seems like every time I look up info on the AR15/M4/M16 you eventually find referances to the lack of knockdown and guys wishing they had a 308 win,6.5 grendal ETC. when the first AR15s were used in viet nam they were very effective WHILE they were still functional, and the main complaint was due to jams and functioning issues, once those were resolved thru chrome lined barrels and more frequent cleaning. now Im well able to beleive that there isolated incedences where guys hit center mass with a 223 and mil. spec. ammo can shrug it off for a few seconds or even minutes but without body armor I can,t see decent hits not proving to be fatal in a few minutes, Ive seen DEER shrug off a hit from a 30/06 for a few seconds before it even looked like there was any damage done. but what happends to those combatants after a few minutes?, it the 223 rem 5.56 ammo really that pathetic that hits don,t prove fatal?
anyone with experiance here! do the well hit combatants not only shrug it off but continue to function and keep fighting minutes or hours later.
Depends In Viet Nam Charlie would wrap the body with strips of truck innertube tie off main arteries and smoke a lot of opium. Before an assault, so you would see some five foot nothing slope take several hits center mass and keep on coming at you, my nephew was in Somolia and he told me about the same thing from the skinnies. Don't know abou the Arabs we are fighting now since I have no relations in country yet, my SIL is schedualed to go with in a year, and my Grandson is talking about enlisting in the Corps after High School (Family tradition) As far as the 5.56/223 lacking knock down, yea, that is why many States do not allow it for deer. If it is problimatic for a 150 lbs white tail then it is not going to be any more deadly on a human. Add to that, the fact that humans can think and have emotions. Where an animal will lay down and bleed out a Human may coninueto fight depending on the degree of fanatisim. Intoxication or just plain hatred.
Declaration of Independance, in ENGLISH U.S. Constitution, in ENGLISH U.S. Bill of Rights, in ENGLISH If you cannot or don't want to learn ENGLISH, go back to the third world cesspool you came from
I purchased an AR about 6 weeks ago, so I have only limited experience. I have an A3 with a 16" barrel. However, in the last 10 days I have had opportunity to shoot and kill 4 feral hogs. The first was a 270-300# boar at 75yds, shot in the neck with 55gr jacketed HP, died instantly. The other 3 were smaller shoats at about 40 yds. The first died with one 62gr FMJ, the second on the run with one shot to the shoulder. However, the 3rd pig was still running after firing 3 shots at him. Finally, dropped with the 4th. I was initially disgusted at missing 3 in a row until I looked closer and saw 3 neat little holes in the shoulder. One shot broke a front leg. My guess is that between the non-expanding FMJs and the grit of a feral hog, he was just tough enough to keep going. The beauty part is that with the AR and Eotech sight, I was able to put 4 rounds in a running hog at 40yds in the time that it took him to run about 10feet. Personally, I am going to stick with the 55gr PSP for most all application to get more expansion. Possibly keep a 1000 rds of jacketed HP for other applications. But am not impressed with the killing potential of the FMJ. I know the military uses them. That said, I have a buddy here in S. Tx that kills hundreds of hogs out of a helicopter. He uses exclusively Wolf FMJ (I think 62 gr). But they only try to gut shoot them and let them die in the brush. His reasoning is that shooting out of a moving vehicle at a running target, and he can't catch his brass to reload. I am waiting for the chance to try some of that fun. All in all, I am very satisfied with the AR-15 (223) and feel pretty well armed in any emergency and pretty comfortable in most hunting situations. But remember, I am only a newby to the AR's
I've got two comments. First,if you're serious about hunting hogs with a .223 I'd suggest you try the Barnes 62gr TSX, not that FMJ crap. Secondly, your pard who's gut shooting hogs from a chopper by using the wrong ammo and poor shot placement should hang his head in shame. Intentionally wounding any animal is deplorable, pest or not.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. --Winston Churchill
+1, what 222Rem says. Intentionally wounding an animal is plain cruelty and your pardner is dead wrong at what he is doing. Additionally if you have done any hunting at all you should know better than to use a FMJ bullet for hunting. The USA has to use them in war due to Geneva convention, you do not. This is the "wrongest" post I have seen here in a while.
There are a lot of people that use .22 centerfires on this forum with proper bullets to take deer size animals, they seem to have about the same success as people using larger bore rifles. In some cases they have better success as they are able to shoot the rifles better with their lower recoil.
On the hogs, I'm with ya totally, to SPECIFICALLY gut shoot them, someone needs a lesson out behind the barn...
and for brass, you can use a brass catcher...
As to shoot and let lay, I totally understand that and the fact that control shooting from a chopper you can't always hit, much less hit perfect but its gotta be done...
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
You guys are right. I am not advocating intentionally wounding any animal. I've always tried to make every shot kill immediately. You have also reminded me to be careful of what I say on a public platform. My point was mainly that the FMJ (IMHO)is not a good killing round. Thanks for the reminder.
This is my understanding of this, but I am by no means an expert:
It all comes down to wound characteristics. In Nam we were firing a lightly constructed 55gr bullet from a 20 inch barrel with a 1:12 twist at 3200 fps. It would enter Charlie and in about an inch and a half it would become unstable yaw and try to travel base first because this is most stable for a bullet in anything denser than air. The lightly constructed bullet would then fragment violently at its crimp point because it could not withstand the force applied to it as it �flipped�. These small high velocity fragments would cause a large �permanent� wound cavity.
When the Soviets adopted body armor, we switched to the steel core penetrator core 62 gr bullet. The 62 gr needed a faster twist to stabilize it. Some where there after, we started switching to the M4 with a shorter barrel and even faster rate of twist. This did two things. The faster twist made the bullets more stable. This means that they need to travel deeper in soft tissue before they upset and yaw. The shorter barrel means that they start out at a lower velocity and thus impact at a lower velocity. This all equates to less force applied to the bullet to cause fragmenting and less time to do it. Also, the fragments will be moving at a slower speed, which means that they not travel as far in the body. Instead of the violent fragmentation seen with the Nam era 55gr�s, you now see two of three large fragments.
The response to this was to go to heavier bullets, not because of the additional weight, but because the heavier bullets are longer and a longer bullet acts like a longer lever allowing the same force to brake the bullet and thus causes better fragmentation.
Last edited by Robusto; 07/06/08.
Fishermen for McCain� Because all hookers need a John!
Biden's most truthful quote ever came during his first press conference, 03/25/21. Drum roll please...... "I don't know, to be clear." and THAT is one promise he's kept!!!
+1, what 222Rem says. Intentionally wounding an animal is plain cruelty and your pardner is dead wrong at what he is doing. Additionally if you have done any hunting at all you should know better than to use a FMJ bullet for hunting. The USA has to use them in war due to Geneva convention, you do not. This is the "wrongest" post I have seen here in a while.
Use of FMJ ammunition has nothing to do with the Geneva convention. It was the Hague Accords that covered the ammunition that was to be acceptable.
It's not on par with most other calibers, in terms of stopping power. I can't say I know with any real amount of certainty how long it takes the average person shot in the gut with a 5.56mm bullet to die. However, I DO know that I'd rather be certain my weapon would kill/incapacitate the enemy IMMEDIATELY, rather then the next day. Just saying.
+1, what 222Rem says. Intentionally wounding an animal is plain cruelty and your pardner is dead wrong at what he is doing. Additionally if you have done any hunting at all you should know better than to use a FMJ bullet for hunting. The USA has to use them in war due to Geneva convention, you do not. This is the "wrongest" post I have seen here in a while.
Use of FMJ ammunition has nothing to do with the Geneva convention. It was the Hague Accords that covered the ammunition that was to be acceptable.
In the U.S. about 10% of the population hunts and about 10% are adamantly opposed to hunting. The remaining 80% can go either way. The practice of intentionally wounding any animal does nothing but increase the numbers and "ammunition" of the anti-hunting crowd. It is a sickening practice and does not warrant bragging.
+1, what 222Rem says. Intentionally wounding an animal is plain cruelty and your pardner is dead wrong at what he is doing. Additionally if you have done any hunting at all you should know better than to use a FMJ bullet for hunting. The USA has to use them in war due to Geneva convention, you do not. This is the "wrongest" post I have seen here in a while.
Another Latrine Lawyer.
Any Army Dog,Marine,Sailor or Airmen would know that the Hague Convention(of 1899 and the USA never signed as it outlawed submarines too,but use it as a guideline only)is the proper convention and the Geneva Convention deals only with treatment of combatants!
US SOCOM issues a 77grain HPBT Match bullet which was ok'd by JAG after the Lawyers found out that the reason of the HP was not for expansion. Example: Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Special Ball, Long Range, Mk 262 Mod 0/1 5.56x45mm 77-grain Open-Tipped Match/Hollow-Point Boat-Tail cartridge. Mod 0 features Sierra Matchking bullet, while Mod 1 features either Nosler or Sierra bullet.
Cartridge, Caliber 7.62 mm, NATO, Ball, Special, M118LR: 175-grain 7.62x51mm NATO Hollow Point Boat Tail round specifically designed for long-range sniping.
Cartridge, Caliber 7.62 mm, NATO, Match, M852: 168-grain 7.62x51mm NATO Hollow-Point Boat-Tail cartridge, specifically designed for use in National Match competitions, later approved by US Army JAG for combat use by snipers.
seems like every time I look up info on the AR15/M4/M16 you eventually find referances to the lack of knockdown and guys wishing they had a 308 win,6.5 grendal ETC.
FWIW:
I agree that the "knockdown" power issue is seen a lot in print.
I cannot comment on that, not having shot anyone.
However, I can relay a statement by a Vietnam combat vet from the M-14 Era. "the 308 knocks them down--NOW"
He had no use for the M-16, because it was not a fight stopper in his experience.
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
seems like every time I look up info on the AR15/M4/M16 you eventually find referances to the lack of knockdown and guys wishing they had a 308 win,6.5 grendal ETC.
FWIW:
I agree that the "knockdown" power issue is seen a lot in print.
I cannot comment on that, not having shot anyone.
However, I can relay a statement by a Vietnam combat vet from the M-14 Era. "the 308 knocks them down--NOW"
He had no use for the M-16, because it was not a fight stopper in his experience.
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.
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.
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
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
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.
"Be sure you're right. Then go ahead." Fess Parker as Davy Crockett
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.
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
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
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.
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.
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...
Me use 12 guage . . ..UGH
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
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.
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...
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
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
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?
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.
"Be sure you're right. Then go ahead." Fess Parker as Davy Crockett
"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.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
Let me be clear. External cartridge dimensions of the .223 and the 5.56 are the same. My handiest reference on that is Nosler #6. Thickness and malleability of brass can vary, as with any cartridge from diferent manufacturers.
If you have cartridge descriptions with different external dimensions between the two designations, we'd all like to see them, I'm sure.
In general I defer to rost495 in matters of 5.56 who has much more technical experience than I, but I agree leade has nothing to do with standard cartridge dimensions
This just goes to show how solidly imbedded some of these beliefs are, when they have no basis in fact.
Anyway, I'm just trying to help make sense of this. It won't hurt my feelers if someone can show that I'm wrong.
"Be sure you're right. Then go ahead." Fess Parker as Davy Crockett
ok Ill admit I have yet to see that refered to before, ARE we currently using 77 grain 223 bullets? what twist is required? are they accurate in the comon civilian AR 15s? where can you get bulk bullets? load data? are the 75 and 80 grain V-MAX bullets accurate in the AR15 rifles? any other info????????
The dimensions of the cartridges are the same, the chambers are different. The .223 Remington is built to SAAMI specs, rated to 50,000 CUP max pressure, the 5.56�45 is built to NATO specs, rated to 60,000 CUP max pressure.
SAAMI Release 31 January 1979
With the appearance of full metal jacket military 5.56 ammunition on the commercial Market, it has come to the attention of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) that the use of military 5.56mm ammunition in sporting rifles chambered for Caliber .223 Remington cartridges can lead to higher-than-normal chamber pressures and possible hazards for the firearm, its user and bystanders.
Tests have confirmed that chamber pressures in a sporting rifle may be significantly higher in the same gun when using military 5.56mm ammunition rather than commercially loaded Caliber .223 Remington cartridges, according to SAAMI.
SAAMI points out that chambers for military rifles have a different throat configuration than chambers for sporting firearms which, together with the full metal jacket of the military projectile, may account for the higher pressures which result when military ammunition is fired in a sporting chamber.
SAAMI recommends that a firearm be fired only with the cartridge for which it is specifically chambered by the manufacturer.
People have survived .50, 7.62, 5.56, 9mm, 45ACP hits. Everyone has heard someone know someone that heard that (Insert cartridge here) is a (Pick one- Piece of crap/greatest manstopper of all time!)because of how they shot so-and-so in (Insert war/battle here.). There is no magic bullet that stops the fight immediately 100% of the time. There are factors such as psychological and physiological makeups of peoplesuch as drug inducements, determination, emotionally disturbed, and others. Animals can go for extended periods being shot with lethal shots through the instinct of survival. Humans can be the same. There are numerous instances documented of people shot multiple times with head and torso shots that kept fighting.
There are only certain areas 100% guaranteed to drop a person and turn the lights off. These are in the Central Nervious System such as the medulla. Any round taking these out will work. Anything else depends.
The key to all this is not only shot placement, but simply shooting until the threat is done. It's not a single shot like in the movies that blows him back and down. People may not realize they are being shot. You have to physiologically take away the ability to continue to act. So keep firing.
Q. What is the difference between 5.56�45mm and .223 Remington ammo?
Military M16s have slightly more headspace and have a longer throat area, compared to the SAAMI .223 chamber spec, which was originally designed for bolt-action rifles. Commercial SAAMI-specification .223 chambers have a much shorter throat or leade and less freebore than the military chamber. Shooting 5.56 Mil-Spec ammo in a SAAMI-specification chamber can increase pressure dramatically, up to an additional 15,000 psi or more. The military chamber is often referred to as a "5.56 NATO" chamber, as that is what is usually stamped on military barrels. Some commercial AR manufacturers use the tighter ".223" (i.e., SAAMI-spec and often labeled ".223" or ".223 Remington") chamber, which provides for increased accuracy but, in self-loading rifles, less cycling reliability, especially with hot-loaded military ammo. A few AR manufacturers use an in-between chamber spec, such as the Wylde chamber.
Hope this helps with the question on the differences between the two.
ok Ill admit I have yet to see that refered to before, ARE we currently using 77 grain 223 bullets? what twist is required? 1/7 is preferred although people use them in 1/9. They may be accurate and they might not in the 1/9 is the consensus. are they accurate in the comon civilian AR 15s? Depends what you mean by accuracy. Combat accuracy in Minute of Man, yes. If you're looking for 1-hole groups, every gun shoots different and yours may or may not like the load.
I don't remember the specifics, but aren't there similar issues with the .308 and 7.62x51 NATO round? Don't shoot one in the other, etc.
I do know that a "tactical" Savage I once had would lock up scary tight with milsurp 7.62. I used to keep a ton of that ammo around back when it was still cheap because I was running it through a couple M1a's. I bought the Savage for some bolt action trigger time with that same ammo. It was a bummer that it wouldn't work in that rifle.
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.
I also very much enjoyed the last two issues of Handloader with the 2 part history of the 5.56/.223 round.
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
I've treated a few folks shot with .223 (m193). I will simply state that the wounds were catastrophic and made my job as a medic irrelevent. The weapon system is capable of very, very lethal effects on humans.
I've treated a few folks shot with .223 (m193). I will simply state that the wounds were catastrophic and made my job as a medic irrelevent. The weapon system is capable of very, very lethal effects on humans.
AGREED. The topic really centers on the issue is Stopping a threat immeidately, not killing eventually. Much like a dangerous game rifle.
Very little matters more than shot placement.
Tough issue, really.
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
I've treated a few folks shot with .223 (m193). I will simply state that the wounds were catastrophic and made my job as a medic irrelevent. The weapon system is capable of very, very lethal effects on humans.
AGREED. The topic really centers on the issue is Stopping a threat immeidately, not killing eventually. Much like a dangerous game rifle.
Very little matters more than shot placement.
Tough issue, really.
BMT
What really matters is not just shot placement, but shooting and shooting and hitting and hitting, forcing the body to shut down. Don't stop until the threat is down, be it a 22LR, 5.56mm, 7.62, or 460 Rigby. Shoot until its done, and move on to the next one.
I've treated a few folks shot with .223 (m193). I will simply state that the wounds were catastrophic and made my job as a medic irrelevent. The weapon system is capable of very, very lethal effects on humans.
AGREED. The topic really centers on the issue is Stopping a threat immeidately, not killing eventually. Much like a dangerous game rifle.
Very little matters more than shot placement.
Tough issue, really.
BMT
What really matters is not just shot placement, but shooting and shooting and hitting and hitting, forcing the body to shut down. Don't stop until the threat is down, be it a 22LR, 5.56mm, 7.62, or 460 Rigby. Shoot until its done, and move on to the next one.
how many firefights have you been in Tacticalsquirrel?
I don't think anyone needs to have been in a firefight to understand its not always caliber, lots has to do with the combatant or target. CNS is only sure way, beyond that if you need them down, you shoot till they no longer move. The tactical situations can vary but the end result is the same. I know a good friend was in the Korean War, he said there were so many chinese coming they shot as fast as they could basically but did not have time to finish so to speak, and realized that often you would hit one with the 06 and they were down, only to shoot at a couple others and realize the first one was back up again, you shot as needed.
Jeff
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
As someone who was trained as a medic in the military ( MOS 91-C) I was trained to take care of wounds of all types.. thank God I didn't have to see combat, although by the skin of my teeth I just missed seeing it..
Also as a varmint shooter, who burns thru several thousand rounds of 223 minimum each year.. and a person who even believes it is an effective deer round...
if I had to go into combat, I certainly would want ANYTHING with more ooomph than a 223 can offer.. it is a great varmint round and a crappy military round, regardless of what bullet it has on it..
and then the military will not use the most effective bullets available for it either, for maximum destruction on target...
and our guys who are even in special ops are evidently not allowed to handload something on their own....
I believe ideal, would at least be rounds like the 243, or 250 Savage, 25/08 or 260 Rem or 7/08, or 270/08..
there is a lot of ground between a 223 and a 308..
our guys put in harms way deserve something a lot better than a darn 223 caliber...
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
often you would hit one with the 06 and they were down, only to shoot at a couple others and realize the first one was back up again, you shot as needed.
A good lesson right there.
Shoot one shot at a time. Shoot as often as needed.
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
I am shooting 147 grainers over 45 grains of R-15.
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
Well it and it's ammo are heavier than an M16, it's louder, it has more muzzle blast and it it recoils more. It solves some but not all of the M14's issues. The Army at least has adopted a large M16 type weapon in 7.62x51 as a semi auto sniper rifle.
One of the great things about the M16 family is how easy they are to shoot well for anyone of any skill level. That's ergonomics, recoil and weight all rolled into one.
I've treated a few folks shot with .223 (m193). I will simply state that the wounds were catastrophic and made my job as a medic irrelevent. The weapon system is capable of very, very lethal effects on humans.
AGREED. The topic really centers on the issue is Stopping a threat immeidately, not killing eventually. Much like a dangerous game rifle.
Very little matters more than shot placement.
Tough issue, really.
BMT
What really matters is not just shot placement, but shooting and shooting and hitting and hitting, forcing the body to shut down. Don't stop until the threat is down, be it a 22LR, 5.56mm, 7.62, or 460 Rigby. Shoot until its done, and move on to the next one.
how many firefights have you been in Tacticalsquirrel?
Well it and it's ammo are heavier than an M16, it's louder, it has more muzzle blast and it it recoils more. It solves some but not all of the M14's issues. The Army at least has adopted a large M16 type weapon in 7.62x51 as a semi auto sniper rifle.
Many valid points, but as we knwo everything is a compromise.
Power is better, but more power increases weight of the ammo and weapon.
If I recall correctly, the standard issue ammunition supply is 9 thirty round magazines of 5.56 (270 rounds). Assuming that a Loaded round weighs 170 grains that equals 6.55 pounds of ammo.(270 x 170 / 7000 = 6.55)
Again, If I recall correctly, the M-14 ammunition supply was 10 twenty round magazines (200 rounds). Assuming that a Loaded round weighs 375 grains that equals 10.7 pounds of ammo (200 x 375 / 7000 = 10.7 pounds).
The difference in ammo weight is a little over 3 pounds. My rifle (pictured above) weighs little under 1.5 pounds more than a standard M-4. Total cost in weight is about 4.5 pounds (ignoring differences in the weight of 223 vs. 308 magazines--I did not weigh those).
An average infantryman carries about 65 pounds of gear. So, the switch to the 308 DISPLACES 4.5 pounds of gear. (The 65 pound figure has been remarkably constant over the centuries -- technology has enabled us to get more/better stuff into the 65 pounds).
In general, I prefer the power over "gadgets". But I am in the minority in this matter. Our army LOVES gadgets, and it is a very fine army, so I cannot complain.
For my uses, the 308 gets the nod, and I let go of the "gadgets".
BMT
Last edited by BMT; 07/15/08.
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
Urgent Fury Just Cause Desert Storm Rangers Lead The Way
Mike
Thank you for your service.
But, Rangers don't lead. They drop in, sneak around, report the intel, and watch as the Marines get all shot up. . . . .
At least that is what the Marines tell me . . . .
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
[quote=jimmypgeorgia how many firefights have you been in Tacticalsquirrel? [/quote]
My paycheck comes from carrying a firearm as a LEO. I was assigned SWAT duties for the part-time team of one agency I worked for. I have not fired lethal shots thankfully, however I have been in numerous situations involving lethal force. I was a mere fraction of an inch of completeing my trigger pull on a youth with a gun who's actions stopped before I fired. I had another where I was on a scene providing cover while the callout was getting organized. My duties also were Less Lethal and the situation developed where I had to let the long gun down on the sling and begin pulling the trigger on beanbags. His actions were not stopped by my 1st shot and escalated and needed lethal force at the same time I fired another bean bag. I can recount more, but the fact is that I have been in enough entries and situations and have had extensive training in my field in areas of the patrol rifle, SWAT, and others.
Hope this explains the background from where I develop my positions. Anything I type I can back up, and I tend not to post much except in areas I do have the ability to show sources to back up what I say. As you may have noticed, the patrol rifle is an area I have a lot of passion for and try to clear up any inaccurate info that floats around the web when its worth the time to correct.
Urgent Fury Just Cause Desert Storm Rangers Lead The Way
Mike
Thank you for your service.
But, Rangers don't lead. They drop in, sneak around, report the intel, and watch as the Marines get all shot up. . . . .
At least that is what the Marines tell me . . . .
BMT
Only Marines I saw in Grenada were flying Cobra's and fast-movers! Each of those Gold Stars in my jump-wings come from being the tip of the spear! We were first into the thick of it. Now DS was where I truly came to appreciate my Marine Brethren!! I've been on hand for M193 5.56mm hits from 5-feet to 335-meters(my spotter taking up slack as I reloaded 25Oct1983). Mike
Every single time I went into a combat zone,my ruck was loaded with a wee bit more but every single troop in my squad had his seven 30-round mags and at least eight to ten bandoleer's in their rucks.
[quote=jimmypgeorgia how many firefights have you been in Tacticalsquirrel?
My paycheck comes from carrying a firearm as a LEO. I was assigned SWAT duties for the part-time team of one agency I worked for. I have not fired lethal shots thankfully, however I have been in numerous situations involving lethal force. I was a mere fraction of an inch of completeing my trigger pull on a youth with a gun who's actions stopped before I fired. I had another where I was on a scene providing cover while the callout was getting organized. My duties also were Less Lethal and the situation developed where I had to let the long gun down on the sling and begin pulling the trigger on beanbags. His actions were not stopped by my 1st shot and escalated and needed lethal force at the same time I fired another bean bag. I can recount more, but the fact is that I have been in enough entries and situations and have had extensive training in my field in areas of the patrol rifle, SWAT, and others.
Hope this explains the background from where I develop my positions. Anything I type I can back up, and I tend not to post much except in areas I do have the ability to show sources to back up what I say. As you may have noticed, the patrol rifle is an area I have a lot of passion for and try to clear up any inaccurate info that floats around the web when its worth the time to correct. [/quote]
then the answer is that Balvarik is more knowledgable on this subject.
Right... so basic load was in fact 210 rounds. Combat load was dependent on mission. IIRC, they teach that in either PLDC or BNCOC. Point was that BMT's weight figure would be off by about 1.5 pounds based on the incorrect basic load of 5.56 in his comparison.
Now toss in that AT-4(LAW's in my day or 90mm RCL rounds),demo-charges,spare barrel for the 240,ammo for the 7.62 and any other mission critical gear! Why do you think that we had each of our squad never have less than 50lbs in their ruck when we had rucksack runs!
Yep I understand all of that including the ruck runs, force marches and the LAW's too. Ran many a squad and couple of PLT's. We probably got to the gulf around the same time.
Urgent Fury Just Cause Desert Storm Rangers Lead The Way
Mike
Thank you for your service.
But, Rangers don't lead. They drop in, sneak around, report the intel, and watch as the Marines get all shot up. . . . .
At least that is what the Marines tell me . . . .
BMT
Only Marines I saw in Grenada were flying Cobra's and fast-movers! Each of those Gold Stars in my jump-wings come from being the tip of the spear! We were first into the thick of it. Now DS was where I truly came to appreciate my Marine Brethren!! I've been on hand for M193 5.56mm hits from 5-feet to 335-meters(my spotter taking up slack as I reloaded 25Oct1983). Mike
Thank you also for your service.
Yes, a buddy of mine from College also saw Grenada ("We just dropped in for a visit" he would say--but not much else).
But I don't see how that excuses you from good natured ribbing . . . .
My military career was highlighted by three attempts at volunteering and a fatal wound suffered at Oakland MEPS.
My football injuries were enough to keep me out after Gramm-Rudman passed in 1986.
Today, they'd pay me a bonus to join. . . . .
Timing is everything they say, eh?
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
Let me be clear. External cartridge dimensions of the .223 and the 5.56 are the same. My handiest reference on that is Nosler #6. Thickness and malleability of brass can vary, as with any cartridge from diferent manufacturers.
If you have cartridge descriptions with different external dimensions between the two designations, we'd all like to see them, I'm sure.
In general I defer to rost495 in matters of 5.56 who has much more technical experience than I, but I agree leade has nothing to do with standard cartridge dimensions
This just goes to show how solidly imbedded some of these beliefs are, when they have no basis in fact.
Anyway, I'm just trying to help make sense of this. It won't hurt my feelers if someone can show that I'm wrong.
stumbled across this and there is plenty of info out there for those who will do the research and choose to beleive what they find by testing things out for themselves and using some common sense. "This just goes to show how solidly imbedded some of these beliefs are, when they have no basis in fact."
IIRC, the basic load is 210 rounds of 5.56. Been a while and memory is a bit foggy.
Dang it. I knew that.
BMT
Last edited by BMT; 07/15/08.
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
Right... so basic load was in fact 210 rounds. Combat load was dependent on mission. IIRC, they teach that in either PLDC or BNCOC. Point was that BMT's weight figure would be off by about 1.5 pounds based on the incorrect basic load of 5.56 in his comparison.
AGREED, I the amo weight for 210 rounds is 5.1 pounds or so.
Makes the 308 based AR a 6 pound heavier weapon system (displacing 6 pounds of other gear).
BMT
Last edited by BMT; 07/15/08.
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
then the answer is that Balvarik is more knowledgable on this subject. [/quote]
Answer? To what? How have Balvarik and I or even you and I conflicted here? You seemed perturbed about something.
What basis do you have to determine what knowledge I do or don't hold? How many shootings have you witnessed? I've seen results of plenty of shootings and death investigations in my career. As in still smelling the blood in the air and tracing what the bullet did. Your question of firefights is very narrow in scope. Your tone implies that any person that has not actually gotten to pull a trigger in combat does not have a say in this discussion. By your standards how do you rate to be able to post in it?
What military or LEO training and experience do you have? How do you think I'm out of line on ANY of my information, and then back it up sir.
Let me be clear. External cartridge dimensions of the .223 and the 5.56 are the same. My handiest reference on that is Nosler #6. Thickness and malleability of brass can vary, as with any cartridge from diferent manufacturers.
If you have cartridge descriptions with different external dimensions between the two designations, we'd all like to see them, I'm sure.
In general I defer to rost495 in matters of 5.56 who has much more technical experience than I, but I agree leade has nothing to do with standard cartridge dimensions
This just goes to show how solidly imbedded some of these beliefs are, when they have no basis in fact.
Anyway, I'm just trying to help make sense of this. It won't hurt my feelers if someone can show that I'm wrong.
stumbled across this and there is plenty of info out there for those who will do the research and choose to beleive what they find by testing things out for themselves and using some common sense. "This just goes to show how solidly imbedded some of these beliefs are, when they have no basis in fact."
That's funny right there.
Throat is not a cartridge dimension. It is a chamber dimension. Try to pay attention.
"Be sure you're right. Then go ahead." Fess Parker as Davy Crockett
"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.
BTW, I did pay attention, my first response was about chambers not cartridges and pressure problems that can result.
then the answer is that Balvarik is more knowledgable on this subject.
Answer? To what? How have Balvarik and I or even you and I conflicted here? You seemed perturbed about something.
What basis do you have to determine what knowledge I do or don't hold? How many shootings have you witnessed? I've seen results of plenty of shootings and death investigations in my career. As in still smelling the blood in the air and tracing what the bullet did. Your question of firefights is very narrow in scope. Your tone implies that any person that has not actually gotten to pull a trigger in combat does not have a say in this discussion. By your standards how do you rate to be able to post in it?
What military or LEO training and experience do you have? How do you think I'm out of line on ANY of my information, and then back it up sir. [/quote]
----------------------------------------------------------------- LEO have the great advantage of "post-mortum" forensics after a shooting. Military needs it out of action now and on to the next group of targets.
The advantage of use of different types of bullets lies with LEO. Military are governed by what the JAG lawyers interpret and leave us with a very limited selection.
I've been witness to hits with M193 and M855 5.56mm on combatants. To me it seemed that the old M16A1 with M193 was a better at incapacitating than the M16A2 with M855. Also the M9 needed four to six torso hits to obtain what the M1911A1 would do with one!
Although I have used 5.56 to take out a couple toyota pickups, I will admit that it lacked the punch /knockdown that the TOW missile did when it hit the truck.
TWR, do you also read manufacturers instructions? The saami thing is a CYA. Many manufacturers say you can't shoot reloads in their guns either.
The difference in the chambers is no different than the chamber cuts of the same 30-06 but by different makers... Throat length or freebore itself can increase or decrease pressures quite a bit. Thats never really paid attention too by many either.
Bottom line we are arguing about chamber dimensions when the real question is knockdown.... I stand by the fact that if folks get up from a 06 hit, then there are other factors at work some times.
I would not want to be center punched by any of the mentioned rounds.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
A good friend of mine told a story from 'Nam about a firefight... he was carrying an M14... the bad guys were hopped up on something (or at least the one in question was) and my friend said he was literally blowing parts off this guy's body but he just kept coming, wouldn't go down, so my friend jumped out of his foxhole and basically dismembered him with a bayonet.
They sent him to the rear for a while after that...
If you had a repeatable static target discussions like this would be easier.
In hunting I choose to err on the side of large, just in case. But thats not combat type scenario, where I"d rather have the choice of using more ammo the way I want to. IE center punch a normal target and they could go down, I"ve still got (weight wise) a round left over compared to a larger round. Now if I have to I can double tap or worse. BUt if the first one puts em down, I have spare ammo left... comparatively speaking.
For the other end of the spectrum... well same thing I heard in Korea except it was the 06 not the 308... if the 06 can't take em down on the first shot.... a newer round between the power of the 223 and 308 isn't going to be of value either. Much like your story.
There is the value of a standard round in combat too.. if we are the only country to have 6.8 spc.....
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
Spunky, I'd say. She also had enough sense to keep the firearm pointed essentially in the same direction as she started off shooting, not easy when you're doing the "I'm AM going to fall on my azz" dance.
I was told this from a reputable Marine a few years back that the reason the USA chose the 5.56 MM or 223 Rem is because it doesnt kill well and therefore every time you wound an enemy you just tied up many more of them to deal with the wounded,ive killed many coyotes with a 223 Rem. most dead in their tracks but Ive also had a couple that I thought I put a good hit on them and they vanished never to be seen again.............
broken bones broken heart stripped down an torn apart a lil rust but Im still runnin countin miles countin tears twisted roads and shiftin gears year after year its all or nothin Im not home and Im not lost just holdin on 2 what I got...God and Guns
A common story and indeed some people in the sevices have stated that. I heard it in the Army in the 80's.
We do Rost it's called ballistic gelatin-lol. We have a bunch of representative "wounds" in ballistic gelatin from 5.56 M193 and M855, M80 7.62, Mk262 mod 2 5.56, 6.5 Grendal and 6.8 SPC.
We also have stories of coyotes taking .223 hits and running off, deer taking .308 hitsd a disappearing, people taking 5.56, 7.62 and even .30-06 hits and keeping their feet. It's good fodder for an argument.
Most of the BS is propogated by internet heros. I am willing to bet that better than 99% of whom have never been in a firefight. The same can be said for the average soldier who never leaves a base but comes back all salty about their time in Iraq or Afghanistan. Here is a news flash, only a very small minority of regular military ever sees combat. They may hear a mortar round or two while on their monsterous bases, thats it. 90% will never leave a FOB or even hear a small arms shot fired in anger, let alone be involved. Yet these are the same kids that come back and tell all these wild stories about the 5.56 not working.
The subject of the 5.56 comes up a lot. I can tell you from first hand experience that it works. The ball ammo is not great but it still balls dudes up. We do not need a different cartridge. We need something other than ball ammo. The 77gr MK262 open tip match is a great bullet and works well. It or some other open tip projectile needs to be standard issue.
The same bullcrap about how poorly the 5.56 is as a combat round is shoveled by the same retards who say the gas system on the M4 is bad. When you have incompetent and poorly trained people who treat all their gear like crap and are more concerned with their Ipods and Gameboys instead of the rifles and radios and other gear you have problems with all the gear. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard some troop complaining about how messed up this or that is. Usually these same troops look like a bag of crap with their uniforms and gear all jacked up.
Proffesional soldiers and operators don't seem to have nearly as many problems with the exact same gear.
THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL.
The Tikka T3 in .308 Winchester is the Glock 19 of the rifle world.
yeah! I kind of feel, that was a good bit of the truth, I get the same crap at the local range from guys that tell me my sellection in ELK hunting equipment needs work....Ive yet to lose an ELK I shot at, or have problems and Ive used everthing from a 6.5 swedish to a 45/70 ,and generally use a 340wby, but carry a 35 whelen or 358 win BLR almost as often, and the guys that are most vocal about the equipment choices might,...might have killed one elk or just know someone who did! and most of them swear you need a 7mm mag, 300 mag ETC. for the flat trajectory,...yet when I tell them in 39 years of hunting ELK Ive seen about 4-5 ELK out past 300 yards they look at me like Im INSANE! but then after hunting out of state for ELK most of my adult life,hunted with a group of obsessed ELK hunters, who spend all year waiting for ELK season,and having killed almost two dozen,personally in those 39 years (and passed on dozens more or allowed my partner to shoot them, as I was looking for something bigger, or trying to get a new guy his first ELK,) and having seen well over 90 plus killed by guys in our elk camp Im obviously without ANY experiance, while they know all the tricks
Proffesional soldiers and operators don't seem to have nearly as many problems with the exact same gear.
No surprising how it works out that way.
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
Plus one to that, its what I've been trying to say all along. When you talk to folks that are in the know, they have very few if any complaints. ....
all I've heard from the folks I talk to(Granted their abilities are probably well above the average joe's...) is that the round with 77 hpbts is a really good round.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
+1, what 222Rem says. Intentionally wounding an animal is plain cruelty and your pardner is dead wrong at what he is doing. Additionally if you have done any hunting at all you should know better than to use a FMJ bullet for hunting. The USA has to use them in war due to Geneva convention, you do not. This is the "wrongest" post I have seen here in a while.
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.
... And the 308s penetrate cover much better... but they are hard to use on Full auto with a combat rifle... but 3 round �burst�... well a heaver caliber is worth another look... IMO
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.
... And the 308s penetrate cover much better... but they are hard to use on Full auto with a combat rifle... but 3 round �burst�... well a heaver caliber is worth another look... IMO
IMO, the only real use for full auto is suppression. So, we can assume that for it to be effective from any rifle, the user would be in a supported position to lay down fire. What I'm getting at is, the recoil will affect less and be less influential for the only true role it fills -- at least, that's how I see it. I'd take a semi-automatic M1A over a full-auto M4 any day.
All these folks that fail to die when shot with 5.56
Where are they? Do the black helos pick them all up for experiments? <g>
TFF, thanks for the laugh.
All these "this one time at band camp" stories from someone's cousin's best friend's sister's boyfriend's uncle's half brother are fun, keep em comin. Sorry guys but I just have to laugh at some of this. Just remember the rifle and the ammo have gone through a lot of changes since the Nam but these discussions are entertaining none the less. Several posters on here have led some of you to the well, its up to you to drink, stay away from the cool-aid though. As far as I know, no one has come up with the perfect rifle/cartridge combination that will work perfectly in all situations, maybe someday, but the combination we have now works pretty good in most until that day arrives.
My first of many trips to the sandbox. Good thing I didn't know then how worthless my rifle and ammo was or I might have been scared.
It was the M16 for me in 'Nam (USMC, '69-'71). No desk jockey here - 0311 ground pounder, all the way. Even with zero improvements at that time, my M16 ran nearly flawlessly (too much lubriplate.....not so good - not enough lubriplate....less good). As other's have suggested, the care we took with our weapons as individuals seemed to somewhat determine whose ran well and whose didn't. No doubt there were some individual weapons that Mr. Clean couldn't have made run reliably, but they were few and far between.
My current AR's are a joy to own and shoot. There have been some obvious changes that have made AR's more user friendly these days and have no doubt enhanced their reliability.
IME and IMHO........we carried what we were given and very few felt undergunned.
Thanks for your service, we do appreciate all of you, no matter what your MOS or where you're serving.
Good thing I didn't know then how worthless my rifle and ammo was or I might have been scared.
Thanks for your service.
Are those M-16A2s?
Lord knows they don't actually work, I read it in Field and Strem . . . .
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
Hmm......... an M4 is select fire.... an M1A is not. But an M14 is select fire... idea being you can choose which way you want to fire..... Don't see the idea of one being full (only...) and the other being semi(only...) an issue.
To ALL who served, my sincere thanks, regardless of weapon choice or opinion.
Jeff
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
The M4 is select with semi and burst the M4A1 is select with semi, full auto and no burst. The use of full auto is a suppression thing, it's why the SAW was developed in the first place.
Having used full, semi and burst I have to say without a T&E device accurate auto fire is near impossible by hand.
MFO Rotation #1 March-Sept 1982, I was a PV2. The Isrealis still occupied the Sinai when we arrived. I was in the 1/505 PIR, 82nd ABN DIV. The beret's are the MFO beret with their flash/patch.
As a former Air Force pharmacy officer, I like you did not see combat, but have always been interested in guns and ballistics. The 223( 5.56) is a good varmit and plinking round, but on a man sized or deer sized target I would feel much more comfortable with more diameter. The Swedes had a good thing with the 6.5mm and the Spanish with the 7mm, both sizes are far more effective than any 22. I think there is a move on to consider a cartridge called the 6.5 Grendel, which looks fairly good and could be an economical conversion for the military( if anything is economical for them)
I dunno folks kill truck loads of deer with no issues all day long with the 223... I've done a few on the long side of 500 with no issues, but of course its placement...
I like the 6.5 grendel but it won't do it, its single stack.. the 6.8 doens't impress me but if we switch I think that the 6.8 or it necked to 6mm or 6.5 mm on the same case would be what should happen.
That being said why not go to 7.62x39.....
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
1000 lb bombs work better but are hell on your LBV.
It would be interesting to hear where in the compromise between lethality and rounds carried that one of the Rangers who fought in Mogadishu would opt.
The US enjoys fantastic logistic support in many of it's engagements...that's probably why we take the critical factor of ammo weight for granted. Complacency is a sneaky MF, he will bite you in the ass at exactly the worst possible moment.
Hey why not 7.92x33 or 7.92Kurz? It was the original chambering of the original assault rifle. It was designed by the guys that brought us the 8x57,the 7x57, the 6.5x55, the Mauser in all it's forms, and the MG34/42, finest LMG ever.
The Grendel is touted by those who think 800m fire from the individual is the best course of action when 90+% of firefights happen inside 250.
Just because I like .25's I say an 85-90 grain bullet of .257" diameter on the 6.8 SPC case is the way to go.
The problem with close in fire fights will be whether they are doped up or not. I think the drill is better than a particular caliber if you can't use a projectile that dumps it energy into the target... So that if the first 1-2 shots don't drop the combatant, there is an issue that demands CNS hit. And thats gonna be anywhere from the 308 to the 223.. Heck I got more reaction from most deer and my 243 than I ever got with same shots from the 300 mags.....
The grendel.... hmmmm if it works at 800, why won't it work at 250?
I just don't see that there is going to be a hill of beans difference most times. If you like .25, why don't you like .277? Could easily pick a lighter .277 bullet...
I know one thing, if I ever am forced into a situation and am given a 223 and the right ammo I wont' feel like I'm unarmed. And I won't feel that much safer with a 308. Though our picks for the wife and I are one of each, one being 223 AR, the other being a 308 bolt gun....
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
When my son returned from his last (excitement filled) middle-east deployment I noted that in some of the photos he brought back he was carrying the short barreled M-4. I remarked that, at that time, there were a number of stories circulating regarding the (supposed) lack of stopping power at the velocities generated in the short barrel. he just shrugged and said, "Everybody I shot at fell down."
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
I always felt OK with the 5.56 when overseas Rost- we don't disagree. My comment on the .257/6.8SPC was tounge in cheek. The ballisitic testers I have seen give the better wounding to the 110 6.8 load over the various 120+ 6.5 Grendel loads. My comments on the Grendel focus on the fact that they think the 800m performance is more of an issue than the 250 or less performance. The reason for the 6.5 is 250m +. A moot point for modern combat.
The ballisitic testers I have seen give the better wounding to the 110 6.8 load over the various 120+ 6.5 Grendel loads. My comments on the Grendel focus on the fact that they think the 800m performance is more of an issue than the 250 or less performance. The reason for the 6.5 is 250m +. A moot point for modern combat.
7.62x51 is STILL better . . . . . . .
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
Hey why not 7.92x33 or 7.92Kurz? It was the original chambering of the original assault rifle. It was designed by the guys that brought us the 8x57,the 7x57, the 6.5x55, the Mauser in all it's forms, and the MG34/42, finest LMG ever.
The Grendel is touted by those who think 800m fire from the individual is the best course of action when 90+% of firefights happen inside 250.
Just because I like .25's I say an 85-90 grain bullet of .257" diameter on the 6.8 SPC case is the way to go.
Actually, the first true assault rifle -- the Fedorov Avtomat -- used 6.5 Arisaka in production, and his self-designed 6.5 Fedorov in concept.
And, it was made by the Russian captain V. Fedorov -- definitely not a German
Edit: I noted the wrong conceptual round, fixed that.
JOG to be an assault rifle it must be chambered to an intermediate round which the 6.5 Arisaka is not. The 7.92 Kurz is and the Fedorov rifle obviously didn't have an impact on the Russians they built just 3500 of them. The StG44 certainly did. It did on the world as the pattern the StG44 started is used world wide today.
JOG to be an assault rifle it must be chambered to an intermediate round which the 6.5 Arisaka is not. The 7.92 Kurz is and the Fedorov rifle obviously didn't have an impact on the Russians they built just 3500 of them. The StG44 certainly did. It did on the world as the pattern the StG44 started is used world wide today.
I disagree. It has VERY similar grain weight, velocity, and energy to the 7.62x39 round, which certainly is intermediate. Also, the popularity of something does not have to be equal to its ingenuity.
As for the second statement, are you sure you don't mean the MP-44, or the Stg-45? The Stg-44 was too heavy and required too much effort to make to be considered influential, arguably.
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
I dunno folks kill truck loads of deer with no issues all day long with the 223... I've done a few on the long side of 500 with no issues, but of course its placement...
I like the 6.5 grendel but it won't do it, its single stack.. the 6.8 doens't impress me but if we switch I think that the 6.8 or it necked to 6mm or 6.5 mm on the same case would be what should happen.
That being said why not go to 7.62x39.....
The guys who did the ballistics tests on the various rifle rounds most recently for our military are a pretty solid bunch. I know and correspond regularly with one of them. Their favored round is the 6.8 Remington SPC. It has significantly better terminal ballistics performance than the 5.56 NATO round. Other advantages include the fact that current M16/M4 rifles and magazines can be converted to this caliber relatively cheaply, and the ammo is little heavier than 5.56. This means our guys can carry the same number of rounds into ops with improved ballistic effectiveness, and it won't cost a small fortune to convert our armories to the new caliber. It is probable that whatever rifle replaces the M16/AR15 will be chambered in 6.8 SPC.
7.62 NATO is a fine round, but it's big and heavy for an infantryman's loadout, and its substantially higher recoil impulse requires a bigger/heavier rifle to withstand the pounding. 7.62x39 is a more reasonable round for a select-fire weapon, but as others have pointed out, its country of origin pretty much eliminate it as a round for our forces.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
"The guys who did the ballistics tests on the various rifle rounds most recently for our military are a pretty solid bunch. I know and correspond regularly with one of them. Their favored round is the 6.8 Remington SPC. It has significantly better terminal ballistics performance than the 5.56 NATO round. Other advantages include the fact that current M16/M4 rifles and magazines can be converted to this caliber relatively cheaply, and the ammo is little heavier than 5.56. This means our guys can carry the same number of rounds into ops with improved ballistic effectiveness, and it won't cost a small fortune to convert our armories to the new caliber."
#1 - The 6.8 SPC is significantly heavier than 223 (somewhere around 36% more weight when compared to Mk262)...so for every six 5.56 mags, how many 6.8 can you carry? not so many...
Weight comparisons...
6.8 115 OTM - 128 grains for the case, 115 for the bullet, approx 30 grains for the powder = 273
Mk262 - 98 grains for the case, 77 grains for the bullet, 25 grains for the powder = 200
#2 - It reduces the mag capacity of the weapon and quite possibly the reliability. The M16 mag has been refined multiple times over several decades to provide good service with the 5.56 round. The 6.8 mags will need this teething time to meet similar reliability levels.
#3 - The 6.8 SPC recoil impulse is 42% greater (based on ejected mass) and that will impact TOT for follow up shots... A professional soldier using a shoot to the ground tactic may well find the 6.8 less lethal, giving an opponent more time to return fire.
#4 - It would cost a small fortune to convert to 6.8 SPC, but who cares....small arms are pennies to the "F22" dollar....the fighting man should have the absolute best, cost differences are so tiny in the grand scheme as to be rendered irrelevant. A better 5.56 loading could be fielded in a fraction of the time and for way less money...quite possibly speeding the development of a new and better arm in the future.
Quote
"It is probable that whatever rifle replaces the M16/AR15 will be chambered in 6.8 SPC."
The 6.8 SPC was selected to fit within the bounds of the M16 platform, as soon as you open the field to include a new weapon system, the 6.8 goes out the door, it is a very tight niche compromise solution predicated entirely on the M16 platform being in place.
JOG, I mean the StG44 which was widely made and issued on the eastern front chambered to 7.92x33. I t had a large influence on the Russians so much the AK47 was born. The StG45 was to be a cheaper/faster to make replacement for the StG44 and only 30 prototypes were ever made. You might be thinking of the G43/K43 semi-auto rifle chambered to 7.92x57. It was not a select fire weapon and not all that well received for various reasons.
Look very hard at the StG44 and then at every "assault rifle" to come down the pipe since. You can say what you want about the Russian captain he didn't get them to change their minds, the StG44 in the hands of the Germans did.
#4 - It would cost a small fortune to convert to 6.8 SPC, but who cares....small arms are pennies to the "F22" dollar....the fighting man should have the absolute best, cost differences are so tiny in the grand scheme as to be rendered irrelevant. A better 5.56 loading could be fielded in a fraction of the time and for way less money...quite possibly speeding the development of a new and better arm in the future.
No question that a better 5.56 round could be fielded. I think part of the impetus toward the 6.8 is the momentum of the anti-5.56 thinking in the Pentagon, and all the politics that goes with that. The move to a new/better battle rifle design is likewise mired in the Pentagon bureaucracy; I'm not sure what, if anything, would speed up this process, but I quite agree our fighting men should have the best rifle and ammo in the field, and hang the expense. The quickest fix would be a better 5.56 round, say a 70-75 gr OTM.
Originally Posted by medicjim
The 6.8 SPC was selected to fit within the bounds of the M16 platform, as soon as you open the field to include a new weapon system, the 6.8 goes out the door, it is a very tight niche compromise solution predicated entirely on the M16 platform being in place.
May well be true. My thoughts run along the lines of 1) if the military adopts the 6.8, they'll probably stick with it for at least the next generation of battle rifles, whether there's a better ammunition choice out there or not, because of the momentum in the ammunition supply line, and 2)despite the fact that the 6.8 was designed to fit the narrow parameters you mention, it is capable of being an effective land warfare round.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
hague hasn't stopped 77bthp performance.... which has been stellar according to my contacts.
The parts I know are that the 6.8 is designed by someone in the right place... that does not mean that it is the ideal round.
To me there is a no mans land there that doesn't need to be touched.... what the 223 cant' do, the 308 can and has... and we've all the experience behind it plus its a nato round...
Where does the 6.8 or even 6.5 leave use with many issues? Parts? Ammo compatability, etc..
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
There was 2 problems with the M16 and the 55 gr ball ammo. 1, the 16 at first didnt have a foward assist and even when one was put on it you still couldnt chamber a round if there was a peice of dirt or stubble in the action, 2 the ball ammo was a stopper if you could hit him the problem was charlie wasnt standing in the open he was behind brush and trees the ball whould hit the object and take off for parts unknown. Ive seen guys hit in the upperleg the ball follow the bone up and bounce around their gut, the 55 is not a jungle warfare round and neither is the M16 a jungle warfare rifle. 30 cal battle rifles rule. danny
JOG, I mean the StG44 which was widely made and issued on the eastern front chambered to 7.92x33. I t had a large influence on the Russians so much the AK47 was born. The StG45 was to be a cheaper/faster to make replacement for the StG44 and only 30 prototypes were ever made. You might be thinking of the G43/K43 semi-auto rifle chambered to 7.92x57. It was not a select fire weapon and not all that well received for various reasons.
Look very hard at the StG44 and then at every "assault rifle" to come down the pipe since. You can say what you want about the Russian captain he didn't get them to change their minds, the StG44 in the hands of the Germans did.
First off, I wasn't talking about the Gewehr 43.
Next; that may very well be true, but he still did it FIRST.
As to brush deflection, its been shown that what folks think deflects the easiest, and what deflects the least is generally totally opposite in truth....
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
I always felt OK with the 5.56 when overseas Rost- we don't disagree. My comment on the .257/6.8SPC was tounge in cheek. The ballisitic testers I have seen give the better wounding to the 110 6.8 load over the various 120+ 6.5 Grendel loads. My comments on the Grendel focus on the fact that they think the 800m performance is more of an issue than the 250 or less performance. The reason for the 6.5 is 250m +. A moot point for modern combat.
"They" don't "think" anything of the sort. It should be obvious that a 120gr 6.5 bullet of proper design will flatten human targets at anything over 2000 FPS. The state of the art military rounds offer armor penetration (penetration is also a very important characteristic) as well as tumbling after flesh impact to maximize energy transfer. There is nothing about the Grendel design that inhibits it as a "man stopper", however the 6.8 Rem doesn't have long range flexibility. It seems to me from a utility standpoint the Grendel is a winner. For instance, it'd make a fine MMG round where the 6.8 wouldn't.
The moot point is claiming that there's a significant "knockdown" difference between 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 Remington. Either is a vast step up from the 5.56 and will wound similarly with bullets of similar construction.
The moot point is claiming that there's a significant "knockdown" difference between 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 Remington. Either is a vast step up from the 5.56 and will wound similarly with bullets of similar construction.
Again, this is why the 7.62x51 is better than the 5.56 . . . .
And my Dad is still bigger than your Dad . . . . . .
Fords are still better than Chevys . . . . . . .
And John Moses Browning agrees . . . .
So there!
BMT
Last edited by BMT; 07/28/08.
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
The issue of knock down power is at odds with the theory of small arms in modern warfair. To kill an enimy combatant is to take one enimy out of action. But to wound that same solder increases the attrition by eight to ten fold. I wounded enimy can wait. but a wounded one takes medical personel plus transport plus care and feeding plus more troops to guard and protect the wounded, and medical personel while being transported and cared for at front line aid stations plus the propaganda value of wounded men returning from the combat area. While dead have a propaganda value wounded and recovering solders have more. So the consept of military small arms is a wepion that is effective in taking a human out of the fight, but not so effective that is kills easily. The 5.56/.223 fills that bill for modern urban warfair except that the folks we are fighting are fanatics, who even when baddly wounded will continue to try to kill our solders even if that means thier own death. Our rules say we do not shoot a wounded enimy, we care for them. They on the other hand will blow themselves up, in order to kill even one more of our troops. We need to go to the gangsta triple tap two in the cheast one in the head. That should take care of the problem with poor stopping power of the M4
Declaration of Independance, in ENGLISH U.S. Constitution, in ENGLISH U.S. Bill of Rights, in ENGLISH If you cannot or don't want to learn ENGLISH, go back to the third world cesspool you came from
The issue of knock down power is at odds with the theory of small arms in modern warfair. To kill an enimy combatant is to take one enimy out of action. But to wound that same solder increases the attrition by eight to ten fold. I wounded enimy can wait. but a wounded one takes medical personel plus transport plus care and feeding plus more troops to guard and protect the wounded, and medical personel while being transported and cared for at front line aid stations plus the propaganda value of wounded men returning from the combat area. While dead have a propaganda value wounded and recovering solders have more. So the consept of military small arms is a wepion that is effective in taking a human out of the fight, but not so effective that is kills easily. The 5.56/.223 fills that bill for modern urban warfair except that the folks we are fighting are fanatics, who even when baddly wounded will continue to try to kill our solders even if that means thier own death. Our rules say we do not shoot a wounded enimy, we care for them. They on the other hand will blow themselves up, in order to kill even one more of our troops. We need to go to the gangsta triple tap two in the cheast one in the head. That should take care of the problem with poor stopping power of the M4
It's been pretty well established that 5.56x45 being designed to wound was a myth, even if the concept does apply. I don't agree with it in the least, but to each his own.
Actually, with that idea in mind, wouldn't a wounded enemy draw MORE opposition towards you?
In theory no, because if the enemy were just like us, they would do their best to get the wounded off the field of battle and to a hospital. The thinking goes if you wound enough of them it clogs the logistics chain and takes support away from the front and the fighting effort like resupply etc. I've never seen it actually expressed as doctrine. It was highly touted on the range and in the classroom when the issue of 7.62 v. 5.56 arose as it did so often. The bigger is always better thinking is hard to erase from American minds no matter what proof is available. Even with select fire available the Army always talked and taught in terms of accurate aimed fire on center mass of the human target.
If one simply looks at just how the eastern bloc fights, the theory goes out the window pretty fast. It reaffirms the German doctrine of the machine gun as an offensive weapon and that the individual should have a high volume of fire available. Thus the selective fire weapon in an intermediate chambering.
The bigger is always better thinking is hard to erase from American minds no matter what proof is available.
Because the 7.62x51 is bigger and better . . . .
Ain't you guys done beating this dead horse yet?
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
There's nothing new about the theory of a wounded soldier causing more trouble for the enemy than a dead one and thus an advantage to the other side. It's been established as a concept since at least WW II.
In the extensive 3 part article in Handloading documenting the development of the 5.56 cartridge, nowhere was it mentioned that terminal balistics were considered except for penetration of a steel helmet at various ranges.
I'm not saying that answers all the questions, but it was pretty thorough.
"Be sure you're right. Then go ahead." Fess Parker as Davy Crockett
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
I wasn't gonna touch this topic, but here's a thought; if the military adopted the 6.8 and left the 5.56 behind, I think some of us might enjoy a nice supply of surplus ammo and loading components for the few ar's we have between us.
What a salesman video... any of that can be tweaked however you like... I really love the part about transfering the energy... most rounds go all the way through.... and how many times have you seen anything knocked off its feet anyway....
If looking for power we have the M14.....if you feel its needed, personallly I"m still of the thought that I don't want a 223 through the chest, and that if that won't put the fight out of me I need a CNS or grenade...
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
You are way off. . . . . . . Salesmanship is less enthusiastic.
Still and all, the 7.62x51 is better . . . .
Really, now can we stop beating this dead horse?
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
It proves, of course, that the 7.62x51 is better . . . .
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
I have never been in a war and I sure hope I never am in a war.
Not true, you have been in internet wars.
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
![[Linked Image]](http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member542.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj222/bmt4tax/dpms_rfa3-308ap41.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v374/TOM64/556vs223Chamber.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/SanitizedJan0608.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj222/bmt4tax/ratsBMT.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/AKJD/82ndMFO1982Rotatiion1enhanced.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t12/flyguyinthesky_photos/DeadHorse3.jpg)