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

SU35...I couldn't agree more!!!As you said this debate will go on... into what I hope is a short future.It's high time the DOD R+D people "Got Game"...stop dinkin around spending millions of dollars on trying new powders/projectiles etc.and give our infantry people a piece of cutting edge weaponry.I don't know anymore fixes out there for the 223!!! Maybe the next thing we'll see is 120 grainer perched on the top....they have pushed this envelope to the brink and as I've said in other posts no matter how you try to put the spin on this cartridge it is inferior for so many reasons.......FLEM

This is a great article on the subject.

Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer
A Monograph
By
Major Thomas P. Ehrhart
United States Army
School of Advanced Military Studies
United States Army Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf


The sacred cow M16/5.56 needs to be retired.

Thanks I'll check it out!!!

This is a GREAT read....I haven't finished yet because I want to take it all in when I have more time.The purpose of my OP was to convey much of the same data.EVERYONE that has responded to my OP should read this !!!!!
TNX again FLEM

Good article with tons of info-SU35
Would sure get a good look over in the AR15 crowd.

Another associated topic I wanted to touch on in regards to a military cartridge is the choice of bore dia.It's amazing that many moons ago the 6.5/55 and 7x57 were conceived.Seems the Swedes and Germans were on track even way back then!!!Of course the performance package of these rounds were somewhat limited because of available components of the day.You have to hand it to them for their invisionary capabilities to produce military cartridges of higher performance perameters!!!!!...FLEM

"Amateurs talk strategy, Professionals discuss logistics"

This is why the 5.56 NATO isn't going to be replaced in the "regular" military. Millions of rounds of 5.56 ammo produced and guns to shoot them.

The .223 and the M16 was intended as a "fix" for Viet Nam. A short barreled FN FAL with a modified gas system shooting a down loaded 7.62 round would have been a samarter choice.

Caseless telescopic is under development, but for belt fed weapons.

FlyboyFlem - couldn't agree with you more. Was also in the AF in 1966 and most folks forget the AF traded in .30M1 carbines for the "then new" Armalite AR15. Weapons used for security purposes have different performance requirements then for all out infantry combat. The Army test board then changed the propellent powder specifications, to save money I'm informed, that lead to the dirty chamber and jammed bolt problems. Not good when bean counters determine what a weapon can and can not do. Regards, Homesteader.

Exactly and that's why 45 years later we still have a flawed system for infantry combat.

All this blather . . . .

And then the guys who are using this system today say "It works fine" and it falls on deaf ears.

Odd it is.

BMT

The military is not going back to the 7.62 as a primary caliber for reasons already stated. 5.56 is much easier to shoot well, especially for women and 18 year old kids who may have never shot a rifle before. The 5.56 increases the probability of a hit, less recoil in a lighter easier to handle weapon. Its one of the reasons the military now use 9X19 instead of the .45 for our sidearms as do most police departments.

SU35 - IdahoGuy is correct about "professionals & logistics" i.e. more 5.56NATO can be transported then 7.62NATO - the flip side is you NEED more of the 5.56 to do the deadly job correctly. The Army monograph mentioned in the thread makes a good read and, with foresight amongst the proper individuals, the flawed system can be corrected once and for all. It's been overdue a looong time. Homesteader.

I always thought given the superior bullet selection that something based on the 6mm (.243) cal would have been ideal, for poking holes in people.

Everyone is somewhat a product of their environment...not all but most of the younger guys out there are content with the present weapons they were given because this is all they know!!!They have made the best of it and maybe that's the bottom line. FLEM

You must have your head up your butt.

It's the "guys" who use the 16 the most are the ones that are sounding off on it's deficiency's.

Why did an active Army SOF develop the 6.8?

My son, "one of the guys", who is in Helmand province now is telling me his m16 lacks reach He's rated expert 3 straight years now.

That's why I personally have a very special interest in this topic. What works best for him. What is going to keep him alive.

So, it's not exactly blather here.

Alot a PD's / Sherrif Depts / and State Patrols are ditching their 9 mils and moving up to 40's and 45's ......Now what would be the reason for that????......FLEM

It is easier to explain poor performance in a shooting by blaming the caliber and buying new guns, than by blaming the officer and adding trainers and training days.

No matter what caliber of autoloader is issued to line soldiers, they will complain when shooting over 300m that they aren't effective. Because, drumroll please... they can't hit at greater distances. A friend of mine kills people all the time out to 900 yards with 5.56mm. But he can shoot. He leaves his M24 and M107 in their cases. Told me he didn't use either of them the last time over, never needed to.

I don't want to hear the blather about Marines being expert marksman. I've outshot them at 300 yards at Gunsite, and I'm not that great. Give them a larger rifle and they will simply have fewer rounds to miss with at 600m. Leave the long shots to crew served weapons, DMs and MOS snipers. People who have equipment and training meant for that sort of thing.

First of all it's a cartridge.

And this cartridge is hitting people at distance and not killing them consistently. That's the problem.

The cartridge is not only not killing bad guys consistently at long range but short range as well and that is why the Marine Corp went to this bullet.
http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/02/16/marine-corps-using-new-rounds-in-afghanistan/

You obviously didn't bother to read this thread. It's 45 years later and they are still changing and modifying this cartridge.


Oh boy,,,,, another "I have a friend story". He's killing people at 900 meters and leaving his M24 at home.

They get expert by qualifying at 500 meters on targets using irons. They are not using pop ups like the army uses.




300 yds? that's really not saying much.




And its these same SOF Army snipers who created the 6.8 Rem. because the 5.56 was doing it for them.

Here's a quote from the article that you obviously did not read.



RyanScott, You are about the biggest load of blather I've read here in a long time.

Interestingly the spec op folks we shoot with and talk to still don't have an issue with the 223 and 77s issued..... of course, and no slam at your son, but qualifying expert, would not keep the spec ops folks on shooting teams... expert, after you have shot some, just is not hard to do. That being said I wouldn't want to have to be issued 55s for 500 yards... but given right ammo I've no issue at all with using 77s in their place... and 77s we shoot to 600 and I don't think anyone would be happy being hit with that...