223/5.56: underrated or overrated?

[kcub]

It's amazing what people are doing with them these days. State of the art rifles are amazing compared to it's earlier days. Ditto ammo, perhaps even more so. But it still does what it was designed to do, take something out of action out to 500 yards or so. Maybe people are prone to push it beyond its envelope but that shouldn't reflect negatively on anyone but them.

These days I find myself having fun with them, making cans jump over the top of the berm. That's a good day at the range in my view all more serous purposes aside. It's just a hoot to shoot.

I think I'll take my FS2000 this Saturday. It rotates with my Galil, SCAR 16S, Daewoo K2, Windham Bushmaster and Armalite AR180.

So for fun and a whole bunch else, I say underrated.

 

[Jimro]

The 5.56 is a great cartridge, but there are reasons that it hasn't replaced the 308 Win as the big winner in F/TR Class or Palma competitions but has eclipsed the 308 Win (and 30-06) in Service Rifle.

It is a better service rifle cartridge, and not as good a long range cartridge. At least when comparing match loads to match loads.

Jimro

 

[Pond James Pond]

For me the appeal of .223 is/was (i've had to sell the AR, but hope to replace it in the future) is two-fold.

The essential lack of recoil and the fact that in my carbine length rifle, I could hold the scope dead-on target, without hold-over and it would hit all the way from 1m out to about 260m, with hold-over about 3-4" for hits out to about 300-320m.

I make these points in the context of COMSTOCK IPSC target alpha-zones, but out to that distance I can well believe in its lethality too. Get hit with one out to 500m, I still don't think the recipient would just shrug it off. It would still ruin your day!

 

[wogpotter]

Look at the original application.
To wound or incapacitate, rather than kill, small deer sized animals out to 300 yds.
In fully automatic fire mode.

I rest my case.

 

[wpsdlrg]

Every cartridge has it's uses....and it's limits. I don't think the concept of "over-rated" or "under-rated" really has much relevance.

.223/ 5.56 is a good man killer....not quite so good for hunting medium game (though it still can get the job done). As already mentioned, it has long range limitations, but it can be very accurate and capable within it's best envelope. Larger cartridges, such as .308, 6.5 Creedmore, etc. certainly are better for long range. They make bigger holes, so they are more effective on game (and human targets). They also provide an advantage in bench rest competition, simply because they make bigger holes in the target (so, sometimes marginal hits will score better). However, they are much more expensive to load and have a lot more recoil.

Every cartridge has it's uses and limits. "Pros and cons", put another way. The trick is to match YOUR needs with the cartridge selected - or select another one.

For myself, I used to be a die hard .308 guy. However, in my old age, I've come to no longer like the recoil. So, I switched to .223. It happens to do everything I need it to do, but doesn't rattle my old bones as much. It's cheap to reload, too......which is a bonus.

 

[Jimro]

wogpotter,

Look at the original application.
To wound or incapacitate, rather than kill, small deer sized animals out to 300 yds.
In fully automatic fire mode.

I rest my case.

Now that you've rested your case, consider this the cross-examination.

Do you have ANY evidence such as documents or first hand testimony of requirements authors, that supports your statement?

I would be very interested to see it.

Jimro

 

[kcub]

Sometimes its not about bigger holes or farther holes. It's about more holes in more enemy combatants per pound of ammo carried in.

 

[Panfisher]

Overrated or Underratedd? Well both I would say.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Both. The success of the .223 is that it's cheap meaning you can shoot more of it at one time than other calibers. It's popularity is maintained by the plethora of really cheap ammunition available relative to any other centerfire cartridge (except for the 7.62x39) with generally large bulk availability. Combine that with the increased interest in and availability of inexpensive AR15's and parts and you have a winner. Put the cost and availability of .223 on par with some other common calibers like .243, .270, etc., and I expect that you would see it fall from grace (and AR15 sales might go with it to some degree).

 

[kraigwy]

Look at the original application.
To wound or incapacitate, rather than kill, small deer sized animals out to 300 yds.
In fully automatic fire mode.

I rest my case.

Your case is faulty.

I've heard the myth that the idea was to wound the enemy because would take 3 people out of the fight, the wounded and two people to carry out the wounded.

In my time as a combat infantryman I found that to be BS. You wound or kill someone you take that person out of the fight. The wounded are cared for after the shooting stops.

The 223/5.56 is an effective combat round, and with the faster twist and heavier bullet, to 800 yards or so.

I suggest for an extensive study on the subject read P.O. Ackley.

 

[ms6852]

^^^^ +1.

 

[Theohazard]

I'm going to join Jimro and kraigwy: The whole "5.56 was intended to wound the enemy instead of killing him" myth is just that -- a myth. I've heard that myth for years, but it never made much sense to me.

Kraigwy's point is spot-on, and I'll add another point: In the Marine Corps infantry we were specifically taught to kill the enemy, and to do it as quickly as possible. Now, if it was truly a better infantry tactic to wound the enemy instead of kill him, why was that tactic never once incorporated into our training?

That myth gets repeated over and over again, but I've never once seen anyone give any source for that claim other than rumor.

 

[SIGSHR]

I recall reading about recruit training in WWI, they were told all they had to do was inflict a wound, create a casualty.
Overrated, IMHO, every conflict exposes shortcomings in the round and its platform. I have never liked how the gas tube is welded to the barrel as opposed to design of the M-1/M-14 where the gas/piston assembly can be disassembled and cleaned by the shooter. IMHO the M-16 is like the M-1 Carbine, a good weapon for someone whose main function is do something else. In Vietnam in conditions of dense jungle, thick forest, limited visibility, it functioned OK but it seems much of the real fighting was done by M-60 gunners.
For home defense, urban combat, whatever-we civilians aren't restricted to FMJ ammunition.

 

[Llama Bob]

In the context it was adopted, as a battle rifle round for all troops, it's not very good due to poor terminal and long range performance. The increase in potential adversaries with body armor has made it better though. So has the rise of female and urban soldiers with poor shooting skills & recoil tolerance.

As a civilian round, it's clearly improved due to modern bullet design. Arguably it's still not really reasonable to use as a deer round (and not legal in many states) but it is better than it was. And the long range performance has improved to the point where it punches paper about as well as a .308. And of course if you want to shoot LC it's very cheap.

 

[Theohazard]

I have never liked how the gas tube is welded to the barrel as opposed to design of the M-1/M-14 where the gas/piston assembly can be disassembled and cleaned by the shooter.

On an M4/M16/AR-15 the gas tube is not welded to anything. The front sight/gas block is secured to the barrel via taper pins, and the gas tube is secured to the gas block via a small roll pin. That's it.

And you don't need to clean the gas tube at all, so removing it is a non-issue. As for the piston, the rear of the bolt serves as the gas piston, and that's easy to get to for cleaning.

 

[wogpotter]

"They" kept on changing the story of the 5.56 when it came out first.
Anybody remember the "tumbling dice" BS where it would hit you in the hand & "tumble up your arm" to kill you?

 

[kraigwy]

I recall reading about recruit training in WWI, they were told all they had to do was inflict a wound, create a casualty

Reading where?? Read McBride's "A Rifleman Went to War"; Trench Warfare, Mosi 1916; The Hunting Rifle, Col Townsend Whelan; Rifle Shooting, Cpt. Edward Crossmen; or the 6 Volume works "The True Stories of the Great War".

All refer to soldiers on a whole, couldn't shoot for crap. We didn't have the arms to train soldiers, they drilled with broom sticks. I doubt they were told to shoot to wound, they basically shot and hopped for the best. Most rifle shooting was done by lobbing rounds from one trench to another, or firing while charging machine guns across no-mans land.

I have several training manuals of the period, NONE call for shooting to wound.

 

[Llama Bob]

Given the general inaccuracy that is military small arms fire, most of the soldiers are shooting to make a nice bang noise and little else.

 

[603Country]

Interesting discussion. I do remember hearing, in USMC basic training, that baloney about wounding being good for tying up more than one enemy combatant. But we were not trained to wound, and that was with M14's and the 7.62 round. We switched shortly thereafter to the M16. So maybe that was the cartridge that was for wounding. Certainly, if I wanted specifically to wound the enemy, I'd pick the 223 over the 308. And that is why I don't hunt with the 223. I like to shoot it and so do the grandkids, but when it's time to go hunting I don't take the 223. And if was in the business of hunting people, the 223 would not be my first choice.

And let's admit it...people keep necking the 223 up and speeding up the twist so they can shoot bigger bullets, in a mostly vain attempt to make the round more effective. That tells me that it isn't, in its basic form, effective enough.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

And let's admit it...people keep necking the 223 up and speeding up the twist so they can shoot bigger bullets, in a mostly vain attempt to make the round more effective. That tells me that it isn't, in its basic form, effective enough.

Does that mean the .308 is TOO effective, sine they keep necking it down?