Kenshin
January 21, 2006, 11:14 PM
I've heard that after a 100 yrds, a .223/5.56 bullet won't fragment when it hits the target, and will lose a lot of lethality. I've also heard they have poor barrier performance. Is this all true?
.223/5.56....Too Weak?
If you enjoyed reading about ".223/5.56....Too Weak?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SnakeEater
January 21, 2006, 11:17 PM
The fragmentation range varies depending on barrel length. To answer your question in one word--yes, it's all true.
Flame suit on.
Flame suit on.
Beetle Bailey
January 21, 2006, 11:18 PM
You can ask the ammo oracle:
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm
Deer Hunter
January 22, 2006, 04:38 PM
For my GT Class in school (GT as in, Gifted and Talented. How the hell did I get picked? Maybe cause I'm a goot shot...), we were told to do a free-range project. Present something to the class. We have been given a month to work on it (very laid back class). For me, I'm doing a comparison Powerpoint (microsoft) and spoken presentation of the history of the 7.62 NATO and the 5.56 NATO. I'm finding out more and more about the 5.56 NATO, much more than I wanted to know about the round our military has been using for forty years. With everything I've pulled up (from soldier's statments to actual tests and even the "doctored" tests handed over to the government), I've changed the name and aim of my project.
"The Overall Ineffectiveness of the .223/5.56 NATO round. History, concept, and conclusion."
In other words, I wouldn't trust it.
"The Overall Ineffectiveness of the .223/5.56 NATO round. History, concept, and conclusion."
In other words, I wouldn't trust it.
Rockstar
January 22, 2006, 04:58 PM
Fragmentation has very little to do with the consistent lethality of the .223/5.56 round.
Bartholomew Roberts
January 22, 2006, 05:03 PM
Fragmentation depends on both bullet design and velocity. Some designs will fragment at lower velocities than others. Barrier performance is likewise related to the two concepts above.
Deadman
January 22, 2006, 05:28 PM
See the attachment for a visual test of 5.56 fragmentation at different velocities.
EghtySx
January 22, 2006, 05:36 PM
The round does what it was designed to do. In a war/battle, kill a guy and he is out of the fight. Wound a guy and he,and another guy or two are out to recover him.
jungle
January 22, 2006, 05:51 PM
Ineffective?
Of course, that's why it has become the world standard with the countries that make up NATO and quite a few others. They never really want to hurt or kill anyone, just scare them a bit.
Most people who have seen it's effect on flesh and bone will tell you that it is difficult to tell which service round made which wound.
Of course, that's why it has become the world standard with the countries that make up NATO and quite a few others. They never really want to hurt or kill anyone, just scare them a bit.
Most people who have seen it's effect on flesh and bone will tell you that it is difficult to tell which service round made which wound.
beerslurpy
January 22, 2006, 06:05 PM
Adoption by NATO is not a valid criteria upon which to base claims of quality or effectiveness. The british had far better rounds (the 280 caliber assault rifle) and other countries had better designs than the M16.
The same statements made about handgun ammo are obviously fallacious due to american experience with handguns. The standard NATO combat handgun round is FMJ 9mm. Clearly this was not done based upon the effectiveness of 9mm ball. We knew back in the late 19th century that 9mm ball sucked because we used 38 caliber revolvers before switching to 45 acp.
Your reasoning is flawed and the 5.56 is a flawed round for a military rifle:
-small bullet causes light wounds unless it fragments. This is inconsistent at best.
-light bullet with low sectional density penetrates barriers poorly
-cylindrical case walls instead of sloped walls makes extraction and feeding difficult, sometimes impossible with steel cases. Brass cases raise price.
A better round would have been a something in the 6.5-7mm range with a decent sectional density and a velocity in the mid-high 2000s. With a slightly sloped cartridge case wall. Reliable and cheap to manufacture. More range than 7.62x39, but enough of the power to knock someone out of the fight. Being able to hit something at 600 yards is pointless if the bullet wont actually knock them out of the fight without a headshot. 7.62x39 comes close but honestly doesnt have the mid-range (200-400m) performance that you could get to switching to something a bit lighter and faster.
The same statements made about handgun ammo are obviously fallacious due to american experience with handguns. The standard NATO combat handgun round is FMJ 9mm. Clearly this was not done based upon the effectiveness of 9mm ball. We knew back in the late 19th century that 9mm ball sucked because we used 38 caliber revolvers before switching to 45 acp.
Your reasoning is flawed and the 5.56 is a flawed round for a military rifle:
-small bullet causes light wounds unless it fragments. This is inconsistent at best.
-light bullet with low sectional density penetrates barriers poorly
-cylindrical case walls instead of sloped walls makes extraction and feeding difficult, sometimes impossible with steel cases. Brass cases raise price.
A better round would have been a something in the 6.5-7mm range with a decent sectional density and a velocity in the mid-high 2000s. With a slightly sloped cartridge case wall. Reliable and cheap to manufacture. More range than 7.62x39, but enough of the power to knock someone out of the fight. Being able to hit something at 600 yards is pointless if the bullet wont actually knock them out of the fight without a headshot. 7.62x39 comes close but honestly doesnt have the mid-range (200-400m) performance that you could get to switching to something a bit lighter and faster.
jungle
January 22, 2006, 06:17 PM
It's easy to put down the current choice in rounds for pistol and rifle used by the US, but they do get the job done.
I'm sure your choice is better, and won't be a bit surprised if you get a call from the Pentagon monday so they can really get the truth about what works best from a ballistics, logistics and engineering point of view.
I'm sure your choice is better, and won't be a bit surprised if you get a call from the Pentagon monday so they can really get the truth about what works best from a ballistics, logistics and engineering point of view.
cbsbyte
January 22, 2006, 06:19 PM
No it great on small varmints. :D I would not want to be shot with a 5.56mm, 7.62mm or a 22LR for that matter.
Added: The original idea behind the 5.56 round was that it was not intended to kill the target but only incompasitate, making other soliders who would inclined to tend to the wounded drawing manpower from the frontlines. In principle this only works with modern armies who will tend to their wounded, not terriost, or people willing to die for a cause who will keep shooting if wounded.
Added: The original idea behind the 5.56 round was that it was not intended to kill the target but only incompasitate, making other soliders who would inclined to tend to the wounded drawing manpower from the frontlines. In principle this only works with modern armies who will tend to their wounded, not terriost, or people willing to die for a cause who will keep shooting if wounded.
beerslurpy
January 22, 2006, 06:45 PM
It's easy to put down the current choice in rounds for pistol and rifle used by the US, but they do get the job done.
I'm sure your choice is better, and won't be a bit surprised if you get a call from the Pentagon monday so they can really get the truth about what works best from a ballistics, logistics and engineering point of view.
The US has been a notoroiusly poor decision maker for procurement of small arms the past oh 70 years or so. The market decides what is the most effective from a combat and logistics standpoint. Hence the fact that 99 percent of the warriors on this planet use some AKM variant in 7.62x39.
The entire complaint, often leveled BY active members of the military, is that these cartridges DONT get the job done. Which is why they complain about them. Which is why we give special guns chambered in 7.62x39 or 6.5 grendel or 6.8SPC to the special ops guys. And they use 40 and 45 caliber pistols, just like LEOs and most other civilians in this country.
I'm sure your choice is better, and won't be a bit surprised if you get a call from the Pentagon monday so they can really get the truth about what works best from a ballistics, logistics and engineering point of view.
The US has been a notoroiusly poor decision maker for procurement of small arms the past oh 70 years or so. The market decides what is the most effective from a combat and logistics standpoint. Hence the fact that 99 percent of the warriors on this planet use some AKM variant in 7.62x39.
The entire complaint, often leveled BY active members of the military, is that these cartridges DONT get the job done. Which is why they complain about them. Which is why we give special guns chambered in 7.62x39 or 6.5 grendel or 6.8SPC to the special ops guys. And they use 40 and 45 caliber pistols, just like LEOs and most other civilians in this country.
jungle
January 22, 2006, 06:58 PM
That is interesting. Which Major powers are building and using 7.62x39 rifles on a large scale now?
There is always ongoing experimentation with various weapons and calibers. Some of it will be useful. In the vacum of a ballistics lab, many rounds are better than the 5.56, but when you look at logistics, fiscal constraints and the many other factors involved I think we have made a good choice.
SPECOPS and real warriors are neat, but only a very small fraction of the fighting force the US fields.
There is always ongoing experimentation with various weapons and calibers. Some of it will be useful. In the vacum of a ballistics lab, many rounds are better than the 5.56, but when you look at logistics, fiscal constraints and the many other factors involved I think we have made a good choice.
SPECOPS and real warriors are neat, but only a very small fraction of the fighting force the US fields.
Chris Rhines
January 22, 2006, 07:02 PM
Which Major powers are building and using 7.62x39 rifles on a large scale now? None are. The poor terminal ballistics of the 7.26x39 are well documented by now.
Which is why we give special guns chambered in 7.62x39 or 6.5 grendel or 6.8SPC to the special ops guys. Except that, well, we don't. Neither the 6.5 Grendel nor the 6.8SPC has seen any field use in the US Military.
- Chris
Which is why we give special guns chambered in 7.62x39 or 6.5 grendel or 6.8SPC to the special ops guys. Except that, well, we don't. Neither the 6.5 Grendel nor the 6.8SPC has seen any field use in the US Military.
- Chris
cbsbyte
January 22, 2006, 07:03 PM
From reports on military sites, I believe that the Special Forces have stopped using the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendal in combat since they no longer are able to obtain enough ammo. This does not mean they will abondon the project but are putting on the back burner until they can obtain consistant supplies of ammo.
Rockstar
January 22, 2006, 08:39 PM
beerslurpy: You been slurping too much. Guess again, re fragmentation being required for consistent lethality.
Deer Hunter
January 22, 2006, 08:49 PM
And fragmentation is based on velocity. Velocity is based on barrel length/distance from target. Once these variables are affected, then the consistancy of lethal hits is affected. Shorter barrels, longer ranges, you do the math. I'm not insinuating that the .223 can't kill a man, or that it can't do it effectively. Yet if I were given the chance, I'd use something different.
Harry Stone
January 22, 2006, 09:03 PM
The round does what it was designed to do. In a war/battle, kill a guy and he is out of the fight. Wound a guy and he,and another guy or two are out to recover him.
That sounds good at first, but it doesn't make any sense. Ammo can't be designed to reliably produce wounds without killing. Also, there is no evidence that 5.56 NATO was designed to only wound. It was designed to be small and light and still effective, so soldiers could carry more ammo. If the goal of the cartridge was to just wound the enemy soldiers, they could have used 22LR.
There's some more info about this sort of thing here: http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/notdesignedforwounds.msnw
That sounds good at first, but it doesn't make any sense. Ammo can't be designed to reliably produce wounds without killing. Also, there is no evidence that 5.56 NATO was designed to only wound. It was designed to be small and light and still effective, so soldiers could carry more ammo. If the goal of the cartridge was to just wound the enemy soldiers, they could have used 22LR.
There's some more info about this sort of thing here: http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/notdesignedforwounds.msnw
dmftoy1
January 22, 2006, 09:03 PM
I've heard that after a 100 yrds, a .223/5.56 bullet won't fragment when it hits the target, and will lose a lot of lethality. I've also heard they have poor barrier performance. Is this all true?
I don't have any personal experience wrt to human wounds (thank god!!) but I can tell you that I have seen repeatedly what it does to steel plate at 100 yards (both hardened and mild steel) and I don't think it's lost much velocity even from my M4gery. I would say from what I've read maybe 250-300 yards it's lost a bit of effectiveness but even then I think it would tend to ruin someone's day. Just my uneducated .02 ..
I don't have any personal experience wrt to human wounds (thank god!!) but I can tell you that I have seen repeatedly what it does to steel plate at 100 yards (both hardened and mild steel) and I don't think it's lost much velocity even from my M4gery. I would say from what I've read maybe 250-300 yards it's lost a bit of effectiveness but even then I think it would tend to ruin someone's day. Just my uneducated .02 ..
Bartholomew Roberts
January 22, 2006, 09:25 PM
And fragmentation is based on velocity.
Velocity is only part of the equation. Bullet construction plays a large part too - to use just one example the Hornady 68gr Match fragments consistenly at lower velocities than the 2,700fps often cited for military ammo.
Velocity is only part of the equation. Bullet construction plays a large part too - to use just one example the Hornady 68gr Match fragments consistenly at lower velocities than the 2,700fps often cited for military ammo.
Deer Hunter
January 22, 2006, 09:32 PM
I Was under the impression that at the geneva convention, it was accepted that countries would not use hollow point or frangible rounds due to their "inhumane" damage they cause. Now, I'm no history buff about this, so there is a good chance that I could be wrong. But I have always been under that impression, and that was why we issue ball ammo to our soldiers. I wasn't taking other types of ammo into consideration in my above post.
Also, consistant fragmentation at lowered velocities is what I would like to see with the .223 bullet. A bullet that fragments at lowered speeds "sometimes" isn't sufficiant to be relied upon by our soldiers. But that's my opinion, and you couldn't buy a coke for as much as it's worth.
Also, consistant fragmentation at lowered velocities is what I would like to see with the .223 bullet. A bullet that fragments at lowered speeds "sometimes" isn't sufficiant to be relied upon by our soldiers. But that's my opinion, and you couldn't buy a coke for as much as it's worth.
Euclidean
January 22, 2006, 09:35 PM
The Viet Cong and Iraqi insurgents alike are just playing dead. It's a game. 5.56 bounces harmlessly off of thick clothing and callused skin most of the time, and when it happens to wedge itself in an eye socket or something it can be pulled out harmlessly with a pair of tweezers.
But 9x19, .40 S&W. or .45 ACP out of a 3.5"-4" pistol barrel is still lethal, don't worry. It's okay to trust your life daily to a pistol caliber but using a rifle caliber in a rifle platform produces terminal ballistics that won't kill or hurt anybody.
Matter of fact, if you use 2 ply paper targets, 5.56 and .223 bullets will bounce off the paper half the time.
But 9x19, .40 S&W. or .45 ACP out of a 3.5"-4" pistol barrel is still lethal, don't worry. It's okay to trust your life daily to a pistol caliber but using a rifle caliber in a rifle platform produces terminal ballistics that won't kill or hurt anybody.
Matter of fact, if you use 2 ply paper targets, 5.56 and .223 bullets will bounce off the paper half the time.
Oleg Volk
January 22, 2006, 09:42 PM
For the 38 Colt/9mm Luger comparisons:
9 mm Luger 123 grs. 1048 fps 301ft/lbs.
.38 Colt Army 148 grs. 763 fps 191ft/lbs.
Not valid.
9 mm Luger 123 grs. 1048 fps 301ft/lbs.
.38 Colt Army 148 grs. 763 fps 191ft/lbs.
Not valid.
Bartholomew Roberts
January 22, 2006, 09:56 PM
I Was under the impression that at the geneva convention, it was accepted that countries would not use hollow point or frangible rounds due to their "inhumane" damage they cause. Now, I'm no history buff about this, so there is a good chance that I could be wrong. But I have always been under that impression, and that was why we issue ball ammo to our soldiers. I wasn't taking other types of ammo into consideration in my above post.
Rounds cannot be designed to fragment; but there are rounds that fragment due to other design configurations. For example, the same things that make open-tip match ammunition inherently accurate (like a consistent uniform jacket) also make it more likely to fragment and to fragment consistently at lower velocities.
If you have read any of Dr. Fackler's work on the subject you will also see that the former West Germany used to make a 7.62x51mm FMJ ammo that often fragmented violently.
Also, consistant fragmentation at lowered velocities is what I would like to see with the .223 bullet. A bullet that fragments at lowered speeds "sometimes" isn't sufficiant to be relied upon by our soldiers. But that's my opinion, and you couldn't buy a coke for as much as it's worth.
Almost all of the match ammo I've seen gel shots of shows consistent fragmentation and often at lower velocities than FMJ. Match ammo is also allowed under the Hague conventions because it is not designed as a fragmenting round; but an especially accurate one.
Cabela's now sells a product called "Perma-Gel" which is a ballistics gel that does not melt at room temperature and is stable enough to be shipped. You can buy two preformatted 5"x"5"x17" blocks for $150 or you can buy enough of the mixture to make the same blocks for $130. I'm told by DocGKR that it does not adequately represent temporary stretch cavity and still has a few shortcomings; but it might make for some fun Powerpoint slides in your presentation. It would also allow you to compare some data firsthand.
Rounds cannot be designed to fragment; but there are rounds that fragment due to other design configurations. For example, the same things that make open-tip match ammunition inherently accurate (like a consistent uniform jacket) also make it more likely to fragment and to fragment consistently at lower velocities.
If you have read any of Dr. Fackler's work on the subject you will also see that the former West Germany used to make a 7.62x51mm FMJ ammo that often fragmented violently.
Also, consistant fragmentation at lowered velocities is what I would like to see with the .223 bullet. A bullet that fragments at lowered speeds "sometimes" isn't sufficiant to be relied upon by our soldiers. But that's my opinion, and you couldn't buy a coke for as much as it's worth.
Almost all of the match ammo I've seen gel shots of shows consistent fragmentation and often at lower velocities than FMJ. Match ammo is also allowed under the Hague conventions because it is not designed as a fragmenting round; but an especially accurate one.
Cabela's now sells a product called "Perma-Gel" which is a ballistics gel that does not melt at room temperature and is stable enough to be shipped. You can buy two preformatted 5"x"5"x17" blocks for $150 or you can buy enough of the mixture to make the same blocks for $130. I'm told by DocGKR that it does not adequately represent temporary stretch cavity and still has a few shortcomings; but it might make for some fun Powerpoint slides in your presentation. It would also allow you to compare some data firsthand.
rero360
January 22, 2006, 09:59 PM
good point oleg, however as stated in someones sig line, " a 9mm may expand, but a .45 won't shrink" or something along those lines. being that the 1911 was a better choice of sidearm than either a .38 or 9mm, but thats a subject thats been beaten to death, revived and beaten to death again. on a side note I love your posters.
JohnKSa
January 22, 2006, 10:12 PM
WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.
We knew back in the late 19th century that 9mm ball sucked because we used 38 caliber revolvers before switching to 45 acp.1. Neither the 9mm nor the .45ACP were invented until the early 20th century.
2. The .38 caliber revolvers you mention were chambered for an obsolete round that was substantially less powerful than even standard pressure .38 special, let alone the 9mm.
3. The .45 caliber that replaced the .38 revolvers was not .45ACP, it was the .45 Colt revolver round commonly known today as .45 Long Colt.
As far as the 5.56 being ineffective, consider this. After the Russian observers noted how "ineffective" it was in Vietnam, the USSR promptly copied it and then switched from the 7.62x39 to the new round. ;)
On the other hand, 5.56 is definitely not at its best out of a short barrel with a fast twist shooting a long, heavy AP bullet.
We knew back in the late 19th century that 9mm ball sucked because we used 38 caliber revolvers before switching to 45 acp.1. Neither the 9mm nor the .45ACP were invented until the early 20th century.
2. The .38 caliber revolvers you mention were chambered for an obsolete round that was substantially less powerful than even standard pressure .38 special, let alone the 9mm.
3. The .45 caliber that replaced the .38 revolvers was not .45ACP, it was the .45 Colt revolver round commonly known today as .45 Long Colt.
As far as the 5.56 being ineffective, consider this. After the Russian observers noted how "ineffective" it was in Vietnam, the USSR promptly copied it and then switched from the 7.62x39 to the new round. ;)
On the other hand, 5.56 is definitely not at its best out of a short barrel with a fast twist shooting a long, heavy AP bullet.
Deer Hunter
January 22, 2006, 10:21 PM
If I had access to my cousin's Bushmaster AR-15, I would do some fragmentation/penetration tests for the presentation, but I don't have it at my disposal right now. Interesting idea, nontheless.
I have a question about the fragmentation of a .223. At what point does the bullet start to come appart? Is it when it comes into contact with the person you shot it at, or does it fragment when it hits a bone or striated muscle tissue?
I have a question about the fragmentation of a .223. At what point does the bullet start to come appart? Is it when it comes into contact with the person you shot it at, or does it fragment when it hits a bone or striated muscle tissue?
JohnKSa
January 22, 2006, 10:43 PM
WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.
Fragmentation depends heavily on the type of bullet and the velocity of impact.
Fragmentation depends heavily on the type of bullet and the velocity of impact.
MechAg94
January 22, 2006, 10:50 PM
2. The .38 caliber revolvers you mention were chambered for an obsolete round that was substantially less powerful than even standard pressure .38 special, let alone the 9mm.
3. The .45 caliber that replaced the .38 revolvers was not .45ACP, it was the .45 Colt revolver round commonly known today as .45 Long Colt.
I could have sworn there was another pistol adopted between the .45 Colts and the .45 ACP 1911. I thought it was a .38 caliber. I was thinking I heard this regarding the experience in the Philipines, but I can't remember right now. I didn't think we went from the .45 long colt to the .45 ACP though. I'll have to look around though.
http://www.m1911.org/history.htm
The Colt Model 1911 was the product of a very capable person, namely John Moses Browning, father of several modern firearms.
The pistol was designed to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Army, which, during its campaign against the Moros in Philippines, had seen its trusty .38 revolver to be incapable of stopping attackers. An Ordnance Board headed by Col. John T. Thomson (inventor of the Thomson sub-machine-gun) and Col. Louis A. La Garde, had reached the conclusion that the army needed a .45" caliber cartridge, to provide adequate stopping power. In the mean time, J. Browning who was working for Colt, had already designed an autoloader pistol, around a cartridge similar to contemporary .38 Super (dimension-wise). When the Army announced its interest in a new handgun, Browning re-engineered this handgun to accommodate a .45" diameter cartridge of his own design (with a 230 gr. FMJ bullet), and submitted the pistol to the Army for evaluation.
3. The .45 caliber that replaced the .38 revolvers was not .45ACP, it was the .45 Colt revolver round commonly known today as .45 Long Colt.
I could have sworn there was another pistol adopted between the .45 Colts and the .45 ACP 1911. I thought it was a .38 caliber. I was thinking I heard this regarding the experience in the Philipines, but I can't remember right now. I didn't think we went from the .45 long colt to the .45 ACP though. I'll have to look around though.
http://www.m1911.org/history.htm
The Colt Model 1911 was the product of a very capable person, namely John Moses Browning, father of several modern firearms.
The pistol was designed to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Army, which, during its campaign against the Moros in Philippines, had seen its trusty .38 revolver to be incapable of stopping attackers. An Ordnance Board headed by Col. John T. Thomson (inventor of the Thomson sub-machine-gun) and Col. Louis A. La Garde, had reached the conclusion that the army needed a .45" caliber cartridge, to provide adequate stopping power. In the mean time, J. Browning who was working for Colt, had already designed an autoloader pistol, around a cartridge similar to contemporary .38 Super (dimension-wise). When the Army announced its interest in a new handgun, Browning re-engineered this handgun to accommodate a .45" diameter cartridge of his own design (with a 230 gr. FMJ bullet), and submitted the pistol to the Army for evaluation.
rocky
January 22, 2006, 10:53 PM
5.56 isn't that bad, just ask all the dead insurgents.
MechAg94
January 22, 2006, 10:54 PM
Back on .223 effectiveness, I have heard people on this site bring up issues with effectiveness of .308 on flesh as well. It has been noted time and again that shot placement is everything.
Deer Hunter
January 22, 2006, 10:57 PM
Shot placement is crucial, but sadly sometimes that's not the first thing on a soldier's mind while he's fireing at the bad guys. Sometimes you can take your time, and put a bullet through a guy's head. Other times, you've got split second decisions. The .308 may not be perfect, but I trust it over the .223. That, and I have much more experience with the .308.
JohnKSa
January 22, 2006, 11:07 PM
WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.
MechAG94,
There was a .38 in between, they went from the 45LC to the .38--that's the one that was labelled as ineffective in the Philippines. As a result of the problems with the .38, they either temporarily went back to the .45LC, or perhaps they just issued them in the Philippines, I'm not sure about that particular detail. At any rate, what I posted is correct. It wasn't until later that the .45ACP came about and was adopted.
If you read the second link carefully, you will see that it does not contradict anything that I said. While the .45ACP was developed in the aftermath of the Moro situation and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the lessons learned there went into the specifications, clearly, the .45ACP wasn't around at the time of the Moro situation and didn't come about until some years later.
Some simple investigation of the chronology of the Moro situation and the .45ACP development will show that this is correct.
MechAG94,
There was a .38 in between, they went from the 45LC to the .38--that's the one that was labelled as ineffective in the Philippines. As a result of the problems with the .38, they either temporarily went back to the .45LC, or perhaps they just issued them in the Philippines, I'm not sure about that particular detail. At any rate, what I posted is correct. It wasn't until later that the .45ACP came about and was adopted.
If you read the second link carefully, you will see that it does not contradict anything that I said. While the .45ACP was developed in the aftermath of the Moro situation and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the lessons learned there went into the specifications, clearly, the .45ACP wasn't around at the time of the Moro situation and didn't come about until some years later.
Some simple investigation of the chronology of the Moro situation and the .45ACP development will show that this is correct.
KriegHund
January 22, 2006, 11:19 PM
Firearms have consintently evolved to smaller and smaller bore diameters.
Perhaps the 5.56 is too small. However, we have had the 5.56 for near 50 years. Weve had the 7.62 in machine guns for...well...longer than that. Around 100 years (30-06).
The 5.56 would be very nice against body-armour wearing enemys. Against people wearing a single layer of cotton...not so much.
The 6.8 SPC looked very good on terminal reports- similar to that of the 7.62 in terms of ballistics IIRC.
Perhaps the 5.56 is too small. However, we have had the 5.56 for near 50 years. Weve had the 7.62 in machine guns for...well...longer than that. Around 100 years (30-06).
The 5.56 would be very nice against body-armour wearing enemys. Against people wearing a single layer of cotton...not so much.
The 6.8 SPC looked very good on terminal reports- similar to that of the 7.62 in terms of ballistics IIRC.
jaimeshawn
January 22, 2006, 11:21 PM
Regarding the .223, IMHO it's a remarkably efficient pistol-weight cartridge, and much more effective than the 38spl or 9mm Luger... designed to be shot in a pistol-weight weapon. If I was a shot-down pilot, I would much prefer to have a 223 for shooting squirrels, than try to bag them with any other pistol cartridge.
OTOH, I agree with beer slurpy about it's effectiveness as a MBR.
OTOH, I agree with beer slurpy about it's effectiveness as a MBR.
Deer Hunter
January 22, 2006, 11:24 PM
The 6.8 seems like a very nice round. It's got ballistics very similar to a .308, with half the kick. Then again, we could just give all our soldiers .308s with 110 grain bullets, but then again, that's just me. If I really had my way, I'd make rimless 30-30 bullets and put them in an AR-15.
JohnKSa
January 22, 2006, 11:31 PM
WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.As far as the 5.56 being ineffective, consider this. After the Russian observers noted how "ineffective" it was in Vietnam, the USSR promptly copied it and then switched from the 7.62x39 to the new round.I always throw this quote out there on these threads because I find it quite amusing that it is almost always ignored. :D
We can't have logic cluttering up our caliber rants, now, can we? ;)
We can't have logic cluttering up our caliber rants, now, can we? ;)
KriegHund
January 22, 2006, 11:41 PM
Does not the 5.45x39mm use an extremely long bullet?
JohnKSa
January 22, 2006, 11:45 PM
WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.Does not the 5.45x39mm use an extremely long bullet?Long, but light. It has an airgap in the front that allows the jacket to crumple on impact and gets the bullet started tumbling faster. I didn't mean to imply that it was a perfect clone of the 5.56, just that they liked what they were seeing from our .22 caliber round and decided to design a similar round.
KriegHund
January 22, 2006, 11:54 PM
WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.Long, but light. It has an airgap in the front that allows the jacket to crumple on impact and gets the bullet started tumbling faster. I didn't mean to imply that it was a perfect clone of the 5.56, just that they liked what they were seeing from our .22 caliber round and decided to design a similar round.
Thats a darn fine idea...
And no, i wasnt thinking that you were implying :) I was just curious as to if i was correct. Thanks for the info.
Thats a darn fine idea...
And no, i wasnt thinking that you were implying :) I was just curious as to if i was correct. Thanks for the info.
beerslurpy
January 23, 2006, 12:09 AM
WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.
1. Neither the 9mm nor the .45ACP were invented until the early 20th century.
2. The .38 caliber revolvers you mention were chambered for an obsolete round that was substantially less powerful than even standard pressure .38 special, let alone the 9mm.
3. The .45 caliber that replaced the .38 revolvers was not .45ACP, it was the .45 Colt revolver round commonly known today as .45 Long Colt.
As far as the 5.56 being ineffective, consider this. After the Russian observers noted how "ineffective" it was in Vietnam, the USSR promptly copied it and then switched from the 7.62x39 to the new round. ;)
On the other hand, 5.56 is definitely not at its best out of a short barrel with a fast twist shooting a long, heavy AP bullet.
38 caliber has been around for a long time. It wasnt called 9mm, but it was the same caliber.
The 45 ACP was basically a rimless 45 long colt for the colt automatic pistol. This was done in reaction to the poor terminal ballistics observed in the philipines in 38 caliber pistols.
The Soviets, like many posters on this board, observed correctly but drew the wrong conclusions. Yes, yawing occurrs in both the 5.56 and 5.45. The soviets enhanced the yawing character but stiffened the bullet to the point of absurdity using steel and aluminum construction. The resulting difference is that the 5.56 ball fragmnts while the 5.45 doesnt. This causes the 5.45 to kill people after combat has ended while the 5.56 (when it fragments) causes people to drop during the fight. Note that this advantage disappears when you shorten the barrel too much or make the projectile too stiff to fragment.
That being said, I think that under 200 yards the fight goes to the 7.62x39. The accuracy difference is negligible on human sized targets and the wounding profile and barrier penetration is significantly improved. Yes I think the new cartridges are better than either, but they arent really mainstream yet so I will pass for now.
1. Neither the 9mm nor the .45ACP were invented until the early 20th century.
2. The .38 caliber revolvers you mention were chambered for an obsolete round that was substantially less powerful than even standard pressure .38 special, let alone the 9mm.
3. The .45 caliber that replaced the .38 revolvers was not .45ACP, it was the .45 Colt revolver round commonly known today as .45 Long Colt.
As far as the 5.56 being ineffective, consider this. After the Russian observers noted how "ineffective" it was in Vietnam, the USSR promptly copied it and then switched from the 7.62x39 to the new round. ;)
On the other hand, 5.56 is definitely not at its best out of a short barrel with a fast twist shooting a long, heavy AP bullet.
38 caliber has been around for a long time. It wasnt called 9mm, but it was the same caliber.
The 45 ACP was basically a rimless 45 long colt for the colt automatic pistol. This was done in reaction to the poor terminal ballistics observed in the philipines in 38 caliber pistols.
The Soviets, like many posters on this board, observed correctly but drew the wrong conclusions. Yes, yawing occurrs in both the 5.56 and 5.45. The soviets enhanced the yawing character but stiffened the bullet to the point of absurdity using steel and aluminum construction. The resulting difference is that the 5.56 ball fragmnts while the 5.45 doesnt. This causes the 5.45 to kill people after combat has ended while the 5.56 (when it fragments) causes people to drop during the fight. Note that this advantage disappears when you shorten the barrel too much or make the projectile too stiff to fragment.
That being said, I think that under 200 yards the fight goes to the 7.62x39. The accuracy difference is negligible on human sized targets and the wounding profile and barrier penetration is significantly improved. Yes I think the new cartridges are better than either, but they arent really mainstream yet so I will pass for now.
JohnKSa
January 23, 2006, 12:43 AM
WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.38 caliber has been around for a long time. It wasnt called 9mm, but it was the same caliber.Well, the 9mm runs about TWICE the velocity of the .38 caliber round in question. Implying that the performance of a lead bullet, black powder .38 round being used in the late 19th century tells us everything we need to know about the performance of the 9mm is like saying that the lessons learned from the blackpowder version of the 45/70 apply to the .458 Lott.The 45 ACP was basically a rimless 45 long colt for the colt automatic pistol.Well, the bullet diameter is the same and the ballistics are roughly similar, if that's what you mean...
Paradiddle
January 23, 2006, 01:16 AM
The US has been a notoroiusly poor decision maker for procurement of small arms the past oh 70 years or so.
Really?
1911
M1 Garand - the "greatest battlefield implement ever"
M1 Carbine (more built in a shorter time then any other weapon ever)
Thompson Sub - good enough for Al Capone
M14 - a Garand on steriods
M16 and variants - fantastic design, maximum flexibility, light recoil, very accurate
Really?
1911
M1 Garand - the "greatest battlefield implement ever"
M1 Carbine (more built in a shorter time then any other weapon ever)
Thompson Sub - good enough for Al Capone
M14 - a Garand on steriods
M16 and variants - fantastic design, maximum flexibility, light recoil, very accurate
444
January 23, 2006, 01:46 AM
For the internet experts, I would love to hear specific examples of where the 5.56 round failed them against human opponents. Or, to describe the appearence of the actual bullet wounds they observed.
Tony Williams
January 23, 2006, 01:55 AM
The 5.56mm is lethal enough, in that people shot in the body are likely to die if they don't receive medical attention fairly quickly. The problem is to do with the speed of incapacitation.
Unless you hit the brain or upper spine, your target is never going to be 'dead before he hits the ground'. Incapacitation followed by death generally happens due to blood loss, and the rate of blood loss depends on the location and size of the wound. The location is down to the shooter, but the wound size is down to the ammo.
Other things being equal, a big bullet will create a bigger wound than a small one, so will incapacitate more quickly (which is precisely what you want, especially at short range). Bullet design does make a big difference, though. The original .30 cal bullets of around 1900 were found to be rather ineffective because their round noses meant that they just drilled neat holes. The adoption of the sharply-pointed spitzer bullets (for aerodynamic reasons) solved that problem because such bullets are inherently unstable and will turn end-over-end on impact with flesh, creating a much bigger wound. The more tail-heavy the bullet, the quicker this will happen: which is where air spaces or lightweight fillers in the jacket tips help.
Fragmentation occurs in mid-tumble when the bullet is travelling sideways, and happens when the stresses on the bullet overcome the strength of the jacket. This multiplies the wound size, and is an important element in the effectiveness of the 5.56mm. No fragmentation = smaller wounds = slower incapacitation = the BG has more time to shoot back before he dies.
Of course, a big bullet which tumbles rapidly and fragments is most effective of all (especially if you can include an AP element in the nose to deal with body armour). You'd better make sure that the fragmentation happens by accident, though, or you'll fall foul of the Hague Conventions ;)
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
Unless you hit the brain or upper spine, your target is never going to be 'dead before he hits the ground'. Incapacitation followed by death generally happens due to blood loss, and the rate of blood loss depends on the location and size of the wound. The location is down to the shooter, but the wound size is down to the ammo.
Other things being equal, a big bullet will create a bigger wound than a small one, so will incapacitate more quickly (which is precisely what you want, especially at short range). Bullet design does make a big difference, though. The original .30 cal bullets of around 1900 were found to be rather ineffective because their round noses meant that they just drilled neat holes. The adoption of the sharply-pointed spitzer bullets (for aerodynamic reasons) solved that problem because such bullets are inherently unstable and will turn end-over-end on impact with flesh, creating a much bigger wound. The more tail-heavy the bullet, the quicker this will happen: which is where air spaces or lightweight fillers in the jacket tips help.
Fragmentation occurs in mid-tumble when the bullet is travelling sideways, and happens when the stresses on the bullet overcome the strength of the jacket. This multiplies the wound size, and is an important element in the effectiveness of the 5.56mm. No fragmentation = smaller wounds = slower incapacitation = the BG has more time to shoot back before he dies.
Of course, a big bullet which tumbles rapidly and fragments is most effective of all (especially if you can include an AP element in the nose to deal with body armour). You'd better make sure that the fragmentation happens by accident, though, or you'll fall foul of the Hague Conventions ;)
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
Tony Williams
January 23, 2006, 02:06 AM
For the internet experts, I would love to hear specific examples of where the 5.56 round failed them against human opponents.
That's not an easy one to answer, because it depends on your expectations. I have heard from a number of sources that it is now routine for US forces in Iraq to shoot BGs more than once, because they've found that one 5.56mm bullet too often won't do the job (or won't do it quickly enough). Does that count as failure?
There have been some spectacular examples of failure even with multiple shots at close range, most notoriously in September 2003 at Al Ramadi, Iraq, when elements of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group got involved in a firefight with an insurgent at close range. They hit him several times, but he carried on fighting and killed two of the SF people before he was finished off with a pistol. Afterwards, they examined his body and found seven solid 5.56mm hits to the torso. To be fair, you will always get extreme cases (especially when people are hyped up on battle adrenaline or more artificial drugs) but it is likely that a more effecitve cartridge would have dropped him more quickly.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
That's not an easy one to answer, because it depends on your expectations. I have heard from a number of sources that it is now routine for US forces in Iraq to shoot BGs more than once, because they've found that one 5.56mm bullet too often won't do the job (or won't do it quickly enough). Does that count as failure?
There have been some spectacular examples of failure even with multiple shots at close range, most notoriously in September 2003 at Al Ramadi, Iraq, when elements of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group got involved in a firefight with an insurgent at close range. They hit him several times, but he carried on fighting and killed two of the SF people before he was finished off with a pistol. Afterwards, they examined his body and found seven solid 5.56mm hits to the torso. To be fair, you will always get extreme cases (especially when people are hyped up on battle adrenaline or more artificial drugs) but it is likely that a more effecitve cartridge would have dropped him more quickly.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
The Silver Bullet 1719
January 23, 2006, 02:07 AM
For the "experts" in this thread. Please cite specific sources where 5.56 NATO was developed to only wound someone. I would like government documents if you could please attach them to this thread.
I hate to burst yalls bubble, but 5.56 along with 7.62 and 30-06 were developed to put an enemy 6 feet in the ground. If it really was doing such a poor job, we wouldn't still be using 5.56 after 40 odd years. Ironically, I do believe that 7.62 NATO or the M14 didn't exactly stay in the "Spotlight" very long.
I'm not saying 5.56 is the end-all greatest combat cartridge ever. I am saying, that it can be used as an Insurgent Detergent quite effectively. Personally, I kind of like the 6.8 SPC cartridge, but I still highly doubt that it is a bazillion times better than 5.56.
[I will say that 9mm is the best pistol cartridge ever though :neener: ]
I hate to burst yalls bubble, but 5.56 along with 7.62 and 30-06 were developed to put an enemy 6 feet in the ground. If it really was doing such a poor job, we wouldn't still be using 5.56 after 40 odd years. Ironically, I do believe that 7.62 NATO or the M14 didn't exactly stay in the "Spotlight" very long.
I'm not saying 5.56 is the end-all greatest combat cartridge ever. I am saying, that it can be used as an Insurgent Detergent quite effectively. Personally, I kind of like the 6.8 SPC cartridge, but I still highly doubt that it is a bazillion times better than 5.56.
[I will say that 9mm is the best pistol cartridge ever though :neener: ]
beerslurpy
January 23, 2006, 02:18 AM
9mm ball is a great SMG cartridge IMO. Being hit with 10 of them is a lot worse than being hit by one. Obviously. But without the FA capability, I dont really see the attraction to 9mm, except in HP form.
I personally think 40 is a better compromise between the high capacity of the 9mm and the high power of the 45.
For a subcompact handgun/machinepistol, I think 9mm kurz (380) or 9mm mak both are excellent cartridges. Strong enough to kill, low-pressure enough that they allow one to make smaller blowback operated weapons from cheaper materials. I actually prefer the short 9mms to the big ones (9x19, 9x21) because the bigger ones require a much larger and sturdier gun, at which point you might as well just go for 40S&W.
I personally think 40 is a better compromise between the high capacity of the 9mm and the high power of the 45.
For a subcompact handgun/machinepistol, I think 9mm kurz (380) or 9mm mak both are excellent cartridges. Strong enough to kill, low-pressure enough that they allow one to make smaller blowback operated weapons from cheaper materials. I actually prefer the short 9mms to the big ones (9x19, 9x21) because the bigger ones require a much larger and sturdier gun, at which point you might as well just go for 40S&W.
DawgFvr
January 23, 2006, 02:50 AM
You are all pretty techie on the subject. Look, 5.56 works just fine...if that is all you have. I just pray that you have beau coup ammo and the ability to call in artillery at 250 meters plus. I carried a M16A2 for twenty years...but not by choice. I could hit a 300 meter target on occassion if the target was solid green on a brown ridgeline on a target range. Believe me, every infantryman I ever knew would choose another weapon and round if Uncle Sam gave us the choice. Damn the weight...I prefer 30.06 if I had my druthers when shooting humans, animals bigger than a hamster and just ol' plinking. Ask anybody in the Army or a vet about what they think about the 5.56 round or the M16 for that matter.
Coronach
January 23, 2006, 03:48 AM
Most I know say it does its part of you do yours. Many of these guys have played in the sandbox.
This topic is a perennial one. Some people like the M16/5.56 system. Some don't. Most of the people with an opinion are just repeating what they hear elsewhere. Of the rest, they all have anecdotal evidence, which will vary by how well they shot, how lucky they were, how well they could examine the physical evidence afterwards, how determined their foe was, and how willing they are to acknowledge the effects/limitations of all of the above. Few and far between are sound analyses of the terminal effects of any given round. Why? Because it is unethical to shoot people for experimental purposes.
In other words, its really hard to say.
If you're looking for data, you won't find it by asking for people's opinions.
Mike
This topic is a perennial one. Some people like the M16/5.56 system. Some don't. Most of the people with an opinion are just repeating what they hear elsewhere. Of the rest, they all have anecdotal evidence, which will vary by how well they shot, how lucky they were, how well they could examine the physical evidence afterwards, how determined their foe was, and how willing they are to acknowledge the effects/limitations of all of the above. Few and far between are sound analyses of the terminal effects of any given round. Why? Because it is unethical to shoot people for experimental purposes.
In other words, its really hard to say.
If you're looking for data, you won't find it by asking for people's opinions.
Mike
beerslurpy
January 23, 2006, 04:16 AM
Cor, unfortunately you are right. And to top it off, very few active service people have experience shooting people with both AR and AK family weapons to speak about the relative merits.
crazed_ss
January 23, 2006, 04:48 AM
Ask anybody in the Army or a vet about what they think about the 5.56 round or the M16 for that matter.
I was in the Marines and found the M-16 to be a great weapon. It's accurate and easy to use. At 200yds, you can hit the black with no effort at all.. at 500yds, you just have to concentrate a bit and adjust your sights and you're hitting black with iron sights.
I never had to shoot anyone with it, but from pulling targets in the pits and watching the impact area, I was pretty confident that if one of those 5.56mm rounds hit someone, it would make them dead or injure them severely.
I was in the Marines and found the M-16 to be a great weapon. It's accurate and easy to use. At 200yds, you can hit the black with no effort at all.. at 500yds, you just have to concentrate a bit and adjust your sights and you're hitting black with iron sights.
I never had to shoot anyone with it, but from pulling targets in the pits and watching the impact area, I was pretty confident that if one of those 5.56mm rounds hit someone, it would make them dead or injure them severely.
Number 6
January 23, 2006, 04:58 AM
The market decides what is the most effective from a combat and logistics standpoint. Hence the fact that 99 percent of the warriors on this planet use some AKM variant in 7.62x39.
I think one of the major reasons so many countries use the AK is due to how cheap they are, how many are out there, and the ease of use. None of which speak to how well the 7.62x39 round does. That is not saying that 7.62x39 is not a great round, but that a true market demand has been frustrated by the Soviet Union introducing so many into the market below market value.
One thing to keep in mind is all of our soldiers that have been hit multiple times by enemies and continue to keep on fighting. Are these cases of the enemy using an ineffective round, or was it a case of highly motivated people do amazing feats?
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm
I think one of the major reasons so many countries use the AK is due to how cheap they are, how many are out there, and the ease of use. None of which speak to how well the 7.62x39 round does. That is not saying that 7.62x39 is not a great round, but that a true market demand has been frustrated by the Soviet Union introducing so many into the market below market value.
One thing to keep in mind is all of our soldiers that have been hit multiple times by enemies and continue to keep on fighting. Are these cases of the enemy using an ineffective round, or was it a case of highly motivated people do amazing feats?
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm
jungle
January 23, 2006, 09:21 AM
That brings up the real crux of the problem. No matter what caliber or what rifle you put into the hands of the average man, hits beyond 300 meters are very unlikely under battlefield conditions.
Let's face facts and admit that rifles and pistols don't kill many people on the modern battlefield. The real work is done by belt feds, mortars, artillery and air.
Just as it has been since WWI.
Let's face facts and admit that rifles and pistols don't kill many people on the modern battlefield. The real work is done by belt feds, mortars, artillery and air.
Just as it has been since WWI.
DawgFvr
January 23, 2006, 09:43 AM
"at 500yds, you just have to concentrate a bit and adjust your sights and you're hitting black with iron sights."
???? Crazed SS, pray tell, how did you adjust your M16 sights to hit a 500 meter target? The barrel would be angled upward like an indirect fire weapon and you would need a FO. Come on....! I reailize the max effective range for the M16A2 is 500-550 meters but I never could hit anything consistently beyond 300 meters. Hmmm. Maybe. I haven't shot one that's been equipped with one of those new X4 scopes that the military has started to bolt on to the rifle. That might make a difference. But considering that the best I could reasonable expect from the issued M16's that I've fired is about 300-350 meters, it's got to be one heck of a scope. I never "pulled targets in the pits", the Army had pop up target REX ranges since 1974...and the most distant target we shot was 300 meters. I know the Marines value marksmanship...but then, maybe us Army guys needed more practice with the 5.56. At that range we just called in Arty "danger close".
???? Crazed SS, pray tell, how did you adjust your M16 sights to hit a 500 meter target? The barrel would be angled upward like an indirect fire weapon and you would need a FO. Come on....! I reailize the max effective range for the M16A2 is 500-550 meters but I never could hit anything consistently beyond 300 meters. Hmmm. Maybe. I haven't shot one that's been equipped with one of those new X4 scopes that the military has started to bolt on to the rifle. That might make a difference. But considering that the best I could reasonable expect from the issued M16's that I've fired is about 300-350 meters, it's got to be one heck of a scope. I never "pulled targets in the pits", the Army had pop up target REX ranges since 1974...and the most distant target we shot was 300 meters. I know the Marines value marksmanship...but then, maybe us Army guys needed more practice with the 5.56. At that range we just called in Arty "danger close".
JShirley
January 23, 2006, 09:47 AM
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/images/smilies/dedhorse.gif
Just let me say- again- that the "wound instead of kill" theorizing is pure malarky.
I didn't adjust my sights, but the one time I got to shoot a range out to 600 meters, I hit a target at that distance, with open sights, M4, from "Indian prone".
It's never wise to assume that just because something is above your skill means that it's above EVERYONE'S skill level.
Just let me say- again- that the "wound instead of kill" theorizing is pure malarky.
I didn't adjust my sights, but the one time I got to shoot a range out to 600 meters, I hit a target at that distance, with open sights, M4, from "Indian prone".
It's never wise to assume that just because something is above your skill means that it's above EVERYONE'S skill level.
jungle
January 23, 2006, 09:49 AM
Dawg, The Marines have shot the M-16 at 500 since they had it. It really is easy, and the come ups are even easier with the A-2. Bullet drop at that range is about the same as 7.62x51.They spend a lot of time on marksmanship. That is on a nice range though, not under battlefield conditions.
By the way, the current round will go through a NATO standard steel helmet at 1300 meters.
By the way, the current round will go through a NATO standard steel helmet at 1300 meters.
crazed_ss
January 23, 2006, 10:01 AM
"at 500yds, you just have to concentrate a bit and adjust your sights and you're hitting black with iron sights."
???? Crazed SS, pray tell, how did you adjust your M16 sights to hit a 500 meter target? The barrel would be angled upward like an indirect fire weapon and you would need a FO. Come on....! I reailize the max effective range for the M16A2 is 500-550 meters but I never could hit anything consistently beyond 300 meters. Hmmm. Maybe. I haven't shot one that's been equipped with one of those new X4 scopes that the military has started to bolt on to the rifle. That might make a difference. But considering that the best I could reasonable expect from the issued M16's that I've fired is about 300-350 meters, it's got to be one heck of a scope. I never "pulled targets in the pits", the Army had pop up target REX ranges since 1974...and the most distant target we shot was 300 meters. I know the Marines value marksmanship...but then, maybe us Army guys needed more practice with the 5.56. At that range we just called in Arty "danger close".
I just adjusted the elevation knob and throw on a few clicks for wind if needed. :) The Marine Corps rifle range includes 500yd line stage of fire. 10 rounds prone. Sight picture, sight alignment, naturual respiratory pause, etc, etc... bang! .. easy :)
The USMC really prides itself on marksmanship.
You can see the stages of fire here:
http://www.usmcweapons.com/articles/m16/m16%20Qual/currentcourse/currentm16qual.html
Stage five is the 500yd line.
???? Crazed SS, pray tell, how did you adjust your M16 sights to hit a 500 meter target? The barrel would be angled upward like an indirect fire weapon and you would need a FO. Come on....! I reailize the max effective range for the M16A2 is 500-550 meters but I never could hit anything consistently beyond 300 meters. Hmmm. Maybe. I haven't shot one that's been equipped with one of those new X4 scopes that the military has started to bolt on to the rifle. That might make a difference. But considering that the best I could reasonable expect from the issued M16's that I've fired is about 300-350 meters, it's got to be one heck of a scope. I never "pulled targets in the pits", the Army had pop up target REX ranges since 1974...and the most distant target we shot was 300 meters. I know the Marines value marksmanship...but then, maybe us Army guys needed more practice with the 5.56. At that range we just called in Arty "danger close".
I just adjusted the elevation knob and throw on a few clicks for wind if needed. :) The Marine Corps rifle range includes 500yd line stage of fire. 10 rounds prone. Sight picture, sight alignment, naturual respiratory pause, etc, etc... bang! .. easy :)
The USMC really prides itself on marksmanship.
You can see the stages of fire here:
http://www.usmcweapons.com/articles/m16/m16%20Qual/currentcourse/currentm16qual.html
Stage five is the 500yd line.
Tony Williams
January 23, 2006, 10:42 AM
Let's face facts and admit that rifles and pistols don't kill many people on the modern battlefield. The real work is done by belt feds, mortars, artillery and air. Just as it has been since WWI.
Generally true, but it seems as if the current fighting in Iraq is an exception, caused by a combination of close-range urban work and the constraint of avoiding collateral damage where possible (i.e. you try to clear a building instead of flattening it). I suspect that's why there's such controversy over the 5.56mm's effectiveness - it's perhaps the first time it's really mattered!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
Generally true, but it seems as if the current fighting in Iraq is an exception, caused by a combination of close-range urban work and the constraint of avoiding collateral damage where possible (i.e. you try to clear a building instead of flattening it). I suspect that's why there's such controversy over the 5.56mm's effectiveness - it's perhaps the first time it's really mattered!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
jungle
January 23, 2006, 11:26 AM
Tony, IEDs or poor man's artillery are causing most of the casualties. Any time a target shows up it is quickly put down. The improvements in sighting systems have much more to do with that than caliber. Dots, optics, IR lasers and night vision don't give the enemy using irons much of a chance, day or night.
There is an excellent video in the general forum now of an experienced user engaging targets at 800m or so with an m-16 variant and optical sights. He did very well that day and didn't suffer a scratch.
There is an excellent video in the general forum now of an experienced user engaging targets at 800m or so with an m-16 variant and optical sights. He did very well that day and didn't suffer a scratch.
JShirley
January 23, 2006, 11:41 AM
I suspect that's why there's such controversy over the 5.56mm's effectiveness
I think it's because Joe is always bitching about something. The caliber will never be "right". It was this way in 'Nam, and it will be this way in the future.
John
I think it's because Joe is always bitching about something. The caliber will never be "right". It was this way in 'Nam, and it will be this way in the future.
John
Bartholomew Roberts
January 23, 2006, 11:46 AM
I have a question about the fragmentation of a .223. At what point does the bullet start to come appart? Is it when it comes into contact with the person you shot it at, or does it fragment when it hits a bone or striated muscle tissue?
Any spitzer shape bullet wants to travel base first in a mostly liquid medium like tissue. Depending on a bunch of different factors, every bullet (including 7.62x51) will eventually flip end over end. When that flip happens, if the bullet is traveling faster than its construction will allow, it will break apart and spray fragments through the open temporary cavity - the stretching of the temporary cavity combined with the small tears cause a larger wound cavity than just the bullet by itself is capable of generating.
Now, if the bullet penetrates completely through the target before it yaws - or if it is built solidly enough that it can survive travelling sideways through liquid at whatever speed it impacted at, then it doesn't fragment.
You say you have done a lot of research on this; have you looked at
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm yet?
Also, you have to keep in mind the old saying that "Armchair generals study strategy. Real generals study logistics." One pound of a fully loaded magazine gives you 30 rounds of 5.56mm and 20 rounds of 7.62mm. In a 7lb basic ammo load, that is a difference of 70 rounds less ammo.
In a dynamic urban environment, you may need 2-3 shots regardless of what type of ammo you are using because it may take you that many to hit a moving target firing back at you even from relatively short range. In force-on-force training, I've watched Grandmaster IPSC shooters miss targets entirely at less than seven yards.
Think about what that means for logistics at just the squad or individual level. How long you can fight with a certain load of 7.62? What gear do you have to leave behind to take the same amount of 7.62?
Now think about that at the big picture level - the U.S. Army is currently procuring 1.5 billion rounds per year of small arms ammo (all calibers) (http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/108thcongress/04-06-24blountizzorafferty.pdf). Let's assume that only 40% of that is 5.56mm. How much additional logistics capability do you need to move the extra weight if those rounds are 7.62 instead of 5.56? How much more do you need of strategic resources like brass, copper, steel, lead, etc.?
If you just look at it from an individual perspective (as most of us do here), 5.56mm may seem less than ideal in some scenarios. If you are looking at it from a big picture cost/benefits perspective, 5.56mm is pretty tough to beat.
Any spitzer shape bullet wants to travel base first in a mostly liquid medium like tissue. Depending on a bunch of different factors, every bullet (including 7.62x51) will eventually flip end over end. When that flip happens, if the bullet is traveling faster than its construction will allow, it will break apart and spray fragments through the open temporary cavity - the stretching of the temporary cavity combined with the small tears cause a larger wound cavity than just the bullet by itself is capable of generating.
Now, if the bullet penetrates completely through the target before it yaws - or if it is built solidly enough that it can survive travelling sideways through liquid at whatever speed it impacted at, then it doesn't fragment.
You say you have done a lot of research on this; have you looked at
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm yet?
Also, you have to keep in mind the old saying that "Armchair generals study strategy. Real generals study logistics." One pound of a fully loaded magazine gives you 30 rounds of 5.56mm and 20 rounds of 7.62mm. In a 7lb basic ammo load, that is a difference of 70 rounds less ammo.
In a dynamic urban environment, you may need 2-3 shots regardless of what type of ammo you are using because it may take you that many to hit a moving target firing back at you even from relatively short range. In force-on-force training, I've watched Grandmaster IPSC shooters miss targets entirely at less than seven yards.
Think about what that means for logistics at just the squad or individual level. How long you can fight with a certain load of 7.62? What gear do you have to leave behind to take the same amount of 7.62?
Now think about that at the big picture level - the U.S. Army is currently procuring 1.5 billion rounds per year of small arms ammo (all calibers) (http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/108thcongress/04-06-24blountizzorafferty.pdf). Let's assume that only 40% of that is 5.56mm. How much additional logistics capability do you need to move the extra weight if those rounds are 7.62 instead of 5.56? How much more do you need of strategic resources like brass, copper, steel, lead, etc.?
If you just look at it from an individual perspective (as most of us do here), 5.56mm may seem less than ideal in some scenarios. If you are looking at it from a big picture cost/benefits perspective, 5.56mm is pretty tough to beat.
JShirley
January 23, 2006, 11:50 AM
If you just look at it from an individual perspective (as most of us do here), 5.56mm may seem less than ideal in some scenarios. If you are looking at it from a big picture cost/benefits perspective, 5.56mm is pretty tough to beat.
I agree with your logistical analysis, but I personally feel it wins, either way. If one has a militia/guerrilla warfare type perspective, more ammo means more targets addressed. Small units need to make effective hits, sure, but personally, I'll go for any hole in the enemy larger than .22 LR, and call it good.
J
I agree with your logistical analysis, but I personally feel it wins, either way. If one has a militia/guerrilla warfare type perspective, more ammo means more targets addressed. Small units need to make effective hits, sure, but personally, I'll go for any hole in the enemy larger than .22 LR, and call it good.
J
jungle
January 23, 2006, 11:53 AM
That is where you have to look. Just put on the armor, water and other crap when it is 100 degrees in the shade and prance around a while. It will change your outlook.
Take a look here and tell me how ineffective it is.
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2677403?htv=12&htv=12
Take a look here and tell me how ineffective it is.
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2677403?htv=12&htv=12
DawgFvr
January 23, 2006, 12:17 PM
My hats off to you 5.56 marksmen! Considering that the battlesight zero for the M16 is 250-300 meters point of aim...and yes, one can flip up the long range aperature for distant targets. Got to tell you though, in my twenty years as an infantryman, drill sergeant, and M16 Range Instructor, I have never seen anybody even attempt to hit a 500 meter target with a M16, let alone hit something intentionally at that range...and do it consistently? Whoo boy, it would be considered the "second coming" in all my units! I will tip my hat and fall to the rear for anybody with such awesome capability. In fact, I would travel anywhere in the country to witness that kind of marksmanship with a issued M16 right now.
jungle
January 23, 2006, 12:24 PM
Dawg, Pack your bag and go to Quantico, 29 Stumps, Parris Island or any place Marines shoot. It happens every day.
If that isn't convenient for you, attend the nearest service rifle match.
Bring your hat so you can tip it and stand by to fall to the rear.
If that isn't convenient for you, attend the nearest service rifle match.
Bring your hat so you can tip it and stand by to fall to the rear.
Bartholomew Roberts
January 23, 2006, 12:31 PM
In fact, I would travel anywhere in the country to witness that kind of marksmanship with a issued M16 right now.
Just catch your local Civilian Marksmanship Program competition (http://www.odcmp.com/Competitions/Rulebook.pdf). They routinely shoot out to 600yds with iron sights only using service rifles (M1, M1A, AR15).
If these teens can hit targets at 600yds using iron sights (http://www.odcmp.org/802/inc_camp.asp), then I am confident that any THR member who wants to put in the time to learn can...
P.S. John, I agree with you about the individual level logistics being better too personally; but I do understand why some people dislike it due to personal preference on the individual level.
Just catch your local Civilian Marksmanship Program competition (http://www.odcmp.com/Competitions/Rulebook.pdf). They routinely shoot out to 600yds with iron sights only using service rifles (M1, M1A, AR15).
If these teens can hit targets at 600yds using iron sights (http://www.odcmp.org/802/inc_camp.asp), then I am confident that any THR member who wants to put in the time to learn can...
P.S. John, I agree with you about the individual level logistics being better too personally; but I do understand why some people dislike it due to personal preference on the individual level.
rero360
January 23, 2006, 12:31 PM
If I remember correctly, at Ft. Benning when I was in basic and AIT we shot at 500 yards for a day, the range was a total of 1000 yards IIRC, it was near the parachute towers, I could be wrong on the distances, its all a haze, but it was a range where we had to work the targets, IIRC we shot at 200, 300 and 500 that day, could be wrong though.
rero360
January 23, 2006, 12:36 PM
you always use the small aperture, except for low light and extremely close quarters conditions. I can't imagine trying to hit even a 300 target with the large aperture.
Crosshair
January 23, 2006, 01:07 PM
For those who point out that the soviets adopted the 5.45. Mikhail Kalashnikov personaly hated the 5.45 round. He even went to say in an interview. "It is you americans who are to blame for our switch to 5.45. I was all for modernising 7.62(This is all that I can remember of that part of the interview.
Also, I think that the 5.56 can be a usefull combat round. We just need better bullets. Here is a Semi-scientific test I did with my 22-250. PLease note the high velocity I was pushing the bullets to. I am not saying that we should go with Ballistic Tip bullets, but we need to use something better than the FMJ we are using now. Also note that the current 62 grain loading that we are using is built even tougher so terminal effects would likely be worse than the 55 grain FMJ.
The 5.56 is not a bad round for combat, we are just using bullets made to pierce body armor. Only thing is that the most modern armor will stop 5.56 in any form and soft body armor will be pierced by 5.56 is nearly any form. We need to stop working on AP performance and make a round with better terminal blaistics.
http://gra.midco.net/5937/22-250,%20Balistic%20Tip%20vs%20FMJ-BT%20Small.jpg
Here is the photo in its original res. 600K (http://gra.midco.net/5937/22-250,%20Balistic%20Tip%20vs%20FMJ-BT%20Large.jpg)
Also, I think that the 5.56 can be a usefull combat round. We just need better bullets. Here is a Semi-scientific test I did with my 22-250. PLease note the high velocity I was pushing the bullets to. I am not saying that we should go with Ballistic Tip bullets, but we need to use something better than the FMJ we are using now. Also note that the current 62 grain loading that we are using is built even tougher so terminal effects would likely be worse than the 55 grain FMJ.
The 5.56 is not a bad round for combat, we are just using bullets made to pierce body armor. Only thing is that the most modern armor will stop 5.56 in any form and soft body armor will be pierced by 5.56 is nearly any form. We need to stop working on AP performance and make a round with better terminal blaistics.
http://gra.midco.net/5937/22-250,%20Balistic%20Tip%20vs%20FMJ-BT%20Small.jpg
Here is the photo in its original res. 600K (http://gra.midco.net/5937/22-250,%20Balistic%20Tip%20vs%20FMJ-BT%20Large.jpg)
No Quarter
January 23, 2006, 01:41 PM
Orignally posted by DogFVR:
"My hats off to you 5.56 marksmen! Considering that the battlesight zero for the M16 is 250-300 meters point of aim...and yes, one can flip up the long range aperature for distant targets. Got to tell you though, in my twenty years as an infantryman, drill sergeant, and M16 Range Instructor, I have never seen anybody even attempt to hit a 500 meter target with a M16, let alone hit something intentionally at that range...and do it consistently? Whoo boy, it would be considered the "second coming" in all my units! I will tip my hat and fall to the rear for anybody with such awesome capability. In fact, I would travel anywhere in the country to witness that kind of marksmanship with a issued M16 right now."
How in the world have you been so closely associated with the M16 for 20 years and still are not familiar with the USMC KD rifle course of fire? I hit 10 of 10 at 500 yards on a half man sihouette target every time at the range. so do many many other Marines every day when they wual with their rifles.
Go watch the Marine boots qual for the first time and hit expert (many hitting 10 of 10 at 500 yards as well) many of them not even having touched a rifle before boot camp.
Of course, I guess you are also just showing the main difference between a 20 year Army vet and a boot Marine recruit :)
"My hats off to you 5.56 marksmen! Considering that the battlesight zero for the M16 is 250-300 meters point of aim...and yes, one can flip up the long range aperature for distant targets. Got to tell you though, in my twenty years as an infantryman, drill sergeant, and M16 Range Instructor, I have never seen anybody even attempt to hit a 500 meter target with a M16, let alone hit something intentionally at that range...and do it consistently? Whoo boy, it would be considered the "second coming" in all my units! I will tip my hat and fall to the rear for anybody with such awesome capability. In fact, I would travel anywhere in the country to witness that kind of marksmanship with a issued M16 right now."
How in the world have you been so closely associated with the M16 for 20 years and still are not familiar with the USMC KD rifle course of fire? I hit 10 of 10 at 500 yards on a half man sihouette target every time at the range. so do many many other Marines every day when they wual with their rifles.
Go watch the Marine boots qual for the first time and hit expert (many hitting 10 of 10 at 500 yards as well) many of them not even having touched a rifle before boot camp.
Of course, I guess you are also just showing the main difference between a 20 year Army vet and a boot Marine recruit :)
carlrodd
January 23, 2006, 01:55 PM
i think the 5.56 is a fine round, and coming out of the M-16/AR-15 it's very accurate. as concerns stopping power, i think the most dramatic stories of innefficiency came from somalia, and it is well-documented that many of the somalis were high during the battle in mogadishu.....and still an overstrength company-sized task force was able to inflict several thousand casualites, with the number killed estimated as high as 1,000. and the primary tool in accomplishing this was the 5.56.
the big gripe i have with the 5.56 is what it is most commonly fired from...namely the M-16/AR-15. as a field service weapon in the military, my experience is that M-16 is too dificult to maintain, and is dangerously unreliable when exposed to the elements......ESPECIALLY the fine grit found in places like iraq. i was regularly on a 240B in the turret of a HMMWV, and though i always had my M-16 next to me as well, i wasn't anxious to turn to it.
i suppose the AR-15 would probably be a very suitable weapon outside of a field environment. but as always, i am most concerned with the eurasian menace and mutant zombie invasions and plan to be equiped with something else when the SHTF.
the big gripe i have with the 5.56 is what it is most commonly fired from...namely the M-16/AR-15. as a field service weapon in the military, my experience is that M-16 is too dificult to maintain, and is dangerously unreliable when exposed to the elements......ESPECIALLY the fine grit found in places like iraq. i was regularly on a 240B in the turret of a HMMWV, and though i always had my M-16 next to me as well, i wasn't anxious to turn to it.
i suppose the AR-15 would probably be a very suitable weapon outside of a field environment. but as always, i am most concerned with the eurasian menace and mutant zombie invasions and plan to be equiped with something else when the SHTF.
carlrodd
January 23, 2006, 01:59 PM
Orignally posted by DogFVR:
Of course, I guess you are also just showing the main difference between a 20 year Army vet and a boot Marine recruit :)
uh oh.....watch yerself:scrutiny:
Of course, I guess you are also just showing the main difference between a 20 year Army vet and a boot Marine recruit :)
uh oh.....watch yerself:scrutiny:
DawgFvr
January 23, 2006, 02:53 PM
Army qualification tables do not go beyond 300 meters for the M16...the Army does not dwell on long distance markmanship with M16...and yes, we use the large aperature for 300 meters. I know the Marines value marksmanship...moreso than the Army. You have my respect. I had a hard enough time hitting a 350 meter target consistently with 5.56. That is my personal experience. Me...I'd like to see the talkers here actually hit targets consistently at 500 meters with a service M16...methinks they are just talkers. It is, after all, a web site...so talk is cheap...bet you are all great fishermen too! I can only imagine the size of the fish you chatch...hee, hee.
Bartholomew Roberts
January 23, 2006, 02:57 PM
as a field service weapon in the military, my experience is that M-16 is too dificult to maintain, and is dangerously unreliable when exposed to the elements......ESPECIALLY the fine grit found in places like iraq. i was regularly on a 240B in the turret of a HMMWV, and though i always had my M-16 next to me as well, i wasn't anxious to turn to it.
While that is another much-debated subject, it is one for another thread (we have several that already exist if anyone would like to read and restart them). What unit were you with in Iraq?
While that is another much-debated subject, it is one for another thread (we have several that already exist if anyone would like to read and restart them). What unit were you with in Iraq?
ny32182
January 23, 2006, 03:09 PM
Army qualification tables do not go beyond 300 meters for the M16...the Army does not dwell on long distance markmanship with M16...and yes, we use the large aperature for 300 meters. I know the Marines value marksmanship...moreso than the Army. You have my respect. I had a hard enough time hitting a 350 meter target consistently with 5.56. That is my personal experience. Me...I'd like to see the talkers here actually hit targets consistently at 500 meters with a service M16...methinks they are just talkers. It is, after all, a web site...so talk is cheap...bet you are all great fishermen too! I can only imagine the size of the fish you chatch...hee, hee.
None of my Marine friends had any trouble at the 500 yard range, and none of them were very experienced shooters heading out of high school into basic training.
None of my Marine friends had any trouble at the 500 yard range, and none of them were very experienced shooters heading out of high school into basic training.
jungle
January 23, 2006, 03:17 PM
Dawg, I can see you are having a little trouble reading today. Do some research and then come back.
Calling the Marines here liars is not the way to prove your point, and it is an insult to those present.
Calling the Marines here liars is not the way to prove your point, and it is an insult to those present.
GeoW
January 23, 2006, 03:29 PM
Concerning the 5.56 ability to fragment or not, I never saw a clean, straight-through wound made by it either in man or beast. 5.56 makes more moves than a XXX...
That's a fact,
GeoW
That's a fact,
GeoW
DawgFvr
January 23, 2006, 03:29 PM
Correction: Small aperature for the 300 meter target...sorry about that.
Um, no, I said I have all athe respect in the world for the Marines. Trained with them at Ft Ord during MOUT training and I was stationed with them in Cuba during the Boat crisis in fact. I doubt, however, that everyone on this thread are Marines or ex-Marines...I think there are a few on here that are talking out the side of their mouths...and probably have not even fired a M16 let alone hit targets at 500 meters. Yup, those are the characters that I am referring to.
Um, no, I said I have all athe respect in the world for the Marines. Trained with them at Ft Ord during MOUT training and I was stationed with them in Cuba during the Boat crisis in fact. I doubt, however, that everyone on this thread are Marines or ex-Marines...I think there are a few on here that are talking out the side of their mouths...and probably have not even fired a M16 let alone hit targets at 500 meters. Yup, those are the characters that I am referring to.
Bartholomew Roberts
January 23, 2006, 03:47 PM
There is certainly no shortage of discussion of this topic available through search. Since this thread seems to be drifting I am closing it, and I recommend those interested in the topic use search to read the many threads on this subject.
PvtPyle
January 23, 2006, 07:24 PM
Orignally posted by DogFVR:
How in the world have you been so closely associated with the M16 for 20 years and still are not familiar with the USMC KD rifle course of fire? I hit 10 of 10 at 500 yards on a half man sihouette target every time at the range. so do many many other Marines every day when they wual with their rifles.
Go watch the Marine boots qual for the first time and hit expert (many hitting 10 of 10 at 500 yards as well) many of them not even having touched a rifle before boot camp.
Of course, I guess you are also just showing the main difference between a 20 year Army vet and a boot Marine recruit :)
The 500yd line is much easier than one would think. But how does a person spend that many years in the military without knowing about the matches at Camp Perry, or the ones at Camp Robinson, both Army bases with matches that have ranges for the M16 out to 600m? How does that happen? Or as previously noted, not know what the other branches of service do as part of their marksmanship training?
Maybe you never thought about it based on your scores that resulted from using the wrong sight at longer ranges. If you look on the side of the sight that faces you, the big hole says "0-2". That means 0-200m. Now that you have that clarified your scores should improve a bit. If you need some further help, I am a competitor at Robinson for the State and have shot the 600m targets a few times successfully, and I am a PMI/coach for the State. We do lots of training and coaching for folks and I have had good results getting people's scores up from passing to Expert. I am pretty sure I could help you hit the targets out past 300m.
How in the world have you been so closely associated with the M16 for 20 years and still are not familiar with the USMC KD rifle course of fire? I hit 10 of 10 at 500 yards on a half man sihouette target every time at the range. so do many many other Marines every day when they wual with their rifles.
Go watch the Marine boots qual for the first time and hit expert (many hitting 10 of 10 at 500 yards as well) many of them not even having touched a rifle before boot camp.
Of course, I guess you are also just showing the main difference between a 20 year Army vet and a boot Marine recruit :)
The 500yd line is much easier than one would think. But how does a person spend that many years in the military without knowing about the matches at Camp Perry, or the ones at Camp Robinson, both Army bases with matches that have ranges for the M16 out to 600m? How does that happen? Or as previously noted, not know what the other branches of service do as part of their marksmanship training?
Maybe you never thought about it based on your scores that resulted from using the wrong sight at longer ranges. If you look on the side of the sight that faces you, the big hole says "0-2". That means 0-200m. Now that you have that clarified your scores should improve a bit. If you need some further help, I am a competitor at Robinson for the State and have shot the 600m targets a few times successfully, and I am a PMI/coach for the State. We do lots of training and coaching for folks and I have had good results getting people's scores up from passing to Expert. I am pretty sure I could help you hit the targets out past 300m.
If you enjoyed reading about ".223/5.56....Too Weak?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.