Do you consider the .223/5.56 to be a weak or otherwise ineffective cartridge?
- Thread starter Forte S+W
- Start date
I think the nut cases would pile up unarmed victims with just about anything they got their hands on including 5000 pound SUVs. What is ironic is when "experts" start talking up the 5.56 as if it has super powers beyond all normal hunting calibers including the old 30/30. The OPs question is not whether the 5.56 is lethal, the question is whether or not it will put someone down with one shot reliably.
I'm not going to go into great detail as I still have a few depositions on this coming up, but there is a trade-off on everything, and with the .mil, consistency is king, and that caters to the lowest common denominator.
It is VERY unlikely the the .277 Fury will make into the hands of the average Joe. SF types first, DMRs certainly, Light machine guns, sure. Common Infantry, nope. Son is in the Honor Guard and was working funerals last week. His partner forgot his overcoat, so, in deference to consistency, neither could wear their overcoats in the snow. It is the way it is. The M4 is light, simple and shootable by 90 pounders to 220 pounders with the flick of the stock.
I have several friends who have been allowed to shoot the Fury's, I have a few cases on my desk. These are highly skilled marksmen, and they report stout recoil, charging, etc. One felt it was more difficult to charge and shoot than his .308 gas gun.
An experts gun is not always suitable for the common person. The .223 AR15 is an equalizer in that the relatively frail can shoot it reasonably well, and longer, than almost anything else available. I can shoot my 5, 6 and 7 pound ARs faster (with the same accuracy) than anything else I own. I can beat my 9mm carbines and pistols with a .223 on almost any drill you toss at me. That is going to be the same for any skilled to proficient to novice shooter.
It is VERY unlikely the the .277 Fury will make into the hands of the average Joe. SF types first, DMRs certainly, Light machine guns, sure. Common Infantry, nope. Son is in the Honor Guard and was working funerals last week. His partner forgot his overcoat, so, in deference to consistency, neither could wear their overcoats in the snow. It is the way it is. The M4 is light, simple and shootable by 90 pounders to 220 pounders with the flick of the stock.
I have several friends who have been allowed to shoot the Fury's, I have a few cases on my desk. These are highly skilled marksmen, and they report stout recoil, charging, etc. One felt it was more difficult to charge and shoot than his .308 gas gun.
An experts gun is not always suitable for the common person. The .223 AR15 is an equalizer in that the relatively frail can shoot it reasonably well, and longer, than almost anything else available. I can shoot my 5, 6 and 7 pound ARs faster (with the same accuracy) than anything else I own. I can beat my 9mm carbines and pistols with a .223 on almost any drill you toss at me. That is going to be the same for any skilled to proficient to novice shooter.
Ignition Override
New member
Can't address the OP's question, having never served in infantry etc, or as an LEO.
But If I somehow owned a large ranch near the TX border, (I've never owned "open land") the choices of chamberings for feral animals or feral People might be interesting?
The decision(s) could be influenced by 100-300 yard distances? For this, maybe a .308 vs. a .223 rifle? I don't know....You ranch guys --anywhere --must have interesting debates about this.
My brother-in-law's old friend (former Army brats) with a horse ranch on the AZ border saw several large SUVs
Trespass in the distance, probably moving drugs over the border.
Does the penetrability of trucks influence anybody's decision?
But If I somehow owned a large ranch near the TX border, (I've never owned "open land") the choices of chamberings for feral animals or feral People might be interesting?
The decision(s) could be influenced by 100-300 yard distances? For this, maybe a .308 vs. a .223 rifle? I don't know....You ranch guys --anywhere --must have interesting debates about this.
My brother-in-law's old friend (former Army brats) with a horse ranch on the AZ border saw several large SUVs
Trespass in the distance, probably moving drugs over the border.Does the penetrability of trucks influence anybody's decision?
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
So are the millions killed with .22 lr and they are all still very dead. Funny thing about being dead for a while is that after a given point, ain't nobody coming back, whether they were killed with a nuclear bomb or killed with a virus.
All those millions killed with .223/5.56, what was the efficiency of the cartridge? How many hits did it take to effect kills on average?
Governments are most efficient at killing, they’ve had millennia to perfect it.
Fact is, the state of the art has so far rested on the 5.56 and similarly performing cartridges as the most efficient individual cartridge from a government perspective taking in account all aspects of battlefield variables. Many non-military government entities use the cartridges fairly effectively also. The fact that we are now taking ridiculous steps to replace the cartridge hints at the effectiveness of these small caliber intermediate cartridges. It takes the .277 fury to even make the attempt; and as of now, it is only going to augment the 5.56… if it makes the Final Cut.
Fact is, the state of the art has so far rested on the 5.56 and similarly performing cartridges as the most efficient individual cartridge from a government perspective taking in account all aspects of battlefield variables. Many non-military government entities use the cartridges fairly effectively also. The fact that we are now taking ridiculous steps to replace the cartridge hints at the effectiveness of these small caliber intermediate cartridges. It takes the .277 fury to even make the attempt; and as of now, it is only going to augment the 5.56… if it makes the Final Cut.
Military arms are made with the idea that they will be usable (not ideal) for everyone from the small through the tall.
Before you decide that a small light rifle and round is a must because of smaller size soldiers, remember that size is no guarantor of ability or willpower.
I've seen smaller guys (120 and less) humping 18lb BARs and keeping up with everyone else. They had to work harder, but they did it.
This is the OP's question, and its asking an opinion, about PERSONAL protection. Not military performance, good or bad.
I think I take my personal protection seriously, and for me, there is NO .22 cal cartridge that would be my first choice. If the .223 was my only choice, I'd sure use it, but it wouldn't be my preferred choice, not by a long shot.
Before you decide that a small light rifle and round is a must because of smaller size soldiers, remember that size is no guarantor of ability or willpower.
I've seen smaller guys (120 and less) humping 18lb BARs and keeping up with everyone else. They had to work harder, but they did it.
This is the OP's question, and its asking an opinion, about PERSONAL protection. Not military performance, good or bad.
I think I take my personal protection seriously, and for me, there is NO .22 cal cartridge that would be my first choice. If the .223 was my only choice, I'd sure use it, but it wouldn't be my preferred choice, not by a long shot.
Enjoy reading the comments on this cartridge. My expectations may be a bit different from some others. Here is why I chose the 5.56 and 7.62 x 39 as my intermediate cartridges of choice:
- I am not going to war with it
- I don't hunt with it
- the 5.56 makes a sound that I enjoy (POP) with hearing protection of course
- the 7.62 x 39 makes a sound that I enjoy (BOOM) again, hearing protection
- both are usually quite available and affordable compared to just about any other caliber
- have found the AR to be interesting and enjoyable at the range
- have found the SKS / AK to be the same (even though quite different)
Your mileage may vary, and almost certainly will
- I am not going to war with it
- I don't hunt with it
- the 5.56 makes a sound that I enjoy (POP) with hearing protection of course
- the 7.62 x 39 makes a sound that I enjoy (BOOM) again, hearing protection
- both are usually quite available and affordable compared to just about any other caliber
- have found the AR to be interesting and enjoyable at the range
- have found the SKS / AK to be the same (even though quite different)
Your mileage may vary, and almost certainly will
The 5.56/M16/M4 family of ammunition/weapons does exactly what it intended to do:
Maximize mid-range battlefield/close-quarters combat lethality
Maximize combat load-out/rounds for the soldier.
Maximize accuracy in a combat environment
Minimize combat load weight for same.
War has now (to some extent) changed w/ the introduction of light-weight body armor.
The weapons system will also change to accommodate.
But outside of that, the 5.56/M16/M4 family is as effective as ever.
Maximize mid-range battlefield/close-quarters combat lethality
Maximize combat load-out/rounds for the soldier.
Maximize accuracy in a combat environment
Minimize combat load weight for same.
War has now (to some extent) changed w/ the introduction of light-weight body armor.
The weapons system will also change to accommodate.
But outside of that, the 5.56/M16/M4 family is as effective as ever.
Double Naught Spy said:
I would presume that it's the same as other round in that regard, with 1 shot to the head or 1 shot to the big toe being more or less equally effective.
Based on what I've read, it seems like all the number of shots indicates is how many times the shooter missed the vitals before he finally landed a critical hit.
Ahhhh.... What?
Exactly which wars were "millions" killed with 22 Long Rifles?
Step away from the key board. Go do some shooting.
He didn't say killed in war. I believe it was merely a restatement of the idea that it doesn't matter what people get killed with, they are still dead.
I'd venture to say millions of people were killed by 500lb bombs during the Second World Wat. That hardly makes it a suitable self defense weapon.
And that's what the OP was talking about, whether or not you or I consider the 5.56mm round suitable/adequate, for our own personal defense, or not.
Not whether or not the 556 has performed well in military combat.
ONE hit with ANYTHING is a far cry better than any number of misses.
Your point is????
Double Naught Spy
New member
You are on the right track, but not there yet. Yes, you can scramble a person's brain with a long needle, or shoot it with a .177 pellet air rifle or .50 BMG. So, would you consider these to be equally lethal? The needle probably won't take of your big toe, and the .177 pellet probably won't either, but the .50 BMG could take that sucker right off. They are not equally effective. You might survive getting poked with a needle in the brain. You might survive a .177 pellet to the brain as well. I would not give you very good odds on surviving a .50 BMG to the brain.
The number of shots may or may not have to do with missing the vitals, but also in the ability of the shots to reach the vitals. Larger and more powerful calibers have the potential to create larger and more damaging wound channels than smaller and weaker calibers. The larger the size of the wound channel, the more likely it is to involve more of those vital you mentioned. With the advancement of medical science, in many cases people dying of wounds 20 years ago are surviving them today, but people were surviving wound 20 years ago that people weren't surviving 40 years ago, despite being shot in their vitals.
Here is a neat study on the lethality by caliber groups that appeared in JAMA based on criminal assaults. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536
This was one of their findings...
And the group of guns that did best in surviving? Those shot with the less powerful calibers such as .22lr, .25, and .32. (called small caliber in the study).
Here is a nifty study on .22 shots to the brain. A surprising number survived. Reaching the brain and penetrating into it isn't necessarily enough for death.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3311325/
So in the real world, caliber size/power and effectiveness do have some correlation and as indicated, the greater the disparity in caliber size/power then the greater the disparity in terminal efficiency.
somewhere in these two threads that are going along it was stated that it took an average of 8 rounds to stop an enemy combatant with 5.56. Part of my belief is that if young soldiers were armed with a light carbine firing 7.62 NATO there might be a lot more misses all else being equal.
It is also known that most soldiers aren’t high-speed-low-drag door-kickers with stylish beards, basket-ball sized biceps and sunglasses as pop-culture would have people to believe; most soldiers are scared, skinny teenagers who just touched a rifle a few weeks or months prior to deployment.
Anyway, controllability of the weapon is just one of the factors taken into consideration for governmental entities when they choose these 22ish caliber intermediate cartridges. We’ve discussed all the other factors that has resulted in the widespread use of the cartridge. It’s a hard cartridge to find a suitable replacement for.
There are a lot better performing cartridges out there, but there are always trade-offs. The great killing enterprises around the world have settled on the 5.56 as the basic individual weapon or something very similar after millennia of experience in killing; until the appearance of lightweight effective body armor on the battlefield it did a decent enough job. Now it’s requiring what I consider to be a massive leap forward to replace 5.56 with something that can defeat body armor while retaining the other desirable qualities such as: physical size and weight of the cartridge/weapon.
If size and weight of the cartridge didn’t matter in war, we could simply just revert back to 30.06… but we know it’s not that simple.
In short, the cartridge worked well enough for nearly 60 years, a very long time in US history. Body armor is a new thing on the battlefield.