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

[stagpanther]

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.

Though I never served--this is pretty much how I see things. Excellent job of bracketing the various concerns.

the only thing I would add to this is that the OP mentioned the use as "personal protection"--which I assume means civilian use in a non-combat civilian mode. There are other potentially legal limitations to think about.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Body armor is a new thing on the battlefield.

Which was one of the stated reasons for going to a more powerful cartridge by the military. Sometimes, they use the word armor. https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=602725&highlight=military+replace+56 Sometimes they use the words 'hardned target' and sometimes battlefield barriers. Anyway you split it, more and more lesser countries are moving to body armor and the potential for doing battle more regularly with armored folks is going up. Given Putin's repeated threats, the possibility has gone up for conflict with Russia and/or China, why would we support their armor?

In 2021, literally days after the war in the Ukraine started, the US moved to decertify Russian, China, and Venezuelan body armor from NIJ certification. You have Russia that has invaded Ukraine being decertified. China that is supporting Russia being decertified. Then you have Venezuela. Venezuela appears to be listed, in part, after they banned all the import of battlefield PPE (gas masks, body armor, etc.) 4 years prior.

Why? Did the US make this move? 4 reason listed include "protecting the homeland, promoting American prosperity, preserving peace through strength, and promoting an advance of American influence." https://www.bodyarmornews.com/certi...-russia-and-venezuela-inactivated-by-nij-ctp/ In other words, we did it to protect us, to protect American financial interests in this area, trying to weaken our opposition non violently, so that we have better control over the armor market and our influence in it.

Of course this move didn't happen that quickly just in response to the war. It was in process, but then again so too were hostilities and we observed everything and so shortly after the war started we moved to hurt their body armor industries economically.

 

[rickyrick]

"personal protection"

I fully advocate the use of .223 variants for civilian protection. It is effective at distances that would qualify as self defense.

DNS,
That was an interesting read, I really wasn’t aware that Russians and Chinese were even concerned with body armor, I just know that it’s use on the battlefield is a recent development, even for US forces. I haven’t payed much attention to it in recent years.

 

[44 AMP]

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.

I did read that. It was an observation from someone who was doing the "houseclearing" work in the "sandbox" wars. Sounds terrible, and if true, is, but missing details can change the implied by a huge amount.

The biggest missing details are first, the number is an average, but even more important, the number is NOT what it took to stop bad guys, its what was USED. An average of what was used.

How likely might it be that the first, second, or third shots were the "stoppers" and the rest of the average of 8 were pumped into the bad guy before or as they fell down? We don't know. The guys shooting don't know. All they can know is that what they did, worked. EVERYTHING else is just guesswork, unless there is some level of repeatable testing, tht asccurately reproduces the conditions they were in, and that's just something that is not possible.

I don't doubt that if those guys had been using 12ga shotguns, the average round count to stop a bad guy would be much lower. But again, it wouldn't tell you how much it actually TOOK, only what was USED.

As one comic put it, "I don't know how many bouncers it takes to throw me out of a bar, but they USED six!!"

Body armor is a new thing on the battlefield.

Not hardly. Body armor is one of the oldest things on the battlefield, predating firearms by millennia.

I really wasn’t aware that Russians and Chinese were even concerned with body armor, I just know that it’s use on the battlefield is a recent development, even for US forces.

Again, not hardly. Flak jackets are body armor, helmets are head armor, there all kinds of body armor with varying levels of protection. Body armor of some kind has been in use since the days of swords and spears.

The stated reason we have the SS109/M855 5.56mm rounds is because of Soviet body armor, or, more correctly the concern about it. That steel penetrator core was created to defeat the body armor we expected Warsaw Pact forces to wear back in the 1980s.

Its not a new thing. The new developments are, the concept is ancient. The "gun vs. armor" race has been going since the beginning. Before there were guns, there were arrows, etc. Since we developed guns, the race picked up speed, though there have been long periods where one side had a clear advantage, it has always been a matter of back and forth.

one side creates an advantage through some technical advance, the other side eventually comes up with a counter, and then the cycle begins again.

There is no such thing as "bullet proof" in the long run. When something is, it is temporary, because someone always comes up with a better (usually bigger) "bullet" that will penetrate.

Its always a balancing act, between all the different factors in warfare, the main ones are gun, armor, and mobility. After that comes a host of others, including cost, supply, effectiveness, and many, many others.

Changes in tech result in changes in tactics, which results in more changes in tech, etc., etc,.

There's no free lunch.

 

[5whiskey]

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.

Rick, very well laid out. On the "8 rounds to stop" issue, I will add that this is not the same experience observed by many others, nor have I found any official research stating this. I'll say no more about the "average 8 rounds" we've argued that ad nauseum at this point.

One point on body armor. We've had SAPI plates that can stop M61 (7.62 AP rounds) for years now. Since at least 2006 as I was issued them then. I fail to see how any cartridge that can check all the many logistical tradeoff boxes we have noted in these threads that will outperform M61 in penetrating armor. Other than the new combloc axis may not bother fielding anything near the level 4 hard armor that we issue, I think expecting a round with a desirable capacity/weight ratio to defeat body armor that stops m855 (or m61) isn't realistic. Or maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[stuckinthe60s]

murphies law #13: 'your gun was built by the lowest bidder.'

 

[stuckinthe60s]

the vc didn't call it black death for nothing...............

 

[rickyrick]

Since at least 2006 as I was issued them then.

I guess I’m aging now, 2006 seems a relatively short time ago to me and I seem to forget that this was 17 years ago. Ironically, the first time that I was ever issued plate carriers was in 2006 as a civilian contractor. I contracted in Iraq from 2006-2008, I had gotten out of the army a couple of years prior.

 

[Forte S+W]

In regards to the whole "8 shot average" observation, I would be curious to know whether the M4s used were set to Burst, Auto, or Semi in these observations, because the cyclic rate on an M4 is rather high and therefore if set to Auto then wouldn't those eight rounds come out with a simple press of the trigger or two? And therefore, wouldn't saying that 5.56 is ineffective because it took eight rounds be a lot like saying that 000 Buckshot is ineffective because it takes 9-12 pellets to stop a threat? I mean, how can you know that it took all eight if that's merely the amount that was fired in a mere press of the trigger?

 

[tangolima]

In regards to the whole "8 shot average" observation, I would be curious to know whether the M4s used were set to Burst, Auto, or Semi in these observations, because the cyclic rate on an M4 is rather high and therefore if set to Auto then wouldn't those eight rounds come out with a simple press of the trigger or two? And therefore, wouldn't saying that 5.56 is ineffective because it took eight rounds be a lot like saying that 000 Buckshot is ineffective because it takes 9-12 pellets to stop a threat? I mean, how can you know that it took all eight if that's merely the amount that was fired in a mere press of the trigger?

The man said it was semi auto. They counted the holes on the body after action. They shot to totally "deactivate" so that the enemy instantly losed ability to fight back. I wouldn't be surprised they tended to over do it, especially given this stigma of 5.56. Note that 8 is the average. Probably 50% they have more than 8.

It is alarmingly high. Interestingly the man also said they seldomly needed more than one 7.62 NATO round to achieve the same result.

To be honest, I'm skeptical of those figures; one is too high and the other one is too low.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Interestingly the man also said they seldomly needed more than one 7.62 NATO round to achieve the same result.

They gave the 7.62 guns to the guys that could shoot better (to make the longer shots when needed).

 

[tangolima]

They were clearing rooms. No long shots.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[44 AMP]

somewhere I remember someone stating that "the plural of anecdotes is not "Facts"

 

[5whiskey]

somewhere I remember someone stating that "the plural of anecdotes is not "Facts"

^facts. Although the "8 rounds average" was apparently a study done by a unit (not released to the public today I assume? I've looked and haven't found it). Of note I did find several research sources that did not list any average for incapacitating combatants with 5.56, but most referred to double taps as resolving most CQB performance issues. Most actual research focuses more on the ineffective terminal ballistics at 300+ yards. Even then, as all of these studies had to rely on reports from grunts, they're still a "plural of anecdotes."

As a side note, I can attest that double taps have been incorporated in CQB training since I joined in March 2003. At living room distance, where threats are greater due to proximity, I would argue this as logical with most weapons platforms short of 12 Guage or heavy rifle. Even then, 12 Guage doesn't defeat soft armor. Might make you wish it would have for a little while, but it's survivable.

I guess I’m aging now, 2006 seems a relatively short time ago to me and I seem to forget that this was 17 years ago. Ironically, the first time that I was ever issued plate carriers was in 2006 as a civilian contractor. I contracted in Iraq from 2006-2008, I had gotten out of the army a couple of years prior.

I actually had plates in 2003, but they weren't rated to stop AP rounds.

 

[davidsog]

Although the "8 rounds average" was apparently a study done by a unit

"Young Soldiers"...Okay, Hotrod. Average for the force was Eight Years Regular Army Combat arms experience before attending selection. Average age at Selection was 29 years and average age on the teams is 34 years old. You are thinking of the Regular Army filled with 19 year old kids. The teams are a bunch of "Old Men" in terms of military experience.

It was not a study, it was experienced. It is why we emptied EUCOM and CONUS of 77 grain ammunition in 2001.

Aberdeen conducted a study based on our experience. Double tapping as a training tool for the Regular Army was implemented until a better solution could be found. We were the only ones in the Army inventory that trained to double tap before that studies conclusions. The Regular Army trained "one target, one bullet" before Aberdeen changed the doctrine.

6.8 Fury is the result of that search for a better solution.

 

[JohnKSa]

Aberdeen conducted a study based on our experience.

Any chance that it's available to the general public?

 

[mehavey]

Googling < army combat double tap study > produced results that would call the practice "confused & troubling" -- a lot of which could depend on how the term was parsed when described.

> However, the practice of automatic, indiscriminate attacks on downed
> enemies to include a technique or standard procedure of firing “security
> rounds,” “double-taps,” or “death checks,” is unlawful.
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/down-not-always-out-hors-de-combat-close-fight/

Again, the definition of "double tapping" is critical:
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6176&context=wvlr

In fact "double-tapping" as apparently meant in the above conversation being that of a rapid pair of shots (as opposed to spaced/"insurance" shots on an adversary already going down) was largely dismissed in favor of conclusion that:
>
> "Double taps and pairs do not work and is not a natural reaction when
> shooting a threat. What does work? Multiple strings of fire, shot into the
> torso, driving the threat down to the ground."
https://primaryandsecondary.com/met...double-taps-and-head-shots-will-let-you-down/
>
> Around 2006ish in SF, the engagement count in training was bumped up
> from double taps to five round strings. Why five round strings? Well ammo
> consumption is a factor but, shooting five round strings is a good enough
> amount to allow for practice of managing recoil of a large string of fire on
> a target. Sure, under stress plenty of soldiers and LEOs are pumping even
> larger strings into threats. But five rounds is a good balance

Note that this practice would also support the anecdotal feedback that "eight rounds" were req'd to take the enemy down.

I, too, would be interested in any Army study that countered this position,

 

[tangolima]

Googling < army combat double tap study > produced results that would call the practice "confused & troubling" -- a lot of which could depend on how the term was parsed when described.



> However, the practice of automatic, indiscriminate attacks on downed

> enemies to include a technique or standard procedure of firing “security

> rounds,” “double-taps,” or “death checks,” is unlawful.

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/down-not-always-out-hors-de-combat-close-fight/



Again, the definition of "double tapping" is critical:

https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6176&context=wvlr



In fact "double-tapping" as apparently meant in the above conversation being that of a rapid pair of shots (as opposed to spaced/"insurance" shots on an adversary already going down) was largely dismissed in favor of conclusion that:

>

> "Double taps and pairs do not work and is not a natural reaction when

> shooting a threat. What does work? Multiple strings of fire, shot into the

> torso, driving the threat down to the ground."

https://primaryandsecondary.com/met...double-taps-and-head-shots-will-let-you-down/

>

> Around 2006ish in SF, the engagement count in training was bumped up

> from double taps to five round strings. Why five round strings? Well ammo

> consumption is a factor but, shooting five round strings is a good enough

> amount to allow for practice of managing recoil of a large string of fire on

> a target. Sure, under stress plenty of soldiers and LEOs are pumping even

> larger strings into threats. But five rounds is a good balance



Note that this practice would also support the anecdotal feedback that "eight rounds" were req'd to take the enemy down.



I, too, would be interested in any Army study that countered this position,

Agree. I don't think one would fire a double tap and wait to see whether the adversary stops moving. He just fires several double taps, or string, anyway. The real "average" may well be lower than 8. Note that 8 is just average. That means the max is higher, probably 10 or 12. That's close to half a mag.

-TL



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[davidsog]

You guys seem to be confusing Double Tapping as a tactic with Double Tapping as a sighting method when shooting.

In CQB tactics Sighting Methods when Shooting:

Definition of a single shot:

One shot, two sight pictures including follow thru.

Definition of Controlled Pairs:

Two Shots, Four sight pictures including two follow thru sight pictures.

Definition of Double Tap:

Two shots, Two sight pictures including follow thru. Performed correctly, the shots will stack ~1 inch upon each other.


When you move to your point of domination and clear your sector of fire, it is not cleared as long as it contains a threat. A Combatant standing in your sector holding a weapon is a threat. In the Laws of Land Warfare, you have not crossed the Assault Line over a combatant and therefore you can shoot them even when they are down just like an Infantry Assault.

Infantry Tactics

In Infantry combat, Double Tapping does refer to putting a round in a target that is down to ensure that target is actually down. It is very much practiced and very legal provided you have not stepped over the body and advanced beyond it. Once you step over the body, Double Tapping is not allowed under the Laws of Land Warfare.
Before the Assault Line Crosses over you absolutely put a bullet into any enemy to your front moving or not moving however you. Once the Assault Line crosses that downed enemy soldier you have a duty to render aid if that enemy combatant no longer has the means to resist. You cannot shoot them except in Self Defense.

You are talking two very different situations that use completely different tactics but unfortunately use the same terminology creating confusion.

Not long after the US Army’s entry into Afghanistan, reports from the field began to surface that in close quarters engagements, some Soldiers were experiencing multiple “through-and-through” hits on an enemy combatant where the target continued to fight.

Field reports are accurate and can be explained by the phenomenon of bullet yaw.

There are doctrinal and training techniques that can increase Soldier effectiveness. The analysis tools used in this study were used to evaluate some alternative engagement techniques.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA519801.pdf

 

[davidsog]

Any chance that it's available to the general public?

We had copies at the unit and some of our guys worked with them. I do not know if the study was released to the public.
As every shooting was DA6'd, those statements were also given to them and they conducted interviews as well.

The string of 5 techniques was a direct result of our experience with 5.56mm in the house. It was a local technique and not doctrine that some teams adopted.