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

Apparently you are one accomplished rifleman ...my congrats to you again.We can talk accuracy till we're blue in the face but I don't care how you spin it down range this isn't a superb killing round.I have in my arsenal a Ruger 77 varmit 26" heavy barrel in 220 Swift when on any given day blows the doors off of the 5.56 but do I use it much for hunting deer..NO..not that it isn't potent enough for deer sized game but there are better choices in my gun cabinet!!!The way I look at it the DOD and military also had better choices in their gun cabinet but chose not to use them. Flem DUDE

77 bthp makes a ton of difference. From the folks that are currently out there in real time... if you are issued that and have issues, its you, not the gun or round.
I have no more to say about it. I believe it when I talk to the troops that are using them and know what they are doing.... and do it every day.

Mny Tnx for your point of view....I appreciate it !!! FLEM

One of my good buddies doinked a taliban plantining a mine at right around 550M with his 14.5 inch issue colt M4 and green tip. Dude was done gurglin by the time our Afghans got to him.

I've seen dudes take a bunch of hits from pretty much every small arm (east and west block) and live. One round or chunck of shrapnal from anything center mass makes things stop happening. A single lung hit from an ak is not a deal breaker. A 5.56 single lung hit isn't a dropper but it works at least as well as a 7.62x39.

A 6.5 in an AR platform would be fine. The reason the 6.8 stops so well is the match bullet it uses. Shoot blackhills match or tap and the 5.56 dumps em just as hard.

The AR platform is is more ergonomical than any battle rifle being fought with in theater today. Any caliber change hopefully will maintain the same platform. Try using a 7.62 nato ar10/m14 on multiple close range target. It can be done well but not by many.

The only mistake is not adopting the 224 Springfield cartridge; would have been better, although slight with the heavy bullets that have been adopted as of recently.

It was cheaper to change the cartridge rather than the action.

Funny, today the AR platform houses about anything.

556mm White Oak Armory anyone?

I think we ought to be using an 80gr bullet in the SAW BTW. Seated long, as the action can handle that.

Ryan;

You give up compatibility with the M16/M4 platforms then, one of the major design parameters for the SAW.

Flem;

What you're missing is the design parameter for the M16/M4 platform.

It is capable of doind dirty work at 500+ meters, but it wasn't designed for that initially.

The platform and especially the ammunition have evolved to be a very capable system, and I'd fathom that had this generation of the system been available during the Southeast Asian war games (where most of the system's "bad reputation" originated), it'd have a far different reputation.

I believe the US Military and the USMC are switching over to newer designs of 5.56mm projectiles for that very reason.



I've not used an M16 to any great degree, but would agree that they handle very well, almost instinctively.

That said, if I were serving in Afghanistan today, I think I would prefer an SLR (FN FAL)in 7.62mm Nato...The only thing that really let the SLR down was the way optics were mounted on the top cover, which was simiply too flimsy for the job. I am sure there are much better solutions available, and a good optic on an SLR would certainly make it more effective at 500m plus, than any comparable 5.56mm system..

The difference between the two rounds is more readily apparent in belt fed MG's. I've watched a 5.56mm Nato Minimi "tickle" the exterior of a concrete block bunker at about 300mm...Switching to a 7.62mm Nato GPMG on the same target, and it actually demolished the front wall of the bunker!

Pete E;

DSA picatinny rail dust cover. Trust me.

Oh, the Army is switching to a lead-less bullet for "green" reasons. The USMC adopted the open-tip SOCOM bullet, for lethality.

I have to disagree on the FN/SLR, though. I dote heavily on the FN, but she's a pig to carry, and the M4 engages targets much faster.

The M4s as standard issue, with the far better ammunition we have now, are the right choice.

Take a page from the USSR playbook (and we are beginning to do this), and use the 7.62NATO platform as a DMR weapon for the designated marksman/sharpshooter within every squad. The SAW uses the M4/5.56 ammo, and the 5.56s do the bulk of the engagement, with the DMR/LMG using 7.62NATO for heavier fire and more precise/longer range engagements.

The M4 is certainly easier to carry, but the SLR wasn't a pig by any means..If an infantry soldier is not up to carrying an SLR (or M14)you have to look at your selection and training..Its only since the 1960's that for some reason certain Americans felt their infantry couldn't cope with carrying a full size battle rifle or dealing with its associated recoil; most other Army's managed fine with their FN's, CETME's, G3's & AK47's.

In SEA, switching to the 5.56mm for the jungle operations made a lot of sense; remember the British SAS were using them in Malay before they were even issued to the USAF in Vietnam.

But by the same token, the 7.62mm Nato makes more sense in Afghanistan.



Although the British army and the American Army have gone down this route of late, the whole idea of a specialised DM in an infantry section is plain wrong.

Every infantry soldier should have the training and equipment to be a DM. In the American Revolution, your guys with Kentucky rifles were proved the point, the Boers proved the point, in WW1 and WW2, Malaya, Oman and right up to the Falklands, British soldiers proved the point.

Instead of spending millions on new and advanced high tec weapons systems, we should be spending just a fraction of that training infantry soldiers to a higher standard of markmanship and equipping them with a harder hitting rifle with the appropriate optics.

Personally I favour returning to 7.62mm Nato simply as its a known quantity and is available off the shelf. A purpose designed .260, .270 or .280 round would also work, but may not be deemed to be practical for wide spread adoption at this point...

has nothing to do with long range hunting..... but talking calibers available... I have a 50 beowulf upper... 275 barnes X flying ashtrays..... have yet to drop a deer or pig in its tracks, and FWIW, deer shot with 223 and the 50 tend to run about the same distance... the 50 shot deer MIGHT run maybe 20 yards less.

AND totally off topic I've shot one with my big 50.... dinked both lungs... 200 yards later we found her, NO blood trail at all... just a half inch hole through everything...

Lots of times none of it makes sense.

Another thing that I haven't seen mentioned is that that the potentially less lethal 556 round was also picked because an enemy combatant walks past a dead comrade but it takes 2-3 soldiers to evacuate a wounded one and removes 2-3 people from the fight for a short time in addition to the 1 KIA.

That seems to get repeated and repeated, especially on the 'Net, and often by soldiers themselves, but I've never seen it written down "officially", certainly not in any British Army training documents.

The truth is that wounded soldiers can still kill you; the Americans millitary learnt that the painful way in the Philipines when their .38 revolvers were found to be ineffective against the local Moro's (SP?) fighters way back in the 1900's.

Nope, the answers (from an engineering perspective) have been out there since the late 1940's, but nobody has yet successfully brought them together.

For me, it would be the latest version of the 6.8 SPC chambered in an Isreali Tavor rifle. I'd up the weight of the projectile in the 6.8 spc to 130 grn and increase the barrel in the Tavor an inch or to to 20.5"...

Because of the Bullpup configeration, you end up with a rifle the same size as an M4 but with a 6" longer barrel. That extra 6" results in significantly improved muzzle velocities over the M4.

The Tavor is fully battle tested by the Israelies and has been in service with certain elite formations since 2002.

Pete E,

You have a very well stated argument for a Tavor bullpup in 6.8mm. If only The US Army decison makers would listen...

The magazine well on an M249 is a weakness in the system and should be removed anyway. They function poorly with magazines and if you're out of belts I suspect there will be M4s with no living owner laying nearby. Since SAW ammo comes on a belt and M4 ammo comes on a box we shouldn't be using junk M855 for both anyway.

I would have to agree with the OP, here we are almost 50 years later and the M4/M16 5.56 debate still goes on.

Curtis Lemay ordered the first 50,000 M16's for AF security to guard AF bases.
Think about it....

IME it was and is superior to the M16 of today. It was lighter and more lethal with it's 55 grain bullet in a 1/14 twist.

Today's rifle is an evolution of our "target shooters" fraternity in the Ordnance Dept.
It has the Wimbledon cup more in mind than the battle field.
A heavy rifle with a fast twist that shoots bullets that are not as lethal. They have totally screwed up Stoners more
lethal design.

If the 5.56 has been so good for the past decades or so why is the Military constantly changing and improving the M16 5.56? When I worked for Winchester ammunition some Army SOF's came to one of our gel block shoots near Fort Lewis and asked us to test a new round that was made by Black Hills. They told us the current 5.56 was not consistently lethal in Afghanistan and Irag especially at longer ranges.

The Marine Corp very recently has ordered millions of these new bullets. Speer TBBC.

http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/02/16/marine-corps-using-new-rounds-in-afghanistan/

It's to be seen if this new bullet will have a real affect in the fighting in Afghanistan where most firefights occur past 300 meters. The BC on them is not that great.

I agree!!! I'm not an expert but rather favor a 6.5 on the M-4 platform instead of the AR-15.My nephew and son-in-law a Navy "Doc" and the other a Marine both have come back from tours of Iraq and Taliban country.Both seem to like the m-4 better exactly why I don't know???? ..Although they both thought a larger caliber would be better!!
One thing I have to say here and it's not a knock on anyones service to our country or you younger guys out there..but your experience with the 5.56 has been in a dessert conflict with open shots and no jungle flora between you and the enemy!!!I was a gunner on an AC-47 "Spooky" gunship in Vietnam [1969-70] and we were constantly on station providing air support to the Army and mainly Marines in night fire-fight engagements.The AK-47's in most cases were ripping our guys to shreds and their return fire did little damage.We poured thousands of rounds of 7.62 on the enemy through a triple canopy jungle at times with great success, Something a 5.56 could only dream of doing...our mini guns ripped THEM to shreds and I know saved many lives !!!! I applaude you guys for doing the best with what you were given and though I don't know each and everyone of you, I salute you for your courage and service to our country!!!! GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU !!!.....Flem

The 223/5.56 Nato round is and never will be as consistently as effective as a larger diameter round at good velocity

What ever happened to the german caseless ammo stuff?
H&K ever develop it any farther?
Any squareheads usuing it?
In my mind ammo without a brass cartrage would be lighter.

dave