G-Gordon says it's a "Pop gun"


PDA






BulletFan
February 3, 2006, 10:58 PM
So I was listening to one of my heroes on his radio show today. G Gordon Liddy. Today being Friday, it's gun discussion day....someone called in praising the versatility of the 7.62 NATO and the M1, the M14 and on and on. Now I love listening to G Gordon and I usually agree with just about everything he says. BUT, today his opinion on the new AR-15 and even the M-16's of the past being "cutesy little pop guns" is just a bit harsh.
Granted the M1 and the M14 are wonderful guns, and I'm sure that if I were a ground troop cresting over a hill with enemies all around me at distances of 75-100 yards and I had some cover, I'd probably prefer the 7.62, but you know what, warfare has changed since the days of the M1 and M14. The portability and ease of use of the AR-15 and the like have proved to be vital in combat use of today. If I were climbing in and out of Hummers and tanks, jumping in and around barriers, crawling through allies etc, I would definately choose a weapon easier manuvured and higher capacity in ammo.
I could just have no idea what I'm talking about, I have no military experience and I'm not about to join up, but am I alone in thinking that overall, for today's combat situations, the AR-15 is just great? Besides, the AR can be converted over to 7.62 NATO in about 1 minute anyway...so why call it a pop gun!?

What are your thoughts. Military opinions appreciated, especially those of you who faught using something other than the AR or M-16.

Thanks.
Matt

If you enjoyed reading about "G-Gordon says it's a "Pop gun"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
armoredman
February 3, 2006, 11:00 PM
I barely qualify - we had M14s on board ship, but I "trained" with the M16 in Amry ROTC...if you can call it that.
I fell in love with the old fence post on board ship.

shecky
February 3, 2006, 11:00 PM
Mistake number 1: Listening to G.Gordon.

It all goes downhill from there.

DF357
February 3, 2006, 11:03 PM
Compared to an M1 or M14 the AR is a popgun. If you ever fired one, you'd know.

That said, it does the job for today's purposes and that's what is important.

BulletFan
February 3, 2006, 11:08 PM
But it still gets the job done...
Two in the chest, one in the head. I tell ya what, I wouldn't get up after that. 75 virgins or not.

Devonai
February 3, 2006, 11:20 PM
Bulletfan, you can't convert a 5.56x45mm AR-15 to 7.62x51mm in any given amount of time. The magazine well is too short to accomodate the cartridge. AR-style rifles in .308 must have a dedicated lower receiver.

I think every squad should have a designated marksman with an M14, but that's just because I'd like to be him. I think the .308 is an excellent combat round but modern Infantry tactics require too much suppressive fire to make widespread use of the M14 practical.

BulletFan
February 3, 2006, 11:37 PM
Aha, I thought the .308 was able to fit in the same lower.

TexasRifleman
February 4, 2006, 12:04 AM
It's a radio show, as in SHOW business.

If he didn't say controversial things no one would listen.

Skofnung
February 4, 2006, 01:42 AM
I always laugh when anyone calls any cartridge gun a "popgun."
They will all kill. .22 short to .50 BMG. Some better than others, but all are lethal.

roscoe
February 4, 2006, 01:49 AM
Liddy is the popgun.

Roudy
February 4, 2006, 01:54 AM
It's not the rifle that is in question here, but the cartridge.

Comparing the .233 to the .308 or 30-06 is like comparing a tack hammer to a 5 pound sledge hammer.

Granted that heavier weapons are more difficult to carry in combat situations, but to arrive at a firefight inadequately armed just because you don't want to be tired is poor tactics.

BTW do 3 rounds of .223 weigh less than 1 round of .308?:p

KriegHund
February 4, 2006, 01:57 AM
Lets shoot him with this supposed popgun, and see how long it takes him to die w/o immediate medical attention.

Nightdiver
February 4, 2006, 01:59 AM
Someone please help me out here. What war did Liddy fight in?:confused:

Oh yeah, he was assigned to an AA battery in New York during the Korean conflict.

So much for his expert opinion.;)

R.H. Lee
February 4, 2006, 02:01 AM
The level of indignation indicates the statement has some merit. The 5.56/.223 is, after all, a varmint and plinking round.

Roudy
February 4, 2006, 02:02 AM
Lets shoot him with this supposed popgun, and see how long it takes him to die w/o immediate medical attention.

with the .308 or 30-06...medical attention may be a moot point!:)

Sunray
February 4, 2006, 02:32 AM
"...climbing in and out of Hummers and tanks, jumping in and around barriers, crawling through allies(sic) etc..." The PBI have always done that. The PBI did it during W. W. I, W. W. II and Korea with a heavy rifle with no fuss. Ok, they don't climb in and out of tanks nor did they always have Hummers, but the running about with a rifle in hand and everything they own on their backs is what they do.
"...with the .308 or 30-06...medical attention is a moot point..." Nonsense.

Roudy
February 4, 2006, 03:35 AM
Me thinks Ya'll are taking this thing to seriously. :what:

mustanger98
February 4, 2006, 07:26 AM
Ya'll remember, this is just the internet.

FWIW, I shoot a Mini-14 and an M1 Garand. I like both. I'd hate to see somebody get hit with a round from either. But if I were going into harm's way, I'd rather have the Garand because .308 or .30-06 does have more power.

BTW, fired from a bolt gun, in my experience M193 ball ain't all that great, accuracy-wise.

kaferhaus
February 4, 2006, 09:40 AM
I see the keyboard commandos are at it again.

Some of you guys need to actually do some ballistics/wound cavity research before you prove your ignorance to the rest of the world by opining on it.

There's no doubt that putting a big hole in someone is better than putting a small hole in them. The reason is energy transfer and faster "bleed out" NOT lethality.

At normal rifle engagement ranges the 06 and 308 are no more lethal or debilitating than the 5.56.

At 600M the 5.56 M855 round actually has better penetration than the 308..

It is easier to shoot the M16 accurately than any other military firearm ever produced. An off the rack M16 is more accurate than any M14 that was ever a standard issue weapon.

Even when "accurized" for DCM competition, the AR is kicking the M14s tail even at 600M

Not having to carry a 10lb rifle all day is a plus

Not having to carry a "fence post" all day is a plus

Being able to carry twice the ammo is a plus

Having to change magazines half as often is a plus

Being able to move through tight spaces while still having your rifle at the ready is a plus.

Having a more accurate rifle is a plus

Being able to shoot that rifle accurately for a sustained period of time is a plus (recoil)

Even during WWII the vast majority of rifle engagements was less than 200M, nearly 60% was under 100M.

The 308s only advantage as a military rifle round is it leaves a bigger hole for blood to flow out of and transfers a little more energy to the target. Hit a target in the same spot with either round and the tissue damage will be as near identical as you could possibly imagine.

Now before some genius pulls out a data table and trys to say the muzzle energy of a 308 is "X" vs the 5.56 is such and such, that's nearly a useless statistic in the "real world". The bullet would have to stop instantaneously against an immovable object for that nifty little stat to mean squat.

The 5.56 is an excellent infantry round. Hundreds of thousands of dead enemy soldiers can't be wrong.

Andrew Wyatt
February 4, 2006, 04:06 PM
My comments are in red. I don't have a dog in the fight, I just thought some things needed answering. also, the first three lines irritate me.

I see the keyboard commandos are at it again.

Some of you guys need to actually do some ballistics/wound cavity research before you prove your ignorance to the rest of the world by opining on it.

There's no doubt that putting a big hole in someone is better than putting a small hole in them. The reason is energy transfer and faster "bleed out" NOT lethality.

At normal rifle engagement ranges the 06 and 308 are no more lethal or debilitating than the 5.56.

At 600M the 5.56 M855 round actually has better penetration than the 308.. (Against what barriers? with what .308 ammunition? cite sources, please.)

It is easier to shoot the M16 accurately than any other military firearm ever produced. An off the rack M16 is more accurate than any M14 that was ever a standard issue weapon.

Even when "accurized" for DCM competition, the AR is kicking the M14s tail even at 600M

Not having to carry a 10lb rifle all day is a plus

Not having to carry a "fence post" all day is a plus

Being able to carry twice the ammo is a plus

Having to change magazines half as often is a plus. (2/3ds as often. 40 round magazines aren't standard.)

Being able to move through tight spaces while still having your rifle at the ready is a plus. (the m-14's OAL is 44.5 inches or thereabouts. the m-16A2's OAL is 39.15 inches, there are few places where you can fit one but not the other, and there are shorter examples of both around.)

Having a more accurate rifle is a plus

Being able to shoot that rifle accurately for a sustained period of time is a plus (recoil)

Even during WWII the vast majority of rifle engagements was less than 200M, nearly 60% was under 100M. (enemies do occasionally pop up at ranges longer than 100 yards. having a man/rifle combination capable of taking enemies at longer range is probably a good idea.)

The 308s only advantage as a military rifle round is it leaves a bigger hole for blood to flow out of and transfers a little more energy to the target. Hit a target in the same spot with either round and the tissue damage will be as near identical as you could possibly imagine. >(.308 puts bigger holes in barracades, and because of its mass, flies truer than .223 after exiting a barracade, like an interior wall.)

Now before some genius pulls out a data table and trys to say the muzzle energy of a 308 is "X" vs the 5.56 is such and such, that's nearly a useless statistic in the "real world". The bullet would have to stop instantaneously against an immovable object for that nifty little stat to mean squat. (This instance occurs when shooting at concrete walls and other hard objects which are damaged more by .308 than .223)

The 5.56 is an excellent infantry round. Hundreds of thousands of dead enemy soldiers can't be wrong.

Infidel
February 4, 2006, 04:53 PM
I like G. Gordon, one of my heroes. "V.D. Only"

The .223 can be a good cartridge, depending on what kind and how big a poodle you're hunting.

I see the keyboard commandos are at it again.

Goedel, Escher, Bach

kaferhaus
February 4, 2006, 05:18 PM
(Against what barriers? with what .308 ammunition? cite sources, please.)

Google it yourself....

If the first three lines of my original post irritated you, they were meant too.

M16 mag = 30rds, M14 mag = 20rds one mag change on a M16 = 2 mag changes on a M14. You can run the math backwards if you want, you'd still be wrong.

I've been in the army 27yrs, fought in 4 different conflicts graduated from the "war college" and will retire next year as an 06.

I'm sure you're much more qualified than I on any subject concerning the effectiveness of our systems, their ammunition and manner in which they are employed.

355sigfan
February 4, 2006, 05:21 PM
So I was listening to one of my heroes on his radio show today. G Gordon Liddy. Today being Friday, it's gun discussion day....someone called in praising the versatility of the 7.62 NATO and the M1, the M14 and on and on. Now I love listening to G Gordon and I usually agree with just about everything he says. BUT, today his opinion on the new AR-15 and even the M-16's of the past being "cutesy little pop guns" is just a bit harsh.
Granted the M1 and the M14 are wonderful guns, and I'm sure that if I were a ground troop cresting over a hill with enemies all around me at distances of 75-100 yards and I had some cover, I'd probably prefer the 7.62, but you know what, warfare has changed since the days of the M1 and M14. The portability and ease of use of the AR-15 and the like have proved to be vital in combat use of today. If I were climbing in and out of Hummers and tanks, jumping in and around barriers, crawling through allies etc, I would definately choose a weapon easier manuvured and higher capacity in ammo.
I could just have no idea what I'm talking about, I have no military experience and I'm not about to join up, but am I alone in thinking that overall, for today's combat situations, the AR-15 is just great? Besides, the AR can be converted over to 7.62 NATO in about 1 minute anyway...so why call it a pop gun!?

What are your thoughts. Military opinions appreciated, especially those of you who faught using something other than the AR or M-16.

Thanks.
Matt

I don't put too much faith in the words of convicted felons like G Gordon.
Pat

mustanger98
February 4, 2006, 06:30 PM
From what I understand, all the speed any projectile (from the size of a BB up to the size of a semi-truck) needs to be potentially lethal is 300fps. If it's a matter of me facing someone wanting to kill me, what's the biggest stick I can hit 'em with? I've already said I favor .308 and .30-06. I've also read M2 ball will penetrate 3' of oak at 500yds. Anybody want to shoot at me with an M16 from 500 and then hide behind an oak tree? I didn't think so.

Then there's this business of "normal rifle engagement ranges"... yeah, whatever. That's like trying to make the other side "play nice", but it comes down to what's fair in a gunfight. Nothing is fair and you use every tactic you know to come home alive. One of those tactics can be engaging a 300yd-capable enemy from 500-600yds with a more powerful round. It also helps if you see them before they see you and take a position where it takes them a few minutes to figure out your location by your collective firing signature. This isn't a question of added lethality, although it may or may not come into play, so much as it is a question of distance and mentally effecting the enemy.

Not having to carry a 10lb rifle all day is a plus

My Grandpa was a truck driver and was issued a .45 and a M1 Carbine back in WW2. He carried all the ammo he could get for them too, but the load of ammo rode around in the truck with him instead of him having to carry it. But his experience on Omaha Beach had its own set of problems are far as weight of gear and not enough ammo to suit him.

Not having to carry a "fence post" all day is a plus

We're talking rifles; not fence posts. Of course not carrying a fence post is a plus. That's why I like my M1 Garand. Instead of having to get within swinging radius, I can get some reach on it.

Being able to carry twice the ammo is a plus

Not when it takes 2X or 3X the number of rounds of smaller ammo to engage and destroy the same number or less of enemy.

Having to change magazines half as often is a plus

If we didn't have so many ninjas braggin' about how fast and slick they can waste ammo, we wouldn't need to do so many hypothetical mag changes, now, would we?

Being able to move through tight spaces while still having your rifle at the ready is a plus.

Somebody already explained that one quite satisfactorily, I thought.

Having a more accurate rifle is a plus

Are we talking match accuracy or combat accuracy? It's hard to tell sometimes because a thread will start about a combat accurate popgun and then somebody'll start up like their the Pope of Chilitown about accurized AR's at Camp Perry. I figure it has more to do with the shooter than the rifle. FWIW, two of my 2nd cousins are Vietnam Vets (USMC) and one of them was issued the M16 in '68 and '69. He said the M16 was accurate if the shooter was accurate, but it wouldn't be his first choice of weapons. His older brother was there before him with an M14 and said the M14 was and is a superb weapon and better suited to the job.

Even when "accurized" for DCM competition, the AR is kicking the M14s tail even at 600M

And this takes place on a square range from four positions. IIRC, it also includes, in some matches, use of bullet weights better suited to distance and windy conditions. For example, what I've read of some people using 75gr bullets (single-loaded because they're too long to load through the magazine) for the longer distances so they'll buck the wind better.

Being able to shoot that rifle accurately for a sustained period of time is a plus (recoil)

As I've said, I shoot a Mini-14 (.223) and an M1 Garand (.30-06). From standing, I don't notice the .30-06 recoiling nearly so hard as some people claim it does.

That's my $.02.

Art Eatman
February 4, 2006, 06:35 PM
Aw, c'mon, 355sigfan, I really doubt one's criminal status determines one's level of knowledge on a subject.

G. Gordon is amusing, although his callers tend to come from the strange-creature pool. There's nothing wrong with his being opinionated, but he does tend toward undue excitement on some things. :)

I'd like to see a bit more Oomph in our military cartridge, but as long as the users know the limitations, the .223 works.

As far as bullets and wounds and penetration, I don't have the proper military attitude. I like max-load expanding bullets from an '06, myself. :) Red Mist Is Good, anyoldtime.

Art

355sigfan
February 4, 2006, 06:45 PM
Aw, c'mon, 355sigfan, I really doubt one's criminal status determines one's level of knowledge on a subject.

G. Gordon is amusing, although his callers tend to come from the strange-creature pool. There's nothing wrong with his being opinionated, but he does tend toward undue excitement on some things. :)

I'd like to see a bit more Oomph in our military cartridge, but as long as the users know the limitations, the .223 works.

As far as bullets and wounds and penetration, I don't have the proper military attitude. I like max-load expanding bullets from an '06, myself. :) Red Mist Is Good, anyoldtime.

Art

I simply have no respect for the man at all. I have heard his show. Same goes for Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio. I used to listen to that stuff before I knew better.
Pat

Smith357
February 4, 2006, 06:58 PM
The g-man is not all that knowledgeble about firearms, but I would not hunt deer with a .223 why would I want to use it for hunting something that shoots back.

355sigfan
February 4, 2006, 07:35 PM
The g-man is not all that knowledgeble about firearms, but I would not hunt deer with a .223 why would I want to use it for hunting something that shoots back.

Because it does just fine on people. Deer are considerably more muscular than people and need more penetration. .223's do fine on people. The cartridge also is easy to fire rapidly and accurately allowing more rounds to be placed on more targets. Again comparing hunting to combat is idiotic.
Pat

Headless Thompson Gunner
February 4, 2006, 07:37 PM
Military riflecraft is oriented more towards high volumes of gunfire, as opposed to high quality gunfire. Their goal is to keep the enemy pinned down, which leaves them free to manuever or otherwise carry out their mission.

Large magazine capacities and handy/portable rifles are ideal here. If I were a private in a modern infantry squad, a .223/AR-15 would be perfect for me. A Garand would not.


But military tactics don't work for the individual rifleman. The single riflman is best served by keeping distance from his enemies and by staying hidden. Spraying magazine after magazine from a full auto rifle is NOT the way to do that.

For an individual rifleman, the ability to make one or two solid hits from 300 yards is more important than the ability to carry piles of 30 round magazines. A scoped hunting rifle makes a lot more sense for a rifleman than the .223/AR-15. A Garand or M14 would be better still, but mostly because scoped bolt guns are slow and clumsy to reload.

It all depends on what job you want to perform with your rifle. By rifle standards the AR-15 is a popgun. But so what? That's what it's designed to be, and it works well that way.

Andrew Wyatt
February 4, 2006, 11:00 PM
Again, my comments are in red.
Google it yourself.... My own tests and observations on the barrier penetration of the .223 do not agree with yours. I asked for sources so that i can look up the data and compare it with my own.

If the first three lines of my original post irritated you, they were meant too.

M16 mag = 30rds, M14 mag = 20rds one mag change on a M16 = 2 mag changes on a M14. You can run the math backwards if you want, you'd still be wrong. Yes, but 180 rounds is six magazine changes on an m-16, and 9 with an m-14.

I've been in the army 27yrs, fought in 4 different conflicts graduated from the "war college" and will retire next year as an 06. I'm not denying that your opinion has weight, or even suggesting that the m-16/.223 is inadequate within its engagement range. I was suggesting that the .308 has a role on the battlefield still, even though that role may be limited.

I'm sure you're much more qualified than I on any subject concerning the effectiveness of our systems, their ammunition and manner in which they are employed. I've actually done first hand barrier penetration tests on .223s and .308s and several other calibers, and as a range officer at the SWAT magazine 3-gun Match, i've seen more rounds impact barriers first hand than a whole lot of people.

0007
February 4, 2006, 11:59 PM
If the 5.56 is such a fine all-round cartridge/weapon system, why do you suppose the Army and the Marines are pulling those "useless" old M-14s out of storage and issueing them out to some their troops.

antsi
February 5, 2006, 12:19 AM
No personal experience here, but I have a good friend from my local highpower club with extensive combat background in Korea and Vietnam. His take on the m16/.223 bashers was "I bet those guys never had to carry a rifle and all their ammo 30 miles through a jungle."

rbernie
February 5, 2006, 12:31 AM
why do you suppose the Army and the Marines are pulling those "useless" old M-14s out of storage and issueing them out to some their troops.Actually, that has been extensively discussed here and elsewhere. Do a quick search for Designated Marksman, and see what comes up. You'll find that the numbers of M14s pales in comparison to the number of M16 variants, and that the M14 is being used to augment and complement the strengths of the M16 platform; not to replace it or somehow cover up for any glaring weakness.

The long and the short of it is that 7.62x51 has a definite but LIMITED role in todays' combat. Putting all of your eggs in the 5.56 basket is no more or less silly than placing them in the 7.61x51 camp. It's the proper mix of things that makes the Big Green Machine move along best....

Terrierman
February 5, 2006, 12:44 AM
will retire next year as an 06.

Couldn't make General?

MechAg94
February 5, 2006, 02:29 AM
No personal experience here, but I have a good friend from my local highpower club with extensive combat background in Korea and Vietnam. His take on the m16/.223 bashers was "I bet those guys never had to carry a rifle and all their ammo 30 miles through a jungle."
That is what my Dad said as well. When you have to carry all the ammo you will have for a few days, you want to carry as much as possible. That was what he considered to be the best advantage of the M16. He said he would rather go hungry than run out of ammo.

MechAg94
February 5, 2006, 02:33 AM
M16 mag = 30rds, M14 mag = 20rds one mag change on a M16 = 2 mag changes on a M14. You can run the math backwards if you want, you'd still be wrong. Yes, but 180 rounds is six magazine changes on an m-16, and 9 with an m-14.
I think you missed the point. If you start with a loaded rifle and shoot 60 rounds, you only need one mag change with an M16. 2 for an M14.
On your example, it is 5 and 8 mag changes.

Smith357
February 5, 2006, 10:53 AM
Because it does just fine on people. Deer are considerably more muscular than people and need more penetration. .223's do fine on people. The cartridge also is easy to fire rapidly and accurately allowing more rounds to be placed on more targets. Again comparing hunting to combat is idiotic.
Pat
You want to use a .223 on a semi armored target that shoots back then by all means knock yourself out. If the army, and police want to give all their undiciplined shooters small caliber lead sprayers that's up to them. I can hit what I aim at, so I don't need to throw vast amounts of lead down range willy nilly, here in america I have choice, I choose a .308 or .30-06 when I go hunting humans. And take it from someone who has done both, combat is very comparable to hunting for the Marine on the ground. I use .233 for ground hogs and prarie dogs, anything bigger than a cayote gets a bigger bullet.

MachIVshooter
February 5, 2006, 01:19 PM
The problem with the .223 round is not lethality. This high velocity smallbore is devastating on tissue. I can't imagine you'd see a big difference in the wound between .223 and the various .30 caliber cartridges using FMJ bullets. The 5.56mm round does have a serious disadvantage in another area, however; barriers. It does not fair well against any of them, including interior walls. Many tests, formal and informal, have proven that a 5.56mm projectile will begin to tumble immediately on impact with any barrier, thus loosing energy rapidly and deviating wildly from the original flightpath. The heavier and slightly slower .30 caliber rounds are much less prone to this phenomenon, making them far more effective for engaging targets behind cover.

This same characteristic makes the 5.56mm a very good choice for CQB in an urban area. It drastically reduces the chance for collateral damage. The .223 is less likely to leave a dwelling than most handgun cartridges.

rbernie
February 5, 2006, 01:36 PM
If the army, and police want to give all their undiciplined shooters small caliber lead sprayers that's up to them. Wow - that's a bit of a strong statement, and certainly isn't terribly flattering to the many current and former Service Members on this forum.

You seem to have missed a number of points along the way to formulating that conclusion, not the least of which is that nowhere since the AR15/M16s introduction has it been official published doctrine in any US armed service to 'spray lead'. If you can provide proof otherwise, I'd love to see it.

Bigfoot
February 5, 2006, 01:38 PM
[QUOTE=Smith357] here in america I have choice, I choose a .308 or .30-06 when I go hunting humans. QUOTE]

Huh? :scrutiny:

Sergeant Sabre
February 5, 2006, 02:08 PM
There are reasons that the 5.56mm NATO is a good military cartridge. There are many other considerations other than how well something supposedly kills that must be considered when evaluating a cartridge for military use.

The 5.56mm NATO is small compared to the 7.62mm, and that is one of it's advantages. I can carry two hundred or more of them for miles and miles. I can get to the objective faster, with more ammunition, and less exhausted than with a 7.62mm NATO. Also, one man can carry 1620 of them in two ammo cans for a short-range resupply. A helo can carry significantly more 5.56mm.

I can load my rifle with 30 of them and still have a comparatively lightwieght package. If it is required that you fireman's carry or drag a wounded friend while pointing the rifle downrange and firing with one hand, as I was taught to do, that lightwieght package, low recoil, and 30-round capacity would be appreciated. If need be, I can put all 30 of them downrange accurately very, very quickly due to the very light recoil of the cartridge.

To those who contend that the 5.56mm is good for untrained, undisciplined troops so that they can "spray and pray", I contend that applying a high volume of accurate fire is a very valid and important tactical concept. ("accurate" used here does not mean shooting cute sub-MOA groups. It means putting lead downrange that impacts somewhere in the enemy's position). Applying a high volume of fire, called suppressive fire, is a tactical concept taught to every recruit, fire team leader, squad leader, and boot 2ndLt in our nation's military. The 5.56mm cartridge's size allows more ammunition per rifleman, plus more ammunition per resupply, which means a higher suppressive fire capability.

I post the above words as a five-year veteran of the US Marine Corps, and a veteran of combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

-Sgt Bartlett, USMC

P.S. I have respect for all individuals who have counter-opinions regarding my statements. However, if your knowledge of tactical environments comes from the internet, a book, word-of-mouth, or anywhere else other than actually serving in and operating in tactical environments, please understand that, although I have respect for YOU , I will probably consider opinions on such subjects to have very little, if any, merit.

rbernie
February 5, 2006, 03:29 PM
Applying a high volume of fire, called suppressive fire, is a tactical concept taught to every recruit, fire team leader, squad leader, and boot 2ndLt in our nation's military. And anyone who characterizes this as 'undisciplined shooters....spraying lead' has never actually been thru any formal military training. This is semi-automatic rapid fire, not rock-n-roll from the hip. There *is* a difference; one is disciplined and has decades of tactical effectiveness studies behind it, while the other is the undisciplined conversion of ammo into noise.

I suppose I shouldn't, but I really take umbrage at folks who presume to paint anyone in the military as a lead-sprayin' poodleshooter when they themselves have likely never bothered to put skin in the game.

I have respect for all individuals who have counter-opinions regarding my statements. However, if your knowledge of tactical environments comes from the internet, a book, word-of-mouth, or anywhere else other than actually serving in and operating in tactical environments, please understand that, although I have respect for YOU , I will probably consider opinions on such subjects to have very little, if any, merit.Well stated, and if you can do this you're a better man than I.

Smith357
February 5, 2006, 03:34 PM
Huh? :scrutiny:In combat your quarry is an armed human. Don't try to read things into it, just a poor choice of words.

Roudy
February 5, 2006, 05:10 PM
Sergeant Sabre,
While still prefer the .308, probably because of my familiarity with it, I think your comments were well put.

I liked the way you presented your thought, much better than the fellow who claimed he was going to retire as an O6. Guess he is a good example of why I had less than full respect for military officers.

Roudy
7th Marines
Da Nang

MechAg94
February 5, 2006, 05:16 PM
You want to use a .223 on a semi armored target that shoots back then by all means knock yourself out. If the army, and police want to give all their undiciplined shooters small caliber lead sprayers that's up to them. I can hit what I aim at, so I don't need to throw vast amounts of lead down range willy nilly, here in america I have choice, I choose a .308 or .30-06 when I go hunting humans. And take it from someone who has done both, combat is very comparable to hunting for the Marine on the ground. I use .233 for ground hogs and prarie dogs, anything bigger than a cayote gets a bigger bullet.

That's great that you can hit what you aim at. I would say, however, that if you hit what you aim at (heart, head, central nervous system) you can use any caliber and get the same result. I you don't hit what you aim at, you may still need several shots of even 30 caliber to take someone down.

Personally, I think the skill of the shooter determines effectiveness in any given situation more than the rifle/cartridge the shooter is using. I think that is why ancedotal evidence and personal accounts are often misleading and biased. Use the rifle you believe you use the best and don't look back. :)

Bigfoot
February 5, 2006, 06:06 PM
In combat your quarry is an armed human. Don't try to read things into it, just a poor choice of words.

Ok no problem. The scrutiny was because you did specify choosing a 30-06 when you go hunting humans and no military that I know of carries those.

Bigfoot
February 5, 2006, 06:08 PM
Hit wrong button. Doh!:banghead:

355sigfan
February 5, 2006, 06:49 PM
You want to use a .223 on a semi armored target that shoots back then by all means knock yourself out. If the army, and police want to give all their undiciplined shooters small caliber lead sprayers that's up to them. I can hit what I aim at, so I don't need to throw vast amounts of lead down range willy nilly, here in america I have choice, I choose a .308 or .30-06 when I go hunting humans. And take it from someone who has done both, combat is very comparable to hunting for the Marine on the ground. I use .233 for ground hogs and prarie dogs, anything bigger than a cayote gets a bigger bullet.

The 223 is the best caliber for law enforcement use and for civilian defense. ITs quite lethal and a good stopper inside 300 yards. It also has less overpenetration than most handgun rounds. And no Hunting is nothing like combat. I have faced the end of a muzzle myself and been hunting. Their nothing at all alike. Anyone who has done both would know that.
Pat

mustanger98
February 5, 2006, 08:15 PM
The 223 is the best caliber for law enforcement use and for civilian defense. ITs quite lethal and a good stopper inside 300 yards. It also has less overpenetration than most handgun rounds.

What if I'd out and said "I don't like .223"? (As I said, I shoot .223 and .30-06 and like both.) That's the great thing about an American civilian- having a choice. We can all have what we like. And people who like to make blanket statements can't tell us otherewise and hope for it to stick.

Deer Hunter
February 5, 2006, 09:20 PM
ITs quite lethal and a good stopper inside 300 yards. It also has less overpenetration than most handgun rounds.
Pat
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have seen many penetration tests in my time on the internet (not going to lie about my sources), and in everything that I've seen the .223 will penetrate much better than handgun rounds. The only place a handgun bullet penetrated more on was water and sandbags.

355sigfan
February 5, 2006, 10:07 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have seen many penetration tests in my time on the internet (not going to lie about my sources), and in everything that I've seen the .223 will penetrate much better than handgun rounds. The only place a handgun bullet penetrated more on was water and sandbags.

Thats not correct. The 223 penetrates soft body armor and some steel but thats it. This is for your information.

.223 for CQB
by R.K. Taubert
About the author: A recently retired FBI Agent with over 20 years experience in SWAT and Special Operations, he conducted extensive counter-terrorism and weapons research while in the Bureau.
Reprinted and edited with permission.
Close Quarter Battle Reputation
Several interesting but inconclusive articles examining the feasibility of the .223 caliber, or 5.56x45mm round, for CQB events, such as hostage rescue and narcotics raids, have recently been featured in a variety of firearms and police publications. However, for more than 20 years, conventional law enforcement wisdom generally held that the .223 in any configuration was a deeply penetrating round and, therefore, totally unsuited for CQB missions in the urban environment. Partly because of this erroneous, but long held perception, and other tactical factors, the pistol caliber submachine gun (SMG) eventually emerged as the primary shoulder "entry" weapon for the police and military SWAT teams.
Although new revelations about the .223 are beginning to slowly circulate throughout the Special Operations community, a number of law enforcement agencies are in the process of acquiring the next generation of "advanced" SMGs in 10mm and .40 S&W calibers. Could they and the public be better served by a .223 caliber weapons system and at less expense? Please read on and judge for yourself.
FBI Ballistic Tests
As a result of renewed law enforcement interest in the .223 round and in the newer weapons systems developed around it, the FBI recently subjected several various .223 caliber projectiles to 13 different ballistic tests and compared their performance to that of SMG-fired hollow point pistol bullets in 9mm, 10mm, and .40 S&W calibers.
Bottom Line: In every test, with the exception of soft body armor, which none of the SMG fired rounds defeated, the .223 penetrated less on average than any of the pistol bullets.
These tests were conducted by the FBI’s Firearms Training Unit (FTU), at the request of the Bureau Tactical and Special Operations personnel. Located at the FBI academy in Quantico, VA, this is the same unit with the encouragement of forensic pathologist Dr. Martin Fackler and other ballistic experts, that dramatically advanced the testing of modern handgun rounds to estimate their wounding effectiveness and potential lethality. Ultimately, this entity confirmed that permanent crush cavities, or "wound-channels," and deep penetration were the primary factors for handgun-fired projectiles. The FTU further determined that under various target engagement circumstances, a depth of penetration in soft tissue of between 12 to 18 inches was required for a handgun bullet to be effective.
Equipment Employed / Rounds Tested
For these series of tests the following firearms, ammunition and equipment were employed:

• Sealed, match grade test barrel to determine 25 yard, 10-shot group accuracy and 20-round velocity potential.
• 20" barreled, M16A1 rifle to stabilize and test rounds ranging from 40 to 55 grains in weight.
• 20" barreled, M16A2 rifle to stabilize and test rounds ranging from 62 to 69 grains in weight.
• Oehler Model 85 chronograph.
• Ransom type rifle rest, with laser bore sighting.
• Numerous blocks of Kind and Knox 250-A, 10% gelatin, to simulate living tissue.
• Federal’s 40-grain "Blitz" hollow point, 55-grain soft point and 69-grain hollow point; 9mm 147-grain Hydra-Shok, 10mm and .40 S&W 180-grain, jacketed hollow points.
• Winchester’s 55- and 62-grain full metal case, NTO-military spec. rounds.

As indicated, both rifles were fired from a mechanical rest. Ten-shot groups and 20-round velocity tests were fired for each round. 13 penetration tests were conducted. 95 rounds were fired for each type of round tested. A total of 760 rounds were tested and recorded for this project.
Test Protocol
Tests 1-6:
Bare gelatin, heavy clothing, automobile sheet metal, wallboard, plywood, and vehicle windshield safety glass, were shot a distance of 10 feet from the muzzle. The vehicle safety glass was set at an angle of 45 degrees to the horizontal, with the line of bore of the rifle/SMG offset 15 degrees to the side resulting in a compound angle of impact for the bullet upon the glass, which simulates a shot directed at the driver of a car closely missing the shooter. Furthermore, the gelatin was covered with light clothing and set back 18 inches behind the glass. All gelatin blocks, with the exception of the body armor barrier, were set 18 inches behind each solid obstacle shot.
Tests 7-13:
All involved shots through heavy clothing, safety glass and bare gelatin at 50 to 100 yards, concluding with internal walls, external walls and body armor at 10 feet. Test eight however, involved safety glass at 20 yards, shot dead-on, without the 15 degree offset, to simulate a shot at a car’s driver bearing down on the shooter.
For the connivance of the reader, test results are summarized in the following chart. Please note that the data displayed represents the average penetration of these rounds as measured in 10% ballistic gelatin (see tables 1 and 2).
Considering that the average person’s torso is 9 inches thick, front to back, all the .223 rounds ranging in weight from 55 to 69 grains appear to be adequate performers on soft targets where frontal shots are involved. Although the majority of target engagements are frontal, profile shots can and do occur. A .223 round that is required to pass through an arm before entering the rib cage mat, upon striking bone, fragment, and while possibly shattering the appendage, would most likely not be successful in producing a sufficiently deep body cavity wound to be decisive. In this, as with any CQB encounter, "controlled pairs," or rapid-repeat hits may be required to ensure target neutralization.
Defeating Ballistic Garments
Soft body armor appears to have little effect on the calibers ability to penetrate and actually seemed to enhance the 40-grain Blitz’s depth of penetration in soft tissue.
From a law enforcement standpoint, the ability of the .223 caliber round to defeat soft body armor, military ballistic helmets and many ballistic shields is a "double-edged sword." The criminal use of body armor is rare, but increasing. Possessing the ability to penetrate and adversary’s protective vest is obviously desirable. However, this round will also defeat law enforcement vests, so great care must be exercised in laying out and observing fields of fire in training and during operations. With this concern over potential fratricide in mind, voices have been raised in some quarters regarding this bilateral tactical attribute. A number of veteran officers strongly embrace The traditional concept that a department’s duty rounds should not exceed the capabilities of their vests. Arguably, this is a sound approach for any law enforcement agency to take for its non-tactical response personnel. However, SWAT, because of its specialized missions, may be a different matter and this later concern, while important, should not dominate the rationale supporting weapons selection by highly competent tactical units.
Although it has been reported that less that 1% of all serious crimes involve long guns and less than 8% of long gun related crimes involve rifles, law enforcement is being confronted more frequently by criminals with weapons and munitions that are capable of defeating all but the heaviest ballistic protection. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Section indicates, for example, that rifles were involved in 13% of the assaults on police officers during 1992. The incident a Waco, Texas, is a recent example of this problem. For forced entry teams, the need for higher levels of ballistic protection is essential.
For safe training of specialized law enforcement teams, the development of a lead-free, low penetration, short-range 5.56mm/.223 caliber training round that will (1) not penetrate ballistic vests and helmets, (2) destroy "shooting house" walls, (3) crater, or perforate steel-reactive targets, is extremely important. Fortunately, it appears that private industry is responding to these demands and such munitions are currently being developed.
Vehicle Interaction
With the exception of the full metal case and the 69-grain JHP rounds, it appears inadvisable to select lighter weight, soft or hollow point versions of this caliber when automobiles are likely to be engaged during planned raids and arrests. Penetration against automobile windshield safety glass is generally very poor and is only slightly better on sheet steel. Although terrorists from the insurgent New Peoples’ Army were able to blast their way through an armored limousine in the Philippines and murder a highly regarded U.S. military official with concentrated M-16 rifle fire, the SMG-fired pistol round demonstrates at least a theoretical, if not practical, edge against such hardened targets.
Interestingly, while penetration on auto glass and sheet steel is marginal, .223 projectiles will readily perforate and breach mild steel such as standard pepper poppers, that pistol rounds will only slightly dimple. However, very little of the .223’s mass is retained, so after defeating mild steel, significant wound potential is severely diminished upon exit.
Barriers and Structures
The Bureau’s research also suggests that common household barriers such as wallboard, plywood, internal and external walls are also better attacked with pistol rounds, or larger caliber battle rifles, if the objective is to "dig out" or neutralize people employing such object as cover or concealment. Although it is usually not advisable to fire at targets you can’t see in urban settings, it is done and some subjects have been stopped in this manner. Conversely, the ability of some pistol rounds to penetrate barriers tested puts innocent bystanders and fellow team members at greater risk in CQB scenarios. If an operator misses the intended target, the .223 will generally have less wounding potential than some pistol rounds after passing through a wall or similar structure. The close range penetration tests conducted indicated that high velocity .223 rounds were initially unstable and may, depending on their construction, disintegrate when they strike an object that offers some resistance. When concrete, brick or macadam are struck at an angle at close range, .223 rounds tent to fragment or break up, and ricochets are generally less hazardous. The .223 could consequently be considered safer for urban street engagements, because of its inherent frangibility within the cross-compartments created by street environments. In other words, in most shootings, the round would probably strike something, hopefully a hard object, break up and quickly end its potentially lethal odyssey.
As a point of interest, the rifled shotgun slug, while not possessing the .223’s flat trajectory, is still capable of attaining a maximum range of 900 yards. This fact illustrates that any errant law enforcement round regardless of caliber, or maximum range, is potentially dangerous to the community.
.223 Wounding Characteristics
Ballisticians and Forensic professionals familiar with gunshot injuries generally agree that high velocity projectiles of the .223 genre produce wounds in soft tissue out of proportion to their calibers, i.e. bullet diameter. This phenomenon is primarily attributed to the synergistic effects of temporary stretch cavity (as opposed to the relatively lower velocity stretching which typifies most pistol rounds) and bullet fragmentation on living tissue.
Distinguished forensic pathologist Dr. Martin L. Fackler, observed when he was conducting wound research for the U.S. Army several years ago ("Wounding Patterns of Military Rifles," International Defense Review, Volume 22, January, 1989), that in tissue simulants such as ballistic gelatin, , the 55-grain, M-193 military bullet lost stability, yawed (turned sideways) 90 degrees, flattened and broke at the cannelure (groove around

355sigfan
February 5, 2006, 10:08 PM
the bullet into which the cartridge case is crimped) after penetrating about four to five inches. The forward portion of the bullet generally remained in one piece, accounting for 60% of its originally weight. The rear, or base portion of the bullet, broke into numerous fragments that may also penetrate tissue up to a depth of three inches. Dr. Fackler also noted that a relatively large stretch cavity also occurred, violently stretching and weakening tissue surrounding the primary wound channel and its effect was augmented by tissue perforation and further weakening by numerous fragments. An enlarged permanent cavity significantly larger than the bullet diameter resulted by severing and detaching tissue pieces. However, as the range increases, the degree of bullet fragmentation and temporary cavitation decreases because terminal velocity diminishes. At 100 meters, Fackler observed that the bullet, upon penetrating tissue, breaks at the cannelure, forming two large fragments. However, beyond 200 meters, it no longer looses its integrity, although flattening continues to somewhat occur out to 400 meters.
In his study, Fackler remarked that in abdominal shots, "There will be increased tissue disruption (beyond the bullet diameter wound channel) from the synergistic effect of the temporary cavitation acting on tissue that has been weakened by bullet fragmentation. Instead of observing a hole consistent with the size of the bullet in hollow organs such as the intestines, we typically find a void left by missing tissue up to three inches in diameter." However, "unless a extremity (peripheral hit) is sufficiently thick like a thigh, or the bullet does not strike bone, the round may pass through an arm for instance, causing little damage from a puncture type wound."
Regarding NATO’s 62-grain FMC M-855 (SS109) .223 caliber round Dr. Fackler observed that the bullet produces a wound profile similar to the M-193’s, particularly where abdominal or thigh wounds were involved. Other sources indicate this bullet, with a [steel] core penetrator, exhibits 10% greater fragmentation and retains its ability to fragment at slightly longer ranges than the 55-grain military bullet. [Keep in mind that the M-855 round, because of its steel core, has a length comparable to a 73-grain lead core bullet, and should be shot out of longer barrels (18+ inches) with tighter twists in order to retain good pratical accuracy],
Hollow and soft point bullets in this caliber can be expected to upset and fragment much sooner and more consistently that full metal case (FMC) bullets. In light of this more consistent performance, Fackler recommends hollow points over "ball" ammunition for police use, providing the HP bullet penetrates deep enough to disrupt something vital. However, in his candid opinion the most effective round currently available for law enforcement operations is the 64-grain, Winchester-Western, pointed soft point, currently referred to as "Power Point". This bullet has a heavier jacket than those tested by the FBI, resists hyper-fragmentation, penetrates well and "expands like a .30 caliber rifle round." Subsequent FBI tests of this round fired from Colt’s 14.5-inch barreled Mk-IV carbine bore this out and bullet expansion was "impressive."
Dr. Fackler also advised that the synergistic effects of fragmentation and high velocity temporary cavitation cannot be scientifically measured in gelatin because that medium is too elastic. More Accurate results can be obtained by examination of fresh animal tissue soon after it is shot.
Range Limitations
Federal’s Blitz round, because of its very high velocity, low weight and frangible construction, demonstrated extremely poor overall penetration in the FBI tests. If it is considered for CQB use, it should be fired from ultra-short barreled weapons, such as Heckler & Koch’s, 8.85-inch barreled HK-53. Shorter barrels would bleed off excessive velocity to reliably fragment and produce good temporary stretch cavities at close range. Because of this velocity loss, the maximum effective range on personnel would most likely be 100 yards or less. To ensure that .223 caliber bullets perform as previously described by Dr. Fackler, it appears that a minimum target striking velocity of 2,500 feet per second (fps) is required. Bullets over 50 grains in weight may not accelerate to this critical velocity in barrels less than 10 to 11 inches in length. Tactical teams should therefore carefully select the appropriate barrel length for their CQB weapon, to ensure that the round they employ will deliver minimum terminal ballistic velocities at the ranges desired and balance it against maneuverability requirements [Also remember that dr. fackler’s data is based on the FMJ ball ammo results and that hollow point ammunition will be as effective with lower velocities]. "Bull pup" configured carbines, such as the Steyr AUG, enjoy a distinct advantage here, because they retain long barrel lengths with relatively compact overall dimensions and are as flexible as an SMG in confined areas. In fact, a Steyr AUG compares favorably to H&K’s MP5-SD SMG in overall length and with a 16-inch barrel, is only an inch longer overall than a 14-inch barreled Remington 870 raid shotgun.
[At this point, Mr. Taubert’s article goes into extreme range shooting and barrel length. His suggestion is to have a barrel at least 14-18 inches long for CQB use as this allows for useful terminal ballistics at around 150-200 yards with 60+ grain bullets. I disagree with Mr. Taubert’s point of view for the simple fact that we are discussing Close Quarters firearms, and not long range sniping firearms. In these instances, a barrel length of 6-10 inches is practical for entry team use as it allows for greater maneuverability and acceptable ballistic performance with 55-grain hollow point ammunition. Also, a lot of Mr. Taubert’s information is based off of Dr. Fackler’s research using FMJ ammunition. Most of my information is based upon real-world shootings and actual testing of commercial ammunition in short barreled firearms designed for this application.]
A recent review of major U.S. ammunition manufacturers’ pricing indicates that commercially loaded .223 ammunition is slightly less expensive than similarly configured premium hollow point pistol ammunition. With millions of rounds of surplus military .223 ammunition possibly available to law enforcement, because of numerous base closures and through low cost channels, training with this caliber could be highly cost effective.
The .223 carbine is able to satisfy both close and intermediate range requirements and presents a good argument for eliminating the necessity for the law enforcement SMG. This one-gun concept will not only stretch departmental funds in this respect and reduce training requirements, but in some cases the difference in price between a single-fire carbine and a select-fire SMG often amounts to several hundreds of dollars. The need for full automatic fire with the M-16 carbine is debatable and two single-fire versions can often be purchased by police agencies for the cost of one top-of-the-line SMG. [This is a fact that I have been preaching for a long time. Another fact that Mr. Taubert does not touch on is that the M-16/AR-15 family of rifles use a split receiver system that allows the rapid exchange of differently configured uppers. This allows one officer to carry a 16" CAR-15 in is patrol vehicle as his secondary firearm, and a 6" upper receiver unit in his trunk for tactical entry use]
As a result of contemporary research, such as that conducted by the first FBI’s Wound Ballistic Workshop, some law enforcement agencies have expressed the opinion that concerns about pistol bullet overpenetration were exaggerated. They cite the toughness and flexibility of the human skin in resisting bullet exit and the fact that police officers historically missed their intended targets most of the time in actual shootings. While poor hit ratios and overpenetration may not be critical to some for individual gun battles that occur in the street, these marksmanship realities can become real planning and safety concerns when establishing fields of fire during raids, hostage rescues and other tactical operations.
Typically, these operations involve confined areas, where officers occupy positions in close proximity to each other. In close combat operations, every round expended must be accounted for. It is imperative that that rounds fired hit their intended targets and not pass through them to endanger other officers and innocent bystanders. If misses occur, it is desirable that once the stray round strikes a solid object, it expends its energy and disintegrates into relatively harmless pieces. If deep, barrier penetration is necessary, special ammunition or projectiles [or weapons] possessing this attribute can be selected.
Shootout Results
It was late in the morning on a hot July day in 1993, when members of a major Western cities’ police tactical unit executed a search and arrest warrants in connection with a narcotics raid on a "biker residence." The tactical officers were armed with Sig-Sauer 9mm P-226 pistols and 16-inch barreled Steyr AUG .223 caliber carbines with optical sights. The Steyr, loaded per SOP, with 28 Federal 55-grain HP rounds was the primary entry weapon for several officers on the team. Steyr carbines were selected for this raid, because the team leaders anticipated shots "out to 25 yards."
The team was required to knock and announce, effectively negating the element of surprise. Approximately 92 seconds into the raid, the officer involved in the following shooting incident was in the process of cuffing a subject when two Rottweiler dogs attacked. While the other officers were dealing with the dogs by employing OC aerosol, a 6-foot-tall, 201-pound subject, high on "speed", suddenly burst into the room occupied by the police through a locked door and leveled a 9mm pistol at one of the tactical officers. The distance between the adversaries was approximately 20 feet. With his back essentially to the subject, the involved officer acquired the threat in his peripheral vision, whirled around and commanded, "Police, put your hands up," while clearing the Steyr’s safety and mounting the weapon. The subject then shifted his pistol, held by one hand in a bladed stance, towards the reacting officer. In "less than a second" the subject’s hostile action was countered by the officer by firing two fast, sighted, tightly controlled pairs, for a total of four rounds at the subject. Rounds one and two missed, but were contained by the structure. Round three connected, penetrated and remained in the subject. Round four grazed his upper chest and exited as he spun and fell. Round three was quickly effective. The collapsing subject ceased all motor movement and expired within 60 seconds. The involved officer was aware of each round fired and simultaneously moved to cover. Tactical members were then confronted by a female accomplice armed with a double-barreled shotgun. However, the involved officer also successfully negotiated her surrender. All .223 rounds that missed the subject struck parts of the building’s internal structure, fragmented and remained inside.
When the autopsy was performed, the forensic pathologist was amazed at the degree of internal devastation caused b the .223 round. There was a two-inch void of tissue in the chest, with a literal "snowstorm" of bullet fragments and secondary bone fragments throughout the upper left chest area. The round struck the subject 11 inches below the top of his head and inflicted the following wounds: • Penetrated the top of the left lung, left carotid and subclavian arteries. • The collar bone and first rib were broken. Cavity measured 5x6 centimeters.
What is significant about this "instant one-shot stop" was that the round did not strike the subject at the most effective or optimum angle and did not involve any direct contact with the heart or central nervous system. It is doubtful that this type o terminal ballistic performance could have been achieved by any of the police service pistol/SMG rounds currently in use.
Although this is only one incident and could be an aberration, police tactical teams require this type of terminal ballistic performance to enhance their safety and survival particularly during CQB engagements, when criminals most often enjoy a positional and action-versus-reaction time advantage.
The FBI study clearly demonstrates the following: (1) that .223 rounds on average, penetrate less than the hollow point pistol rounds evaluated, (2) concern for overpenetration of the .223 round, at close range, has been greatly exaggerated, (3) with the exception of soft ballistic garment penetration, the .223 round appears to be relatively safer for employment in CQB events than the hollow point bullets tested.
Observations and experience indicate that high velocity rifle bullets generally produce more serious wounds in tissue than pistol bullets, regardless of range.
Violent temporary cavitation, in conjunction with bullet yaw and fragmentation, are essential wounding components for high velocity rifle projectiles.
As range and bullet stability increases and velocity decreases, rifle caliber wound severity decreases and penetration increases.
Where soft target penetration requirements exist and overpenetration concerns are prevalent, police should employ hollow point bullets in this caliber.
Full metal case or heavier soft point bullets may be more appropriate for hard target penetration in this caliber.
The .223 and the current carbine systems available for it are highly versatile and well suited for urban as well as rural operations. However, because of enhanced terminal ballistic performance, rifles are recommended if targets are expected to be engaged beyond 200 meters. [The .223 round itself should not be used in law enforcement applications at any ranges outside of 300 yards/meters. Long distance shots should be left to highly trained sniper units using medium caliber centerfire rifle ammunition. e.g. .308/7.62 NATO. Also, the majority of police sniper shots occur within 100 yards/meters.]
The ability to train with one shoulder weapon and caliber for both CQB and open air options simplifies logistics and training, makes training more effective and is cost effective. [Again, one upper for general, secondary weapon usage, and one upper for CQB]
Under current pricing, police agencies can realize significant savings by purchasing single-fire carbines instead of select-fire machine guns.
Because of the "political" considerations and perhaps the concern over the possibility of more serious injuries caused by errant "friendly fire," the highly versatile and powerful .223 carbine may not be a suitable CQB firearm for some departments. However, if the above factors are not involved, the .223 carbine is an extremely flexible and effective anti-personnel weapon with, in many cases, handling characteristics actually superior to many contemporary SMGs. It offers the advantages of reduced logistics, lower costs and reduced training time when compared to agencies employing multiple specialty weapons. The caliber in its current offering is far from perfect, but in spite of some shortcomings, I anticipate that in the future it will eventually replace pistol caliber SMGs in many police departments and law enforcement agencies.
[It has been a recently growing trend to see law enforcement departments exchanging their issue shotguns for the police carbine in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. And many departments have found that these carbines do not serve their needs as they expected. However, they are fearful to switch, or in many cases purchase, .223 carbines because "they will go through 10 people and 3 city blocks before they stop!" As you can see, this is not the case, and is in fact, completely the opposite. I hope that this article helps to clear all false truths and misnomers about this very versatile and serviceable cartridge.]
ALL OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS BASED UPON THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY BE USING SPECIAL TOOLS, PRODUCTS, EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS UNDER PARTICULAR CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SOME OR ALL OF WHICH MAY NOT BE REPORTED, NOR OTHERWISE VERIFIED IN THIS ARTICLE. NOTHING HEREIN IS INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE A MANUAL FOR THE USE OF ANY PRODUCT OR THE CARRYING OUT OF ANY PROCEDURE OR PROCESS. THE WRITERS, EDITORS, AND PUBLISHERS OF THIS ARTICLE ACCEPT NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LIABILITY, INJURIES OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY PERSON’S ATTEMPT TO RELY UPON ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN.

355sigfan
February 5, 2006, 10:09 PM
The Call-Out Bag
by Gunsite Training Center Staff
A Comparison of .223 Penetration vs. Handgun Calibers
The .223 shoulder-fired weapon systems (e.g., AUG, CAR) have received some recent interest as indoor tactical weapons for special operations teams. increased power, longer effective distances, and greater tactical flexibility have been cited as positive factors of the .223 systems over 9me SMG-type weapon systems. Other authors (Fackler, et all) have postulated greater capa-bility for tissue damage and incapacitation of the .223 rifle cartridge over the 9mm projectile fired from handguns or SMGs. Negative considerations for the indoor use of the .223 weapon systems focus on over-penetration of projectiles and possible subsequent liability.
Our effort was made to compare the penetration characteristics of various .223 bullets to various handgun bullets fired into test barriers representing indoor and outdoor building walls. We felt that the following test might mimic shots fired from inside a building, through the internal rooms, out the exterior wall, and into another similar building nearby. A comparison of wall penetration effects by a variety of handgun calibers versus the effects of .223 FMJ ball, .223 SP, and .223 HP, under these same conditions, was expected to substantiate other findings reported or provide new information to those interested in this area of ballistics.
Two interior test walls were constructed using a wood 2x4 frame with standard drywall board attached to both sides. Two exterior test walls were made using wooden frames with drywall board attached to one side and exterior grade T1-11 wooden siding attached on the other (exterior) side. R-19 fiberglass insulation batting (Dow Coming) was stapled inside the two exterior test wails. To maintain test medium consistency, no wooden cross beams, electrical fixtures, conduits, or electrical wiring were placed in any of the test walls.
The test walls were placed in the following sequence to mimic shots fired from. inside a building, through two internal rooms, out the building, and into another similarly constructed building:
A. Interior wall #1 was placed 8 feet from the shooting position.
B. Interior wail #2 was placed 8 feet beyond interior wall #1.
C. Exterior wall #1 was placed 8 feet beyond interior wail #2. (Exteri-or side facing away from the shooter.)
D. Exterior wall #2 was placed 15 feet beyond exterior wall #1. (Exterior side facing toward the shooter.)
All calibers tested were fired from a position 8 feet in front of interior wall #l, so the bullet trajectory would travel in sequence through each of the succeeding test walls. Each caliber tested was chronographed and all firing results were videotaped for archive files.
The following results were obtained:
1. All handgun calibers exited exterior wall #1. This means they exited the "house" after passing through two interior "rooms," then entered another "house" to impact into the berm. The handgun caliber which demonstrated the least penetration was .22 LR Lightning.
2. The only calibers which did NOT exit the "house" were .223 (5.56) soft point and hollow point loaded bullets.
3. All projectiles demonstrated directional changes in their trajectory after passing through the first interior wall. The greatest directional changes (10 inches+ yaw) were shown by 9mm and .40 S&W projectiles.
4. Directional changes in bullet trajectory appeared to increase in magnitude with each test wall the projectile passed through.
The penetration characteristics of projectiles have long been believed to be primarily determined by a relationship of bullet mass, bullet shape, bullet velocity, and bullet construction. The penetration differences of .223 soft point and hollow point projectiles versus the effects from .223 full metal jacket may be due to differences in bullet construction. The differential effects on penetration due to bullet construction shown with the .223 are different and appear greater in magnitude than those encountered when handgun bullet construction is modified. Since .223 projectile velocities are threefold greater than those of handgun projectiles, the increased magnitude of bullet velocity might account for the differences in bullet trajectory and penetration distance. The deviated trajectory of hollow point handgun projectiles was also greater than the deviation found with full metal jacketed handgun bullets; again, possibly due to contact point deformation. The preceding study more than ever identifies the need for a personal emphasis of marksmanship and tactical fundamentals. The shooter is responsible for the bullets that go downrange. Practice, be aware, manage your trigger, and watch your front sight!
Many thanks to Jack Furr, Ron Benson, Pete Wright, and Seth NadeI, U.S. Customs, for conducting and reporting this test.
.22 LR 40 gr Lightning 899 fps Captured in exterior wall #2
9mm 147gr Win JHP 948 fps Captured in exterior wall #2
9mm 147 gr Win JHP 1004 fps Exited exterior wall #2
.40 S&W 180 gr FMJ 941 fps Exited exterior wall #2
.40 S&W 180 gr Black Talon JHP 981 fps Exited exterior wall #2
.45 ACP 230 gr Win FMJ ball 867 fps Captured in exterior wall #2
.45 ACP 230 gr HydraShok JHP 851 fps Exited exterior wall #2
.223 (5.56) 55 gr Fed FMJ ball 2956 fps Exited exterior wall #2
.223 (5.56) 55 gr Rem SP 3019 fps Captured in exterior wall #2
.223 (5.56) 55 gr Fed JHP 3012 fps Captured in exterior wall #2





ALL OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS BASED UPON THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY BE USING SPECIAL TOOLS, PRODUCTS, EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS UNDER PARTICULAR CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SOME OR ALL OF WHICH MAY NOT BE REPORTED, NOR OTHERWISE VERIFIED IN THIS ARTICLE. NOTHING HEREIN IS INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE A MANUAL FOR THE USE OF ANY PRODUCT OR THE CARRYING OUT OF ANY PROCEDURE OR PROCESS. THE WRITERS, EDITORS, AND PUBLISHERS OF THIS ARTICLE ACCEPT NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LIABILITY, INJURIES OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY PERSON’S ATTEMPT TO RELY UPON ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN.
.223/5.56 Penetration Tests vs.
.40 S&W and 12 ga. Slug
Overview
The research on the penetration of .223 ammunition has been completed. In an effort to make research more meaningful, testing consisted of handgun and shotgun ammunition in the same testing medium. The final results were that the .223 demonstrated less penetration capability than the 12 gauge slug and the .40S&W [handgun round].
Testing Medium
Type 250A Ordnance Gelatin was cast into blocks, 6"x6"x16". The process used is that which is recommended by Col. M. Fackler, Director of the US Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory. This is a 10% mixture, 1Kg of gelatin to 9000ml of H2O. This type of gelatin accurately simulates human body tissue in terms of bullet penetration.
A small piece of wall was constructed to duplicate the standard exterior walls found in [the Pacific Northwest] area. This piece of wall was sheeted with ½" wafer board, covered with a 2nd piece of ½" wafer board to simulate siding. This wall was built using a 2x4 frame and finished on the inside with ½" sheet rock. The interior [of the wall] was lined with fiberglass insulation.
Weapons Used
CAR-15, cal .223 Rem./5.56x45mm with a 16" barrel.
Glock M22, cal .40S&W.
Remington 870, 12 ga.
Ammunition Used
Federal .223 Remington, 55 grain HP.
Winchester .40S&W, 180 grain HP.
Federal 12 ga., 2 ¾", rifled slug.
Procedure
All rounds were fired from a distance of 12 feet. After each round was fired, its penetration was recorded and bullet performance noted. After a bullet was fired into the [bare] gelatin, another bullet of the same type was fired through the section of wall and into the gelatin. This was done in order to determine its penetration potential in the event a stray round were to hit the wall of a building.
Results
Caliber Testing medium Penetration Condition of bullet
.223 Rem. gelatin only 9.5" two pieces
.223 Rem. wall & gelatin 5.5" * fragmented
.40S&W gelatin only 13.5" mushroomed
.40S&W wall & gelatin 22" * no deformation
.40S&W wall & gelatin 22" * no deformation
.40S&W† wall & gelatin 19.5" * slight deformation
12 ga. wall & gelatin 27.5" mushroomed
* these measurements do not include penetration of the 6" wall.
† CCI Gold Dot.
Summary
The 55 grain HP .223 has less penetration than any of the other ammunition tested. Based on the results of this testing, there appears to be no basis for concern regarding the overpenetration of the .223 [HP] round. In fact, it seems even safer in this regard than .40 S&W handgun ammunition.
The hollow point cavity in the .40S&W round filled with material when shot through the wall. This caused [these bullets] to fail to expand when they entered the gelatin. As a result, they penetrated 8.5" farther than when shot directly into the gelatin.
When the .223 [HP] was shot through he wall it began to fragment and as a result penetrated the gelatin only 5.5".
Because the .223 [HP] begins to break up on impact, it has less potential for damage or injury than the 12 ga. in the event of a ricochet. The .223 [HP] is obviously safer in an urban environment than the 12 ga. with slugs or buckshot.
Additional testing conducted proved that the .223 would penetrate a car door or glass. The .223 rounds fired into windshields began to break up after entering the glass and did not retain much energy. In most cases these rounds split in two.





ALL OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS BASED UPON THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY BE USING SPECIAL TOOLS, PRODUCTS, EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS UNDER PARTICULAR CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SOME OR ALL OF WHICH MAY NOT BE REPORTED, NOR OTHERWISE VERIFIED IN THIS ARTICLE. NOTHING HEREIN IS INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE A MANUAL FOR THE USE OF ANY PRODUCT OR THE CARRYING OUT OF ANY PROCEDURE OR PROCESS. THE WRITERS, EDITORS, AND PUBLISHERS OF THIS ARTICLE ACCEPT NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LIABILITY, INJURIES OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY PERSON’S ATTEMPT TO RELY UPON ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN.

355sigfan
February 5, 2006, 10:12 PM
Hope that helped
Pat

Skipper
February 5, 2006, 10:30 PM
No doubt, the 30.06 and .308 will do what the 5.56 will and more. Can't argue that. Having said that, the 5.56 will do "enough" to get the job done 90% of the time and has been doing just that in our service rifle for over 40 years.
I like them both, but my "go to" gun will be one of my AR's. Can I stop a truck with it at 500 yards? Nope, so I won't try, but there's not a lot I can't do with it.
BTW I didn't know Liddy was still spouting.

Regards,
SKIP

355sigfan
February 5, 2006, 10:32 PM
The 223 is the ultimate cqb cartridge. For this role its far superior to the 308 or 30 06. Due to its high capacity, high controlability and greater manuverability.
Pat

Greg Bell
February 5, 2006, 10:38 PM
Most of these tests look like they were done with 20 inch M16 barrels. How much less effective are these rounds from the current crop of super-short "CQB" carbines?

This is crazy, everybody wanted barrier penetration back in the late 90s-early 00s. This lead to the introduction of the .357 SIG, etc. Then everybody upgraded their bullet designs to improve penetration. ???


Finally, it sounds like you would be better off wearing chucks of sheet rock against .223 toting evildoers since .223, for some reason, penetrates armor but not walls. OTOH, against a pistol you need to wear body armor, because your sheet-rock won't stop it. I suggest a new type of armor that has sheet-rock trauma plates.:D

Something is a little screwy here.

355sigfan
February 5, 2006, 10:44 PM
Most of these tests look like they were done with 20 inch M16 barrels. How much less effective are these rounds from the current crop of super-short "CQB" carbines?

This is crazy, everybody wanted barrier penetration back in the late 90s-early 00s. This lead to the introduction of the .357 SIG, etc. Then everybody upgraded their bullet designs to improve penetration. ???


Finally, it sounds like you would be better off wearing chucks of sheet rock against .223 toting evildoers since .223, for some reason, penetrates armor but not walls. OTOH, against a pistol you need to wear body armor, because your sheet-rock won't stop it. I suggest a new type of armor that has sheet-rock trauma plates.:D

The reason the 223 penetrates soft armor but not walls is simple. Soft armor and steel are not that dense and the .223 has enough initial energy to penetrate these materials before breaking up into harmless smaller fragments. The 223 does not have a lot of momentium so softer thicker mediums like sheet rock and plywood slow it down quite a bit. As for the barrel lenght situation it does not effect much other than the fragmentation range of the weapon. Since all these tests took place at near point blank range we can expect simular results from a 20 inch vs a 16 or 14 inch gun.
Pat

355sigfan
February 5, 2006, 10:46 PM
Most of these tests look like they were done with 20 inch M16 barrels. How much less effective are these rounds from the current crop of super-short "CQB" carbines?

This is crazy, everybody wanted barrier penetration back in the late 90s-early 00s. This lead to the introduction of the .357 SIG, etc. Then everybody upgraded their bullet designs to improve penetration. ???


Finally, it sounds like you would be better off wearing chucks of sheet rock against .223 toting evildoers since .223, for some reason, penetrates armor but not walls. OTOH, against a pistol you need to wear body armor, because your sheet-rock won't stop it. I suggest a new type of armor that has sheet-rock trauma plates.:D

Something is a little screwy here.

The 357 sig was not developed because of a want for more penetration. It was designed to fill a nitch of those who liked the 125 grain 357 mag round (a shallow penetrator 10 to 12 inches in gelatin) in an auto. It had nothing to do with a want for more penetration. The general handgun trend at the time and still is for bonded bullets that expand well while penetrating at least 12 inches.
Pat

Greg Bell
February 5, 2006, 10:55 PM
Interesting. Given your screen name, I'll defer to you on the .357 SIG stuff. Still, I swear I saw a hell of a lot of stuff about the .357 SIGs barrier penetration being a big part of its reason for existing. Who knows, I have imagined weirder stuff in my day.

GHB

355sigfan
February 6, 2006, 03:57 AM
Interesting. Given your screen name, I'll defer to you on the .357 SIG stuff. Still, I swear I saw a hell of a lot of stuff about the .357 SIGs barrier penetration being a big part of its reason for existing. Who knows, I have imagined weirder stuff in my day.

GHB

The 357 sig does penetrate more than the old 357 mag loads because it uses bonded core bullets. But that was not the original intent of the cartridge. In fact 125 grain 357 sig rounds act more like 158 grian 357 mag jhp's.
Pat

Bartholomew Roberts
February 6, 2006, 12:21 PM
It has been my experience that when .223 penetrates less than a pistol round, it is because it has yawed and fragmented on an intervening barrier. However, yaw doesn't happen as soon as the round strikes something so whatever the round strikes must be:

A) soft enough to allow the round to yaw, flip and tear itself apart with its own velocity
B) deep enough to allow several inches of travel through whatever the medium is for this to happen

The one exception to this I've seen is auto glass, which is pretty hard on all bullets and tears up .223 nicely even with just windshield thickness (including M855).

It is important to note though, that if the round doesn't yaw or doesn't fragment when it does, it will keep on trucking.

Sergeant Sabre
February 6, 2006, 12:22 PM
355SIG, thank you for posting that very well-written and informative article. I enjoyed reading it very much.

Is there a link to the original?

355sigfan
February 6, 2006, 02:22 PM
355SIG, thank you for posting that very well-written and informative article. I enjoyed reading it very much.

Is there a link to the original?

One was written by the staff at gunsight sorry I not longer have the links. I have had the articles for a few years now.
Pat

MechAg94
February 6, 2006, 03:13 PM
Seems to me the wall test may not translate to body armor. The walls were separated by distance. I think that allows the bullet to deflect and key hole which reduces additional penetration beyond the first barrier. I doubt you would see the same effect if you packed layers onto your body. :)

Good article.

Deathrider1579
February 6, 2006, 04:15 PM
I don't really have a dog in this fight either but I wanted to weigh in a little anyway.

I figure the .223 is a fair to meddling round, it has killed a lot of commies and other baddies over the years. The same can be said of the .308.

I am not a soldier (yet) nor am I the son of a soldier, from what I have read on the internet, heard from 'nam vets and GW 1 and 2 vets (current company not withstanding) is that the .223 lacks stopping power in a serous way. I cannot back this up with evidence so I ain't going to try. Having said that were I to be going into a environment such as our troops are in right now in the sandbox, if I had the back up and support of our fighting force behind us I would not feel under gunned with the .223, I would prefer something more like the 7.62x39 as it has a reputation for greater stopping power and maintains the smaller / lighter credentials.


Now if your talking SHTF / EOTWAWKI then it comes down to a personal preference and I think I would take the .308 but that is my personal preference.

Really it comes down to how you are going to be using the round and what variables you want to be able to counter with a given load out.

Now, if you want to stick with the .223 I really don't see why the 5.7 wouldn't be better for CQB as it has even lighter ammo, AP capability and a 50 rnd mag to boot. But it is plagued by the same problems the .223 is; lack of rapid stopping power.

Just some thoghts I had while reading this thread.

-DR

355sigfan
February 6, 2006, 04:23 PM
I would prefer something more like the 7.62x39 as it has a reputation for greater stopping power and maintains the smaller / lighter credentials.
END QUOTE

Sorry thats false. The 5.56 has a better reputation for stopping power than the 7.62x39. The 7.62 x39 has a better reputation for barrier penetration not stopping power. Its stopping power is inferrior to the .223.
Pat

Greg Bell
February 6, 2006, 06:17 PM
Wow. The .223 is a better manstopper than the .308 and the 7.62x39. Glad we settled that!:D

Deer Hunter
February 6, 2006, 06:56 PM
My mind's been changed on the abilities of the .223, it seems. As long as the velocity is high, the round will cause some very nice damage. This makes it a very good round to use in urban and jungle scenarios, as I have read.

Yet, even though I enjoy shooting the .223 in my cousin's AR, I have had much more experience with the .308 and will continue to shoot it. I trust both bullets, but my personal preference is still on the .308.

Balog
February 6, 2006, 09:13 PM
While these caliber war threads make me want to punch my moniter, I would like to point one thing out. Hummers are what you get on liberty. HMMWV's (pronounced "Humvee") are what I climb in and out of every day.

And no offense to anyone here, but high ranking officers commenting on weapon systems is like politicians commenting on public projects in their home state. Maybe they're accurate and fair, maybe they're defending excrement for their own selfish gain. It's never easy to tell, and I'd be reluctant to make decisions based on it. Just look at the Corps' Osprey program.

355sigfan
February 7, 2006, 01:18 AM
Wow. The .223 is a better manstopper than the .308 and the 7.62x39. Glad we settled that!:D

Not better than the 308. But its is better than the 7.62 round. The 7.62 x39 does not tumble until its passed 10 inches it usually never frags. Its wound path looks simular to a 158 grain roundnosed lead 38 round in gelatin.
Pat

Hardware
February 7, 2006, 08:15 AM
I've read this whole thread and the bench arguments (which have been done to death by the way) and I haven't heard one peep about what will continue to keep the 5.56 in the field.

Money. Lots and lots of money.

Face facts people, 5.56 costs less per round to procure than 7.62 NATO. The weapons that fire it cost less per unit to procure because the receivers aren't made out of a slab of high quality steel.

If I have 10 million dollars to procure weapons and ammo for an army which rifle/ammo combo am I going to buy? The cheapest one that will do the job. Every piece of military hardware from aircraft carriers down to MREs has one thing in common. It is made by the lowest bidder.

Yeah, we have a lot of M14s sitting in armories and some of them may see service again. But by and large the common grunt is going to be carrying the same as the next guy down the line. Or something with a high degree of interchangability. That's what prompted the acquisition of the M249 as I recall.

Arguing ballistics isn't going to change the bottom line.

Sergeant Sabre
February 7, 2006, 09:18 AM
Face facts people, 5.56 costs less per round to procure than 7.62 NATO


An excellent point. One that I feel is too often overlooked.

loandr.
February 7, 2006, 10:19 AM
perhaps his "POP" had one?:evil:

Loandr.

Greg Bell
February 12, 2006, 04:28 PM
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm

Until someone invents a "Phaser" like on Star Trek, anything that will stop a bad guy, will also penetrate several walls.

It seems that .223 penetrates walls quite nicely. Back to the drawing board I guess.

MechAg94
February 12, 2006, 05:50 PM
If I am not mistaken, the BoxO'Truth guys were using drywall layers only with no plywood in there. The test at the top of this page was using 3/4" plywood to simulate an outer wall. If I remember right, the 12 gauge buck shot had the least penetration.

Yes, the .223 will penetrate at least one wall and maybe more. Other rounds will go farther and deflect less. The deflection noted on the BoxO'Truth test almost bothers me more.

Greg Bell
February 12, 2006, 06:17 PM
Good point about the plywood. The deflection is insane, I agree.

mordechaianiliewicz
February 12, 2006, 07:22 PM
Good. This is like the .45 vs 9mm vs .40 S&W argument. Only problem is rifles are a much different animal compared to pistols.

Within 300 yards all of these rounds are devastating b/c of hydrostatic shock. (your body's organs being displaced by the velocity of the bullet). Past that range, the .223 Remington is like a super long range .22 long rifle.

As for the .30-06, and the .308 Win, they have lost a lot of muzzle energy, but they still are capable of very devastating results, partly because of the casing, and powder propelling them, and also partly b/c of the fact a 150, 168,200, etc. grain projectile has a certain inherent ammount of power b/c of it's weight (vs. 55 or 62 grains of a .223). The .308 Winchester 168 grain HPBT is capable of .40 S&W muzzle energy out of the barrel at 600 yards!

It all comes down to what you are facing. The .223 will cause hydrostatic shock at close range, and at even closer ranges will break up in the person causing shrapnel to lodge in wound paths, but downrange will drop off in power (even if not accuracy).

The .308 will go right through a person within 100 yards (although you still get hydrostatic shock), but will have alot more muzzle energy at long range.

G Gordon is correct, past 300 yards. However, wrong past that :)

mordechaianiliewicz
February 12, 2006, 07:24 PM
Good. This is like the .45 vs 9mm vs .40 S&W argument. Only problem is rifles are a much different animal compared to pistols.

Within 300 yards all of these rounds are devastating b/c of hydrostatic shock. (your body's organs being displaced by the velocity of the bullet). Past that range, the .223 Remington is like a super long range .22 long rifle.

As for the .30-06, and the .308 Win, they have lost a lot of muzzle energy, but they still are capable of very devastating results, partly because of the casing, and powder propelling them, and also partly b/c of the fact a 150, 168,200, etc. grain projectile has a certain inherent ammount of power b/c of it's weight (vs. 55 or 62 grains of a .223). The .308 Winchester 168 grain HPBT is capable of .40 S&W muzzle energy out of the barrel at 600 yards!

It all comes down to what you are facing. The .223 will cause hydrostatic shock at close range, and at even closer ranges will break up in the person causing shrapnel to lodge in wound paths, but downrange will drop off in power (even if not accuracy).

The .308 will go right through a person within 100 yards (although you still get hydrostatic shock), but will have alot more muzzle energy at long range.

G Gordon is correct, past 300 yards. However, wrong past that :)

If you enjoyed reading about "G-Gordon says it's a "Pop gun"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!