Do you consider the .223/5.56 to be a weak or otherwise ineffective cartridge?

[Forte S+W]

So recently it was announced that the United States Military is replacing the 5.56x45 NATO cartridge along with the M4 Carbine in favor of the cutting-edge 6.8x51 Common Cartridge (aka .277 Fury) and SIG MCX Spear.

Ever since then, I've been seeing an increasing spread of the sentiment that the .223/5.56 was always in ineffective cartridge and to a lesser extent that the AR-15 was always an overrated Rifle which was only suitable for use against varmints.

I am puzzled by this because previously both the 5.56 and AR-15 seemed to be universally adored as well as highly praised. So it leaves me wondering whether it was simply well liked in circles I was a part of, if it is simply no longer trendy, or if long-time haters are just coming out of the woodwork to slam the 5.56/AR-15 now that it's being replaced by the military.
Or heck, did I miss some sort of memo about how the firearms community is supposed to band together in an attempt to convince anti-gunners to finally leave the AR-15 alone by pushing the SIG MCX Spear as the heir apparent? Because if so, then I can get behind that, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

So what do you say? Is the .223/5.56 just an overrated varmint cartridge which has absolutely no place whatsoever in the hands of anyone who takes their personal protection seriously?

 

[Crankylove]

Compared to .308, yes it’s weak and underpowered.

Compared to .22 Mag, or my .22 Hornet, it’s a big improvement.

Each cartridge has its place, and that place may differ with each shooter.

 

[44 AMP]

So what do you say? Is the .223/5.56 just an overrated varmint cartridge which has absolutely no place whatsoever in the hands of anyone who takes their personal protection seriously?

When its my personal butt on the line, and I have something to say about what weapon(s) I would choose, then absolutely neither the .223 or the AR would be at the top of my list.

Do understand that its my personal opinion, and is based on both my personal experience with a number of rifles and cartridges, and on the fact that my personal weapons of choice are for me, and need to be as efficient and effective as practically possible for me, as a single individual, who does not have a team, a squad, a platoon, or company to call on for support and back up.

And, that as a private citizen, I don't have access to full auto fire on demand. (or, at all )

Always remember that the military choice of weapons is based not on what protects the individual solider the most, but on what accomplishes the mission.

 

[mehavey]

If you ask the light Infantry troops [including the 75th] over the past
20 years, the M16/M4/5.56 family of rifles/ammunition did just fine in
combat -- where people were actively trying to kill you in every situation
imaginable.

Does recent experience [and technical advance] say it and its ammunition
could now be improved after 58 years in continuous service ?

"Yes"

But I am not a fan of of the high-pressure rifle/complex round they've come up with.
It will prove to be a manufacturing/logistical nightmare.
And wars are fought on logistics.


.

 

[44 AMP]

So it leaves me wondering whether it was simply well liked in circles I was a part of, if it is simply no longer trendy, or if long-time haters are just coming out of the woodwork to slam the 5.56/AR-15 now that it's being replaced by the military.

Some of us never felt the .223/5.56mm and the AR rifle were the best choice, and the recent announcement of it being replaced has no effect on that opinion.

Consider this, your personal experience with the rifle and round is probably after the military has spent the past 50+ years working on refining things and getting the bugs worked out.

Mine is from much earlier, and I have studied the matter from its beginning. Somethings not many people are aware of played hugely important parts in the story that is now history.

Because of the people involved, and their actions, including but not limited to their personal power and influence, what we wound up with wasn't what the original plans called for.

Ironically, in a way, it was the Army decision to drop the M1 carbine that lead to the M16.

When the Army decided to drop the M1 carbine, and its support, it left the Air Force in a pickle. At the time the Air Force got its small arms and support (parts, etc) from the Army. And their main rifle was the M1 carbine.

Gen LeMay needed a replacement for his security forces, and got introduced to Stoner, and his AR design. (in .222 Rem)

He thought it would fill his needs and wanted to buy some. Enter the McNamara defense dept and the "Whiz Kids"...
(skipping a lot of details)

THEY felt the AR would be the "perfect" rifle for ALL services, ALL uses
Army push back created specs that the .222 couldn't meet.
.223 Rem created to meet Army performance specs and work in the AR 15.

M16 becomes primary military service rifle, (like it, or not, make it work!)
And, despite attempts to sabotage it, they did, eventually, make it work.

Many of us have always felt that while there is a valid role for the AR and the 5.56mm round in miliary service, choosing that for line infantry use was ...suboptimal.

Since the replacement is a bigger round in a different rifle, it appears the military has finally decided that.

Time will tell, I suppose...

 

[JohnKSa]

Some clearly do. Some do not. The Russians were impressed enough by its performance in Vietnam that they immediately set about making their own version of it.

I think it's a nifty little cartridge. The only firearm I own in the caliber is a single shot rifle, but it will put 3 rounds into less than half an inch at 100 yards. Not exactly what I'd go with for self-defense.

For self-defense in a long gun, I've chosen a shotgun even though I do have a few semi-auto rifles in calibers that would also be reasonably suitable for the application.

As far as being an effective anti-personnel round, the 5.56 does just fine if you use it as it was originally conceived. The problem with it now is that, in an attempt to deal with hard body armor, it has been modified a lot so that it doesn't act like the original round did. The original 5.56 round, out of a 20" barrel made a real mess of meat and still penetrated pretty well. The new rounds, shot out of much shorter barrels and designed for maximum penetration tend to just make through-and-through wounds that don't have the same explosive terminal effect.

For civilian self-defense where hard body armor is not commonly encountered, I wouldn't hesitate to use it in its original form--a lightweight bullet going around 3200fps.

 

[stagpanther]

If you take away the overhang of its history, development etc and simply judge it for its efficiency, ease of use, portability etc--it is a superlative cartridge. A huge non-voting population 6ft underground would vote no if they could.

 

[rickyrick]

When I was young and inexperienced I would have voted differently.

With age and experience, it is absolutely effective at distances considered to be “self defense” range by civilized society and well beyond.

 

[Don P]

So glad I just invested in an AR-223/556 as folks say they're no good. All personal opinions. As stated previously plenty of folks resting on the mantel in a jar or 6 under would disagree. Personal preference and I would say that there are plenty of folks that would never carry a 22LR for self defense saying its inadequate and I believe more folks have lost their life to the 22LR than any other cartridge in the civilian world. As body armor changes in the scope of things maybe things will progress to the point where we will need a howitzer for personal defense. Again personal preference as to what you feel is good for your personal safety.

 

[rc]

Doesn't the barrel twist and bullet chosen have a lot to do with this? I don't think there is any easy answer.

 

[jmr40]

It is a great choice for close to moderate ranges. It offers a good balance of stopping power, accuracy, manageable recoil, and the amount of ammo a soldier can carry into battle. It has proven to be less effective at longer ranges.

It isn't perfect in every situation, no one cartridge is, but I believe we would have filled far more body bags over the last 50 years had we stayed with the M14 and the 308 cartridge.

Having enough ammo on hand to keep the enemy pinned down long enough for artillery or air strikes is more important than having a cartridge capable of killing a 1000 lb moose at 500 yards.

I'm not opposed to the military ADDING another more powerful, longer-range weapon to our inventory. But I think it is a mistake to issue such a rifle to every soldier.

The new 6.8 cartridge will add power at longer ranges (where they are rarely used) while sacrificing firepower at the ranges where most combat takes place. It will also limit the amount of ammo each soldier can carry into battle while generating more recoil. Exactly the same reasons the 308 was dropped as a general use cartridge.

During WW-2 and Korea units were issued a variety of weapons in different cartridges suitable for different tasks. I still think that is a better approach than trying to issue every soldier the same weapon. I understand that the logistics of supplying different ammo is a concern. But we made it work 75 years ago.

 

[44 AMP]

Exactly the same reasons the 308 was dropped as a general use cartridge.

The .308 was dropped as a general use rifle cartridge because the McNamara Defense Dept so ordered it. Reduced recoil and more rounds carried was their claim to justify the action.

Another gem of an "urban myth" that became embedded and sadly, sometimes even believed was the claim that the small bore round was actually more effective (from a military point of view) because it tended to be less likely to kill and a wounded guy takes 2-3 guys out of action, caring for him and carrying him to medical treatment.

The irony of that argument is that since the adoption of the 5.56mm, nobody we have fought makes caring for the wounding (during combat) the high priority we do.

Looking at the .223 from a varmint cartridge perspective, its pretty good, but not the best. I have, and load for .22 Hornet, 221 Fireball, .222 Rem, .223 Rem, and .22-250.

Using the regular 55gr bullet, the .223 beats the .222 by as much as a couple hundred fps velocity. But, the .22-250 beats the .223 by over 400fps velocity and that, not even at the .22-250s max load levels.

As a military round in an actual assault rifle (a term the US military does not use), the 5.56 and the AR platform have worked with varying degrees of success since the 60s. For a single civilian who doesn't have military level support, I think there are, and always have been, better choices.

 

[rc]

The 223/5.56 is a compromise military round that may work fine inside 300 yards for its intended purpose but the new 6.8 is also a compromise round that may work better beyond 600 yards but at the cost of increasing weight and recoil. I think one of the motivating factors for changing calibers is not range or stopping power but the military trying to get away from lead containing bullets. Lead free 22 rounds are chewing up feed ramps on the ARs because of tungsten tips. The power of the 6.8 will not be needed in most engagements but it may not need the tungsten tips to penetrate armor so service life of the rifles may be better with lead free ammo.

For a civilian who just wants 1 homestead rifle where shots beyond 100 yards and body armor are not a factor i's hard to beat a good 357 magnum lever gun paired with a 357 revolver. 223 has much less shock effect than any of the common magnum revolver rounds fired from a rifle but much better accuracy for varmint hunting at long range.

 

[HiBC]

[QUOTEAs a military round in an actual assault rifle (a term the US military does not use), the 5.56 and the AR platform have worked with varying degrees of success since the 60s. For a single civilian who doesn't have military level support, I think there are, and always have been, better choices.][/QUOTE]

OK. I get the thought process. Several years ago I put together a 30-06 because near all of my centerfires were Wildcats of some kind. My imagination or cravings could always figure that "necked up" or "necked down" or "Ackley Improved" was what I preferred. I said "preferred" rather than "better"

As a Solo Civilian without military support? Well, that is dependent on what scenarios play in my head. We gear for our fear.

As a Solo Civilian, Its a stretch to think of ranges of 4 , 5 ,or 6 hundred yards
in terms of self defense.
Yet recent events in Israel , rumored connections of Hamas to Venezuela,and our uncontrolled border are cause to accept "Anything is possible"

My thoughts lean toward "I'm too old and tired to be a Rambo one man army"

I can think if few SELF DEFENSE scenarios that 223, 30carbine, 300 Blackout would not be adequate. My imagination figures if the the threat is more than 50 or 100 yds, I might be best served by being incognito.

The IDF used to do retty well with Uzis and FALs

The Complete Golfer has a bag full of clubs,from putter to 9 iron to driving woods.

I don't know.Maybe this new 6.8 has potential as a battle round.

Why does my suspicious mind wonder if the REAL motive is to dry up the supply of military 5.56 so the civilian AR-15 will starve?. What good is a 30 round mag if you can only scrounge 9 rounds ?

IMO,the M-4 in 5.56 is a good weapon for most purposes, but the squad needs a couple of DMRS. Guys that aim and hit . Those guys might need 7.62 or 6.5 Manbun or whatever. Different golf club.

Generally,small arms cancel Maneuver by making the immediate battlefield dangerous, but the guy holding his M-4 over his head blindly burning 30 round bursts is mostly making noise and making people duck while the RTO is calling in a fire mission or air strike. The A-10 or 155s etc do most of the killing.
Fire and maneuver still has its applications, when there are no other options.
Then "More ammo" is better.


Not so long ago we all had VHS tapes and DVD players. You can't find a deck to play them in anymore.

 

[Shadow9mm]

Depends on what your trying to do with it, and what your comparing it against. Personally i think 6.8 /277 fury will be a huge flop, chamber pressures are ridiculous, weapon systems are too expensive, recoil is too stout. It does go fast out of a short barrel and punch holes in advanced armor our enemies probably dont actually have though.

 

[rc]

The 308 failed to replace the 30-06 for very long as the primary service round because it was still an overly powerful long range cartridge closely comparable to 30-06. It stayed in service for machine guns because it was always a better performer than 5.56. I personally think 5.56 will remain in use for many decades like the 30 carbine that served our military well after WWII until 5.56 finally caused it to be phased out.

 

[44 AMP]

The .308 was replaced as the service rifle cartridge due to a policy decision from the upper levels of the Defense Dept. The M1 Carbine was slated for retirement from service use well before the .223 was created.

 

[FrankenMauser]

Am not, and never have been, a fan of .223/5.56 for military use.
Did it get the job done? Maybe. Some people and units found it to be effective, while others considered it a liability. That debate will never end.

I won't argue in favor of any other particular cartridge, but...

I have been reminded lately how much weaker 5.56 is than some of its peers.
I have been watching a lot of long-range and practical shooting videos, where the common (but not the only) format is starting at 100 or 150 yd and working out to 900, 1k, 1,300, etc.
By the time these 5.56 shooters get to 400-450 yards with M855 or 855A1, they're barely moving steel plates with impacts that would really knock the target around with 6.5mm cartridges, 7.62x51, x54R, and even x39. And the .223/5.56 impacts often fail to actuate rifle targets - spinners, poppers, resettable targets, rifle dueling trees, etc.

At 700+ yards, the impacts on steel are as hard, if not harder to identify or read, than .22 LR at 400 yards.

The bullet traces really show how much the trajectory differs, as well. Beyond 400-450 yards, those 5.56 bullets come arcing in like a Hail Mary pass dropping from the ski, whereas most other cartridges have just a little arc to the trace.
Though 7.62 NATO is generally not much better for trajectory, it is still better; and there are some specialty loads (like Mk316 and XM118LR) that really show the difference, while still carrying a lot more energy.

Some competition shooters have tried moving to 77-90+ gr bullets for the higher ballistic coefficients and/or energy down range. But the trajectory still gets worse, due to the lower muzzle velocities.

It is just a weak cartridge that can't carry its energy and still just punches little holes at close range.

Good for pests, okay for small deer, bad for stopping enemies.

 

[603Country]

I’m with Frankenmauser on this. The 5.56 wouldn’t be my choice for warfare. I finally quit shooting hogs with it and no way I’m deer hunting with it.

So, what would I want? Small case, so you can carry a bunch. 100 to 120 gr bullet at 2800 fps or more.

 

[Pumpkin]

In my humble opinion,
Not sure 400+ yards are practical ranges for average shooters to make reliable hits on a target no matter the cartridge.
Special equipment and personnel would be the choice in these situations.
Never seen a human unfortunate enough be shot by anything but I have seen the affect of 30 carbine, 357 mag out of a rifle and the 223 55 gr fmj on smaller (60lbs or less) animals at reasonable ranges. The 223 55gr is very destructive, even fmj form.
My brother in law who is a terrible shot (getting better) had never fired an AR-15. His first time using mine at a target, closer range, open sights was eye opening to say the least. He had great results and totally enjoyed it, "never knew those guns could be this much fun".
Likability can equal more practice and better marksmanship, a good result.