M16A1, M16A2, M4, M16A4
There are a lot of myths and misconceptions surrounding the current M16A1, M16A2, M4, M16A4NATO 5.56 round and its effectiveness on the battlefield. Now before you make a judgment as a soldier or as a firearm enthusiast (a more euphemistic way of saying “gun nut”), consider your sources. Who is it that is telling you the 5.56mm, or .223 if you prefer, is an ineffective round? Is this source an armchair general who has watched Blackhawk Down one too many times; or a Navy Corpsman who has been attached to a MEF fighting in Fallujah and has seen, treated and inflicted these wounds with his own M-4? People look at the .30-06 round from their grandfather’s M1 Garand and the 7.62×51mm round from their dad’s M-14 and compare it to the M-16/M-4’s 5.56 and think; “Wow, this is considerably smaller. Therefore, it must be less effective.”
Now Joe Nichols had it right when he said, “Size Matters.” However, when you are talking about combat cartridges this is not always the case, and I say that hesitantly. When the 5.56 was derived from Remington’s .223 in the late 1950’s, it was meant as a “force multiplier” if you will. By that I mean a soldier could literally carry twice as much ammunition as one who has the older 7.62 for the same weight. They wanted a soldier who could stay longer in the field without re-supply and could literally out-last and out-shoot the enemy in many aspects. The 5.56 is an incredibly fast and flat shooting round compared to the 7.62, but is under half the bullet weight.
So one might ask; ‘How in the world can a smaller bullet be more lethal than a bigger one?” One word: cavitation. Cavitation is the rapid formation and collapse of a substance or material after an object enters it at a relatively high velocity. I guarantee you have seen cavitation before. Next time you are in the pool or on the boat, look at your hand as it passes through the water or the propeller spinning. In both cases you will notice bubbles on the trailing edge of each. You see this because the liquid water falls below its vapor pressure. Without getting into physics and the hydrodynamics behind it, I’ll just leave it at that. When a human body is hit with a 5.56mm 62-grain bullet traveling at 3,100 feet per second; essentially the same thing happens but much, much more violently. For a split second, the cavity created inside the human body by the round from an M-16/M-4 is about the size of a basketball (if hit dead center of mass). The 5.56 creates this massive cavitation by tumbling through the body initiated by inherently unstable flight.
5.56 ballistic test
Other calibers of bullets travel through the body on, more or less of, a straight line after some fragmentation. When the 5.56 round was first designed by Remington, it was meant to tumble through a target, not kill with brute force. It did this not only by the relatively blunt shape, but also by using a rifle barrel with less of a twist. Next time you look at an M-4 or an AR-15, notice it says “5.56 NATO 1:7” on the barrel. This literally translates into; “the bullet will make 1 full rotation for every 7 inches of this barrel.” This was not always the standard twist set for the new NATO round. The first AR-15 made by Armalite, had a 1:14 twist making it a very, very unstable round. One can only imagine the orientation of the entry and exit wounds. Now if you haven’t figured it out already, the less the twist, the more unstable the round is. (1:14 twist is less than 1:7) It is said in “firearm enthusiast” legend that the first tests were done on pig carcasses and that the entry wound could be on the lower right stomach with an exit wound coming out of the back upper left shoulder. It left horrific wounds and terrible internal damage to its intended target, immediately drawing the interest of the US Military, in particular USAF General Curtis Emerson LeMay. That’s right folks, you can thank we in the United States Air Force for the M-16/M-4 legacy (I say this without sarcasm). He thought it was an ideal weapon for his deployed members of the USAF Security Forces for guarding the perimeters of Air Force installations in such places as Korea and Vietnam. Before military trials, Armalite increased the barrel twist to 1:12 to improve accuracy. But when tested in frigid Alaska, accuracy was decreased because of the increased friction from the denser, colder air. Therefore, the barrel twist was eventually increased from 1:12 to 1:9 and eventually to the 1:7 you see it today. Although some bull-barreled AR-15’s and Stoner Sniper Rifles can be found in a 1:9, most issued M-16’s and M-4;s are primarily a 1:7 twist.
This change increased the accuracy of the 5.56 round out past 500 meters, but decreased its lethality when striking a body. Now the real debate begins… How truly deadly is the 5.56? Well, this past April when I was going through Combat Skills Training at Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin, one week was spent in Combat Life-Saving class (CLS). The medics who instructed us had slide show after slide show of combat injuries they have treated over their last three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. And let me tell you, these were not for the weak stomachs among us. If you are reading this article, I bet you are the same type of person as I to ask, “What calibers caused those wounds?” These men and women have seen the worst injuries of coalition forces and enemy combatants alike. The Geneva Conventions state that medics must provide medical care to all captured enemy personnel when able. Therefore, many Taliban and Jihadist fighters came across their operating rooms. After class one day I asked all of them, “Do any of you doubt the killing power of the 5.56 round?” They all answered with a resounding, “NO.”
I personally don’t like telling war stories but I do enjoy telling hunting stories. I have brought down 180 to 200+ pound deer with a 55 grain .223 FMJ (full metal jacket) with no problem. Yes, I know, the counter argument to that is, “Well that’s not an enemy combatant hopped up on cocaine, khat or adrenaline.” I understand that, but if you saw the exit wound or those on the pictures from the combat medics, you would certainly cease your criticism of the 5.56. However, there are certain design features of the M-16/M-4 that continue to puzzle me.
We have all heard the reports of those rifles failing during combat during Vietnam and even yet today. During the 60’s when it was first introduced, it was hailed as “the self-cleaning rifle.” Of course that was proven to be a myth within the first months of its service. Soon thereafter, cleaning kits, cleaning manuals with attractive cartoon-like characters, and muzzle covers were issued in large numbers. A lot of the first problems the rifle saw were due to using ball powder vs. stick powder. Ball powder burns hotter, faster and dirtier than stick does. This caused the rifle to gum up quicker in the humid atmosphere of Vietnam and mis-feed the rounds. The U.S. Military then switched back to the cleaner burning stick powder and added a forward assist to jam the bolt carrier forward after heat expansion and carbon build-up. The military saw this problem and fixed it fairly early on, so why haven’t they saw the clear flaw in the 100% gas-blowback operation of the firearm? Why haven’t they learned lessons from rifles such as the AK-47, AK-74, G36, SCAR and countless other who have switched to a short stroke gas piston?
gas piston operated
So far rifles such as the HK 416, HK 417, SCAR and MAGPUL Masada have all incorporated this short stroke gas piston in their designs and have all seen massive reductions in carbon build-up, over-heating, and mis-feeds. If this needs any explaining; what this basically does is stop the hot, carbon-filled gasses just rear of the front sight and pushes a pistol-like rod back instead of the gas traveling all the way back to the bolt carrier assembly. It is even possible to convert current uppers to this gas piston system using such kits as those offered by Bushmaster. If the cost benefit is too great for these kits to be installed, why not begin to install them on the floor as they are now? They are 100% compatible with all lowers used by the M-16 and M-4.
So in conclusion, the main flaws of the M-16/M-4 assault rifle system is not necessarily in the round itself, but in one minor design feature of just the upper. This article is meant as a predecessor to a piece in the making on the advantages to switching to a round such as the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel. The 5.56 round is effective, but could be better. I want to hear your feedback. Tell me why so many people (mostly civilians) think the flaws of the rifle are in the round. I’m looking to you military folks; tell me about your operational experience with it. Airsoft players, armchair generals, and firearm enthusiasts; let’s hear your voice, but don’t comment on its “knock-down power” unless you hunt big game with a .223 or were once in the military and have used it in combat. Next up: A viable future replacement for the 5.56 and the M-16/M-4 combat rifles along with first-hand news from the front on forces already making the switch.
Remember; every rifle and every round can be equally as deadly when put in the right hands. We seek to find the perfect round and the perfect rifle to increase that number of hands.
29 Responses
this is very interesting, before i didn’t know what round was more effective 7.62 or 5.56 you have convinced me. Go M16
Posted on July 2nd, 2009 at 10:59 pm
just the info I was looking for, Thanks Al.
Posted on July 3rd, 2009 at 3:26 am
My squad member told me ,when he was in Iraq during the invasion, the trouble they had taking down the Saddam Fedayeen. He told me that the marines he was with had to shoot this one fighter nine times and he was still trying to get up. They ended up taking him down with a butt stroke.
Posted on July 6th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Drew S.: Taking him down with a butt stroke? That means they would have come right up to the enemy combatant while he was still alive and killed him. Per the Geneva Conventions, any enemy combatant or non-combatant is afforded the same medical treatment a friendly soldier would be once he is no longer deemed a threat. If the soldier was close enough and had the time to “butt stroke” him, then he was no longer a threat. Either your friend was not telling the truth and exaggerating, or he is a war criminal.
Tom:
Technically I wasn’t saying that the 5.56 is a better round than the 7.62, or has more killing power. I just was stating its differences. The 7.62 is a deadlier round, but the 5.56 is more than enough to do the job. No matter what you do, a bigger bullet is usually preferable, but finding the happy median between weight and velocity is the key. The bigger the bullet, the more powder it takes to propel it to the target farther and more accurately; thus increasing weight. The purpose of the article was not to say the 5.56 is better than the 7.62, it was to say the 5.56 and M16/M4 platform is indeed effective in warfare.
Posted on July 6th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
The 5.56 round with the RIGHT bullets can be an effective round. I am however skeptical of the huge cavitation effects with a 62 grain FMJ bullet, especially in a 1:7 twist. I have heard of special ops using I believe a 77 grain HPBT from black hills with more “pleasing” results. One of the main issues with the 5.56 I have heard is not killing power per say, but its inability to effectively penetrate cover and structures, this is where the 7.62 has the biggest edge.
Posted on July 7th, 2009 at 5:50 am
Adam,
You are absolutely correct. The 5.56 does have a bit of a problem penetrating barriers with one shot because it lacks the momentum and mass to do so. However, multiple shots can do the job. Carriers of the M16/M4 have enough ammunition on hand to do just that. Barriers such as trees and other wooden structures do pose another problem though. the 7.62×39 can do it one shot whereas the 5.56 takes a few if at all. This is why the 6.8 or 6.5 have the mass, velocity, and accuracy to do everything a combat rifleman could ever ask.
Posted on July 7th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Yes this article sheds new light on what I’ve learned of military firearms. There could be several reasons why some believe that the 5.56 (affectionately know as five-five-sixers by veterans) is innefective lies with field tests along with what the military expects of the jobs it will have to meet. As you have said, a round leaves a massive wound due to its “titanic effect” of disintigrating in the body. Adam pointed out that a larger round will pierce walls effectively, moreso than the 5.56 round. Other expectations include a round that are accurate and has distance to it. The bigger bullet fits these expectations better than a 5.56 round. The powder in the cartrige must be effectively picked to fit the firing systems rate of fire capability, along with the inertia from the cartrige eject that causes recoil, as a result there has been research invested in a gun capable of using caseless ammunition able to put three rounds into a single hole with the recoil of one m-4 round.but the gunpoweder pellets proved to be unreliable and tended to “cook off”. With changing technology as you know, new kits are added to weapon systems, armour is ment to stop a bullet, so they make a better bullet with a entry tip to get the primary round through the protection. Just like the anittank missiles have two detonations, one to destroy its explosive outer shell so the main charge detonates inside rather then destroyed and is prevented. So to get to the point, the military uses the round that fits its conditions best, although imperfect it does the job.
Posted on July 9th, 2009 at 6:55 am
i have fired tens of thousands of rounds at the oposing force with my SAW M249 and let me tell you it will stop that guy with the AK high on coke or what the hell ever. i also have had the privlage of using the MG-1MS in combat and the 7.62 round will knock em down harder but the weight of the ammo is a definate drawback. i still use the 5.56 daily
Posted on July 13th, 2009 at 4:03 am
I still like the nostalgia of the .30-06, back when we used ‘merican calibers, and when men were men, etc. I’ve always had a fondness for the .30-06, and the .45.
Speaking of which, I wish they’d switch back to the .45, I’ve used a 9mm to bring down a rabid pitbull I noticed wandering around on my farm, and it took 2 shots to kill, the first hit, and it staggered for a bit, and the second shot dropped it. I would not trust giving anything less than a .38 to our boys in uniform.
Posted on July 13th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I was a Marine infintryman from 2004 - 2008. I ate, slept, and showered with the weapon daily except on liberty. The M16 is a great weapon. I had a m16A4 in Iraq, did not clean it for three weeks then had to fire a full combat load through it (9 mags with 28 rounds a peace), not a single jam. The only time I had a problem was when I had shitty magzines. I have shot two hogs with the 5.56 and both of them I did not find. Recomend larger caliber for those. I never got the chance to shoot anyone. (thank god then i would be more insane then I am already) I mostly walked and drove around and handed out candy, ammunition (iraq police/ miliatary), rebuilt schools, searched vehicles, and asked were ale ba ba (bad guy’s) were. I am going to try to shoot a deer this fall and see what happens.
Posted on July 27th, 2009 at 3:11 am
Al,
That wouldn’t be a complete exaggeration or necessarily a violation of the Geneva conventions for that marine to use a butt stroke the lawful combatant. True, if that man were a prisoner (as in, he surrendered) they would have to help him. But since he failed to surrender and continued resisting, they had to neutralize the threat. That’s not a violation of the Geneva convention or the LOAC because the guy never surrendered. He persisted to attack.
As for the caliber, 5.56 has obviously gotten the job done. But if you ask those who were in Vietnam what they thought of their training rifles (7.62) in comparison to their field rifles (5.56), they would gladly shoulder the weight of a 7.62 round vs. a 5.56.
I should mention, it’s not the caliber that erks me (it has never been a “bullet issue”). It is the quality of gun and the tactics that colt is using to prevent the use of another company’s firearm (I think the HK 416 would certainly be an economic and reliable replacement). Besides that, colt’s firearm really is too temperamental for the field in comparison to some of the new models HK and SCAR have released. In testing, the HK 416 demonstrated its capability by being dunked in water and fired immediately after, being buried in sand and being fired immediately after as well. When I had to learn to low crawl my T.I.’s told us to never let the barrel dig into the dirt because it could jam up your rifle…how practical is that really? You’re crawling to your DFP avoiding bullets and you can’t concentrate on getting to your hole because your rifle might get sand in it and seize up! I’ll shoot a 5.56 if someone is shooting at me, but what good is it if my gun is a piece of dump?!
Posted on August 1st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I agree, I was a E-4 in the Army and a company sharpshooter for my unit in Iraq. And let me tell you, my M-16 A2 was one of the old, old, ones. It was originally an A1, but was reconfigured and had a 2 stamped directly over the 1 to make it a 3 round burst. The upper and lower receiver had about a 1/16 to almost an 1/8 of an inch to visible play between them. The rifling was almost nonexistent, practically a smooth bore. I am unsure as the the twist of the rifling. But I can tell you, at 400+ yards that weapon was accurate and deadly! Now that I am a pfc (Privet F@#&ing citizen for all you non military folks) I also have a FN FAL .308 (or 7.62mm) L1A1 Sporter assault rifle. And an AR-15 M-4 (.223 or 5.56mm). I Love them both, But prefer the light weight, cheaper round, less recoil, and overall diversity of my M-4 (and those are the same reason the military likes them also). My M-16 in the Army never let me down, and that is why I will never part with my AR-15 small round or not. And lets face it; if I shot bubble gum at you at 1300 feet per sec. You would still be just as dead.
Posted on August 12th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Very interesting, I learnt something new today
In an urban enviroment, shots will evidently be exchanged at close distances
Does the cavitation change with distance? (Vilocity)
Like is the round more unstable at a distance, or is it all the same..
And I think the 6.5 grendel is the round that should be used, decent vilocity, decent accurace, and a bit more punch, without too much additional recoil
Posted on August 17th, 2009 at 8:52 am
[...] Source – FutureFirepower [...]
Posted on August 21st, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Isn’t it a bit superior to assume that an enemy combatant has become a POW once they’re engaged in close range? You’re calling a serviceman a liar or a war criminal based off of an assumption that it’s just as safe to attempt to subdue an armed combatant than to strike him? I mean, this would be a debate even amongst MMA experts, and yet you’re so quick to throw out such a condemnation?
Posted on August 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
The 5.56×45 is too velocity dependent for it’s wounding capability, which dosen’t make it consistent in it’s performance. In Iraq alot of the reports of the 5.56×45 failing to stop enemy combatants is because the short barrel of the M4 which gives it a fragmentation range of only 45-50m. This is one of the reasons why they’ve come up with rounds like the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 grendel was for better performance out of short barrels and at longer ranges.
From Dr. Roberts:
“Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite their being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting. This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the chest of a thin, malnourished individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants. Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag’s papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11-28, Winter 2001) describe this problem.”
Posted on August 26th, 2009 at 8:40 am
I agree with you on one thing: the platform has to change. The M4A1 has too short of a barrel for the round to be effective. Unlike you, however, I do question the stopping power of the 5.56 NATO compared to a 7.62 especially when you put body armor into the mix. Any gunshot wound is going to be nasty. A 9mm hollowpoint rounds does terrible things, but it is not nearly as good as the 5.56. A 5.56 is good, but not as good as a 6.5 Grendel. Plus on the Grendel note, you can shoot accurately up to 1000yrds.
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Oh yah Will. 9mm is .38
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
ALmost forgot,
AL Asad,
Bringing him down can mean a bunch of things: killing, knocking out, knocking him off his feet so they could subdue him…. You can’t say that because if you have ever been in a combat situation things happen. You weren’t there.
Posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
[...] round for the M16 rifle, M4 carbine and M249 light machine gun– is not lethal enough. Arguments about the effectiveness (or lack of it) of the 5.56mm round have been going on forever. Many of these go back to the [...]
Posted on September 5th, 2009 at 7:26 am
To “Some Airborne Guy”
The Grendel may have great accuracy at range, but who can accurantly engage a man size target at 1000 metres? You’re lucky if you can see him at that range between atmospheric perspective and such. I have seen action and the M-4 worked great. Maybe you should learn to aim.
Posted on September 6th, 2009 at 6:33 am
I cannot speak for combat since my time in service was uneventful. I did, however, put a lot of rounds through the A1 (with the triangular hand guards) and under less tha ideal conditions (i.e. dust, rain, mud, etc).
I did not experience the legendary jamming we hear so much about. To simulate jamming, it was necessary to insert a spent blank cartridge somewhere in the magazine.
The only hiccup that I occaisionally saw was when using very old, very beat, magazines, but a single slap would solve this. This was also preventable, since it was very apparent that these mags were beyond their useful life, and would not be issued in a combat situation.
CAVEAT’: A little cleaning and a little of that magic [at the time] Break-Free went a long way.
Posted on September 13th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
5.56mm or 7.62mm.does not matter when i hit you in the chest or your head.i would rather do it from 500 yards(5.56mm and a m16a2)than under 200 yards if iam lucky(7.62mm and an ak-47)i know i have fired both at camp lejeune (yes i am a marine) and in the gulf war.
Posted on September 16th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
while i was in the military, i may not have liked the 5.56 round as much as the 7.62. before i joined the military, i fired regularly with a bolt action chambering 7.62, and hunted deer with it. but i carried the SAW for almost my entire time in service. i shot expert and can still qual expert on just about any weapon they throw at me, so accuracy was not something i worried about.
however, since my combat experience is limited to using the SAW, i really don’t think i have a fair grasp of how effective the round would have been in a carbine against an enemy from my own point of view.
often it was so much easier to walk several rounds into a target than to try to worry about sighting in the enemy and conserving ammo. in some cases controlled bursts were effective enough, but multiple rounds do make a difference. besides, i would probably have hated carrying the same number of rounds with the M60…
Posted on September 20th, 2009 at 12:47 am
The 5.56mm / .223 round is generally frowned upon as a hunting cartridge in Africa because of the amount of flesh/meat damage it tends to leave behind (cavitation). I have seen through and through shots with different effects, one being virtually no damage which is uncommon and secondly with massive damage caused by the cavitation effect. The other and most common is the one where the round totally disintegrates just after penetration leaving holes about the size of a baseball and sometimes much bigger just under the surface.
As a military round I do not and never will have any doubts about it’s capability. It shoots straight, kills effectively, is light to carry and easy on the recoil. It is very obvious to us outsiders that the M16/M4’s and have design problems with the gas operated action of the weapons and this looks like it is going to be overcome with the next generation assault rifles. Other manufacturers have opted to copy the AK gas operation system with huge success and more and more militaries are turning towards assault rifles chambered for this round.
Having used various assault rifles chambered for 7.62mm, 7.62X39 and 5.56mm in urban and bush situations, I can honestly say that the 5.56mm rounds only drawback is it’s tenancy to be easily deflected when shooting through thick scrub or bush. Other than this if used in an AK variant rifle it has proven itself to be extremely accurate and reliable. The round has two major advantages over the 7.26X39 round and those are it’s cavitation ability and it’s accuracy.
Whoever has a problem with it must simply learn how to shoot properly because this round will be around for a ling time to come.
Posted on September 28th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
The fact is that there is no “perfect” cartridge and no perfect rifle. The AR-15/5.56 combination has been in front line service for over 45 years, longer than any other US rifle.
Statements that the 62 grain 5.56 [ss109] is not a reliable stopper can be deceiving in context. Stories of crazed terrorists “pumped full of lead” seemingly immune from the puny 5.56 circulate like the plague. During WW2, very similar stories of Japanese suicide charges abound, in which Japanese soldiers [of generally small stature] received multiple wounds from the big 30-06 and managed to kill and wound US troops with swords, before being dispatched with pistols and bayonets. How is that possible ? It’s very simple, the only way to reliably incapacitate a determined attacker with as small a projectile as a rifle bullet, is to destroy the central nervous system or cause a rapid and complete loss of blood pressure. Unloading a magazine in the general direction of the enemy and expecting results is a poor substitution for good shot placement. Even with a destroyed heart, the brain has several seconds of reserve oxygen to use and five or six seconds can be a long time in a gun battle. The venerable AR-15 was not designed as a full on “battle rifle” but, in fact as an “assault rifle” for ranges up to 300 meters and to be controlable in automatic fire mode. To this end it has been completely successful. Frankly, this rifle and cartridge will be the standard to which other weapons sytems will be judged for some time to come.
Posted on October 8th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
It is ridiculous to even compare the 5.56 to the 7.62X51 (.308 Winchester), the 5.56 may have a 300fps velocity advantage, but the puny 62 grain bullet vs. the heavier 149/150 grain .308 cal bullet can’t penetrate as deep, hit nearly as hard or compare to the .308 at long ranges. The 7.62X51 has a larger frontal area, much higher kinetic energy and is vastly superior at any range. The .223 Remington was designed for small game under 100 lbs like coyote and fox not big game. If the author used 5.56 on deer sized game he broke the law. It is illegal to use anything under .24 cal. on big game in all states I’m aware of. Game and Fish departments made this law for a reason; it is inadequate on large animals! It doesn’t have the power period. You can kill an elephant (eventually) with a .22, but that doesn’t make it adequate for elephant hunting!
Secondly, if a bullet tumbles at all you can’t hit the broad side of a barn with it. Anyone who knows anything about rifles and ballistics knows this. If the bullet is unstable you won’t hit what you’re aiming at! The rate of twist on .223 (5.56) rifles was changed because the older rifles couldn’t stabilize longer heavier bullets (like the 62 grainer vs. the 55 grainer). I’m beginning to believe this tumbling bullet myth will last forever..
The little .223 (5.56) is very destructive to tissue at close range, (as all high powered rifles are) but when the velocity tapers off at 100+ yards it is like shooting .22’s at the enemy. That is why they keep shooting back (unless a vital spot is hit as McNamara was pointing out).
Oh yeah one last point… the 7.62X39 (AK47 cartridge) while far less powerful than the 7.62X51 NATO round managed to kill many soldiers in Vietnam because the enemy could shoot through trees and buildings that the little 5.56 could not penetrate. It has been said on the Military Channel that if our men had been equipped with the AK47 instead of the vastly more expensive M16 we may have won the war. The AK47 may not be the finely tuned rifle the M16 is, but it is a proven far better design with a better, more powerful cartridge. That is why the 7.62X39 can be legally used on deer sized game.
Posted on October 9th, 2009 at 4:02 am
to every one
ive seen and done the damage that a 7.62 can do to a human target ive been a 0317 (scout sniper) in the Marine corps for 6 years now and i spent 4 of those years over seas and going back for more in january. the 5.56 is a good round has decent stopping power and Al asad i have seen my fellow devil dogs put 5-10 rounds in a guy a couple of times and he decided to be a resilient lil bastard and not stop kicking. and not many soldiers give that loving Geneva Conventions shit a chance in a situation like that.
now back to the topic there is no great round or rifle but the 5.56 is a lil weak and i like us to go to the 6.8 6.5 area so maybe next time it will be 2 or 3 rounds
OOH-RAH
Posted on November 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I think this is completely true. This perfectly relates to an argument I was having with a friend the other day. We were talking about pistol hunting and the whole general “Concealable Weapon” topic. He started this by saying “Why would someone use an M9 (or any general 9 mm parabellum) over a M1911(AKA any .45 ACP)” I said: “Honestly I would use the Colt but all pistols can kill someone regardless.” Of course we somehow wound up debating the round effectiveness of any pistol round. My bottom line argument is that if any kind of bullet can go through you then you’re probably not going to come out of it alive. Of course there are pros and cons to using either of the rounds but they will both get the job done. 5.56 IS a lot weaker (based simply off size) than a Soviet 7.62 x 39, but it doesn’t mean its any less effective it shoots further, more accurately, with less recoil, and allows for a faster rate of fire. I have never shot anything with a 6.8 or 6.5 round so I cannot say anything about it. Thanks for the great myth disperser!
Posted on November 19th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Add A Comment