".223/5.56 isnt effective enough"

[red_zr24x4]

Anyone who says the 5.56 (or 9mm) is ineffective I say they volunteer to be shot with them , since almost everyone swears they both bounce off.
The real world experiences of the 5.56 on man sized targets are hard to argue with. I have firsthand knowledge of .223 handloads on prairie dogs, A 55g V-Max turns them inside out even out to 3 or 4oo yards

 

[Mosinowner]

I think these stories came from Vietnam. Soliders would shoot a bad guy and he would keep coming. The reason being that there momentum kept them going. Same thing with the japs in WW2 30 cal carbine didn't have the stopping power of 30-06. The other reason they may not go down is because they are fanatical mind over matter. My

 

[.452browning]

Studies find that infantry wait until the enemy is 300-400 yards to engage. Our M4/M16 will reach this distance with plenty of power to drop an enemy combatant with one round if hit a vital area. Even if not hit in a vital area it will hurt a lot and make him think twice about shooting again anytime in the near future.

The military's rifle needs to reach to 400 yards accurately and with power. Our rifle does this. One of the reasons we left the .308 to begin with was because we didn't need a standard issue rifle that will reach to 1000 yards. If we need to reach to 1000 yards call a sniper. If he is occupied call in artillery or air support, and use your 240B machine gunners to keep them pinned down until your infantry closes the gap to engage and destroy or sit back and watch the big boom.

I see no good reason why we should ditch the 5.56x45

If they must screw with something, then have them play with the M16/M4 platform and make it AK47 reliable. Make it to where you can dump it in mud, sand, water, ice, run it over, shoot it, blow it up and it just won't quit.

Larry Vickers already did this to Daniel Defense M4 rifle and even dropped it about 100 feet from a helicopter and the damn thing still fired. Off sight, but fired.....

The real question is why isn't the military using the rifle Larry Vickers abused and molested for days on end and refused to quit?

 

[the1kidd03]

Studies find that infantry wait until the enemy is 300-400 yards to engage. Our M4/M16 will reach this distance with plenty of power to drop an enemy combatant with one round if hit a vital area. Even if not hit in a vital area it will hurt a lot and make him think twice about shooting again anytime in the near future.

The military's rifle needs to reach to 400 yards accurately and with power. Our rifle does this. One of the reasons we left the .308 to begin with was because we didn't need a standard issue rifle that will reach to 1000 yards. If we need to reach to 1000 yards call a sniper. If he is occupied call in artillery or air support, and use your 240B machine gunners to keep them pinned down until your infantry closes the gap to engage and destroy or sit back and watch the big boom.

I see no good reason why we should ditch the 5.56x45

If they must screw with something, then have them play with the M16/M4 platform and make it AK47 reliable. Make it to where you can dump it in mud, sand, water, ice, run it over, shoot it, blow it up and it just won't quit.

Larry Vickers already did this to Daniel Defense M4 rifle and even dropped it about 100 feet from a helicopter and the damn thing still fired. Off sight, but fired.....

The real question is why isn't the military using the rifle Larry Vickers abused and molested for days on end and refused to quit?

IDK.....I've beat the living holy hell out of my M16/M4's.....even some of my personal AR's....put mine in water, mud, sand...dropped from about 25 feet......and never had any bad failures or severe disruption to it's reliability......in fact, I've never had any of the bad things happen that people like to say about the AR platforms......I mean sure and occasional FTF, but not often enough to be concerned with it by any means...and it takes a fraction of a second to clear it 99% of the time......a lot of those are attributed to crappy mags, not the rifle....

hell, when a fellow Marine friend and I train at our private little range we run failure drills whereby he'll load my mags and I'll load his...with unknown numbers of rounds...firing on targets while advancing and you don't know when you'll run out...without cover you must transition to sidearm and continue the movement, but you don't baby your weapon and lay it down all nice and neat...I toss that thing, and get my sidearm ASAP...you can either scuff your weapon or die(theoretically, in training at least)....as badly as I abuse some of my weapons, I've not had many issues with them.....I think their reputation of being so "finicky" is a bunch of BS too personally

 

[Mr.JAG]

The AR's reputation as a jam machine is just as blown out as proportion as the AK's reputation for having troubles hitting the broad side of a barn.

 

[Drail]

Most of the original problems with the original M 16 have been solved. (there WERE serious problems in Vietnam - not chroming the chamber, believing that it was "self cleaning" and didn't require a cleaning kit, and not sensitive to powder that produces lots of fouling) The "direct impingement" design whereby powder residue is dumped directly into the action was a really bad idea though. It requires regular stripping and cleaning which is not really practical for a battle rifle. Make it a gas piston operated rifle and half the problem is solved. It is still chambered for a .22 though. It contains far too many tiny springs and pins to be practical in a field environment. It is a fairly decent target rifle. For combat use there are much better choices out there. I will never understand the logic of the people who took away our .30 cal. rifles and .45 cal. handguns and gave us .22 cal. rifles and .35 cal. handguns. I think it had something to do with monetary profits and some IDIOT named Robert McNamara (may he rot in Hell). Let's make a really light alloy and plastic rifle really cheap that's lighter to carry (but doesn't work as good as the rifle it replaced. And some Air Farce General who knew how to bomb countries into the Stone Age but nothing about rifles. Having an Air Farce General select a rifle for his airfield police and then issuing it to the Army and Marines was an insult. Don't take my word for it though, read the original Congressional investigation documents on why many U.S. soldiers were found dead with their M 16 locked up with a stuck case in the chamber with the rim ripped off of it. (this is not an internet myth - it happened) As I said, most of the problems were slowly fixed. I still would not own one even though I qualified Expert with one pulled out of the rack in 1970.

 

[pinshooter45]

Not sure if this will have an effect on the discussion but I found it informative.
[ame]http://youtu.be/MJsuu_wE-Wo[/ame]

 

[STEEL CORE]

Last one I shot, I hit him in the chest, (100 meters) blew a hole in his back, paralyzed him from the chest down, and he died choking on his own blood that was gushing out his mouth and nose, as I went through his pockets. His eyes glazed over and he was out, didn't utter one word. .223 worked for me!

 

[Socomike]

Most of the original problems with the original M 16 have been solved. (there WERE serious problems in Vietnam - not chroming the chamber, believing that it was "self cleaning" and didn't require a cleaning kit, and not sensitive to powder that produces lots of fouling) The "direct impingement" design whereby powder residue is dumped directly into the action was a really bad idea though. It requires regular stripping and cleaning which is not really practical for a battle rifle.

I used my DI M4 for 2 deployments and cleaned it once a week unless we got a nasty sand storm. I never had it lock up on me when I needed it. It does require more maintenance but that myth is blown WAY out of proportion. Regular maintenance should be part of every Soldier or Marines day. It makes this a non issue. Plus, there are guys that have gone 10,000 rounds without cleaning their AR15 and only keeping it very wet with lube.

Make it a gas piston operated rifle and half the problem is solved. It is still chambered for a .22 though. It contains far too many tiny springs and pins to be practical in a field environment.

Of 120 soldiers in my company, I can think of one M4 going down in 5 years due to a small part breaking. It was the spring behind the takedown pin. The spring broke, takedown pin fell out. 15 minutes later it was working again. Not to mention, it has been practical in a field environment for 40 years now.

It is a fairly decent target rifle. For combat use there are much better choices out there. I will never understand the logic of the people who took away our .30 cal. rifles and .45 cal. handguns and gave us .22 cal. rifles and .35 cal. handguns. I think it had something to do with monetary profits and some IDIOT named Robert McNamara (may he rot in Hell). Let's make a really light alloy and plastic rifle really cheap that's lighter to carry (but doesn't work as good as the rifle it replaced. And some Air Farce General who knew how to bomb countries into the Stone Age but nothing about rifles. Having an Air Farce General select a rifle for his airfield police and then issuing it to the Army and Marines was an insult. Don't take my word for it though, read the original Congressional investigation documents on why many U.S. soldiers were found dead with their M 16 locked up with a stuck case in the chamber with the rim ripped off of it. (this is not an internet myth - it happened) As I said, most of the problems were slowly fixed. I still would not own one even though I qualified Expert with one pulled out of the rack in 1970.

As you said. Most if not all problems have been fixed or are being addressed as we speak. So all of that Vietnam talk is a non issue and has been for years.

My words in red.

 

[teddy12b]

I never shot anyone while I was in, but I can make a comment about the rifles reliablility. Before deployment we were issued brand new M16A4's. Back then we didn't get any red dot sights or anything and as combat engineers I don't know that we'd have gotten them anyway. I was in a reserve unit and back in '03 before the logistics were in place there was no love for any reserve unit and we didn't get issued any CLP or cleaning lube. We were damn lucky we got ammo, and I really mean that. Towards the end of our deployment my squad had a test fire. I cleaned my rifle again for sake of the test fire. It'd been cleaned probably 50 times at least since the last time I fired it. I was one of those guys who cleaned his rifle every time he got bored so this cleaning was just to freshen things up a bit and brush out the latest layer of sand.

Anyway, I cleaned the rifle again, walked 50 feet give or take fired my rifle and jammo. Cleared it again, jam. Lots of swearing and I don't remember what kind of a jam it was I just remember my heart sinking into my chest best the rifle wasn't running to good. Now granted there was a little breeze and some sand in the air, but surely not enough to make me think it'd cause a jam. I don't doubt that some CLP would have made the rifle run like a swiss watch as it did in all the training we'd had before deployment, but the bottom line for us was that we didn't always have any lube for the rifles because it wasn't available. At one point I took a #2 pencil and colored all over the bolt carrier assembly as the graphite in the pencil can work as a dry lube, but even then it's not nearly as good as some kind of oil.

One guy in our company who was also in my platoon had a part in his trigger group break and the whole time we were there he couldn't get his part replaced and was carrying a broken rifle. Then again, that was back in '03 and surely the supply chains are better now than they were then.

In my civilian life, I've never had a reliability problem with an AR that more lube didn't fix. My only point in sharing this story is that there really are some good reasons why AR's jam and don't get the reputation of rock solid reliability. I'm very thankful that you never had any reliability issues with your rifles and believe me when I say I hope that nobody ever does. It's a sick feeling in your gut to be that far from home and have your weapon fail on you.

 

[teddy12b]

6 pages in 4 hours.

That's all I've got to say.

That's just about got to be a record isn't it?

 

[halfmileharry]

Most of the original problems with the original M 16 have been solved. (there WERE serious problems in Vietnam - not chroming the chamber, believing that it was "self cleaning" and didn't require a cleaning kit, and not sensitive to powder that produces lots of fouling) The "direct impingement" design whereby powder residue is dumped directly into the action was a really bad idea though. It requires regular stripping and cleaning which is not really practical for a battle rifle. Make it a gas piston operated rifle and half the problem is solved. It is still chambered for a .22 though. It contains far too many tiny springs and pins to be practical in a field environment. It is a fairly decent target rifle. For combat use there are much better choices out there. I will never understand the logic of the people who took away our .30 cal. rifles and .45 cal. handguns and gave us .22 cal. rifles and .35 cal. handguns. I think it had something to do with monetary profits and some IDIOT named Robert McNamara (may he rot in Hell). Let's make a really light alloy and plastic rifle really cheap that's lighter to carry (but doesn't work as good as the rifle it replaced. And some Air Farce General who knew how to bomb countries into the Stone Age but nothing about rifles. Having an Air Farce General select a rifle for his airfield police and then issuing it to the Army and Marines was an insult. Don't take my word for it though, read the original Congressional investigation documents on why many U.S. soldiers were found dead with their M 16 locked up with a stuck case in the chamber with the rim ripped off of it. (this is not an internet myth - it happened) As I said, most of the problems were slowly fixed. I still would not own one even though I qualified Expert with one pulled out of the rack in 1970.

I remember those days all too well. The first 16s we were issued didn't function well. It wasn't just the environment or ammo either. It was both and VN was the initial proving ground for the 1st gen of 16.
I don't own one ither. I do however own an Armalite 10-4 in .308 that's a nasty bugger out to around 450 for accuracy. Yes, an old 'nam vet can hold a grudge about a particular round. Somethings leave a bad taste in your mouth you never forget the taste of.
From personal experience I can tell you the 5.56 is a killing round.
I prefered the M14 or the old Ithaca12 ga lt.wt. compared to the 16. At the time I'd pick up anything that still shot and had ammo in it.
The most important thing I can honestly relate to you is that shot placement was/is the most critical factor in any of these discussed calibers.
IF you don't hit them where it counts...It don't count.