From a terminal ballistics perspective, there's some truth to this. Given the relatively good performance of 6-7mm cartridges on humans and big game (in the 7mm up through elk/moose), and the the fact that you generally want at least a .338 for bison or great bears the high velocity .30s are fundamentally in a no mans land where there exists no application for which they're "just right".
223/5.56: underrated or overrated?
- Thread starter kcub
- Start date
- Status
While wearing a uniform, I carried an M-14 or bolt action rifle as my primary arm. The 7.62 was good at any range I could make a hit. The M-16 was not even considered for this purpose at that time.
Currently, I carry an AR since it's shorter, lighter, more manageable, and most of my shooting is at varmints under 50# plus the little round allows for followup shots if I miss or encounter multiple targets. I've killed some deer with AR or bolt action .223 but consider it barely adequate for this use. Long range? Hah, that's funny, the 7.62/.308 will ALWAYS be superior for that use.
Currently, I carry an AR since it's shorter, lighter, more manageable, and most of my shooting is at varmints under 50# plus the little round allows for followup shots if I miss or encounter multiple targets. I've killed some deer with AR or bolt action .223 but consider it barely adequate for this use. Long range? Hah, that's funny, the 7.62/.308 will ALWAYS be superior for that use.
I used to be in the camp that it was inadequate for deer. Just over two years ago I bought my 10 year old grandson a crack barrel 223. He has used it for 3 deer seasons now. Last weekend he popped a buck with it. Right through the lungs. 20 yards later it was down for keeps. He has killed about 10 deer with it now. 10 shots. 10 vital hits. 10 dead deer. 50 yard dash was the max run. About half dropped in their tracks. Partitions or fusions and almost always a nice exit wound. It's worth mentioning that these are small coastal deer killed inside 70 yards.
He is lethal with that gun and that cartridge and is developing great marksmanship skills in the process. I don't know how to rate it other than to say it has worked perfectly in its intended application.
He is lethal with that gun and that cartridge and is developing great marksmanship skills in the process. I don't know how to rate it other than to say it has worked perfectly in its intended application.
You can carry roughly twice the ammo for the same weight as 7.62NATO/.30-06. That was one of the big draws. The other was a salesman obliterating a watermelon in front of some higher-ups, if the story is true. Research from WWII also showed most firefights occur well inside 500m. The 5.56 works pretty well in that "normal" engagement zone.
wogpotter,
Is this the same "they" that says: Glocks can pass through a metal detector? That a "KTW" bullet is a "kevlar tipped wadcutter"? That Soldiers died because of the distinctive "ping" of a Garand ejecting the clip? That shotguns don't need to be aimed? That a 9mm is just meant to wound Europeans but a 45 is meant to kill?
Would that be the highly credible original source you are citing?
A lot of myths came out about the M16 from the anti-war movement. One attempt was a video of an M16 shooting up pigs on video to show how horrible and destructive it was, except they used lenses to make a miniature pot belly pig look like a full size boar.
The "tumbling" myth comes from the fact that ALL fmj spitzer bullets will tumble when they hit a soft medium like ballistics gel or flesh. The 223 being a small bore tumbles faster than 30 cal, and the 30 cal spitzers tumble faster than the older round nosed FMJs (which took a LONG time to tumble, which made them good penetrators on game in Africa which is a different ballistic story).
The only time an M16 will fire a bullet that tumbles in the air is when the bore is completely worn out (which we have seen with some allies weapons, bullets tumbling at the 25m zero range because the bore was just completely shot out). A US military M16 barrel that badly worn would be gauged out and replaced so the bullets wouldn't tumble.
So I'll end with this opinion, I think that quoting myths based on misinformed anti-war conspiracy theorists as if they are fact is probably not helpful to anyone here.
Jimro
Is this the same "they" that says: Glocks can pass through a metal detector? That a "KTW" bullet is a "kevlar tipped wadcutter"? That Soldiers died because of the distinctive "ping" of a Garand ejecting the clip? That shotguns don't need to be aimed? That a 9mm is just meant to wound Europeans but a 45 is meant to kill?
Would that be the highly credible original source you are citing?
A lot of myths came out about the M16 from the anti-war movement. One attempt was a video of an M16 shooting up pigs on video to show how horrible and destructive it was, except they used lenses to make a miniature pot belly pig look like a full size boar.
The "tumbling" myth comes from the fact that ALL fmj spitzer bullets will tumble when they hit a soft medium like ballistics gel or flesh. The 223 being a small bore tumbles faster than 30 cal, and the 30 cal spitzers tumble faster than the older round nosed FMJs (which took a LONG time to tumble, which made them good penetrators on game in Africa which is a different ballistic story).
The only time an M16 will fire a bullet that tumbles in the air is when the bore is completely worn out (which we have seen with some allies weapons, bullets tumbling at the 25m zero range because the bore was just completely shot out). A US military M16 barrel that badly worn would be gauged out and replaced so the bullets wouldn't tumble.
So I'll end with this opinion, I think that quoting myths based on misinformed anti-war conspiracy theorists as if they are fact is probably not helpful to anyone here.
Jimro
Might well be true for FMJ & SP/HP bullets. I've always rather liked the 7mm 08, the 7X57 & even the 7mm Livano.
Military types need to do other things though like stuffing tracer mixture, AP cores & so on in there.
Remember when U.S. Army Ordinance refused to consider anything under .30 cal because it had "insufficient internal capacity" for those things. Now they've miraculously crammed it all in a .223" one!
I'm not sure how repeating two easily disproved myths as fact is trying to make the point that "there were so many myths its darn near impossible to find the truth."
So yeah, you'll have to forgive me for missing that.
But I think if you start looking for facts, you'll find they are easy to find. I suggest you look into Project SALVO notes in Hatcher's Notebook. The goal of small arms research was something that was as lethal as a full power 30 caliber battle rifle, with greatly reduced recoil and much flatter trajectory for a longer point blank zero range. In none of the documents I've ever read were any researchers looking for "less lethal" and most used the phrasing "more lethal" or "increase lethality" as part of the write up for smaller caliber at higher velocities.
Jimro
Now you are just trying to troll, and failing pathetically.
The M16 and M16A1 were full auto like the M14 before them.
The M16A2 incorporated 3 round burst to help conserve ammunition. The M4 retained the 3 round burst capability, but the M4A1 brought back full auto capability.
At all times every member of the M16 family had a semi-auto setting which both the US Army and USMC trained their personnel to use with aimed fire. The Army found that in Vietnam re-training of Soldiers was important to getting drafted Soldiers proficient at using aimed semi-automatic fire instead of full auto fire.
To this day none of the services qualify anyone on using an M16 or M4 in anything other than semi-auto mode. Full auto or 3 round burst are trained for familiarization only, if that.
Jimro
603Country
New member
My M14 wasn't full auto. And there isn't a day, nor will there be, when a 223 is as effective as a 308 or 30-06. Of course that could bring up discussion on what "effective" means. Still, if we were to go hunting for grizzly would you take your 223, or would you prefer to have your 30 caliber rifle? In that case, effective would mean killing the bear before he killed you. And you could sub in "enemy combatant" for "grizzly".
Theohazard
New member
Yeah, I hope he's just trolling here...Jimro said:
Theohazard
New member
Exactly: What does "effective" actually mean? I'd argue that the overall combat effectiveness of an infantry rifle in modern warfare is far greater in 5.56mm than in 7.62x51mm or .30-06. Rifles chambered in 5.56 are smaller, lighter, and more maneuverable, they have less recoil for faster follow-up shots, they have greater capacity, and a soldier or Marine can carry twice as much ammo.603Country said:
That's a ridiculous comparison; a grizzly isn't even remotely comparable to a human. For grizzly I'd rather have a 30 caliber rifle (or more), but for humans within 300 yards I'd rather have a 5.56.603Country said:
I'd vote most misunderstood. There are more myths, legends and folklore concerning firearms than almost any other topic. More BS spread about 223/5.56 than most others. Most of the information passed down by our grandfathers and fathers simply isn't true. Some may have been true 100 years ago. Most never was.
It is a very effective round if used as designed. It is the most thoroughly tested military round in US history and has been doing the job just fine for over 50 years.
No, it isn't the best round for every application, but soldiers don't carry around a golf bag full of firearms and aren't able to pull out the perfect weapon for every situation they encounter.
There have been situations where a different rifle would have saved the day, there have been situations where it was the perfect weapon for the job at hand. You just don't ask the rifle or cartridge to perform tasks it isn't designed to do. It's called tactics. While not perfect, we'd have filled more body bags had any other cartridge been used during the last 50 years. Tactics and the battle field have changed, we aren't fighting WW-2 anymore.
It is a very effective round if used as designed. It is the most thoroughly tested military round in US history and has been doing the job just fine for over 50 years.
No, it isn't the best round for every application, but soldiers don't carry around a golf bag full of firearms and aren't able to pull out the perfect weapon for every situation they encounter.
There have been situations where a different rifle would have saved the day, there have been situations where it was the perfect weapon for the job at hand. You just don't ask the rifle or cartridge to perform tasks it isn't designed to do. It's called tactics. While not perfect, we'd have filled more body bags had any other cartridge been used during the last 50 years. Tactics and the battle field have changed, we aren't fighting WW-2 anymore.
603Country
New member
Theo, please explain why you'd rather have a 223 than a 30 caliber round for human eradication at inside 300 yards. I can only imagine that the answer is that you could have more rounds per pound of carry weight.
And let's swap that whole picture around. Do you think being shot with a 30-06 at 300 yards is better than getting shot with a 223? Do explain that to me also.
And let's swap that whole picture around. Do you think being shot with a 30-06 at 300 yards is better than getting shot with a 223? Do explain that to me also.
I've owned an AR-15 since 1969 and agree it is not the best caliber for hunting. My hunting rifle at the time was a 7 MM Remington Mag. Not exactly a plinking round but could be used on any size game from deer to moose. The expense of the ammo however made my AR-15 a more practical gun to use for practice.
I was never impressed with the 223/5.56 for terminal performance but at $2.00 a box of 20 rounds (ball ammo) army surplus at the time, I wasn't going to complain.
Fast forward to today and you will see that the AR-15 is replacing the old 22 LR as the gun most used for target practice and developing marksmanship skills. While I take out the 10/22 every now and then just for plinking, it is not the same for honing skills at targets 100 yards out or further.
Also you have to remember that law enforcement today is using the AR-15/M-4 as a upgrade to their hand guns in close up gun fights. From the use of them by SWAT teams it has spilled over to the patrol car and the officer on the street as additional resources to deal with barricaded suspects and keep the officer safer.
While I will use the 223/5.56 for varmints 65 lbs or less, I also have gone from the 55 grain bullets to the 60, 62, 69 and 75 grain bullets for more effective performance.
Is it the do all end all caliber, NO, But "It is a very effective round if used as designed"
Stay safe.
Jim
Theohazard
New member
I already explained it. With a .223/5.56 rifle I have a rifle that's lighter and more maneuverable, and I can shoot that rifle faster and more accurately due to less recoil. Add in the higher-capacity magazine and the ability to carry twice as much ammo (5.56 ammo is half the weight of 7.62 ammo), and it's a no-brainer.603Country said:
There's a reason why virtually every single modern military uses the 5.56 or something similar. And there's also a reason why virtually every security contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan uses a 5.56 rifle. And there's also a good reason why almost every police department in the country issues 5.56 rifles as their primary long gun.
If I had to go back into the Marine Corps infantry and I was given a choice in what weapon I could carry, I'd choose an M4 variant in 5.56.
Of course it's better to be shot with a .223; a .30-06 does more damage than a .223. But that's a ridiculous argument; infantry-type combat is about way more than how powerful your round is.603Country said:
Anyone who would rather have a .30-06 rifle than a .223 for defensive use against humans has absolutely no understanding of modern combat rifle use.
Last edited:
Pond James Pond
New member
Surely that depends on the intended target?
If we're talking rabbits, then I disagree. If we're talking deer, then I don't.
Even the Russians went from 7.62x39 (300 Russian Blackout ) to 5.45mm for good reason.
But I once had a Vepr 5.45 that was no where near as accurate as any 223/5.56 I've fired. It could have been the Wolf ammo which was all I had.
If you find yourself in Alamo mode you want as many cartridges as you could have possibly carried into the fight.
In Blackhawk Down I was always think about those 2 brave snipers that went in to try and save the downed pilot. One had a 223 and one had a scoped 308 M14. There would have been a bigger pile of dead Somalis and they would have survived longer with 2 223's. I don't know if that part of the movie was historically accurate or not but that's beside the point. It could have been.
) to 5.45mm for good reason.But I once had a Vepr 5.45 that was no where near as accurate as any 223/5.56 I've fired. It could have been the Wolf ammo which was all I had.
If you find yourself in Alamo mode you want as many cartridges as you could have possibly carried into the fight.
In Blackhawk Down I was always think about those 2 brave snipers that went in to try and save the downed pilot. One had a 223 and one had a scoped 308 M14. There would have been a bigger pile of dead Somalis and they would have survived longer with 2 223's. I don't know if that part of the movie was historically accurate or not but that's beside the point. It could have been.
As far as I know, all the M14s purchased by the DOD as M14s for issue as combat rifles were select fire capable. There were some M14M models for training marksmanship that were procured semi-auto only. Some M14NM models had the select fire capability welded to semi-auto only for match purposes.
There was a run of M14s made as semi-auto only for civilian consumption, but getting one of those is as rare as hens teeth. The Norinco M14 clones are definitely semi-auto only, but were never adopted by a DOD.
Jimro
- Status