[Brian Williams]

If the 223/ 5.56 is such a bad round what would you replace it with.

I would like a 6 or 6.5 but not a .243 win, something with a rim between 223 and 243

[sasnofear]

seeing as how .243 uses same case as .308 u may as well go with .308

[cratz2]

6x45 or 6x47 would be decent. .223 or .222 Magnum with 6mm bullet. Plenty effective out to 300 yards with about a 70 or 75 Gr bullets.

The main thing in making the 223 more effective would be using bullets that cause more severe damage on tissue than FMJ.

[dude]

......why not just take the 5.56 back to it's origional concept of being a lighter weight, less stable devistatingly effective man stopper out to 300 yards??


It worked just fine before it was 'fixed' to make it a longer range round. It shoots just fine out to 500m now............ but it dosent stop all that well and the rifle is heavier!!

[CaesarI]

The "old" .223 was not devastatingly effective cause the round fired was unstable. It was effective because the jacket was thin at the cannelure allowing it to fragment. Nor did the "old" .223 perform out to 300yds, 200 was about as far as it could go and still fragment reliably.

The current 5.56mm round is quite effective as a FMJ because it fragments in tissue as it was designed. In fact, it fragments better than the old 5.56 and penetrates armor better to boot. It doesn't fragment out to quite the same range as the 55gr round does, but the short barrels they're switching to isn't helping matters. For regular troops the short barrel length of the M4 is not as useful as the increased effective range would be.

The problem with both .223's is its lack of ability to penetrate non-armor objects like wood as well as the .308 does. I'm not sure if the 75gr rounds will accomplish this, but they should do better than the current 62, or the old 55gr rounds. Additionally, despite their heavier weight there is no reason a 75gr rd can't be engineered such that it fragments at a greater range than the current 62 gr rd. This seems to be the easiest and most likely solution to the 5.56X45mm issue.

-Morgan

[Shmackey]

I always thought that if you like the .223, the .220 Swift would be very interesting.

[dude]

OK.........the old 5.56 was a good unstable round that would tumble for everyone but CaesarI

[Artful]

Take the 7.62X39 AK and neck it down to 6mm - Would work in either platform (AR or AK) and with a 85 or 90 grain bullet should give decent performance.:D

[CaesarI]

It does not "tumble" for anyone. It is, and was stable in flight. It yaws once it enters the denser medium of flesh, and then once it yaws, it splits at the cannelure. The base further fragments, and tends to shred tissue that is already weakened by the temporary cavity.

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

Further, the 62gr round fragments more heavily (50%) than the 55gr round (36%)

A quick visit to: http://www.ammo-oracle.com/#fbispec
the ar15.com ammo FAQ, might prove beneficial to your knowledge of the performance of the 5.56mm bullets.

The Russian 5.45X39mm round tumbles in flesh, and is thus not as effective as the fragmenting 5.56mm round.

The 55gr bullet was perfectly stabilized in a 1-12" barrel, popular wisdom notwithstanding.

-Morgan

[CaesarI]

Tatjana and brouhaha over at ar15.com did some first rate testing of the 100gr rounds.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=145122

which also don't tumble.

-Morgan

[dude]

if it makes you happy................go with it

but it the new stuff is so great, why is it such a combat-proven poor manstopper compared to the old stuff??

I don't visit ar15.com because I found the place a bit nutty and I was only into ARs during my Army days


btw- I did not mean tumble in flight

[3 gun]

The 223 isn't a bad round, it's just not one which I'd use to defend my life.

[CaesarI]

Well had you bothered to examine any of the links sent you would have found Dr Martin Fackler's illustrations of the wound profile of both bullets. Since Dr Fackler was a good enough source for JAG, in their decision that the Sierra MatchKing open tip ammo was not illegal, he's good enough for me too.

In those illustrations the bullets fail to "tumble" either in or outside of the body. They yaw, and then fragment. Since Dr Fackler was a medic during Vietnam he was privy to first hand knowledge of such effects.

Further illustrations point out that below 2700 fps the 55gr round fails to fragment reliably, this 2700 fps bounder is met far before 300 yards.

And I believe you meant "why isn't it such a combat-proven poor manstopper compared to the old stuff??"

The reason for the failures with the 62gr ammo are due largely to the use of shorter barrels, which reduce velocity. There's nothing fancy about the 55gr round that makes it unaffected by short barrels. Additionally, the greater ranges involved in Afghanistan combine to cause the 62gr round to perform poorly.

-Morgan

[dude]

.....no, I meant to say 'is'

[Cosmoline]

The key would be to capture the oustanding ballistics of the 6.5mm in about 140 grains or so, while keeping an OAL no longer than the .308. Perhaps some new version of the old 6.5x50 Arisaka? It would hit harder than the .223 and penetrate better than the .308. What's not to like?

If you like AR's, just fire the new round from an AR. The AR isn't the problem, the .223 is. No matter how much you trick it up it's still a gopher round.

[Brian Williams]

It is too bad some of the diehards or boneheads about the 223 could not read the original post and discuss what they thought would be or could be a better round, not the benefits or problems of the 223 in 55 or 60 or 75 or whatever grain bullet. I want to know if some of you would come up with a bigger or smaller round.

QUIT DISCUSSIN THE 223.!!!!!!!

[dude]

well this diehard bonehead would replace it with the .308

.....and did in my gun collection!



my point was that there was nothing wrong with the 5.56 before they 'fixed' it

[Artful]

A new cartridge from Winchester, the Super Short Magnum, made its debut here in both .223- and .243-caliber offerings. Promising a flatter trajectory, longer range and harder impact, the new round will work perfectly--with a shorter stroke for quicker bolt action--in two just-released versions of the Model 70 rifle.

[T] he new Winchester Super Short Magnum (WSSM) will rewrite the books on short action, high velocity, precision accuracy, small calibers with magnum performance!

The new WSSM is based on a short, fat cartridge geometry with an even shorter action than existing WSM cartridge offerings. The new WSSM cartridge design offers true magnum performance in both 223 and 243 calibers - all while delivering a highly efficient propellant burn with consistent higher velocities. And by headspacing off the shoulder, the new WSSM cartridge design promotes exceptional "bench-test" accuracy.

Initially offered in 223 WSSM and 243 WSSM - each of these new cartridges delivers incredible accuracy with magnum energy and velocity performance in a very short action cartridge - approximately 1/2" shorter than the existing Winchester Short Magnum!

The new Winchester Super Short Magnum - it's the flatter, faster, longer range, harder hitting varmint and thin-skinned game cartridge hunters have been dreaming about.223 WSSM
64 grn @ 3600 fps
55 grn @ 3850 fps

243 WSSM
100 grn @ 3110 fps
95 grn @ 3250 fps

necked up to 6.5?
:rolleyes:

[BHP9]

The current thinking at least in Russia was to stay with the .223 caliber round and design a weapon that has very little recoil. A bigger caliber or faster (newer faster .223) was not an option with todays technology because of the loss of controllabilty.

The idea of equipping the average soldier with a full auto weapon originated with the Russian military that found that the full auto weapon was the only weapon that men could be relied upon to actually fire in combat because of its pshchological qualities. True, it wasted tons of ammo but the idea was that even if you do not kill someone you create even more problems when a soldier is wounded because it takes 3 or 4 soldiers to rescue or care for him.

The U.S. M16, if I have been told correctly, now is no longer a full auto weapon, the current weapons having only a 3 shot burst capability. This is actually a step backward in what was the major military thinking in regards to the rest of the worlds armies.

If the current thinking continues in the U.S. military we could see a return to larger calibers. Probably a new 6mm that was almost adopted decades ago.

The problem is that once you increase caliber and bullet weight you lose controllability and full auto accuracy. And if you lose all this why even bother introducing another new anemic military round. Far better to just be done with it and go back to the .308. and semi-auto fire.

And then you are back to lots of troops not firing their weapons in combat.

There is a place for larger , heavier recoiling weapons in the hands of specialized troops (trained snipers) but in the hands of the average soldier. The present form of various .223 caliber weapons in full auto is still the best bet.

Lets remember the average Russian won WWII with a sub-gun chambered for a .30 caliber pistol cartridge and they killed plenty of Germans with them. The modern assault rifle with its higher velocity and greater accuracy and range is a vast improvement over the WWII Burp gun. Today's .223 is not perfect but with todays technology that is basically what we are stuck with if we want the troops using mass firepower at the enemy instead of hunkering down and waiting for the heavy machine guns and artillery to route out the enemy. And it has been proven this is exactly what happens with troops equipped with larger caliber bolt guns and even semi-auto guns.

So do we need a new 6mm caliber. No, because it would be the worst of both worlds. It woud have was less controllability than the current .223 and not near the power of the standard and current .308 round

[St. Gunner]

Take the .308, neck it up to .40 caliber, and use a 250-300gr bullet. Build a rifle of the Ak type, reliability over accuracy. It wouldn't take a super long bolt travel to get it done. It should be pretty devastating inside 150yds and knock a big nasty hole. If troops needed longer range flatter shooting, make some saboted rounds in 75gr .243 diameter. Troops could keep some of each rounds loaded into seperate mags, or simply stagger them in the magazines. Then you could build some frangible rounds in .40 caliber and have a hard hitting CQB rifle.

Either this or take a bigger fatter case and do the same thing, maybe like the cases in the short mags. It would be nice to be able to push a 250gr bullet at 1800fps or so.

Then when the civilian versions came out I could buy one to dispatch hogs with. I've been wanting a .45/70 in the AK config for awhile now.:D

[CWL]

It's not the .223 round, it is the insistence by some of shooting this round thru shorty barrels.