The 223

[helotaxi]

Incapacitation is the goal, be that dead or simply unable to continue the fight but still alive. Most any centerfire rifle round will accomplish this. Lighter ammo means more chances and better control means better odds.

A couple of problems that we're running into with the idea of find and fix using ground forces and then calling in air to target and engage involve ROEs and urban environments. Such environments are "non-permissive" with regard to bringing the "big boom". In the open countryside that works great and we've proven that you don't even need ground troops. Light helicopters work great for "trolling" with the intent of drawing fire and calling in the hate from above. However, once you get into areas where collateral damage is deemed unacceptable, aerial bombardment becomes too indiscriminate. It comes down to the poor guy on the ground to handle the F2T2EA from start to finish. The big change from SE Asia is that troops aren't generally outside of immediate resupply and in an urban environment they are typically mechanized allowing them to carry significantly more or significantly heavier ammo than they would if relying on the heel-toe express for transport. With that in mind, a slightly more robust round would probably be a welcome addition.

 

[Kachok]

Maybe they were feeding me a line but when I was in the Army I was told the same thing, the M16 was designed to badly wound the enemy thus taking three combatants out of action. If it was just a bad rumor it made it's way through my command. 1-7 FA Schwinfurt Germany.

 

[helotaxi]

Yep, it's one of those silly myths that refuses to die.

 

[d2wing]

All I know is the more I post, the less I know I know. But I can always learn. Thanks for your reply Dastardly . War is hell.

 

[dastardly-D]

223/556

I'm seeing a lot of good opinions here but also read that it was a the myth that the 556 was intended to wound.It wasn't a myth,I know damn well that was what we were taught ! Bullets aren't just balls of lead with a copper cover on them . The 556 has gone thru a couple of changes in it's life to give it more range,penetration and lethality,so has the 7.62 x 39. Still the AK round has more lethality in battle and then the Com Bloc is changing to a smaller,lighter round,545x39.....60 grain ? So what's up with that ? I believe it goes back to my original point that the smaller round,along with other factors,is more of a wounder(incapacitator).........

 

[sixgunner455]

dastardly-D, I still say it's a myth from the design/intent perspective. That does not mean that the understanding of those doing the training was clear. I heard about it, too. I was also told that the bullets tumble in the air to increase their terminal effect.

Studying it out on my own, looking up the documents, and learning about ballistics and flight characteristics of bullets taught me a lot more about all of this than simply taking what 'they' said at face value.

 

[Sam1911]

It wasn't a myth,I know damn well that was what we were taught !

Just because you were taught something by someone -- even an Army or Marine instructor -- doesn't make it actually true.

WHY a thing was designed a certain way doesn't necessarily get incorporated into a training lecture, and doesn't necessarily NEED to be included. Similarly, many things said by instructors of all kinds tend to be "words of wisdom" they picked up someplace and/or heard from a friend who heard it from a friend, etc.

So long as those instructors taught you to shoot the rifle well, their pet theories about what the original designers of the round and/or of the rifle were thinking really don't add or detract from the goal of the instruction. The only "harm" done is to give you something to get sorted out on an internet forum decades later!

Don't worry though -- every single other thing your D.I. told you was absolutely TRUE!

 

[rcmodel]

The 5.56 NATO cartridge was Designed to be able to shoot through one side of a standard military steel helmet at 600 meters.

That was the only original design "requirement" as far as killing or wounding in the original design specifications.

But it sounds to me like it was designed to kill, not wound.
Or head shots through steel helmets would not have been the performance goal it had to meet!

rc

 

[Jenrick]

Early 5.56 round did tumble in the air in cold weather, they were redesigned as they were extremely unaccurate when they did so. 5.56 rounds out of 20" barrels do fragment on entry however, usually explosively. The newer M855/SS109 "green tip" round needs more velocity to do so, and due to it's construction doesn't fragment quiet as massively.

You'll find much written about the 7.62x39 being a LESS lethal round then the 5.56 round, as only certain loading exhibit anything close to the permanent wound tracks a 5.56 round could. See http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19885 for a very good write up. 5.45 does a better job, however it still functions like a non-fragmenting 5.56 round. Much of the controversy since Somalia regarding the 5.56 was a result of the round not functioning in it's intended manner due to small build targets, short rifle barrels, and longer engagement ranges then expected.

-Jenrick

 

[Akita1]

Trent & Jenrick +1. Also note that the .223 tumbles when it hits something, which equates to the opposite of the long-range flat "shoot through" behavior characteristics described above when unobstructed.

On a personal note, I only use the .223 to plink and perhaps to shoot coyotes. I use 6.8mm for hogs and .270 for deer and home defense is all .45 (HK USC & Glock 30) as I can't sweep the hall with a scatter gun when there be babies about and that .223 will zip through drywall and upset the neighbors a bit (when it comes flying through their house at that velocity).

 

[dastardly-D]

556/223

Jenrick... I read the article you have posted and there is little there to cast any doubt on what I said.They shot various bullets of different construction,and the newer 53 grain 545 is quite like our 556. The Russian version of the 762 was not as much a meat grinder that the Yugo or commercial round is. And like some of you said,the DI's might have had their own pet assumptions on matters,but after reading up on the 556,it was more of a wounder overall than an outright killer.Once again,notice what the fighters are still saying in the sandboxes,it all too often takes muliple torso shots to stop a person. As far as one person said of the 556,it's only requirement was to shoot thru a helmet at 600 yards....just what guys were trained to shoot that far ? That sounds like a myth unless you know where I can verify that.....And I've heard guys say that it tumbled thru the air,whereas I heard it tumbles once it actually hits something. I know impact starts the tumble effect.....Once again,why did they come up with the new AK 545 round which acts so much like the 556 ?

 

[Trent]

The AK74 round (5.45x39) was also adopted for logistics reasons.

AK47 + 6 magazines @ 5,496 g (12.12 lb) for 180 rounds
AK74 + 10 magazines @ 5,510 g (12.1 lb) for 300 rounds

For the same loadout the troops can carry 40% more ammo.

(It also granted a x2 multiplier on effective range... for what it's worth).

 

[C-grunt]

I'm still looking for these "Warriors in the Sandbox" who have horrible times with the 5.56 so I can talk with them. I spent 2 years in Iraq as an infantryman. I did the initial invasion in 03 and spent a year along the Iranian border in 05. My brother in law was a Marine infantryman in Fallujah in 04. My unit did another tour in Iraq and one in Afghanistan since I got out and I still keep in touch with old friends. Several of my buddies went to the Special Forces and spent several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So with all this time spent in combat I have NEVER heard a complaint on the lack of lethality of the 5.56 with a good hit. I've seen what M855 will do out of M4s, M16s and M249s from ranges of 0-500+ meters. I've seen what M262 will do at 405 meters from a M16A4 SDM-R. My SF buddy has a confirmed kill at 400 meters with his Mk18 (10.5 inch barrel) using M262.

The problem we are currently solving is that standard M855 is not consistent in its fragmentation when it hits a bad guy. Most of the time it works great but sometimes it won't yaw for 9 inches or so which severely reduces it effectiveness. But that has been solved with the USMC Mk318 and the Army M855A1 rounds.

 

[Jenrick]

5.56 exhibiting ideal behavior doesn't tumble on contact. That would create at most a permanent wound cavity at most .223" wide, and about 1" long as the bullet moved through. A 5.56 round exhibiting ideal behavior will strike the target, attempt to flip so the base is leading, and the bullet structurally fails. The bullet then breaks up into a ton of small pieces of lead and brass and shotguns out from the location of failure, ripping and rending flesh as the fragments go. Sort of like shooting a piece of drywall from close range with a load of birdshot vs a slug. The slug takes a clean circle out, where the birdshot blows a chunk out of the drywall.

All the research that I've located, shows that there ARE issues with M855 out of short barreled rifles, at distance, in small body'd individuals. However we're talking <14.5 barrels (usually 10.5) and over 100m shoots on malnourished folks shot the short way through. Additionally the Army found that M855 was performing very differently based on even a few degrees differences in initial angle of incidence with the target. One round would explosively fragment just like it was supposed to, while another a few tenths of a degree off would pass straight through. M855A1, Mk318, and the Mk262 were all created to help circumvent this problem. I've got a copy of the article regarding the angle of incidence, I'm not having any luck finding it posted on line right now.

However out of all the research and reading I've done, the only person that I'm willing to say definitely made good hits and didn't get good results is Paul Howe. He's not a fan of M855 due to his experience with it in Somalia. Kyle Lamb sums it up for the rest of us who aren't former Delta shooters, (paraphrasing) "When ever I hear about 5.56 lack of effectiveness my first thought is the shooter didn't hit the target."

-Jenrick

 

[C-grunt]

5.56 exhibiting ideal behavior doesn't tumble on contact. That would create at most a permanent wound cavity at most .223" wide, and about 1" long as the bullet moved through. A 5.56 round exhibiting ideal behavior will strike the target, attempt to flip so the base is leading, and the bullet structurally fails. The bullet then breaks up into a ton of small pieces of lead and brass and shotguns out from the location of failure, ripping and rending flesh as the fragments go. Sort of like shooting a piece of drywall from close range with a load of birdshot vs a slug. The slug takes a clean circle out, where the birdshot blows a chunk out of the drywall.

All the research that I've located, shows that there ARE issues with M855 out of short barreled rifles, at distance, in small body'd individuals. However we're talking <14.5 barrels (usually 10.5) and over 100m shoots on malnourished folks shot the short way through. Additionally the Army found that M855 was performing very differently based on even a few degrees differences in initial angle of incidence with the target. One round would explosively fragment just like it was supposed to, while another a few tenths of a degree off would pass straight through. M855A1, Mk318, and the Mk262 were all created to help circumvent this problem. I've got a copy of the article regarding the angle of incidence, I'm not having any luck finding it posted on line right now.

However out of all the research and reading I've done, the only person that I'm willing to say definitely made good hits and didn't get good results is Paul Howe. He's not a fan of M855 due to his experience with it in Somalia. Kyle Lamb sums it up for the rest of us who aren't former Delta shooters, (paraphrasing) "When ever I hear about 5.56 lack of effectiveness my first thought is the shooter didn't hit the target."

-Jenrick

This is a good post. Another thing people tend to forget is that some people are just really hard to kill. One night our patrol got ambushed by a joint attack that started with a VBIED and a RPG. When the carbomb failed to destroy the lead Abrams and the RPG missed the attack fell apart.

After the shooting stopped we found the RPG gunner a couple hundred yards from the tank. He had taken a 7.62 NATO round through the upper back. The round entered just below his right shoulder blade and exited right at his left nipple. That shot should have killed him rather quickly. However we found him alive approximately 30 minutes after he was shot and he was evac'd.

 

[Trent]

After the shooting stopped we found the RPG gunner a couple hundred yards from the tank. He had taken a 7.62 NATO round through the upper back. The round entered just below his right shoulder blade and exited right at his left nipple. That shot should have killed him rather quickly. However we found him alive approximately 30 minutes after he was shot and he was evac'd.

If it missed the major arteries, he would have had a double lung puncture and not much internal bleeding. That's a pretty survivable hit unless the chest cavity fills up with air. And that can be managed in the field with the appropriate dressing.

(Every hunter should learn how to apply a bandage to treat this wound; tape a sheet of plastic over the wound on three sides, leave one side of the bandage as a "flap" so air can get out, but not back in).

Fragmentation would have helped "find" an artery, perhaps.

Sounds like a heck of a time that day. Thanks for serving, and fighting for us.

 

[rcmodel]

Early 5.56 round did tumble in the air in cold weather, they were redesigned as they were extremely unaccurate when they did so.

Ahh? The bullet wasn't redesigned.
The rifle was redesigned.

The AR-15 started life in Vietnam with a 1/14 barrel twist.
The first M-16 was changed to 1/12 twist.
The M16A2 was changed to 1/7 twist and the M193 55 grain bullet was replaced with the M855 62 grain bullet.

And thats when the problem with lack of stopping power all started.

The bullet is TOO stable in a 1/7 twist now and sometimes shoots a .22 hole through people at long range, instead of tumbling and fragmenting and tearing them a new one.

The new M855A1 EPR round may address some of that, as they are supposed to break & tumble better then the old M855 bullet. Time will tell.
http://www.pica.army.mil/picatinnyp...6mm_Enhanced_Performance_Round, 1960-2010.pdf

My son is at work right now making the steel penetrator tips for them 24/7 as we speak.



rc

 

[Jenrick]

rcmodel: You are correct actually in that they changed the barrel twist rather then doing anything to the round initially. The way I wrote that didn't come out right at all.

I'm not going to say that M855 is too stable, it does exactly what it's supposed to do. Reach out and touch someone from the M249. However I will agree that it appears to display less reliable terminal fragmentation then the previous M193 round.

-Jenrick

 

[dastardly-D]

556

CGrunt......My experience is in Nam,not the Sandboxes,though some of our experiences are no doubt similar....ambushes and booby traps. I spend way too much time on this computer reading all kinds of stuff,for years.I've read a lot of complaints from guys not liking their M4's and complaints of the 556 round not being capable as it could be.You don't want to believe it,then don't.But don't nobody tell me the only advantage of the new AK round is that it's lighter and they can carry more. A grunt carries a lot more than a T.O. load,so that argument is off the table. We were issued 5-20 round mags,everybody carried at least twice that plus extra belts for the M60,a few LAWS here and there,grenades and whatever else. There has to be a real reason for that smaller caliber,especially for Russia and others to go for a modified AK with a smaller caliber..:banghead:

 

[Jenrick]

rcmodel: Interesting, thanks for the link.

dastardly-D: Well for one, a smaller caliber is cheaper. I'm sure if the Russians could have figure out how to use concrete they would have. The reason they used a steel cased round with a lacquer coating, and steel cored round with "gilding" wash on it? Price.

It's arguable that the 5.45 was an attempt to duplicate the success seen with the earlier M193 rounds, however the did not achieve it. 5.45 does NOT reliably fragment regardless of velocity. It does upset, and do some odd things in the body/ballistic gel, but fragmentation is not one of them. The Chinese have gone to a 5.8x42 cartridge running around 52-77gr. No word on if it fragments reliably or not.

Ironically just like here in the US with the complaint of the 5.56 being "not as good as the old 7.62", this is mirrored in the USSR. Spetsnaz teams would deploy to in Afghanistan with a mix of calibers, as some members felt that the 7.62x39 had something the 5.45 didn't.

 

[dastardly-D]

556/223

Well guys you put out a lot of opinion and information here,and I do appreciate a good discussion ! Being a bullhead I then decided to Google some more info. I punched in ''Are there any military bullets designed to fragment'' ? Oh but you should see all the answers ! Some of this came from articles,some from other ''writers''. From what I gather,most military bullets are designed to yaw,a byproduct of which is fragmentation,of which the military looks at being a good thing. It is amazing though that so many studies that are published as a fact seem to be differant than other studies. It would seem though,that some bullets were constructed to fragment easier than others,while some were made for a little more penetration before upsetting......Anything else ?

 

[Skribs]

Considering hit rate, I thought the 5.56 was designed to give more covering fire.

 

[d2wing]

As I recall, part of the study is it takes 100's of round per kill. In my experience
There were darn few occasions to aim. More hits are random wounding shots than aimed kill zone shots it seems. It is not like you get to put a guy in your crosshairs. Your experience may vary or be imaginary.

 

[Sam1911]

Actually, the ratio of rounds fired to kills was supposedly calculated to be something like 60,000:1 in Vietnam (and other conflicts would be similar) mostly due to the use of suppressive fire from all the various machine guns in use. 'Course that counts everything from the ARVN trooper with an M1 carbine up to the miniguns in the AC-130s.

 

[dastardly-D]

556

D2wing.......You are showing everybody your backside with this quote ''Your experience may vary or be imaginary.'' I guess you never had an opportunity to take a well aimed shot ? If everybody acted like you and never took a well aimed shot we'd still be there. That over 1million dead Vietnamese must have all been shot by dumb luck,huh ? No,I don't agree with you at all,and it's my experiance not imagination..........Even the Luxumberg National Guard has more guts than that !