Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting 223 a bad mistake for the military

I've had this in my crawl for many years--the DOD and military really picked a sub-par round for the AR-15 / M16 rifles.I know there will be much debate on this subject which I am more than willing to address but to the point--Several factors were considered / small high velocity rounds will kill/ the small size of the cartridge means much more ammo can be carried into battle/light recoil meant more accurate shooting and the smaller round was cheaper to manufacture.I am a Vietnam veteran USAF weapons specialist so I am speaking from some experience.In the early days many Marines and Army troops would have given a months combat pay to have their M-14's back.I have always thought the designers were on drugs when they chose the 22 cal.No crystal balls around at that time to help them out of their stupidity I guess.I have always felt that choosing the 6mm/6.5 or at that time my choice 7mm bore would have been much better.As far as I'm concerned should one of these others been the choice there would be alot fewer names on "The Wall"

Well, there have been a lot of improvements to the M16 platform and ammunition since the 'Nam days, so if you are basing your opinion on that, you need to get a new download of information.

One only has to do three things to have an AR15 that will run very well. First is to use proper bullets/ammo. The second thing is to lube the bolt occasionally, instead of trying to run it dry. The third thing is to own a top tier brand to head off any potential problems from the very beginning.

Is it the greatest long range round? No, but it was intended for short range use, 300 yards and under. Any rifleman knows the .308 is a much better long range and barrier round. Also, I'm thinkin' you'd probably get a lot more discussion if posted in the AR15 forum.

I do keep up with all the new platforms but newer powders and bullets have been a blessing for it's upgrade since Vietnam,however the point of my post was there wouldn't have been so many problems if they would have picked a larger bore dia.to begin with.Just think the 260 rem was basically around then as several forms of wildcats which since based on the 7.62 would have been a no brainer!!! The 223 is still a 22 no matter how many ways you want to look at it-new or old and in my estimation doesn't cut it when you have to put your life on the line.Appreciate your input ----Flem

I know lots of veterans. The more action they saw, the more they tend to respect the 5.56mm. I asked one guy if the 8" Sig he used as a contractor worked well. "Dude, it rips peoples [bleep] faces off!" Same response from another contract WRT the 10.5.

Since 7.62mm in magazines is three times the weight of 5.56mm... easy choice.

I would have to agree if I had the ability to carry an infinite amount of ammo and weight wasnt a concern. But from what ive seen the round does its job. It might blow through the intended target and might take 2 or 3 shots depending on placement but, it puts them down.

When you have the ability to stay in the fight longer than your enemys, than as long as you have good cover and concealement, Id take more ammo any day.

40 year old argument.

Today's 5.56/.223 AR-15/M-16 isn't the Vietnam rifle & cartridge.

Guy

Guy I agree totally with the fact that the 223 isn't the same round as the Vietnam era but my whole point here is the military and DOD have put all their eggs in one basket!!We need a round that will fit any war senerio whether it be jungle/dessert or mountain terrain and I still don't see the 223 as the one to do the job!!The only advantage I can see is being able to put more rounds on target because of size and weight.I don't think I'm the only one out there with this point of view and it may take 10yrs or more but I think you will see a new standard come on line in the future the 6.5 mm in some form.Good visiting with u---------Flem

.308 is superior to the .223 and would be my pick every time.

Impressive......more or less.

The odds of dumping the 5.56 NATO cartridge is nil. It ain't gonna happen. The Army has been screwing this up since 1900 when it didn't adopt the 7x57mm Mauser cartridge. Then refused to adopt the .276 Pederson in the 1920's. Then refused to adopt the .280 British in the 1950's. Then went to the 5.56mm in the 1960's!

I thought the Army was on a better track to a successful individual infantry weapon with the XM29 with it's airburst 20mm grenades and an attached 5.56 NATO carbine. If it worked THAT would be an improvement over the M16/M4. But the Army cancelled that program in 2005.

The 5.56 nato round is and always will be out-gunned by the 30 cal Ak-47.You might be right my generation may not see it but somewhere in the future is a break-through cartridge around the 6.5 bore that will finally even the odds!!!Case in point the 7.62 was heavily tested prior to being adopted----short case similar ballistics to the 30 M1 but could be put on a much lighter piece....then guess which cartridge started winning 1000yd matches!!!Today take a good look at what most are shooting in competition 6.5's why because this is the first step in making the 5.56 obsolete--it will take a while but it's going to happen!!!!
Tnx much enjoyed your point of view.........Flem

The US Special Operations Command asked for the 6.8mm SPC cartridge. Which approximates the ballistics of the 7x57mm Mauser, the .276 Pederson, and the .280 British.

But I doubt that our regular military will ever convert as long as we're in NATO.

During WWII someone told the Army that only Infantryman needed M1 Garand rifles. The majority of troops carried M1 Carbines. The 30/06 Springfield cartridge recoil required training to use accurately. It was, in it's day, the most powerful military rifle cartridge in use. The 7.62mm NATO has the same recoil issue.

A 7.62mm NATO chambered rifle is what most Infantrymen should be using now. Let the rest of our troops use the milder M4 and M16.

That would solve most of the problem without adopting another cartridge.

1000 yards matches have nothing to do with fighting whatsoever. Nor does the 7.62 produce wounds more serious than the 5.56mm. In fact I have a friend who is thankful that his enemy shot him with a 7.62 rather than a 5.56mm.

Is 5.56mm the best? Probably not. I like the 7x46 idea. My brother is serving now and would issue the 6x35 PDW to nearly everyone, the 7x46 would be used in rifles by some infantrymen and in belt fed weapons by some others. Given a choice between 7.62mm and 5.56mm he would take 5.56mm.

As has already been noted by a few respected posters... it takes a lot of training to shoot an M14 or even M1 well especially at distances.

The M16 is much easier for troops to manage.

And having shot with a LOT of armed forces in competitions over the years, most every last one says the M14 is a specialized tool and nice to have for certain situations, but if you can't kill/stop the enemy with the M16, its certainly not the M16s fault, its the idiot driving it.

I tend to agree. I've done a lot of amazing stuff with a 223, and I would not want me shooting at me with one......at any range.

BTW if you want to talk service rifle, I've a hair of knowledge of that... and I'll just say the M14 does not hold the 1000 yard record of service rifles... the M16 does....doesn't really mean squat but I've won and placed in 1000 yard events walking away easily with the high scores over all the other M14s in state matches..... and local matches..... and doing some rather decent damage to the bolt gunners in the process.... 3rd place in a state Palma matche against all comers proves a bit... as does my outright wins of the 800 and 900 yard line against all calibers...

I never mentioned the choice of match rifles.....In my experience most where bolt action custom sniper type weapons/Winchesters and Remingtons.Congrats however on your accomplishments......you are saying that you beat the 7.62's with the 223 ??? ----and if so the conditions must have been ideal....no wind at the bench or down range.Not being a smart A$$ here at all but just very interested in your account!!!
TNX........FLEM

Dude if you think the conditions were perfect... this was shooting prone in a sling with iron sights against the bolt guns..... NO one shot a perfect string at ANY distance. The 7.62 M14s were and are easy to beat with the M16... you have all the advantages going for you other than sight radius. And mind you I"m talking shooting what is basically the issue M16 in 20 inch tube and irons.. a few mods like float tube hidden, better trigger but still 4.5 pounds plus, and a better barrel.

The M16 beats the M14 most times at 1000 due to better bullets and more accurate over all and easier to shoot well. Like I said Troy Lawtons bunch at AMU Ft Benning took all my leftover ammo.... I gave it to Kyle Ward and they pulled it down and used it to shoot a perfect score at 1000 in the M16s, something the M14s NEVER did to this day.

AND I've got a few years of driving an M1A out to 1000 also....

How did I do it to win.... just a better shooter that day. No more to say other than that really.... it was X count win at 800, by one point at 900 and lost the complete match due to elevation issues due to me not being able to see and hold elevation well at 1000 that day.... lost the 1000 yard match by 3 points.... which means I was 3rd place over all included in the bolt guns part of the match... by 2 points lower score.... and won the service rifle part by quite a few points.... Probably didn't hurt that I was on a roll and beat Tubb the next day at the 600 yard stage of the state matches... him with a 6.5 something IIRC, in a Tubb 2000.... probably his 6.5xc or whatever that is, me with my meager AR15 in 223....

But I shoot fairly heavy bullets for long range and mid range... IE 600 to 1000. Almost always shooting 90 jlks.

BTW putting an M16 thread in a long range hunting forum probably isn't the greatest choice of forums....

If I intended to shoot long range and had a choice.... I'd be starting with my 308 bolt... and run up to my 50 bolt....

But for 300 and under rapid fire... and even 600....

BTW do you recall what rattle battle matches are, NTIT? Did you know that you can get 45 hits and I"ve seen actually 46 as max by a marine shooter... on a human silhouette at 600 in a 50 second target exposure.... that includes (obviously) a mag change in taht 50 seconds...... Thats not remotely possible with an M14... I think I managed to to 30 wiht an M14 once or twice.... but topping 30 with an M16 is easy.