I am sure there are many cases of one shot stops with the .223. There are likely some re the 30-06 where one shot didnt stop a bad guy. I dont know. One could argue the relative ease shooting the .223 vs. the 30-06 and of the likely hit factors etc with each round taking all into account. But, if we have a person with a given amount of training (maybe never enough in this world where few of us actually shoot – much less hunt) which would be more effective – an M1 Garand or an M16? I would suggest that the WWII generation did pretty well with the Garand. Otheres would could argue that the M16 served well (after the teething issues were resolved) since it was concieved. I dont know which was “better”. I will continue to hunt large game with my 30-06. I will continue to kill coyotes with my .223 . All i know is that I like to shoot. I like to Hunt. I like to collect guns. And I say God Bless our Veterans – however they were (or are) equipped.

My opinion, formed by reading articles such as this, and various others is that the 5.56 is a brilliant round that gets the job done and if stays around I wont have much of a problem with it, but I think that the 6.5 or 6.8 would be a better round for our soldiers; just remember better is a relative word. Personally I was impressed by future weapons demonstration of the Barret M468 (which probably isn’t the best source out there but I’m just a civilian what do you expect? ).

One reason for the look at 6.8 (or the flatter 6.5) is that beyond 375yrds, movers over short distances become difficult hits. Another is material penetration, an example, through block walls and some ballistic vests recently encountered in the field.

I still think overall the 5.56 is the almost ideal round for the job (effectiveness/weight), though I have wondered in the past why the 22-250 wasn’t adapted, and generally concluded because of weight and size. The 5.56 should be retained for all the above reasons with 6.xmm versions available as compliments. They use the 6.5 Creedmoor in long range matches for a reason.

OOH-RAH

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

“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.”