Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles 5.56/223 LACKS PUNCH/knockdown??????

Agreed. Unfortunately "the rules" (Hague Convention) are part of the problem with the 5.56...

If the 5.56 is not a man stopper, we should have no problem finding volunteers to take one in the chest to prove the point...

Step up to the plate then. I can't tell if your post is serious or in jest?

hague hasn't stopped 77bthp performance.... which has been stellar according to my contacts.

The parts I know are that the 6.8 is designed by someone in the right place... that does not mean that it is the ideal round.

To me there is a no mans land there that doesn't need to be touched.... what the 223 cant' do, the 308 can and has... and we've all the experience behind it plus its a nato round...

Where does the 6.8 or even 6.5 leave use with many issues? Parts? Ammo compatability, etc..

There will be no volunteers because the 5.56 is very lethal. I hope that clears up my perspective.

There was 2 problems with the M16 and the 55 gr ball ammo. 1, the 16 at first didnt have a foward assist and even when one was put on it you still couldnt chamber a round if there was a peice of dirt or stubble in the action, 2 the ball ammo was a stopper if you could hit him the problem was charlie wasnt standing in the open he was behind brush and trees the ball whould hit the object and take off for parts unknown. Ive seen guys hit in the upperleg the ball follow the bone up and bounce around their gut, the 55 is not a jungle warfare round and neither is the M16 a jungle warfare rifle. 30 cal battle rifles rule. danny

First off, I wasn't talking about the Gewehr 43.

Next; that may very well be true, but he still did it FIRST.

As to brush deflection, its been shown that what folks think deflects the easiest, and what deflects the least is generally totally opposite in truth....

"They" don't "think" anything of the sort. It should be obvious that a 120gr 6.5 bullet of proper design will flatten human targets at anything over 2000 FPS. The state of the art military rounds offer armor penetration (penetration is also a very important characteristic) as well as tumbling after flesh impact to maximize energy transfer. There is nothing about the Grendel design that inhibits it as a "man stopper", however the 6.8 Rem doesn't have long range flexibility. It seems to me from a utility standpoint the Grendel is a winner. For instance, it'd make a fine MMG round where the 6.8 wouldn't.

The moot point is claiming that there's a significant "knockdown" difference between 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 Remington. Either is a vast step up from the 5.56 and will wound similarly with bullets of similar construction.

Again, this is why the 7.62x51 is better than the 5.56 . . . .

And my Dad is still bigger than your Dad . . . . . .

Fords are still better than Chevys . . . . . . .

And John Moses Browning agrees . . . .

So there!

BMT

The issue of knock down power is at odds with the theory of small arms in modern warfair. To kill an enimy combatant is to take one enimy out of action. But to wound that same solder increases the attrition by eight to ten fold. I wounded enimy can wait. but a wounded one takes medical personel plus transport plus care and feeding plus more troops to guard and protect the wounded, and medical personel while being transported and cared for at front line aid stations plus the propaganda value of wounded men returning from the combat area. While dead have a propaganda value wounded and recovering solders have more. So the consept of military small arms is a wepion that is effective in taking a human out of the fight, but not so effective that is kills easily. The 5.56/.223 fills that bill for modern urban warfair except that the folks we are fighting are fanatics, who even when baddly wounded will continue to try to kill our solders even if that means thier own death. Our rules say we do not shoot a wounded enimy, we care for them. They on the other hand will blow themselves up, in order to kill even one more of our troops. We need to go to the gangsta triple tap two in the cheast one in the head. That should take care of the problem with poor stopping power of the M4

It's been pretty well established that 5.56x45 being designed to wound was a myth, even if the concept does apply. I don't agree with it in the least, but to each his own.

Actually, with that idea in mind, wouldn't a wounded enemy draw MORE opposition towards you?

In theory no, because if the enemy were just like us, they would do their best to get the wounded off the field of battle and to a hospital. The thinking goes if you wound enough of them it clogs the logistics chain and takes support away from the front and the fighting effort like resupply etc. I've never seen it actually expressed as doctrine. It was highly touted on the range and in the classroom when the issue of 7.62 v. 5.56 arose as it did so often. The bigger is always better thinking is hard to erase from American minds no matter what proof is available. Even with select fire available the Army always talked and taught in terms of accurate aimed fire on center mass of the human target.

If one simply looks at just how the eastern bloc fights, the theory goes out the window pretty fast. It reaffirms the German doctrine of the machine gun as an offensive weapon and that the individual should have a high volume of fire available. Thus the selective fire weapon in an intermediate chambering.

Because the 7.62x51 is bigger and better . . . .

Ain't you guys done beating this dead horse yet?

BMT

I ain't staning in line to be test media and this horse is DEAD!

Watch this video first
It is an informercial for the 6.8SPC vs. the 5.56!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuG1uXKTSGA&feature=related
Weapons of the Future 6.8 vs. 5.56!

There's nothing new about the theory of a wounded soldier causing more trouble for the enemy than a dead one and thus an advantage to the other side. It's been established as a concept since at least WW II.

In the extensive 3 part article in Handloading documenting the development of the 5.56 cartridge, nowhere was it mentioned that terminal balistics were considered except for penetration of a steel helmet at various ranges.

I'm not saying that answers all the questions, but it was pretty thorough.

Very cool.

BMT

I wasn't gonna touch this topic, but here's a thought; if the military adopted the 6.8 and left the 5.56 behind, I think some of us might enjoy a nice supply of surplus ammo and loading components for the few ar's we have between us.

What a salesman video... any of that can be tweaked however you like... I really love the part about transfering the energy... most rounds go all the way through.... and how many times have you seen anything knocked off its feet anyway....

If looking for power we have the M14.....if you feel its needed, personallly I"m still of the thought that I don't want a 223 through the chest, and that if that won't put the fight out of me I need a CNS or grenade...