Comments on: Myths About the NATO 5.56 Cartridge

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:18:36 +0000

Food for thought: The DC Sniper used a 5.56. All but one victim died from one shot. range was usually @50 meters – always torso shot.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:37:08 +0000

Re: Drew S’ squad mate.

It really depends on what “still trying to get up” means – does that mean he was still moving because he simply wasn’t dead or does it mean he was doggedly attempting to “re-engage himself in the conflict” and going for his weapon etc.?

You can shoot a wounded combatant who’s trying to shoot you at close range but you can’t walk right up to a wounded enemy and shoot him twice in the head. Equally you don’t just have to fall down and lie still if you’ve been shot yourself but hostile action does leave you open to hostile reaction.

The difficulty is working out what happened after the fact, especially if only half of the story is still alive and it all happened so fast.

By: That was she

That was she — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:17:02 +0000

Whoa nice article!!

By: 3 tours afgan

3 tours afgan — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 04:14:52 +0000

In 3 tours I have never loaded a magizine with green tip ball, first 2 was using LR (designed with finer powder to burn faster in short M4 barrels) hitting 500 no issues. 3rd was bunker rounds, most engagements were at 600+ so we carried more m16 and sdm. I have never had my m4 jam, but I cleaned it 15min per day, and 1 hour every 2 weeks or after heavy use. I have faith in our current platforms (the older magizines have been phased out).
Rather then 556 or 762, it should be 556 and 762 (m16/m4/m110/mk11/saws/240/203/6 packs/ ect), the party mix always works best (but makes the armor cry). Gas blow back is more accurate by design, it we want to invest money in upgrades, i’d go for optics and supressors.

By: bill

bill — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 03:50:25 +0000

i thought the CIA switched to the NATO .556 after integration ( desegregating ) the military in order to track friendly fire casualties ? during that same period there was an enormous upheaval in HAITI and PAPA DOC DUVALIER TOOK CHARGE OF THE TON TON MACOUTE ( UNCLE BOOGIE MAN ) AMERICAN DERIVATION : UNCLE TO.M.. And, they believed they could determine if the african americans were working with the TON TON MACOUTE TO PROLONG THE WAR IN VIETNAM AND IF THE REPORTS WERE TRUE THAT SOME AMERICAN UNITS IN THE KOREAN WAR WERE TAKEN PRISONER AND ONLY THE BLACK MEN IN THOSE UNITS SURVIVED.

By: Infidel

Infidel — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 23:32:48 +0000

3 shots to the head and no damage, Very hard to swallow.

By: Kyser

Kyser — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:04:38 +0000

Proper weapon for the Proper Job, in a urban envoirment, the Ar-15 Seris is amazing, even though I’d wish for a 1:9 or a even back to the 1:14. I loved how in the article you mentioned the fact most people don’t realize the barrel twist issue and how the round orignally acted. Now for Mountainous terrain and say Artic Envoirment, the 7.62 Nato performs outstandingly due to its extended range and weight. Picking the right tools for the right job, it’s the same Argument for the 9mm Vs. .45, but let me ask you this, would you let me shoot you either willingly without fear of bodily harm or death? No, because a weapon works on a fear principle. Also like Gunny said, Round placement is key, you could hit someone with a .22 in the right spot and put them down instantly or nick them with a 7.62 graze and they still fight. As for the guy getting shot three times in the head by a 5.56, he was either very loved by someone or very lucky.

By: gunny

gunny — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:45:38 +0000

I personally think that the troops overseas should be given the option of which round to adopt possibly in the form of the SCAR weapon system because even in the different calibres it will still have a high degree of commonality in terms of parts. I personally believe that both the 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO are equally effective just in different ways. The 5.56 obviously has the advantage in terms of weight meaning you can carry double the ammunition of the 7.62 and while it may not cause the same amount of damage you can afford to double tap the target to ensure it is down, whearas the 7.62 will almost always take down the target with one shot you, can only afford that one shot because you will be carrying less of the ammunition. The only reason for it to take 3, 4, 5, even 6 rounds to take down the target is poor shot placement. If youre not hitting the torso or head nothing short of a .50 BMG is going to be able to eliminate the threat in one shot. However with the right shot placement a simple .177 airgun can be incredibly lethal. The military should not force either round onto the troops but give them the choice based on their own opinions.

By: rambo

rambo — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:08:57 +0000

What a crappy debate! Lets just use nukes to kill the enemy

By: Doc

Doc — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:07:54 +0000

I am not a major fan of the 5.56 NATO, at range, in close quarters against unarmored personnel it is an effective range. But bullet placement is very important when my Ma was in Ireland her one of the men on her street was shot 3 times in the head with a 5.56x45mm (NATO) round. He is still alive today, with no brain damage. Simply because even at the close quarters of a street battle the skull is usually strong enough to stop or redirect the shot. Now at the same time, a shot through the torso or neck, will be more then enough to kill a combatant. At the same time, that torso shot will take TIME to kill your opponent vs. a larger round (.30-06/7.62×51 mm) will kill your enemy faster because of the fact it will impart more force on impact, causing more damage to the CNS by transfer of energy. But it is a trade-off, long range accuracy vs. reduced recoil and weight. Both will do their job, but the length of time and tolerances of round placement all come into play. I will say, I use a M&P15 chambered in 5.56x45mm for home defense. And that is the best I can say for the rounds effectiveness, I’m willing to entrust my families life with the round, I believe in its effectiveness, from what I’ve seen of it, and the charts I’ve read.

By: Civil-War Volunteer

Civil-War Volunteer — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:22:46 +0000

very interesting but more violent

By: Gary

Gary — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:41:54 +0000

Question:

Which round: NATO SS109 vs 146Gr (i think) 7.62x51mm has a longer / flatter tragectory?

I’d like an outside opinion. I haven’t taken the time to plug this into the computer…

I’m wondering if the SS109 (M855?) out distances the 146gr 7.62x51mm NATO rounds.

By: Mondo104

Mondo104 — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:46:30 +0000

I have to put in my $.02. Over the last 30 years I have seen dozens of articles in the shooting press debating this very topic. Much of the ballistic and anecdotal evidence could support the position of either side. And, I doubt very many folks, whether experienced or laymen, have had their minds changed as a result. It is similiar to the debate over whether Liberals are actually human … or not. In the big picture I doubt the calibers employed had as much of an impact on the outcome of a military campaign as the resolve of the political class and the subsequent “Rules of Engagement.” Or, maybe I’m just nostalgic for the good old days when the U.S. entered a military conflict with the antiquated objective of winning. But, I digress.
What I want to say is: embrace the difference. I have several different guitars as well as several different types of hammers. I also own rifles in 5.56 and 7.62 as well as in hunting calibers like .300WSM and 7mm Win Mag. I own sidearms in .45 ACP, 9mm and .357. If the type of weapon is not dictated to you (as is the case with our brothers in the services), you use what fits the situation and with which you can accurately place your shots. The best weapon is most often the one you have at hand. Speaking of powerful weapons at hand; some of you could benefit from the use of a powerful tool that is right at your fingertips. It is called “Spell checker.”
More and more my emphasis is on 5.56, 7.62×51 and 9mm as the tactics of this oppressive regime manipulate the ammunition supply available to the citizenry. These are the most available and affordable calibers to stockpile. Well, I hope you have found my little rant informative, entertaining and free of any rancor or personal bias. Out.

By: granicus

granicus — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:35:32 +0000

I would just like to correct some of your initial information. The original barrel twist was 1:14, and was changed to 1:12 so the round could stabilize (for accuracy reasons) in cold weather. The move to 1:7 came from the Marine Corp wanting to preserve their tradition of long range shooting with the dual purpose of making a heavier armor piercing bullet to deal with the threat of the enemy (at the time, the Russians) equipping their troops with body armor. The heavier bullet wouldn’t stabilize in the 1:12 barrel, so they changed it to 1:7. While accurate, the heavier bullet doesn’t create as wide a wound channel and tends (at short ranges) to go in and out without making the large exit wounds. It doesn’t get the chance to dump all that kinetic energy into the target as efficiently as the older round/twist. The 1:9 twist barrel was developed as a compromise; it could still handle the heavier rounds that required a faster twist, but was useful for the the 55 grain round in that it didn’t over-stabilize the bullet, reducing it’s effectiveness.

By: M.W.

M.W. — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 22:12:52 +0000

Go back to the Carbine. .40SW carbines. Call it the M-5

.40 makes a good hole reliable .40 as opposed to a .22 or .308 hole.

By: Infidel

Infidel — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:25:59 +0000

Hey guys right tool for the right job.5.56 M4 with good optics good for close combat street fighting, M14 7.62 Heavy barrel good optics long range, Right tool for the right job. If you cant shoot well under pressure neither one will help you.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 05:35:43 +0000

thank you for posting this. i am a little tired of people bitching and moaning that the US is stupid for making the m16 a 5.56 round instead of a 7.62. i agree the upper reciever needs work, but the US army is testing out rifles and looking for a contract to replace the m16. i personally would like to see the acr or hk 416 enter service. they seem to be the best fit.

By: Rob Annandale

Rob Annandale — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:19:19 +0000

I used both NATO 7.62 and 5.56mm firing weapons during my military career, and found both to be highly effective in the right situation. The South African Defence Forces R-1 (FN 7.62mm SLR) built under licence would go through an African termite ant hill, which will stop a car dead in it’s tracks, and kill the aggressor on the other side of it. The R-4 and the shorter barrelled R-5 (Israeli Gallil 5.56mm) were effective close quarter battle weapons, both reliable and accurate up to 500 metres and 300/350 metres respectively. For target shooting or the sheer pleasure of it the R-1′s 7.62 mm wins, but in combat the R-5′s 5.56 mm would be my weapon of choice.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:07:05 +0000

Ok I am a iraq vet ur army airborne main support with the infantry. I didn’t kick down doors but I have been in a lot of fire fights. And I hate the dame 556 or 223 call it what u whant!!! I’m sorry if some one else already said this but unless u have the black tips which I did and still u have a huge problem!!! Black tip is armer piercing and Illegal for u civilians… Ur talking about hitting bare skin at point blank if u shot threw a blanket or door or anything not up against there skin the 556 loses almost all of it’s energy. And that’s my problome. Even my black tips fly of tumbling I can shot 30 rounds at a car And the guy on the other side get up and run away. The bullets don’t come out strait so it’s like pissing in the wind. And if they have armer and are a cuple blocks away or behind anything I’m pissing in the wind. but a AK comes out in a strait line so if ur on the other side of a car the bullets still have energy and come out where I point at. So if ur fighting little kids and farmers like we did most of the time in Iraq ya it works great.. But if they have any armer or are behind almost anything the 556 is dog shit if u think I’m wrong that’s cool. If u think but it goes threw a car door try the other door and see how strait the line is mine always tumbled and didn’t land where I aimed! Pluse the 76 round drum for the AK that only needs a cuple twist on the drum is so much better then having to change out M-4 mags every week so my rifle doesn’t jam when the springs get weak from long term use.. A 10in barrle with a folding stock on a AK is so much nicer then a M4 in combat…

By: Infidel

Infidel — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 06:05:32 +0000

Al Asad, you know better than that, They walked right up and and put a bullet in his head. That’s the way its done we don’t have time to play games with a hodgies that wont go down, threat removed move on. 55.6 great round

By: The US military needs something more accurate, lethal and reliable than the M4 - Page 16 - INGunOwners

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:56:18 +0000

[...] I can also find numerous sites that state the opposite. Here's one that illustrated it well: Myths About the NATO 5.56 Cartridge And I was never taught that inane garbage when I was in. DD214 [...]

By: Andrea

Andrea — Wed, 25 May 2011 15:54:26 +0000

During the training our sergent said to us that a 7,66 will wipe a soldiers leg but a 5,56 will wipe an entire firesuqad (couse the team 4-5 mans will be slowed by the injuried soldier)

By: Glenn

Glenn — Sat, 21 May 2011 09:40:55 +0000

To Chris
“hydrokinetic shock (may be misspelled) and it has next to no play involved in ballistics. The simple truth is shot placement. Anything other than a head shot relies on blood loss. Bigger hole= faster blood loss= faster death. The 5.56 has huge cavitation making it an ideal round for the average Infantry soldier. The 7.62 has better range yes but most soldiers will never engage anyone further than 600m which is well inside the range of 5.56″

Actually being in battle and the optics we have these days they give us the means to make the well placed shot. When the 5.56 penetrates the body it begins a turning cycle tearing everything within apart.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Sat, 21 May 2011 09:29:48 +0000

To Al Asad were you in the Iraq War? First the Fedayeen was Saddam’s most loyal fighters. Fedayeen means that they were suicide fighters, they Martyred themselves for the former Iraq Dictator. Several times during the invasion, in certain situations, ROE was thrown out the window due to well placed mortar rounds and only what seemed to be civilians. I personally have never seen a person hit by a 5.56 stand back up. They were so hopped up on Adrenaline though that it did take several shots to send them to paradise.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:46:34 +0000

This article is nonsense. If the author would have done some actual, and basic research into the issue it would have been clear that the .556 has performed less than adequately in real-life, combat situations. Ballistics gel in no way simulates the drive and will behind a human being’s desire to survive. The .556 round with its high velocity impact does not create the necessary tissue damage in order to achieve lethal hits in many instances. With the .556 you have score “perfect hits” ( direct hits to vital organs and arteries) in order to put someone down permanently or turn them into a human sieve. With larger caliber rounds, you can be off slightly and achieve lethal hits due to inflicting a wider area of tissue damage that can reach out to vulnerable areas of the body without achieving a direct hit; additionally, the impact of a larger caliber round has an added measure of lethality due to its slower velocity. The slower velocity of the 7.62 mitigates the problem over penetration, transferring all or most of its kinetic energy directly into the target. The .556 on the other hand, is highly susceptible to over penetration due to its much higher velocity, especially at closer ranges.

The .556 round was created during the vietnam era after McNamara’s “number crunchers” at MIT did some lame-brain study which concluded that the more rounds you fire, the more enemies you will kill; thus the M16 was born with its lighter ammo so that infantrymen could blast away on fully automatic with all of the extra ammo that they were carrying. Despite McNamara’s Ivory Tower elite’s calculations, the hit to kill ratio completely dropped and we lost a lot of valuable marksmanship skills in the military as a result.

It was time for a new round 30 years ago. Let’s save the varmint rounds for the prairie dogs and gophers.

By: josh

josh — Tue, 17 May 2011 09:14:07 +0000

5.56 is what we use so get over it

By: william t hargrove

william t hargrove — Thu, 12 May 2011 09:30:33 +0000

AS A HISTORY Buff and a Former Recon Marine and SAS trained Raider Marine i would always rely on my BAR, 20 Rounds and in combat the wirght of ammo is surprisingly lite when you are being shot at!! i fired M-16A1 and the M-14 rifle Neither has the stopping or killing power of the 30-06 Ammo i had with my BAR, 20 round Mag and i did not worry about the enemy hiding behind a concrete wall. amour piercing ammo and the 172 grain round went right trough all. and at distance,s beyond 1000 yards a 30-06 round turns into a deadly hit, 5.56 has it,s place in close quarters combat but at distances beyond 300 meters nothing says hello like the 30-06 round and in Iraq and Afganistan , the 30-06 would be the king of battle, you ever shoot a pie pan off a fence post at 1100 yards with an 5.56, did not think so. And i wonder how our Military continues to be pussified by lighter and lighter weapons that can not hold a candle to the Garand US Caliber 30 or the BAR

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 02 May 2011 04:23:55 +0000

As someone whos been through several ballistics classes on the the 5.56 OTBT (Its called open tip boat tail not hollow point) and also sniper school (with a ballistics class on 7.62) I can say most of you are saying “knokdown power” and phrases of that effect. Its called hydrokinetic shock (may be misspelled) and it has next to no play involved in ballistics. The simple truth is shot placement. Anything other than a head shot relies on blood loss. Bigger hole= faster blood loss= faster death. The 5.56 has huge cavitation making it an ideal round for the average Infantry soldier. The 7.62 has better range yes but most soldiers will never engage anyone further than 600m which is well inside the range of 5.56

By: Don S (Ret)

Don S (Ret) — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:43:26 +0000

Shot placement is everything. I investigated hundreds of murders over the past 28 years. The victim’s were hit with everything from .22 short to 8mm Mauser. All those hit with any caliber in vital areas died. Those hit in non vital areas with all handguns lived and two hit with .45 auto fmj didn’t even know they had been shot in the abdomen. I had 5 who were hit with 5.56 from mini 14′s. 2 head shot and 3 upper torsos. All died with one shot. All were .55 fmj and all exited leaving 3″ to 5″ exit wounds. The victim hit with the 8mm Mauser bullet was struck in the shoulder while bending forward and died as a result of the bullet traveling diagonally through his torso and ending up lodged in his hip.

By: Another Marine... again

Another Marine... again — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 01:21:05 +0000

oh… and as for cavitation… the M16 A1 with it’s 1×12 twist was pretty unstable and did cause some serious damage… the newer models with their 1×7 twist are much more stable and have largely defeated the cavitation principles of the gun….