855 within 300 meters puts nasty holes in people. Sure, you may land a round in a non vital part of the body or someone pumped up on opium and adrenaline continues to run after being struck. I was shot in the gut 6 inches below my left nipple with a 7.62X39. I continued to fight and kill the man that shot me. The fact that the round deflected off of my plate armor and through my soft kept the wound superficial. It still hit me like a 12lbs sledge hammer.

Sure the 5.56 has its problems at ranges of 500+ meters. But most rounds that are acceptable to carry for the modern infantry man start to loose performance at that range. Doesnt mean they arent getting kills at that range with the proper shot placement though.

 

[Dave Doehrman]

I am so tired of reading that people are so surprised that the Marine Corps went with the M27 to supplement the SAW and it is ONLY a 5.56 and that they thought they would go to a more effective round.

If you are the guys saying that, have you ever witnessed the effectiveness of a 5.56 on a human? Deer? Hog?

I'm the OP of the thread about the Corp's decision to select the M27 to supplement or replace the M249. Yes, I have carried and used both the M14 and the M16 in combat in Viet Nam. I have personally utilized both on NVA (as well as a Stevens M77 12 ga. with 00 buck) and witnessed the effects upon their bodies.

I'd like to include a portion of a letter from the Commandant, James Amos to Defense Secretary Panetta discussing the role of the United States Marine Corps:

"The Marine Corps fills a unique lane in the capability range of America's armed forces. A
Middleweight Force, we are lighter than the Army, and heavier than SOF. The Corps is not a
second land army. The Army is purpose-built for land campaigns and carries a heavier punch
when it arrives, whereas the Marine Corps is an expeditionary force focused on coming from the
sea with integrated aviation and logistics capabilities. The Marine Corps maintains the ability to
contribute to land campaigns by leveraging or rapidly aggregating its capabilities and capacities.
Similarly, Marine Corps and SOF roles are complementary, rather than redundant. Special
Operation Forces contribute to the counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism efforts of the
Combatant Commanders in numerous and specialized ways, but they are not a substitute for
conventional forces with a broader range of capability and sustainability."

All my combat experience was in triple canopy jungle where the average distance in combat was 30 - 50 feet or in elephant grass 10 -12 feet tall, where you could only see a few feet in any direction. We frequently encountered NVA in fortified positions in those environments. Operating in 6 or 8 man Recon teams, we couldn't carry an M60. We did carry at least one M14 and one M79 grenade launcher. Team members could select their own weapon with approval of the Recon Team Leader and I always carried the M77 12 ga. whenever possible. If I couldn't carry the 12 ga, I tried to carry the M14. When we encountered fortified NVA we needed a heavier caliber weapon with the ability to penetrate said bunkers and fortifications while the rest of the team used M16s to lay down suppressive fire.

As General Amos stated, the Corps has been selected to be an expeditionary force and needs to be prepared to breech enemy fortifications and bunkers. We operate in fire team and squad formations and these smaller units need to be equipped to handle the situation when a crew served weapon isn't available. Not all of our missions will be in wide open desert conditions against enemies out in the open.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I have used both platforms and I understand the role of the Corps and the tactics we employ. I respect your opinion, but I do have problems with others who have chimed in here who's only experience in combat is on a PC or Play Station.

 

[Socomike]

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.

Newsflash! Rounds dont always deliver the one shot kill. Follow up shots are often needed. Thats why we train to shoot second and third and fourth and....until the threat is gone.

 

[Mr.JAG]

Is the 5.56 a bad round? Not even close. It will get the job done just fine.

Does it lack power when compared to the 7.62x39? In certain aspects, absolutely.

Just fast forward to 3:00 in. This is not an AK vs AR debate... I'm only trying to show the difference in penetration between the calibers.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0&t=3m0s[/ame]

 

[jblomenberg16]

Great video. I thought it was funny too how the freeze frame shown in the imbedded link (about 1:39 into the video) looks like the guy on the left is looking at his AK like it is his firstborn child.

 

[Springer]

I do not have much experience with the lethality of the round, but thank you for your service.

 

[Socomike]

I'm the OP of the thread about the Corp's decision to select the M27 to supplement or replace the M249. Yes, I have carried and used both the M14 and the M16 in combat in Viet Nam. I have personally utilized both on NVA (as well as a Stevens M77 12 ga. with 00 buck) and witnessed the effects upon their bodies.

I'd like to include a portion of a letter from the Commandant, James Amos to Defense Secretary Panetta discussing the role of the United States Marine Corps:

"The Marine Corps fills a unique lane in the capability range of America's armed forces. A
Middleweight Force, we are lighter than the Army, and heavier than SOF. The Corps is not a
second land army. The Army is purpose-built for land campaigns and carries a heavier punch
when it arrives, whereas the Marine Corps is an expeditionary force focused on coming from the
sea with integrated aviation and logistics capabilities. The Marine Corps maintains the ability to
contribute to land campaigns by leveraging or rapidly aggregating its capabilities and capacities.
Similarly, Marine Corps and SOF roles are complementary, rather than redundant. Special
Operation Forces contribute to the counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism efforts of the
Combatant Commanders in numerous and specialized ways, but they are not a substitute for
conventional forces with a broader range of capability and sustainability."

All my combat experience was in triple canopy jungle where the average distance in combat was 30 - 50 feet or in elephant grass 10 -12 feet tall, where you could only see a few feet in any direction. We frequently encountered NVA in fortified positions in those environments. Operating in 6 or 8 man Recon teams, we couldn't carry an M60. We did carry at least one M14 and one M79 grenade launcher. Team members could select their own weapon with approval of the Recon Team Leader and I always carried the M77 12 ga. whenever possible. If I couldn't carry the 12 ga, I tried to carry the M14. When we encountered fortified NVA we needed a heavier caliber weapon with the ability to penetrate said bunkers and fortifications while the rest of the team used M16s to lay down suppressive fire.

As General Amos stated, the Corps has been selected to be an expeditionary force and needs to be prepared to breech enemy fortifications and bunkers. We operate in fire team and squad formations and these smaller units need to be equipped to handle the situation when a crew served weapon isn't available. Not all of our missions will be in wide open desert conditions against enemies out in the open.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I have used both platforms and I understand the role of the Corps and the tactics we employ. I respect your opinion, but I do have problems with others who have chimed in here who's only experience in combat is on a PC or Play Station.

I would never argue with you that the .308 battle rifle does not have a place in the arsenal. I would also never argue with you that a 12ga isnt a viable option for the places you described.

What I would say is that the 5.56 and M4/M16 are great for average soldiers in today's modern combat. I also think that for the most part, the M16 did well in Vietnam (although I obviously wasnt there). Once the bugs were worked out of it, it did its job well.

The Marines fill their role well even if in today's fight they are operating more like the army then they ever were before. I have no doubt in my mind that if they were called to an expeditionary role tomorrow they would do great.

The M27 is an easily adaptable squad weapon that is going to help in places like Afg. where the amount of weight you are carrying is a serious issue. It will fill that role well. They stuck with the 5.56 because it does well for what it is. Plain and simple. The head honchos are not retarded. They see reports of bad guys being killed every day with the 5.56 so why change something that isnt broken?

If the Marines were looking to adopt a rifle for engagements from 6-700 yards, I would assume they would look for another round. But that is not what they were looking for.

 

[the1kidd03]

I'm the OP of the thread about the Corp's decision to select the M27 to supplement or replace the M249. Yes, I have carried and used both the M14 and the M16 in combat in Viet Nam. I have personally utilized both on NVA (as well as a Stevens M77 12 ga. with 00 buck) and witnessed the effects upon their bodies.

I'd like to include a portion of a letter from the Commandant, James Amos to Defense Secretary Panetta discussing the role of the United States Marine Corps:

"The Marine Corps fills a unique lane in the capability range of America's armed forces. A
Middleweight Force, we are lighter than the Army, and heavier than SOF. The Corps is not a
second land army. The Army is purpose-built for land campaigns and carries a heavier punch
when it arrives, whereas the Marine Corps is an expeditionary force focused on coming from the
sea with integrated aviation and logistics capabilities. The Marine Corps maintains the ability to
contribute to land campaigns by leveraging or rapidly aggregating its capabilities and capacities.
Similarly, Marine Corps and SOF roles are complementary, rather than redundant. Special
Operation Forces contribute to the counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism efforts of the
Combatant Commanders in numerous and specialized ways, but they are not a substitute for
conventional forces with a broader range of capability and sustainability."

All my combat experience was in triple canopy jungle where the average distance in combat was 30 - 50 feet or in elephant grass 10 -12 feet tall, where you could only see a few feet in any direction. We frequently encountered NVA in fortified positions in those environments. Operating in 6 or 8 man Recon teams, we couldn't carry an M60. We did carry at least one M14 and one M79 grenade launcher. Team members could select their own weapon with approval of the Recon Team Leader and I always carried the M77 12 ga. whenever possible. If I couldn't carry the 12 ga, I tried to carry the M14. When we encountered fortified NVA we needed a heavier caliber weapon with the ability to penetrate said bunkers and fortifications while the rest of the team used M16s to lay down suppressive fire.

As General Amos stated, the Corps has been selected to be an expeditionary force and needs to be prepared to breech enemy fortifications and bunkers. We operate in fire team and squad formations and these smaller units need to be equipped to handle the situation when a crew served weapon isn't available. Not all of our missions will be in wide open desert conditions against enemies out in the open.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I have used both platforms and I understand the role of the Corps and the tactics we employ. I respect your opinion, but I do have problems with others who have chimed in here who's only experience in combat is on a PC or Play Station.

agreed...every weapons has it's limitations........however in current operations the 5.56 round is more than effective.....I've seen combatants drop out to 500 meters..maybe 550.......pushing beyond that and you're going to be hard pressed in the capabilities of an average infantryman and his weapons in a hostile situation.......I mean sure, during training on an unknown distance range I could use the ACOG and hit man sized steel out to 800...but they aren't shooting back and there aren't buildings obscuring my line of sight

 

[Sigasaurus]

Killed many critters with a 5.56. I once switched and tried the 7.62x51. Very powerful, great range, and IMHO too much. I traded it off and returned to the 5.56 AR platform where I will stay. I have seen a 5.56 round do some major damage. High velocity and great accuracy.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Didn't the UN or some group complain about the 5.56 round at some point in history saying it was inhumane because it starts to tumble once it hits its target.

 

[the1kidd03]

I would never argue with you that the .308 battle rifle does not have a place in the arsenal. I would also never argue with you that a 12ga isnt a viable option for the places you described.

What I would say is that the 5.56 and M4/M16 are great for average soldiers in today's modern combat. I also think that for the most part, the M16 did well in Vietnam (although I obviously wasnt there). Once the bugs were worked out of it, it did its job well.

The Marines fill their role well even if in today's fight they are operating more like the army then they ever were before. I have no doubt in my mind that if they were called to an expeditionary role tomorrow they would do great.

The M27 is an easily adaptable squad weapon that is going to help in places like Afg. where the amount of weight you are carrying is a serious issue. It will fill that role well. They stuck with the 5.56 because it does well for what it is. Plain and simple. The head honchos are not retarded. They see reports of bad guys being killed every day with the 5.56 so why change something that isnt broken?

If the Marines were looking to adopt a rifle for engagements from 6-700 yards, I would assume they would look for another round. But that is not what they were looking for.

I wouldn't say we're operating MORE like the army......perhaps in the box, but around the world the majority of our training/work ups is focused on fast reaction to "anywhere/anytime"....amphibious assault crafts, air drops, etc,etc....their priority is still an expeditionary assault force.........

as it was explained to me by a "higher up" once......"the difference between the Army and us(Marines) is that we're "the tip of the spear", in that the government sends us in to clear and kill initial resistance, that's our job....to KILL....EVERY single MOS/job in the corps revolves around supporting our Marines on the ground.....we work closely with the Army sometimes, and they do engage in similar actions...but they stay longer and are more of a policing unit for the area after we've been through the area and cleared initial resistance forces....this fits their capabilities better due to their size...obviously being their own branch allows for more man power and funding that we cannot provide with our numbers"

this was actually from a speech from the Commandant when I was at Pendleton....we all fight for the same cause, but we all have different "roles" to accomplish the mission....the Navy and Air Force roles are obvious but the lines are hard to see for us (Marines/army).....of course we like to pick on navy guys and tell them they're our taxi's....they take us where we want to go...lol but that's just to get them wound up...lol

in any case...sorry for the temporary thread jack....and I think we all agree...that every weapon has it's limitations, but for current operations the 5.56 works very well and is more than effective.....however, I do hate the negative rumors as well

 

[PapaScout]

I'm one of those armchair quarterbacks. I've never shot a man with anything and I hope I never have to. There are many factors that affect the energy delivered into a target, and many factors that affect how much energy it takes to disable a threat. A 30-06 round to the foot may not be as effective as a .22 round to the chest - depends on what it touches.

An earlier post stated that everything is a compromise. How much ammo do you need to carry and how far do you need to shoot? There's so much subjectivity here that you can argue all points for years (which we have done) and not settle on one right answer.

Every tool has a job for which it's perfectly suited. The 5.56 is a great round and fills a niche but it won't be the perfect tool for all situations. It just can't be.

 

[PapaScout]

Didn't the UN or some group complain about the 5.56 round at some point in history saying it was inhumane because it starts to tumble once it hits its target.

Only if over like 2800 fps or thereabouts.

 

[the1kidd03]

Didn't the UN or some group complain about the 5.56 round at some point in history saying it was inhumane because it starts to tumble once it hits its target.

i've heard something about that too....I'm not sure what truth there is to it...but it's the UN...those guys are more or less mobile targets....they have RIDICULOUS rules of engagement....you couldn't pay me to do that job....we're also restricted from using HP rounds too unfortunately

 

[the1kidd03]

I'm one of those armchair quarterbacks. I've never shot a man with anything and I hope I never have to. There are many factors that affect the energy delivered into a target, and many factors that affect how much energy it takes to disable a threat. A 30-06 round to the foot may not be as effective as a .22 round to the chest - depends on what it touches.

An earlier post stated that everything is a compromise. How much ammo do you need to carry and how far do you need to shoot? There's so much subjectivity here that you can argue all points for years (which we have done) and not settle on one right answer.

Every tool has a job for which it's perfectly suited. The 5.56 is a great round and fills a niche but it won't be the perfect tool for all situations. It just can't be.

exactly....and nothing can be.....duties change, requirements change...weapons change....it's just how war works

 

[the1kidd03]

Didn't the UN or some group complain about the 5.56 round at some point in history saying it was inhumane because it starts to tumble once it hits its target.

on another note the round doesn't really "tumble"....all rounds "yaw" during flight as their center of gravity is not exactly centered on the projectile.......the rounds do however deflect in varied directions after impact, especially if fired immediately after one another into the same body

 

[Socomike]

I'm one of those armchair quarterbacks. I've never shot a man with anything and I hope I never have to. There are many factors that affect the energy delivered into a target, and many factors that affect how much energy it takes to disable a threat. A 30-06 round to the foot may not be as effective as a .22 round to the chest - depends on what it touches.

An earlier post stated that everything is a compromise. How much ammo do you need to carry and how far do you need to shoot? There's so much subjectivity here that you can argue all points for years (which we have done) and not settle on one right answer.

Every tool has a job for which it's perfectly suited. The 5.56 is a great round and fills a niche but it won't be the perfect tool for all situations. It just can't be.

Exactly. No round will ever be perfect for every situation. You have to find one that does well in the situations that the soldiers are most likely to find themselves. The 5.56 does that very well.

In a perfect world, every soldier would have his own mechanized suit that was equipped with force fields and 30mm chainguns. Unfortunately, we are not their yet.

 

[nipprdog]

6 pages in 4 hours.

That's all I've got to say.

 

[jblomenberg16]

6 pages in 4 hours.

That's all I've got to say.

9mm vs. .45 is next... jk.


Again, thanks to the OP for sharing the real world experience to help put some facts behind the discussion.

 

[the1kidd03]

9mm vs. .45 is next... jk.


Again, thanks to the OP for sharing the real world experience to help put some facts behind the discussion.

lol...nah...that one's been handled