Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles Effectiveness of the 223 caliber for combat

I recently acquired my first semiautomatic rifle, a Sig 556 Commando, as a defense weapon for my vacation cabin. Since then I have done a little research on the 223 as a combat caliber and I am finding some very mixed opinions.

I came across this article, as an example:

Bullets called ill-suited for close combat

The article is about an Army commissioned study on the opinions of 2,600 soldiers who had served in combat, on the effectiveness of the 223. The survey found that one-fifth wanted a larger caliber; of course that means that four-fifths were satisfied with the 223.

When commenting on another Army study that found that all the 223 needs to be more effective is a different bullet a retired Marine Corps Major says:

�The Army buried the study's most important conclusion: that larger-caliber bullets are more potent. �

�It was manipulated,� said Milavic, a Vietnam veteran who manages an online military-affairs forum called MILINET. �Everybody knows there are bullets out there that are better.�

I am wondering what the general consensus is among soldiers who have actually used BOTH the 223 and 308 in combat.

Those who want a "larger caliber" would probably be satisfied with any round that never misses and always results in an eliminated combatant.

Since you are using your new 223 as a home defense gun, you are not bound by the rules of warfare and thus, you can use expanding bullets.
I believe Blackhills offers a Partition or Bearclaw loaded round that would fit the bill nicely. I would stay away from using handloads for home defense as a criminal attorney would suggest you were experimenting on bad guys and that the guy you shot while protecting yourself or loved ones was the vic.

It seems every 2 months or so we go through this same old topic. Most of the time the people replying are guys who have never fired a shot in anger and are just repeating what someone else wrote or typed on the net.

I was told the .223 was developed to wound enemy combatants not kill them. If you kill a soldier the rest can ignore them in the interim, BUT if you wound them they have to be treated, hauled, doctored,and you get the psychological advantage of the bad guy yelling and screaming in pain, etc..... thus tying up enemy resources. Of course your bullet and more imprtantly bullet placement is key, the explaination given to me made a lot of sense. Same reasoning was given to me on the 9mm. Having seen the 9mm in action I would never want to rely on it for self defense. If you have cause to use deadly force, it could be argued for many reasons that it should be just that, deadly.

Fortunately for this forum we have you. Would you expand on your experience and first hand observations of the effects of this round in combat situations?

Your hands on experience would be a valuable information source for us.

No.

Illuminating....

I'll second Lewis' motion. Nothing trumps a firsthand primary source.

FWIW:

Mackay has postd pics of himself in conutry on other threads.

He appears to be doing the same job Mr. Perkins was doing, but in the sandbox.

I cannot vouch for the authenticity, but he seems knowledgeable.

Here's the quote:



BMT

IIRC, Mackey is (or at least was) in the sandbox, doing some sort of secret stuff involving lots of cool armament. We're no even allowed to see his face!

Beat me to it, BMT.

Woodchuck to secret squirrel

Guys,

Here is the deal. I am home right now.

As you know, I have participated in various threads dealing with the matter of the use of firearms for non sporting/work purposes. I often get frustrated by what I often read and end up saying my piece when it would be prudent to shut up. It is a failing on my part and sometimes I have regretted it.

The reason I get frustrated is all the nonsense that is typed and then parroted as factual information. If I come across as a know-it-all it is not my intent, though rereading some of my own posts I see my failings to more conversationally put out my point.

My background in the military, in law enforcement and as a contractor may have a bit to do with that, as I have been surrounded by guys the entire course of my career that are cut from similar cloth. Quite frankly though, I just have poor social skills and tend to come across wrong or grouchy to a lot of people.

I read my own post a few minutes ago in this thread and realized once again that I probably came across grouchy or short to people who do not know my dry personality.

The funny/ironic part is that when I opened up and started participating in online discussions, I did so to talk about subjects that were not work related. It allowed me to escape my narrow field and talk to "normal" people about other subjects. I have managed to get sucked back into work related subjects like a moth to the flame.

Mr. Perkins and I do not quite do the same type of work. That being said, his work is equally valuable and the opinions and comments he has written indicate to me that he is a person who has a great deal of experience in different subjects. I have never seen any information that he has put out that I would throw the BS flag on. I pay attenion when he posts information.

As for that matter there are a few that post here that I can tell give no nonsense information based on a substantial amount of experience with the AR platform and shooting in general. I lsiten to their straight talk as well.

Back to the contracting subject.There are primarily three different types of "contractors" The vast majority are in the service end of the buisness. Food service, housing, laundry, vehicle maintenance, etc.

The next type is the training end of the buisness. This is where the majority of armed contactors work. Training host country nationals on subjects such as law enforcement or corrections or things of that nature. This is where most retired police officers that work as contractors end up. This is where you see the police advisors and such.

The third type of contractor is operational end of the buisness. This can be as mundane as running fixed site security (gate guards), doing embassy protection work or as " high speed" as you want. Contract operators augment agencies that do personal security details for dignitaries or do a variety of more clandestine work.

The third type of contracting is a much smaller group due to the specialized background requirements.

That being said, just because someone was a Group, Bat, or Team guy does not mean they are the ultimate anything. I have seen some guys with seemingly exceptional backgrounds that if it were not for the military, they would have been in prison long ago. Many could not pass a police officer entrance exam if they were given the answer sheet.

It is the same with some of the police officers I have seen on some of the "international police" contracts. They could not pass a college entrance exam or even a military PT test if their life depended on it.

The flip side is that I have seen some exceptional individuals from various military groups and law enforcement agencies. There seems to always be that 10% on both sides that you think to yourself "how the hell did that guy make it through selection?".

Anyways, I just thought I would throw that out there. Though I do not show my face, that does not make me a ninja or "high speed". I am just a guy who has been trying to provide a better life for his family and do something meaningfull at the same time.

I have always tried to work doing things that I believed in. I know where my talents lay and to be honest I like going up against people that prey on humanity. It has been easy for me to get cynical and grouchy when dealing with state, local and federal governments and the types of people who always seem to end up in charge of such.

If you guys truly want my thoughts on the subject that is fine. For now though, I am going to pour another Crown on the rocks, watch the snow fall and pack my gear for tommorrows bunny hunting safari!

Being home is great.

Mackay, have fun in all you do and don't take any of this personaly, it's just the internet.

Now on the subject, I have read various reports stating everything you can imagine and from what I have determined, if you make a proper hit it will work. Ain't no different shooting deer or coyotes with any other cartridge. A bad hit will be blamed on bullet failure...

But I do like 55gr better than the 62gr stuff, especialy in a carbine and the 77gr OTM even better.

And yet rounds like the .458 SOCOM and 6.8 SPC were developed because people who do fire in anger weren't happy with the limitations of the 5.56. Not to mention the phoenix like resurrection of 7.62 chambered rifles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sure you'll find guys in the know that think the 5.56 is adequate and you'll find guys in the know that don't. I think it's silly to blame people back home that haven't fired in anger for the 5.56's bad rep. That rep didn't start here, it started in Vietnam and Somalia and Iraq and Afghanistan. I fully understand guys having confidence in their weapon, because if you didn't, it undermines your ability to fight but it's BS to pretend that only the people that don't fight are the ones slamming the 5.56.

No opinion from me. I've carried an M-16, but I have never fired one in anger. But I do know the rep didn't come from computer jockeys. The long look at the 6.8 sure as hell didn't come from the Government which is quite content to never change. Next we'll be hearing that the 9mm is an optimal round.

Funny that I still hear from my military spec op friends that are trained competitive shooters that I used to compete against, that the M16 platform, especially when fed the 77s, is just fine. After all they all said heck you gotta hit and hit em where it counts, just like they had to do with their M14s. They always said the ones that complain would do worse with the M14 as it takes a higher level of skill to shoot well and we don't train our troops in shooting as well as we should or practice as much as we should.

I can vouch that the M14 is a heck of a rifle that also takes time to master in sustained fire.

As to the resurgence.... I don't buy that one bit. They carried 308 bolt and M14 guns in Vietnam by teams, and same in the sandbox. The 308 always had and always will have a purpose.

Don't trust the gun or round? Wanna let me ding a few at you? Heck stand still and I'll even give you a sporting chance and take you on at 600 yards.....

Vietnam ended 34 years ago. That war started with the M-14 in play. There were next to none in play in Iraq or Afghanistan when they started other than in bolt guns. There's nothing to buy, it's plain fact.

Any round can kill you at 600 yards in a t-shirt. Not to mention they ain't using your match rifles your used to, they're firing 77gr out a 14.5" M4. You want to trade 600 yard shots with me using some cover like would be the case in the real world? Do you have any idea how slow your 77 grainer will be out of that 14" tube at 600 yards?

Again, this kool aid drinking ignores why the 6.8 SPC got developed and got such a long look when the Pentagon wanted nothing to do with changing, just like they don't want to change the 9mm. Does the 5.56 kill? Sure, I've got a safe full of em, it's not that I don't like them. Is it an optimal cartridge for warfare? No. We'd probably be better off today if we hadn't strongarmed the Brits out of their .280 Brit.

The 9x19 was developed to kill. It was adopted by the US as a concession to NATO.