223/5.56: underrated or overrated?

[CaptainO]

I apologize. i was always taught to 'wait for the right shot" and marksmanship. At least 14 of my earliest years of shooting (1961-1975) I was taught that a missed shot wasn't worth much. Both father and the Navy taught me this. I rarely missed.

BTW, the enemy never gives a damn about their men. Life means between little and nothing to the heathens.

 

[jersurf101]

After seeing all of the back and forth I had to post. I really believe that if you average out the fans and nay sayers that the .223/5.56's reputation is spot on. It is an intermediate round that will take medium game under good conditions with less margin for quartering shots.

I will say this. I never had a SAW(5.56 machine gun) that ran right in the corps. I don't know if I had oldor worn out guns but they were all butter butter jam. I never had an issue with the 7.62 M240 golf. I was always under the belief that the 5.56 is just too light to work the action of an open bolt machine gun. That is as the operator not the designer. I am sure someone will flame me for this, but I kept a clean we all as we all did and that is just my experience. This was in desert and wooded conditions.

 

[Theohazard]

I was always under the belief that the 5.56 is just too light to work the action of an open bolt machine gun.

The 5.56 has plenty of power to run an open bolt machine gun, it's just that the M240 is a far more robust and reliable design than the M249.

 

[Jimro]

Not a problem.
As long as you concede the "other" 400 yds.

Sure I'll concede the other 400 yards, when the 30 cal shooters start using 14.5" barrels in 6.5lb rifles

But in reality it's 200 yards, not 400. The 5.56 milspec match loads are supersonic to 800, which is 200 yards shy of the 175gr SMK in the 7.62 match loads. The milspec 5.56 ball is also about 200 yards shy of M80 ball.

The real reason that 5.56 isn't winning Palma or LR High Power is that the case volume is too small for the primer blast inconsistencies. The 308 case volume makes it MUCH easier to get consistent ignition and chamber pressures for ultra low SD for MV. Consistency is really important at that level of competition.

Jimro

 

[wogpotter]

Why on earth should I do something so daft as to handicap the advantage I have?

 

[Jimro]

Why on earth should I do something so daft as to handicap the advantage I have?

Personally I think the M1A and Garand shooters are handicapped enough across the course just by shooting 30 cal, they are so much more demanding to shoot that it takes a real marksman to compete with the black rifle shooters. One of the HP shooters I used to shoot with in the Fort Knox area decided that by gum he was going to shoot a season with his M1A instead of his AR. His scores dropped a lot.

Still, the point is that you don't see military forces adopting 14.5" 7.62x51 platforms for a standard issue long arm for a reason, and since the accuracy standards for ball ammo for 5.56 and 7.62 are the same for both platforms, the max effective range for both is the same until you get to match ammo where the 7.62 gains a 200 yard advantage, when shot from a 20" barrel in an M110 (AR-10 style) or 24" M24 sniper rifle (or a 24.8" M240B barrel).

And since the 5.56 is good well beyond the range either Soldiers or Marines are trained to shoot (300m and 500y respectively) it doesn't make sense to say the 7.62 has an advantage for an issue rifle. Even in the SDM role we only train Soldiers to shoot out to 600m, which is 200 meters shy of the 800 we train the SAW gunners to engage (cone of fire versus point fire).

Jimro

 

[Tucker 1371]

Grossly underrated. According to the Book Of The AR15 the original M16 with M193 ammo was considered quite deadly by the advisors that field tested it.

The concerns over the 5.56's terminal effectiveness, as best I can research, really cropped up in and after Somalia in 1993. It was one of the first high profile engagements with sustained close quarters ground fighting using the M855 round, which was designed with an emphasis on penetration over fragmentation or expansion. IMO M855 is a terrible round , I would take 55gr M193 over it in a heartbeat.

I like the direction the Marine Corps is going with the Mk318 62gr OTM round, supposedly it will become our deployment ammo and M855 will be for training. It still doesn't look as nasty in gel as M193 but I suppose it's a good trade off in exchange for mild barrier busting ability.

 

[kcub]

I like mk318 not because I might have to defend myself against Taliban or ISIS fighters rolling up in a Toyota HiLux pickup but because my SCAR 16 shoots nice tight groups at 100 yards with a low power ACOG.

 

[Jimro]

As it should, Mk318 is spec'd to group under 2 MOA. It is good ammo.

Jimro

 

[Tucker 1371]

If I had the money to stock up on Mk318 I definitely would. From what I've read it seems like the 5.56x45mm round perfected.

M193 might not be the best penetrating or most accurate stuff but I believe it is certainly more lethal than M855. If you were to use it as a home defense round it certainly offers great terminal effect with low risk of overpenetration.

 

[raimius]

For suppressive fire, I would want something in at least 7.62x51. It hits hard, but more importantly, it sounds more impressive. If you are not going for hits, the psychological factor is the main player. People react a LOT more to a long burst of 7.62Nato than 5.56.
That's not really something important in the civilian field though!

For a moderately-trained rifleman, I'd say 5.56 over 7.62. More ammo carrying capacity and faster follow-up shots are a good thing. For excellently trained troops, the 7.62 may be favored in certain scenarios (penetration or distance requirements).

 

[Tucker 1371]

Raimius,

For suppressive fire those little cracks in the air and dirt being kicked up do the trick pretty well, regardless of caliber. Can't know for sure but the difference in 5.56 and .308 passing overhead is probably similar to the difference in 7.62x39 and 7.62x54R. The M249 SAW does its job, and has the advantage of being able to bring along a crap ton more ammo than the M240, like double or more in my experience. Maybe our 240 gunners were just lazy lol.

IMO there's not much difference until you get to .50 BMG or 40mm, the Mk19 and M2 are in a league of their own for suppressing fire.

 

[wogpotter]

Respectfully I suggest that the accuracy of the .223 at long range isn't being called into question.
Energy at long range is however. Punching a neat hole in paper requires very little energy, even an air pistol can do it at some ranges, but no-one would suggest a .177 is a viable defense round!

 

[JJ45]

Suppressive fire, GENERALLY, is only an advantage if you are a member of a rifle company or larger group of assault infantry. An INDIVIDUAL rifleman intent on defensive fire is probably going to limit his shooting then change venue to avoid return fire....IOW, he would be better off to avoid a fire fight.

IMO, the M1 provides as much semi-auto fire power that an INDIVIDUAL can use effectively if survival is his main concern.

BUT as much as I love the mighty Garand, the 30-06 cartridge is less pleasant in all respects than the .223.... Consider weight, bulk, recoil, blast, expense and availability. These all favor the "poodle shooter"...this pretty much goes for the .308, also.

This means you will probably practice with your .223 a lot more than with a more powerful but less pleasant to shoot weapon.

 

[Model12Win]

Out of a DMR like the U.S. Army's SDM-R and using 77 grain Black Hills match ammo, these guns are well known to be effective out to 700 meters+.

No, the round won't have as much energy as a .308 at that distance, and wind can be an issue, but it's very much doable by a skilled shooter and that 77 grain pill will ruin you even at that range.

5.56 is very effective with the right load within realistic limits.

 

[Jimro]

Respectfully I suggest that the accuracy of the .223 at long range isn't being called into question.
Energy at long range is however. Punching a neat hole in paper requires very little energy, even an air pistol can do it at some ranges, but no-one would suggest a .177 is a viable defense round!

And so far no one is, and thankfully the 5.56x45 is not a 17 caliber round so you can rest assured that no one is going to make that "reductio ad absurdum" logical fallacy in this thread. Unless you are volunteering to show how bullet proof you are, I'd just go ahead and concede that the 5.56 caliber bullets will retain enough energy to get the job done.

M855 has killed a mess of bad guys over the years, and while there are more consistent bullets for terminal effects now that's just progress. The M16/M4 has improved, so has its ammunition.

Jimro

 

[adamBomb]

In my limited experience its underrated for certain uses. I have hunted deer my whole life with a 308 or 3030. However, we keep seeing people with just as many deer at the end of the season with the 223/556. So at least in the US east coast, its underrated for deer hunting because our deer are not very big and I dont think I have ever taken a shot more than say 125 yards out. Next year I am going to deer hunt with my AR to see how it does but I am assuming it will perform just as well.

 

[wogpotter]

And so far no one is, and thankfully the 5.56x45 is not a 17 caliber round so you can rest assured that no one is going to make that "reductio ad absurdum" logical fallacy in this thread.

Ok we'll "up gun" to a .22 airgun, or go hog wild & go for a .22RF. Now you have a .22 round hole in a paper target, & it still ain't a battle cartridge.

The absurdity was comparing paper to a living moving 3 dimensional object, not the minuscule difference it hole diameter.

 

[Jimro]

Ok we'll "up gun" to a .22 airgun, or go hog wild & go for a .22RF. Now you have a .22 round hole in a paper target, & it still ain't a battle cartridge.

The absurdity was comparing paper to a living moving 3 dimensional object, not the minuscule difference it hole diameter.

Neither the air gun nor the rim fire are going to be putting holes in the X ring at 600 yards, beating out the Garands and M1A for scores either

But as for making it a "battle cartridge" the Soviets developed the 5.45x39 then stuck with it. The Chinese developed the 5.8x42 and stuck with it... That's 21 caliber and 23 caliber. The 5.56x45 must have something going for it if arguably the only rivals for "global superpower" status are adopting cartridges with similar performance.

Also, the 5.56x45 has outlasted the 30-06, 30-40, and 45-70 as a "battle cartridge" so there's that. One would think that such an inadequate "not a battle cartridge" round would have been dropped like that flash in the pan 30-06.

Of course I find it hilarious that half the criticisms against the 5.56 is that the M855 green tip just "pokes holes through people" and your criticism is that it just pokes holes in targets.

Of course to illustrate why your argument is absurd, why not give every Infantryman a 600 Nitro Express? If bigger is better clearly the 7.62 must be vastly inferior to a larger bore size. Unfortunately such an obvious "reducto ad absurdum" fallacy serves no purpose other than to show that caliber has little to do with suitability as a general purpose "battle cartridge" as you put it.

To further drive the hammer of reason down on your implied necessity for 7.62 to be a "battle cartridge", 300 Blackout fires 7.62 caliber bullets and is a horrible choice for a standard issue round, and the 30-30 is also a 7.62 caliber round is also a horrible choice for a general issue round. If this doesn't illustrate the point that "caliber" isn't the deciding factor on "effectiveness" I don't know what else to tell you.

Then again, you could volunteer to get shot with a 5.56x45 at 600 if you are so convinced that making holes in targets has no bearing on making holes in humans. If you are truly convinced of the soundness of your argument I truly look forward to seeing this on youtube, at least until it's pulled.

Jimro

 

[Tucker 1371]

wogpotter, I used to believe what you do. However, the evidence just doesn't support those beliefs. The .30 caliber "battle cartridges" may have an edge in penetrating light cover like auto glass, but it's not by much and not enough to warrant the extra weight, recoil, and diminished effectiveness in CQB. At bad breath distance there's not a hill of beans difference in being hit with a 5.56 and a 7.62, they both do pretty nasty things to a body when placed center mass. The 5.56 can do it with half the recoil, i.e. 3-4 times in the time it takes to place 2 accurate shots from a battle rifle.

Don't get me wrong, I freaking love my M1A. I use it to take deer in Georgia and TN. But if SHTF it's going in the back seat of my truck and my AR is riding shotgun... My shotgun will be riding somewhere next to the M1A.