Sounds a lot like 6mm arc....
Do you consider the .223/5.56 to be a weak or otherwise ineffective cartridge?
- Thread starter Forte S+W
- Start date
If the spirit of the post is the effectiveness of the cartridge at self defense range, then you cannot discount the cartridge for that purpose; I think it is a disservice to do so.
If we are talking hunting beyond 100m, those wearing armor or opposing organized military groups, then of course there are numerous cartridges that will perform better and a few that are worse.
If we are talking hunting beyond 100m, those wearing armor or opposing organized military groups, then of course there are numerous cartridges that will perform better and a few that are worse.
Adventurer 2
New member
As a former Lightfighter who has had to carry 1000s of rounds in a large ruck -- i would not want a larger round. If i were faced with a large number of assailants -- i would want an AR-15 (force multiplier). I'm not a fan of the full metal jacket round the military uses (can be a pencil hole puncher). Use a soft point round and the AR-15 will be the weapon is should be. Wasn't a fan of the M-16A1 because the one i was issued was beat to hell. Received a brand new never used M-16A2 and that rifle could shoot lights out. Was replaced in 1998 with the M-4 - liked lighter but not a fan of the shorter barrel -- the A2 shot with greater velocity and accuracy. I understand the advantage of the more compact M-4 for urban combat.
I do wonder why the focus on the .223's performance (and lack of) at long range. No, its not great at 5,6,7,8, 900 yards and beyond. It wasn't made to be. Why is this even brought up??
I was in the Army in the 70s, M16A1 and 55gr (M193) ammo. The Army said max effective range was 460 meters. We shot targets to 300 meters.
There was no DMR (rifle, round or personnel) in regular units at that time. IF infantry needed to put fire on something farther away, that's what "the pig" (M60) was for. IF that wasn't enough, you called in arty or air.
If you were tracked inf, you had Ma Deuce available, as well as air and arty.
The M16 didn't need to be any more than what it was, a 300m rifle with SMG capacity firepower.
oldmanFCSA
New member
Any cartridge relies upon BULLET PLACEMENT on target.
As I understand it, the issue isn't penetration at greater distances - US military doctrine and actual combat engagement distances haven't changed. What has changed is China and China is working hard to equip their soldiers with Star Wars Stormtrooper - style body armor.
I.e. the 6.8 is not because the US wants to drop jihadis at longer distances, rather it is the reality of a new military peer - China.
Russia, with it's $1.8 trillion GDP is no match for the $27 trillion US or the $18 trillion Chinese. US military planners do not worry about Russia - the Ukraine war has shown us they are a paper tiger (~120,000 Russian troops dead in 18 months). The planners are preparing for the future where the much higher power level of the 6.8 will be necessary against a new peer - China.
Regarding the 5.56: it was the right cartridge at the right time which is why it has been the longest serving infantry round.
I.e. the 6.8 is not because the US wants to drop jihadis at longer distances, rather it is the reality of a new military peer - China.
Russia, with it's $1.8 trillion GDP is no match for the $27 trillion US or the $18 trillion Chinese. US military planners do not worry about Russia - the Ukraine war has shown us they are a paper tiger (~120,000 Russian troops dead in 18 months). The planners are preparing for the future where the much higher power level of the 6.8 will be necessary against a new peer - China.
Regarding the 5.56: it was the right cartridge at the right time which is why it has been the longest serving infantry round.
bamaranger
New member
.223
As a military cartridge, I am of the opinion it is a bit weak. The change in the 5.56mm projectile over the years to add range and penetration I think is indicative of the same stance by the military, as well as the supposed upcoming change.
I have read accounts of engagements in the mountains of the middle east where the 5.56 mm just did not have the reach. I have also read of the lack of stopping power of green tip ammo in Somalia where distances were short. A military cartridge needs the ability to penetrate barriers, web gear, perhaps even multiple advesaries, yet still incapacitate up close....a tall order.
That said, under 300 yds, with expanding ammo, I think it is an ideal LE and SD cartridge
As a military cartridge, I am of the opinion it is a bit weak. The change in the 5.56mm projectile over the years to add range and penetration I think is indicative of the same stance by the military, as well as the supposed upcoming change.
I have read accounts of engagements in the mountains of the middle east where the 5.56 mm just did not have the reach. I have also read of the lack of stopping power of green tip ammo in Somalia where distances were short. A military cartridge needs the ability to penetrate barriers, web gear, perhaps even multiple advesaries, yet still incapacitate up close....a tall order.
That said, under 300 yds, with expanding ammo, I think it is an ideal LE and SD cartridge
The history of the choice to go to 5.56 really soured me, not to mention it's basically a .22 caliber bullet.
After WWII it was realized an intermediate caliber would be the most practical type of small arm munition. The U.S. had been offered the .276 Pedersen, the Germans developed the 7.92 Kurz, the Brits came out with their .280 British, etc., etc.
The U.S. rejected all these offerings citing the lack of power, adopted the 7.62x51 NATO round which effectively duplicated the performance of the .30-06 Springfield, then created and adopted the 5.56 and forced it down NATO's throat.
I mean talk about wishy washy. Either way, there are much better performers out there that will fit into an AR platform with little modifications required. This also I find trivial as we somehow have to "stick" with the AR platform. Consider the switch from the 1903 to the Garand, from the Garand to the M-14, the M-14 to the M-16. It's been done before, but somehow it can't be done now. Cost and muscle memory are always the excuses I hear about switching small arms and caliber. Considering how much and F-22 or F-35 costs I call B.S. on all that, and how much muscle memory retention is considered in switching from an F-16 or F-15 to a F-22 or F-35, that excuse is bunk too.
So, is the 5.56 weak or ineffective? No. Are there better intermediate caliber options out there that have more power and range? Yes.
After WWII it was realized an intermediate caliber would be the most practical type of small arm munition. The U.S. had been offered the .276 Pedersen, the Germans developed the 7.92 Kurz, the Brits came out with their .280 British, etc., etc.
The U.S. rejected all these offerings citing the lack of power, adopted the 7.62x51 NATO round which effectively duplicated the performance of the .30-06 Springfield, then created and adopted the 5.56 and forced it down NATO's throat.
I mean talk about wishy washy. Either way, there are much better performers out there that will fit into an AR platform with little modifications required. This also I find trivial as we somehow have to "stick" with the AR platform. Consider the switch from the 1903 to the Garand, from the Garand to the M-14, the M-14 to the M-16. It's been done before, but somehow it can't be done now. Cost and muscle memory are always the excuses I hear about switching small arms and caliber. Considering how much and F-22 or F-35 costs I call B.S. on all that, and how much muscle memory retention is considered in switching from an F-16 or F-15 to a F-22 or F-35, that excuse is bunk too.
So, is the 5.56 weak or ineffective? No. Are there better intermediate caliber options out there that have more power and range? Yes.
FrankenMauser
New member
The Joint Service Weapons Board-Integrated Product Team said it themselves in 2006.
It wasn't meant to be a treatise on the overall effectiveness of the cartridge, just a point of observation prompted by my recent interests, with some relevance to the subject.
But, I'll lightly touch the point real quick:
Long range engagements seem to have been uncommon in Iraq - with some studies suggesting 20-30 meters being average. (From what I saw [2002-2007], I believe it.)
It was, however, a major issue in Afghanistan, where 50% or more of the engagements were 300+ meters. That is why there was a sudden, urgent need to return a bunch of M14s (and M21s and M25s) to DMR roles in the early years of the GWOT. (Again, I was there [2002-2004]. Close quarters engagements were rare outside of villages, and I don't think I was ever shot at from less than 700 yards.)
From an analysis published in 2016 (J. A. Wesolowski):
In fairness, the JSWB-IPT report does say the same thing: Bullet placement is more critical than any other factor, for taking an enemy out of the fight (not requiring lethality).
Now, if we weren't using FMJs, my opinion would be a little different. But as long as the US military is sticking with FMJs as the standard bullet type, I consider 5.56x45 to be inappropriate.
Need bigger boolit.
The best performing systems emphasizing tissue damage, on the average, in this study were of larger caliber than 5.56 mm.
(After all of their study and analysis, they came to the same conclusions as previous teams had in 1952, 1958, 1963, 1968, 1993, and later.)Because that is what I have been watching.
It wasn't meant to be a treatise on the overall effectiveness of the cartridge, just a point of observation prompted by my recent interests, with some relevance to the subject.
But, I'll lightly touch the point real quick:
Long range engagements seem to have been uncommon in Iraq - with some studies suggesting 20-30 meters being average. (From what I saw [2002-2007], I believe it.)
It was, however, a major issue in Afghanistan, where 50% or more of the engagements were 300+ meters. That is why there was a sudden, urgent need to return a bunch of M14s (and M21s and M25s) to DMR roles in the early years of the GWOT. (Again, I was there [2002-2004]. Close quarters engagements were rare outside of villages, and I don't think I was ever shot at from less than 700 yards.)
From an analysis published in 2016 (J. A. Wesolowski):
(...) enemy combatants appear to have discovered a “zone” of operation that is within the maximum effective range of their 7.62 mm weapons but outside the maximum effectiveness of the US’s 5.56 mm weapons (Ehrhart, 2009).
The enemy combatants then implemented doctrine to stay outside of the effective range of the 5.56 mm M4 whilst remaining inside the capabilities range of their own weapons, namely rifles of caliber 7.62x39 mm and 7.62x54 mm.
Actual ranges are not mentioned specifically in reference to the above, but are discussed earlier in the analysis and inferred to be approximately 400-900 meters.The enemy combatants then implemented doctrine to stay outside of the effective range of the 5.56 mm M4 whilst remaining inside the capabilities range of their own weapons, namely rifles of caliber 7.62x39 mm and 7.62x54 mm.
And a bigger bullet makes a bigger hole in that place on the target.
In fairness, the JSWB-IPT report does say the same thing: Bullet placement is more critical than any other factor, for taking an enemy out of the fight (not requiring lethality).
Now, if we weren't using FMJs, my opinion would be a little different. But as long as the US military is sticking with FMJs as the standard bullet type, I consider 5.56x45 to be inappropriate.
Need bigger boolit.
Mongo_Bongo
New member
I was in the weeds from '69 until early '70. It worked fine.
Everyone has their own opinion of what the "right" round is, and some even think there is no one "right" round for everything.
I don't think the 5.56 was the right round, but top brass did, and we made it work acceptably well, eventually.
I don't think it has been our longest serving infantry round because of how well it works, but simply because none of the alternatives have shown themselves to be enough better to overcome institutional inertia, and the cost (and bad feelings) of making a change not universally believed to be necessary.
Always remember that changing the small arms calibers and the arms themselves is not JUST a military decision, it is also a political decision, and economics figures into the political side as much or more than the military side.
5 1/2 years 11B in Bco 2nd Plt 1/75th at HAAF
Went to Selection and took a long walk
21 years 18 series with 4 tours in Afghanistan
We averaged 8 round to get an immediate stop in the house that first tour. 77 grain went a long way to correcting that. The short range of 5.56mm was frustrating and detrimental in combat. Weak penetration against threat body armor.
Personal Home defense is not the same animal. For the experienced, a shotgun with 00 buck beats an AR15 IMHO. A lightweight rifle with 30 rounds that is reasonably easy to operate and much lighter recoil is not far behind. It is a very good option. My wife will grab her AR15 before she will grab a 12 gauge. Just make sure you are not using 55 grain out of barrel less than 16 inches at CQB distances and you will be fine.
armoredman
New member
i have what I have, I'll use what I have - at this point in time, I think it's too late to completely switch over a rifle and caliber, especially one with limited availability. The only one I would consider is 6.5 Grendel, as I have all the reloading items for it. But brass is hard to come by, loaded ammo is expensive and difficult to find locally. I think my lowly Frankengun of an AR will do the job I ask of it, which is within 300 yards, (probably within 50 yards, most likely!), and with a common round that is easy to find/load for.
I'm not Rambo - I'm a tired fat old man and I'll be stubborn and stay with what I know.
I'm not Rambo - I'm a tired fat old man and I'll be stubborn and stay with what I know.
Guilty. I've seen a few Muj drop DRT with a few rounds of m855 center mass. I also share frankenmausers view that the round is far less viable from "mountain to mountain" distances observed in Afghanistan. My few engagements there did show me that M4s were at least as effective as AKs were at 500 yards. M240Gs and knee mortars reigned Supreme in those engagements.
I'm gonna read up on the Chinese body armor angle. I DO think we can do better than 5.56. Heck I think 6×45 would be a worthwhile improvement.
stagpanther
New member
If the OP actually anticipates battlefield engagements--then by all means get an upgrade to 5.56--but also make sure you have high density body armor, night vision optics...a spare Abrams tank and F-15 would be a good ideas as well just in case the need arises.
FrankenMauser
New member
I agree. I have plenty of ARs and they work well enough within the intended applications.
For most of us, especially inside 300 yards, .223/5.56 will do plenty.
But stretching the distance in a battlefield engagement begins to show its weaknesses against targets larger than a coyote. Or, where I want to shoot long range with obvious target impacts and the flattest reasonable trajectory, it really falls on its face.
Having a 6x45mm in my AR assortment, I'd have to suggest a shorter and maybe fatter case body. Something like 6x42mm, or even 6x40mm. Otherwise, you're stuck with sucky bullets. 6x45mm is really restricted by the AR-15/M16 magazine COAL limit. Makes it really difficult to use 80+ gr bullets, and even more difficult to use 85+ gr bullets with a decent (not even "good") ballistic coefficient.
Or, just bump the mag well length and use a new magazine that can handle a longer COAL. (I think 2.380" would be enough to make a big difference, but 2.500" allowance would be great.)