Pond James Pond
New member
I believe the incident occurred, but I can't comment on what they carried.
223/5.56: underrated or overrated?
- Thread starter kcub
- Start date
- Status
I believe the incident occurred, but I can't comment on what they carried.
Theohazard
New member
They were capable of being select-fire, but that capability wasn't always used.Jimro said:
M-14s were issued in such a way that they were easily converted to be select-fire by the unit armorers. So it was up to the unit commander to determine who got select-fire M-14s and who didn't.
In my opinion it is not the caliber that counts but the firearm. I have a .223 BA rifle that will shoot submoa all day long. I have a 5.56 that will do the same. My shooting buddy has an AR that shoots 2-3 inch groups at 100 yards on a good day. I remind him every chance I get that it is a piece of junk. 
Like old Whelen once remarked..."only accurate rifles are interesting". I don't care if you are shooting a .223/5.56 that you had to mortgage the house to buy, if it ain't shooting a tight group at a 100 it's a piece of junk.
Like old Whelen once remarked..."only accurate rifles are interesting". I don't care if you are shooting a .223/5.56 that you had to mortgage the house to buy, if it ain't shooting a tight group at a 100 it's a piece of junk.
Pond James Pond
New member
Except if you don't need it to...
I thought the same when I bought my Sig M400 Carbine that managed about 4-5MOA to begin with. With practice it didn't improve beyond about 2.5MOA at best (in my hands), but it managed those 2.5MOA at 300m. More than adequate for my purposes in an IPSC gun (Open category with the scope I was using).
Were it a combat weapon those would also have been C.o.M. hits, so....
There is always a truth in what a High Master said to me, "At best everyone is a 2 MOA shooter" and what a 10m air rifle competitor said, "No one has a 10 point 9 hold."
When it comes down to it, pretty much all rifles come from a factory with enough mechanical consistency to outshoot most riflemen with decent ammo. I'm not interested in the benchrest game (but if you are that is totally cool) so once I develop a load that is sub MOA I crank out LOTS of that load, because until I can tell the difference between a 0.75 MOA load and a 0.5 MOA load from a standing unsupported position (which I can't) I have no reason to blame the rifle or the load. Any hit that isn't a 10 is all on me. Either I didn't read the wind right, or I didn't break the shot right, or something.
So while the good Colonel did say "Only accurate rifles are interesting" I'd also like to add that Col Whelen wasn't talking about the benchrest game either. I'm pretty sure COL Whelen would find the AR platform in 223 VERY interesting from an accuracy perspective for service rifles. It has been eclipsed in match rifles, but no service rifle cartridge is ever going to be competitive against custom developed match rounds over a large statistical sampling.
Jimro
When it comes down to it, pretty much all rifles come from a factory with enough mechanical consistency to outshoot most riflemen with decent ammo. I'm not interested in the benchrest game (but if you are that is totally cool) so once I develop a load that is sub MOA I crank out LOTS of that load, because until I can tell the difference between a 0.75 MOA load and a 0.5 MOA load from a standing unsupported position (which I can't) I have no reason to blame the rifle or the load. Any hit that isn't a 10 is all on me. Either I didn't read the wind right, or I didn't break the shot right, or something.
So while the good Colonel did say "Only accurate rifles are interesting" I'd also like to add that Col Whelen wasn't talking about the benchrest game either. I'm pretty sure COL Whelen would find the AR platform in 223 VERY interesting from an accuracy perspective for service rifles. It has been eclipsed in match rifles, but no service rifle cartridge is ever going to be competitive against custom developed match rounds over a large statistical sampling.
Jimro
603Country
New member
Heck, wogpotter, that has to be aimed at me, since I am not agreeing with the crowd. I wasn't trying to be offensive, but to make my points - which I guess I didn't make.
As best I can tell from the way this has gone, the 223 wins over 30 caliber because more ammo can be carried. Well, as I understand it, that was indeed one of the big reasons governments went to smaller caliber rounds. I can absolutely positively see the benefits of having more ammo, which I suppose justifies it as being more effective. But...I was working from the position that a 30 caliber round was more effective on a one round basis - shooting the grizzly, for instance. I see now that your measure of effectiveness is that in a combat situation a fellow with 10 pounds of 223 has twice the rounds of a fellow with 10 pounds of 308. It makes sense.
Still, that 223 round is a bit too anemic in some combat situations, which brought about the creation of more than a couple of necked up rounds based on the 223 case - 6.8 SPC for instance. Further, the 223 is a bit anemic in many hunting situations, which has brought on a brisk business of more powerful rounds being adapted to the AR platform. People want to use their new Black Rifle. Who can blame them?
The Black Rifle has gotten very popular, and once people have one they want to use it- hunt with it, target shoot with it, and plink with it. But when they hunt with it, depending on what they hunt, most will find that it isn't that effective (there's that word again). That has brought about a lot of bullet development, in the hope (successfully, I'll admit) of finding a bullet to make the round more effective on game. But it still isn't going to be equal to the 308 in hunting or long distance target shooting. That's what I was talking about when I used the word "effective".
I should have been clearer in stating my opinions. I wasn't trying to be offensive or hostile, though I was frustrated that I wasn't making my position understood.
As best I can tell from the way this has gone, the 223 wins over 30 caliber because more ammo can be carried. Well, as I understand it, that was indeed one of the big reasons governments went to smaller caliber rounds. I can absolutely positively see the benefits of having more ammo, which I suppose justifies it as being more effective. But...I was working from the position that a 30 caliber round was more effective on a one round basis - shooting the grizzly, for instance. I see now that your measure of effectiveness is that in a combat situation a fellow with 10 pounds of 223 has twice the rounds of a fellow with 10 pounds of 308. It makes sense.
Still, that 223 round is a bit too anemic in some combat situations, which brought about the creation of more than a couple of necked up rounds based on the 223 case - 6.8 SPC for instance. Further, the 223 is a bit anemic in many hunting situations, which has brought on a brisk business of more powerful rounds being adapted to the AR platform. People want to use their new Black Rifle. Who can blame them?
The Black Rifle has gotten very popular, and once people have one they want to use it- hunt with it, target shoot with it, and plink with it. But when they hunt with it, depending on what they hunt, most will find that it isn't that effective (there's that word again). That has brought about a lot of bullet development, in the hope (successfully, I'll admit) of finding a bullet to make the round more effective on game. But it still isn't going to be equal to the 308 in hunting or long distance target shooting. That's what I was talking about when I used the word "effective".
I should have been clearer in stating my opinions. I wasn't trying to be offensive or hostile, though I was frustrated that I wasn't making my position understood.
When I was running the AK NG Marksmanship Unit I ordered and received several (non match) M14s so I could issue them to unit marksmanship programs for practice so they could be more competitive when trying out for the State Rifle Team.
Several came with the selector switch attached. Before I had them removed we took them out to play with.
You cant hit crap with those rifles on full auto. Using a standard E Silhouette target at 100 yards on full auto you're lucky to get 2-3 rounds on target from a full mag.
I found I could get more rounds on target, faster using a Model 70 Bolt gun using stripper clips.
I did about the same thing using M16A's. To wind a bet, I had 4 guys from my unit, fire at the same E target at 100 yards on the E Tgt. firing full auto, while I fired my 'A1 semi. In a given time limit, I got more hits firing semi then the 4 did firing full auto.
I guess they have their place, but I'm not a fan of full auto rifles.
Several came with the selector switch attached. Before I had them removed we took them out to play with.
You cant hit crap with those rifles on full auto. Using a standard E Silhouette target at 100 yards on full auto you're lucky to get 2-3 rounds on target from a full mag.
I found I could get more rounds on target, faster using a Model 70 Bolt gun using stripper clips.
I did about the same thing using M16A's. To wind a bet, I had 4 guys from my unit, fire at the same E target at 100 yards on the E Tgt. firing full auto, while I fired my 'A1 semi. In a given time limit, I got more hits firing semi then the 4 did firing full auto.
I guess they have their place, but I'm not a fan of full auto rifles.
Nope I wasn't thinking of you at all when I wrote that. I actually agree with most of what you wrote.
IIRC the big thing with McNamara's bean counters was price! 5.56 was cheaper, per round, than 7.62! Of course you had to use more of it to achieve the same result but that "wasn't part of the equation"!
Its probably also the reason the M-15 (full auto M-14 variant) didn't have a 3-round burst position, because it didn't need one!
Last edited:
When I enlisted Marine Corp my service rifle was the M1 Garand and I heard all the stories about wounding the enemy from instructors who fought in WW11 and Korea.
I was with 4th Marines landed at Chu Lai and I had M-14 without selector. The M-14 with selector replaced old 30 cal BAR rifle.
I don't think anyone who been in a fire fight would worry about wounding someone. We were brief on what would happen to anyone of us who was capture or wounded.
I'm glad I got out before 5.56 rifle.
I was with 4th Marines landed at Chu Lai and I had M-14 without selector. The M-14 with selector replaced old 30 cal BAR rifle.
I don't think anyone who been in a fire fight would worry about wounding someone. We were brief on what would happen to anyone of us who was capture or wounded.
I'm glad I got out before 5.56 rifle.
Full auto never wins for accuracy, even from machine guns (until you get that sucker in a tripod). A lot of that fire is just there to keep the other guys pinned down while you send your buddies to a position of advantage so they can finish them off. But for clearing a room it works about as good from a suppressed M4A1 as it does for a suppressed MP5. I honestly think the M4A1 went back to full auto to get rid of the horrible three round burst trigger pull.
Personally I'm more than happy to just pull the trigger two more times with a Mozambique drill instead of mashing the trigger down. I never could get an AK to hold steady in full auto either.
I remember the first time I was on the receiving end of an M14 going full auto (blank fire, in training thankfully) and it sounded like we were getting targeted with a real machine gun. The whole patrol hit the deck hard and tried to orient on where the sound seemed to be coming from, cause it seemed like it was coming from everywhere for the first few seconds.
It seems if you are aiming at an area target from a prepared position, full auto can be very useful. Of course so can a claymore.
What all this has to do with whether the 5.56 is over or under rated? I've carried an M4 in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've taught Soldiers to shoot it out past 600 meters and showed them how to do it with iron sights. I know that you still need 7.62 in the mix, but it's really hard to get someone properly trained up on long range marksmanship and keep them in the Platoon before the Sniper section finds out you've got a shooter and pulls them up to a team and you have to start training a new guy from scratch. In military circles, it's never been about 5.56 OR something else, it's always been 5.56 AND something else.
But there have been a lot of articles by lobbyists trying to get the Army to adopt the 6.8 or 6.5 and retire the 5.56. Of course a lot of that talk has died down since Mk262 and M855A1 were introduced. That "lack of lethality at range" talk kinda died down a bit.
Jimro
Personally I'm more than happy to just pull the trigger two more times with a Mozambique drill instead of mashing the trigger down. I never could get an AK to hold steady in full auto either.
I remember the first time I was on the receiving end of an M14 going full auto (blank fire, in training thankfully) and it sounded like we were getting targeted with a real machine gun. The whole patrol hit the deck hard and tried to orient on where the sound seemed to be coming from, cause it seemed like it was coming from everywhere for the first few seconds.
It seems if you are aiming at an area target from a prepared position, full auto can be very useful. Of course so can a claymore.
What all this has to do with whether the 5.56 is over or under rated? I've carried an M4 in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've taught Soldiers to shoot it out past 600 meters and showed them how to do it with iron sights. I know that you still need 7.62 in the mix, but it's really hard to get someone properly trained up on long range marksmanship and keep them in the Platoon before the Sniper section finds out you've got a shooter and pulls them up to a team and you have to start training a new guy from scratch. In military circles, it's never been about 5.56 OR something else, it's always been 5.56 AND something else.
But there have been a lot of articles by lobbyists trying to get the Army to adopt the 6.8 or 6.5 and retire the 5.56. Of course a lot of that talk has died down since Mk262 and M855A1 were introduced. That "lack of lethality at range" talk kinda died down a bit.
Jimro
To the OP:
Removing history and abundance from the equation and going with purely physics, then no, I imagine something slightly bigger than the 5.56 would be a better round on humans and human-sized game. Something in the 6.5mm range would about perfect terminally, as well as bucking wind resistance better than a smaller caliber. That last point being relatively important. Even though the target you are shooting at may change from smaller to bigger, the atmosphere does not. Anything above 6.8mm is unnecessary for stopping power, and generates more recoil. Anything below has compromises on terminal ballistics, wind resistance and barrier penetration/deflection. That being said, non-physics factors do influence how decisions are made in the military and police. From a logistical point-of-view, 5.56 is good enough, cheaper and lighter to carry.
Everything is a compromise.
Removing history and abundance from the equation and going with purely physics, then no, I imagine something slightly bigger than the 5.56 would be a better round on humans and human-sized game. Something in the 6.5mm range would about perfect terminally, as well as bucking wind resistance better than a smaller caliber. That last point being relatively important. Even though the target you are shooting at may change from smaller to bigger, the atmosphere does not. Anything above 6.8mm is unnecessary for stopping power, and generates more recoil. Anything below has compromises on terminal ballistics, wind resistance and barrier penetration/deflection. That being said, non-physics factors do influence how decisions are made in the military and police. From a logistical point-of-view, 5.56 is good enough, cheaper and lighter to carry.
Everything is a compromise.
robertsig,
When you compare terminal ballistics between 77gr OTM (5.56), 123gr OTM (6.5) and 115gr OTM (6.8) you'll see no practical differences in lethality due to bore size. Either the bullets impact with enough velocity to fragment or they don't. You'll see size differences of wound cavities a bit, but dead is dead.
When you compare military ball loadings in the same range it is the same story all over again, either the bullets impact with enough velocity remaining to fragment, or they poke holes. Yes they poke bigger holes, but bigger holes only offer a fraction of a millimeter advantage (the difference in radius) in cutting a major blood vessel to cause the target to bleed out slightly faster. There is no difference in CNS hits between any of the calibers.
As far as being better for long range shooting, once again you need to look at the only true long range military load for 5.56 which is Mk262 Mod1. That load is good enough that if you can't hit the target at 600, it's because you couldn't read the wind at all and having a higher BC bullet isn't going to fix that problem.
Now if you are talking soft nose spitzer boat tail bullets used for hunting, then the 6.5 and 6.8 bore bullets do offer a clear advantage in terminal ballistics. But those bullets aren't legal for war, so that becomes a moot point.
It isn't that the 6.5 and 6.8 are bad, far from it, they are very good choices. But what they are not is substantially better once you apply the military use restrictions on them. A lot of folks like to compare the 6.5 Grendel with a match bullet against 7.62x51 M80 ball instead of a match loading like M118LR or Mk316. Once you start comparing apples to apples, the 7.62x51 match loadings win out, but we don't arm regular soldiers with sniper loads so we probably wouldn't be using match bullets for every soldier either.
When you compare terminal ballistics between 77gr OTM (5.56), 123gr OTM (6.5) and 115gr OTM (6.8) you'll see no practical differences in lethality due to bore size. Either the bullets impact with enough velocity to fragment or they don't. You'll see size differences of wound cavities a bit, but dead is dead.
When you compare military ball loadings in the same range it is the same story all over again, either the bullets impact with enough velocity remaining to fragment, or they poke holes. Yes they poke bigger holes, but bigger holes only offer a fraction of a millimeter advantage (the difference in radius) in cutting a major blood vessel to cause the target to bleed out slightly faster. There is no difference in CNS hits between any of the calibers.
As far as being better for long range shooting, once again you need to look at the only true long range military load for 5.56 which is Mk262 Mod1. That load is good enough that if you can't hit the target at 600, it's because you couldn't read the wind at all and having a higher BC bullet isn't going to fix that problem.
Now if you are talking soft nose spitzer boat tail bullets used for hunting, then the 6.5 and 6.8 bore bullets do offer a clear advantage in terminal ballistics. But those bullets aren't legal for war, so that becomes a moot point.
It isn't that the 6.5 and 6.8 are bad, far from it, they are very good choices. But what they are not is substantially better once you apply the military use restrictions on them. A lot of folks like to compare the 6.5 Grendel with a match bullet against 7.62x51 M80 ball instead of a match loading like M118LR or Mk316. Once you start comparing apples to apples, the 7.62x51 match loadings win out, but we don't arm regular soldiers with sniper loads so we probably wouldn't be using match bullets for every soldier either.
How do we define "fragment" and how do we define "military ball loadings"?
Does fragment mean fragment or splitting in two along the cannelure?
Is military ball loadings just fmj or whatever the legal department has defined to be ok such as having an open tip match or metal penetrating tip design such that it wasn't manufactured to be a "hollow point/dum-dum" expansion intended round per se or at least have plausible deniability in a castrated UN hearing. There's no such thing as war crimes trials against the prevailing party.
And what does fragment mean in the context of these newer designs?
Does fragment mean fragment or splitting in two along the cannelure?
Is military ball loadings just fmj or whatever the legal department has defined to be ok such as having an open tip match or metal penetrating tip design such that it wasn't manufactured to be a "hollow point/dum-dum" expansion intended round per se or at least have plausible deniability in a castrated UN hearing. There's no such thing as war crimes trials against the prevailing party.
And what does fragment mean in the context of these newer designs?
kcub,
Assuming these are legitimate questions instead of trolling....
1, Fragment, during tissue interaction when the heavier base attempts to flip forward (as all spritzer rounds do in soft tissue) the bullet will split, generally along the cannelure. In the case of M855A1, along the seam between the penetrator and rear slug. All spritzer bullets will try to flip in tissue, and the fragmentation happens when lateral shear forces overcome the jacket.
2, Hague convention compliant by legal review from relevant national defense ministry. Hence why Russian 5.54mm projectiles with steel core and air gap are compliant ball ammunition.
Fragmentation starts with splitting in two along the cannelure, it is a non-intentional failure of jacket integrity. It continues with the pealing back of the jacket, and possible disintegration of a lead core should it meet bone.
You can look up the ICRC opinions if you like, but the legal standard is that the bullet must not be designed to intentionally expand. It can be designed for accuracy, designed for penetration through body armor, but not designed to expand in flesh.
Since these aren't explosive shells the point of the design for the M855A1 and Mk318 is to be "barrier blind." The deformable head on the Mk318 was shown to produce wound channels similar to existing ball ammunition. The on again/off again relationship between HBPT match bullets and military usage has come down on the side of "use" because the bullets aren't designed to expand.
Although I have seen a legal review of a 115gr 6.8 OTM projectile that was bisected in order to show the internal lead slug had a forward facing central cavity and was denied legal review because such a cavity will act as a hollow point in liquid tissue.
The ICRC has been campaigning to get the Raufoss 50 cal round declared illegal for use against human beings because it is possible for the round to explode due to impact with a human body. So far this argument has not gained any traction simply because 1, detonation isn't a certainty and 2, getting hit by any 50 cal is probably going to kill you even if it doesn't detonate so the "grievous wounds" argument doesn't really apply.
So there are plenty of arguments on either side for what causes something to be compliant with international norms for the Law of Land warfare.
Jimro
Assuming these are legitimate questions instead of trolling....
1, Fragment, during tissue interaction when the heavier base attempts to flip forward (as all spritzer rounds do in soft tissue) the bullet will split, generally along the cannelure. In the case of M855A1, along the seam between the penetrator and rear slug. All spritzer bullets will try to flip in tissue, and the fragmentation happens when lateral shear forces overcome the jacket.
2, Hague convention compliant by legal review from relevant national defense ministry. Hence why Russian 5.54mm projectiles with steel core and air gap are compliant ball ammunition.
Fragmentation starts with splitting in two along the cannelure, it is a non-intentional failure of jacket integrity. It continues with the pealing back of the jacket, and possible disintegration of a lead core should it meet bone.
You can look up the ICRC opinions if you like, but the legal standard is that the bullet must not be designed to intentionally expand. It can be designed for accuracy, designed for penetration through body armor, but not designed to expand in flesh.
Since these aren't explosive shells the point of the design for the M855A1 and Mk318 is to be "barrier blind." The deformable head on the Mk318 was shown to produce wound channels similar to existing ball ammunition. The on again/off again relationship between HBPT match bullets and military usage has come down on the side of "use" because the bullets aren't designed to expand.
Although I have seen a legal review of a 115gr 6.8 OTM projectile that was bisected in order to show the internal lead slug had a forward facing central cavity and was denied legal review because such a cavity will act as a hollow point in liquid tissue.
The ICRC has been campaigning to get the Raufoss 50 cal round declared illegal for use against human beings because it is possible for the round to explode due to impact with a human body. So far this argument has not gained any traction simply because 1, detonation isn't a certainty and 2, getting hit by any 50 cal is probably going to kill you even if it doesn't detonate so the "grievous wounds" argument doesn't really apply.
So there are plenty of arguments on either side for what causes something to be compliant with international norms for the Law of Land warfare.
Jimro
Jimro,
It seems you are bringing legality into my argument. It's certainly a practical value to the thread as a whole, but not to my comment. 6.5/6.8 is better than 5.56 in every way, unless cost & weight become a factor (as well as the rules of war).
6mm bullets can also pass through light obstacles (like woods/leaves) a lot better than 5.56mm ammo, so I suppose that depends on where the battle is. Not everything is a clear shot.
The benefits of a VERY fast 5.56mm bullet are not due to the size of the bullet, but the speed at which they are pushed causing the fragmentation. I suppose if we account for the reality of that, then yes, 5.56x45mm are very effective, but that's more of a side-affect than a purposeful design. No reason why larger bullets can't do the same.
It seems you are bringing legality into my argument. It's certainly a practical value to the thread as a whole, but not to my comment. 6.5/6.8 is better than 5.56 in every way, unless cost & weight become a factor (as well as the rules of war).
6mm bullets can also pass through light obstacles (like woods/leaves) a lot better than 5.56mm ammo, so I suppose that depends on where the battle is. Not everything is a clear shot.
The benefits of a VERY fast 5.56mm bullet are not due to the size of the bullet, but the speed at which they are pushed causing the fragmentation. I suppose if we account for the reality of that, then yes, 5.56x45mm are very effective, but that's more of a side-affect than a purposeful design. No reason why larger bullets can't do the same.
robertsig,
Kind of important when you are talking arms procurement, isn't it? Especially when you based your previous post on terminal ballistic effects on "human size game" in the context of this thread.
We have plenty of experience with military 6.5 caliber bullets in actual use (Swede, Carcano, Jap) and there is nothing magical about that particular bore in terms of actual use on the field of battle. Yes it can give a skilled rifleman an advantage, but a skilled rifleman is going to be just fine with an accurate 5.56 rifle as well.
Simply put, the advantages on paper don't translate into advantage on the battlefield. Same reason why the SF community has largely backed off of the 6.8 SPC that they developed. It's a darn good round, but the ballistic advantages did not show up over time.
kcub,
I apologize if I come off as grouchy much of the time. It's probably because I'm grouchy much of the time.
Jimro
Kind of important when you are talking arms procurement, isn't it? Especially when you based your previous post on terminal ballistic effects on "human size game" in the context of this thread.
We have plenty of experience with military 6.5 caliber bullets in actual use (Swede, Carcano, Jap) and there is nothing magical about that particular bore in terms of actual use on the field of battle. Yes it can give a skilled rifleman an advantage, but a skilled rifleman is going to be just fine with an accurate 5.56 rifle as well.
Simply put, the advantages on paper don't translate into advantage on the battlefield. Same reason why the SF community has largely backed off of the 6.8 SPC that they developed. It's a darn good round, but the ballistic advantages did not show up over time.
kcub,
I apologize if I come off as grouchy much of the time. It's probably because I'm grouchy much of the time.
Jimro
- Status