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

Know a guy with some nasty scars from a 45 and can tell you how the bullet traveled from his stomach to his shoulder and back again. So it's not always a done deal whichever caliber you choose.

Oh and it was golden sabers, don't think I'll buy any of those.

Wow . . . . .

I love these threads . . . .

FWIW:

When my turns comes to fire in anger, please give me advance notice of terrain, opponents, and range.

Under 50 yards with soft targets, I will use the 458 SOCOM.

Between 50 and 110 yards, with "hard targets" (autos, body armor, behind walls) I will use 5.56 M993/M995 (armor piercing).

Over 100 yards, I will use 7.62x51 ball.

There, that settles it. . . . .

What do you mean you can't do that?

I don't know how it will happen, who it will be, or what they will be standing behind?

CRAP!

I guess I will have to compromise, then.

I have to balance firepower (number of rounds carried) with ammo weight and sixe.

I have to balance with knock down power with range and penetration.

I have to balance portability (weapon size) with recoil.

The point is, gentlemen, that the M1 garrand, the M1 carbine, the M14, the M16, and the M4 are ALL compromise weapons.

Each has a theater where is shines.

Each has a theater where its not popular.

Heck, the M1 CARBINE became more popular than the M1 Garrand as soon as the GIs left Europe and got into the Pacific Island Jungles.

The same applies here.

No platform/ammunition will suit every need.

Its just the way it is.

Good Shooting,

BMT

Your comparing platforms when we are talking about cartridge. The popularity of the M1 Carbine in the pacific jungles had nothing to do with it's cartridge and everything to do with it's size, weight and being magazine fed. If the M1 Garand had used the .276 Pedersen as it was intended and the M1 carbine had used the .276 as well, they still would have been favored by the same folks as it had nothing to do with the cartridge.


Is there a single person here, that given a choice of the same M-16 platform and having to choose one round to fight in the streets of Baghdad, the Streets of Mogadishu, the mountains of Afghanistan and the woods of Germany would choose the 5.56 over the 6.8 SPC? All things being equal as far as logistics and bullet type, would anyone really choose the 5.56 as their optimal warfare round? No way in hell, if they are being honest.

I think the thing I would consider is that states won't let you hunt deer with a .223, but you would consider it approiate for home defense. A deer is much easier target than someone shooting back at you. Its not the size of the round, its where you can put them the fastest. I've killed plenty of deer with nine millimeter but wouldn't take it hunting.
Take care,
Tom

No, I am just making the point that a combat tool is issued to a million troops and will be used in a million different applications.

Nothing is perfect. Nothing is one size fits all.

If I were in charge, we would be using 7.62x51.

But no one wants to haul 300 rounds of that up the Hindu Kush. They may not want to haul the 6.8 up there either. This is why I made the M1 Garrand/M1 Carbine analogy.

My Point: NO ONE TOOL fits all applications.

That's all,

BMT

Agreed.

PLACEMENT matters most.

BMT

Another Thread on the issue:

http://www.oregonconcealedcarry.com/index.php?showtopic=3178

Note: It started with an observation about LEO shootings (and car penetration).

Also note the final post that mentions little things like Practice, weapons familiarity, and Mindset being substantially more important than ammo selection.

BMT

Bingo.

Here is my 2 cents:

The .223/5.56 is fine in the hands of a skilled shooter. The problem lies in the projectile. FMJ sucks, that is all there is to it. Any decent softpoint or hollowpoint marketed as "precision or tactical" does much better. That being said, FMJ may not always immediately drop BGs, but it sure makes them sick and they do not feel like playing anymore. The best way to describe it is that it would be similar to getting stabbed repeatedly with an icepick.

Personally, I prefer to go as lightweight as possible. By the time you strap on all your kit, you have a considerable load. Wearing 80+ pounds on your chest not only limits your ability to move quickly, but it is also hard on your lower back before long.

The .223/5.56 in M4s and SAWs and such work fine for me. Better projectiles are needed, that is all. Lighter body armor would be a nice bonus too.

In places like Afghanistan or Iraq the 5.56 may be OK but in heavy woods or jungle, the 7.62x51 redefines what is "cover" and what is "concealment". Placement?? Great if the opening presents itself,otw you shoot for what you can see. The 7.62 holds an edge there. Effective bullets?? Nice if one could get away with it. The military is restricted. Keep in mind that S.P. bullets sacrifice some of their ability to penetrate cover. Given my druthers I'd prefer M63 blacktip. works well and has a mite better effective range than M80. Having had AK rounds going through some trees that would and id stop a 5.56, the re-evaluation sorta came quite easily.

The upside to your statement, is that I know you can handle the M14 with ease. Others well.....

Me, I'm not so sure that I wouldn't still take the AR if I could pick the ammo I carry. After all Ballistic HPs are "legal" and the work much better than any FMJ.

Jeff

The only real fly in the ointment is that eventually,if one survives, ammo availablity would likely devolve to the mil standard. By anyone's standards, YOU are a specialist. For most folks, getting on solid ground with basic rifles in either or both calibers is neccessary. Both rounds do well. They both have their advantages. I still believe that without access to specialist ammunition, the 7.62x51 has a couple more desireable characteristics that one could live with..literally..

No doubt 7.62 will out penetrate hands down. Glass would be one urban consideration that bothers me. I do have a 50 for certain issues though....

Beowulf or BMG?

Usually the people I see worrying about 5.56 hurting people are those who have never used it on people, although sometimes I meet people who shot people with the M4 and wanted a bigger gun.

Without doubt the 155AMAX in the 7.62 does more damage, but I don't want to carry that much weight. So I make a trade.

Guy I know was in SF for 29 years, and its like he says. You can shoot someone three times with an M4 or one time with a 14, in the same amount of time.

The final answer, Right here:

http://mouseguns.com/compare.htm

BMT

Great news...
after 25 months since I flew out of the Balkans with a scarf wrapped around my broken leg, the Doc's have released me for work.
Mackay, Ryan, you have any employment leads for me?

anyone else is welcome to jump in.

Dude - that was flippin' hilarious!

Don't you three have some super secret web site to coordinate you wet work????

beowulf or bmg. Don't know if this is the answer you were looking for, but the correct answer is both.

Good news for You!

I am workin' right now.

BMT