Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles 5.56/223 LACKS PUNCH/knockdown??????

The 62-gr bullets, the SS-109, and all, were developed by FN of Belgium, not just to penetrate, but for better accuracy, long range trajectory, and retained energy. Out of a 20-inch M-16 rifle, the USGI ammo will punch a steel helmet at 300 meters, while the old 55-gr round would only do that to 150 meters.

The problems you hear about from Afganistan and Iraq come from shots at 300 and 400 yards from the shorter barrel M-4 carbine, with less muzzle velocity, and less downrange energy. Hence the effort by armorers at Fort Bragg, and civilians, to produce a round in 6 mm, .257, 6.5 mm, or .277 which would fit into the M-16. When they used the .30 Remington as a base, which is a rimless .30-30, necked down to .277 (6.8 mm), the hooked up with Remington to develop some lighter bullets and brass.

In actuality the Military is pleased with the performance of the 5.56x45 both M193 (55gr) and the M855 (62 gr.). The M855 was adopted due to the penetration on helmets requirement for the M249 SAW at 600+m IIRC. The 1 in 7" twist was due to the M856 tracer burnout requirement of 800m for the M249SAW LMG.(the 63 grain tracer is very long)

Both the M193 and M855 projectiles have cannelures and will fragment IF impact velocity is high enough. The M4 makes this problematic with M855 and the tougher constructed bullet with penetrator.The slower to begin with M855 has some velocity issues. It will under 100m create fragmentation wounds from the M4. More often than not not as many fragments and it's quite the penetrator, If it has an intermediate barrier it penetrates it, sheds velocity and punches clean through haji without the fragmentation wound channel. The 55 grain can often be defeated by the intermediate barrier the M855 gets through. The same goes for the gear worn by soldiers like soft body armor, helmets, LBE etc.

Like any bullet even the 147 grain .308" M80 projectile hits on the fringes and extremities don't do what a center mass hit does. OTM ammo can also be defeated by intermediate barriers like car doors, window or car glass, dry wall, clay, bricks etc.

The 5.56 isn't perfect, then the 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC and 7.62x51 aren't either. All have draw backs and strong suits. The 5.56 isn't going anywhere anytime soon so says the US Army and USMC.

Source?

My buddies who have served in the sandbox report that the "knockdown issue" is a close quarters issue, not a 300 yard issue.

This makes sense as a wounded opponent at 300 yards is less of a problem than a wounded opponent at 300 inches.

However, none of my "sandbox" contacts can compare 308 to 223 knockdown power. They have taken fire, returned fire at disatnce and called in air support. All of the guys I have discussed cambat with have reported no CQB.

In contrast, many "sandbox" vets have report the effectiveness of airstrikes. . .

BMT

Amazingly, there was a great discussion of the development of ammunition for the M16 in the American Rifleman magazine in the last month or two. I say amazing because it's rare to see something of value in that rag.

Just mentioning that the wound channel created by a 7.62x51 round is larger than a 5.56 wound channel, even when it fragments. Given the choice, I'd take 7.62 for pretty much every situation.

Use of the 77 grain ammo by well trained shooters in the military that I"ve heard says it works just fine, and if it doesn't you are not placing your shots correctly.

As to average troops with little shooting training, I could see an issue, but it may be worse with the M14 platform due to fighting recoil, if you can't center rounds with a 16, you will be worse with a 14.

A side note, I talked to a multi tour veteran of Korea that said when the chinese came all bundled up, drugged up, and tied off, the M1 Garand would put them down first shot, then he'd move to the next, only to soon enough realize an earlier one he'd hit was getting up and had to tap him again. Double tap came to play with the M1 many years ago with this veteran.

Interestingly enough he also said for the ones that got scary close one CM round with his 45 usually stopped the fight.

Personally I love the M14 platform, but I can do as much and have more ammo/less weight/recoil with the 16, so I would not make an effort to want the 14 at this point.

Jeff

Oooooh boy. Dangerous topic.

I have never been in a war and I sure hope I never am in a war.

My problem with the .223 as a combat round, from my armchair position, is just that it's kind of... dare I say it... Jeff, what are you about to do... aaagh...

marginal

There. Said it.

What I mean by that is, that according to all the research on wound channels etc that I've read or seen quoted over the years, the one over-riding thing is that the .223 has to have things sort of "break right" for it. It needs to be going fast enough. It needs to have not hit cover or body armor first. Etc. If you scrub some speed off, either from distance or from hitting cover or whatever, you are left with a 22 mag, basically. If the bullet hits something and, say, loses 1/3 of it's mass and 1/3 of it's speed, you are left with a 40-gn bullet going 2000 fps. Not so good.

A .308, on the other hand, is not relying on any fancy tricks to do what it does. Doesn't need to tumble and fragment and so on. And, if that .308 hits some cover and loses 1/3 of it's weight and 1/3 of it's speed, you are left with, what, a 100-gn bullet going about 1900 fps. Which is a pretty lethal projectile still.

All that said, my go-to property defense round is .223, after years of it being .308. I do believe it to be one heck of a round... and when you start factoring in noise and blast and weight and all that... well...

The Army performed an extensive study of bullet fragmentation on enemy combatants and found the major cause to be bullets striking magazines carried by the enemy soldiers in bandoliers and chest pouches.

There is no argument that the .30-06 and 7.62 NATO are vastly more lethal and offer more penetration of armor, buildings, vehicles, etc, than any .223 round. The 7.62x39 AK rounds, with twice the mass and lower velocity, have much more "knock down power" than the M-16 rounds inside 100 yards. Ask any GI shot with one, or any Army surgeon who has treated the wounds.

Agreed in full.

Me use 12 guage . . ..UGH

BMT

The whole picture is this, one gets more ammo and better hit percentages with the 5.56 M16 family of weapons than one ever did with the M1 Garand or M14. Most fire fights are closer than 250m as opposed to farther than 250m. The M16 weighs mucho less than an m14 and we have a lot more weight on our boys these days with body armor etc.

We can carry the argument to the logical conclusion and declare everything less than .50BMG as marginal and even that only slightly better than marginal because the 20mm is out there. All things considered the M16 family is superior to the Garand, the M14, the G3, the FN/FAL etc. It has lasted longer than any other primary arm. There's more to it than just the chambering,though that kills just fine.

Keep in mind, .223 was a varmint round before the military picked it up...

I don't think so. I believe you are referring to the .222 Magnum.

Heck I thought the 5.56 was built up for the military, that it didn't exist beforehand. Learned something again... was familiar with 222 and 222 mags.

It'll be a long argument here, but I trust folks I shoot with that are in special units of the military in combat... they don't complain about what they have. They kinda chuckle and mention shot placement... I haven't heard any ask for the M14 and MOST have shot it a bunch too in competition.... unless it is a special task at hand.

I probably feel better because I can put more controlled fire into a given target with the 223 than with the 308 and with less practice and training.

Jeff

The 5.56 has the same external dimensions as the .223. It's just at a way higher pressure, right?

I don't think so. I'll try to find the American Rifleman article later. It was pretty thorough.

It's internally different, I know that much. Thicker case, higher pressure, maybe some other changes... It's got the same dimensions as the .223, though.

My apologies to Wolfe Publications. The article, "5.56x45mm - At Last," appeared in the June - July issue of Handloader, Vol. 43 #3, by Gil Sengel and is a continuation of that subject from Vol. 43 #2.

Experimentation for military purposes led to development of the ".222 Special which became the 5.56x45mm in 1963."
Remington later released it as the .223 Remington.
External dimensions of the 5.56x45mm and the .223 Rem are identical. Nosler Manual #6 reports that SOME military brass can have less capacity due to heavier construction which can result in higher pressure when using loads developed in brass with greater capacity.

The point being there is no consistent variation between ,223 and 5.56. Higher pressure results only from improper reloading.

While on the subject of 5.56 myths, this same article reveals that the development of different bullet weights had to do with meeting ballistic parameters and nothing to do with designing for bullet break-up or tumbling in the target medium.

I commend the article to anyone interested in the facts regarding development of the 5.56x45/.223 Rem.

"The point being there is no consistent variation between ,223 and 5.56. Higher pressure results only from improper reloading." toltecgriz


Maybe I'm misreading what you wrote but the 5.56 has a longer leade and is warned against firing in .223 Rem chambers for a reason. They are not one and the same.

This has been a problem with some AR's that have 223 chambers, they have been popping primers due to pressure. Ned Christiansen has made a reamer that corrects this problem removing metal only from the leade area. http://www.m-guns.com/tools.php


Don't see the issue of my AR isn't big enough so I won't even go there but I wanted to clarify the above.

I've got tight match 223 chambers in all my AR15s, and I run 5.56 through the guns as needed or wanted and have never had an issue, as long as the ammo is safe to start with. I have seen hot mil surp thats not safe in standard chambers....

As to leades, thats a chamber issue more than a round design issue. Like a 300 with freebore or not....the 300 part is still the same.