Buddy says .223 is to wound, is he right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just because a guy in a uniform with more stripes on it than yours said it doesn't make it a fact. I was told, when I was in boot camp, by a tanker (a corporal I think) that tankers were issued Uzis with 4 inch barrels that fired 3,000 rounds per minute. FTR, this pre-dated Uzi pistols, MIni-Uzis and Micro-Uzis by a good many years. I also heard any number of personnel quoting that old chestnut about the .45 "picking a man up and spinning him around" with a shoulder hit. The military has its own urban legends and folklore just like any other society.
 
Last edited:
If you actually read BHD, most of the remarks about the 5.56 were positive. On another thread here, Blackhawk6 (IIRC) said that his guys in Afganistan had zero problems with the M4 5.56 combo.

In Ezell's book "Black Rifle" or whatever his epic story of the M16 was titled, the "wound, not kill" theory was never mentioned.

Show us your sources or quit repeating rumours and myths! :)
 
You know, I think that we should switch away from ammo/gun combinations that tend to wound than kill.

My rationale is this... we Americans have too much of a penchant for helping others, even if they just shot at us not too long ago. Better to kill this prior enemy than using valuable plasma/bandages/medical supplies to patch the downed enemy and using our medical supplies for OUR troops instead.

What do we get when we patch them up? They go back to their tribal villages and become old timers who tell stories to the young ones that he survived an attack from the American infidels and that you young ones should go and strap bomb-vests to strike terror at the heart of the infidels.
 
Being the font of all wisdom

to think that any high powered rifle bullet is designed to wound is crap. I know my 9mm's are designed to kill and they ain't no 5.56.

The reason the world powers went to smaller cartridges is that a soldier can carry and shoot more ammo that recoils less.

I'll give it to you this way... Which is more dangerous?

A well trained rifleman with 200 rounds of 30.06 or the same rifleman with 450 rounds of 5.56.

I say it is the later, by a long shot. Pun intended!

-bevr
 
That nonsense about rifles designed to only wound so two men would be needed to carry off one wounded man has been around since at least WWI.

It based on the false idea that soldiers in combat, seeing a comrade wounded, will immediately stop what they are doing and go to his rescue. Maybe in the movies, all the while discussing the ethics of warfare, and spouting the latest left coast anti-war prattle.

In combat, soldiers leave the wounded for the medics and carry on with the mission. And the best enemy soldier is a dead enemy soldier.

As to the 5.56 being adopted for this or that reason, most of that is also baloney. The 5.56 was adopted for one reason - it and the M16 rifle gave a combination that was controllable in full auto fire, something the M14 was not. The light weight of the ammo, the ability of the troops to carry more, and the surprising accuracy of the rifle ammo combination were bonuses. The military evaluated the 5.56 for lethality in conjunction with its expected deployment and changing tactical ideas. Unless my dictionary is wrong, "lethality" does not mean the ability to wound.

Jim
 
I'd have to agree with BevrFevr, if I were ever in battle or a shtf situation, I'd take an AR/M16 w/450rds IN A HEARTBEAT, over the M1/M14 or similiar weapon with 200rds. A well placed shot, regardless if its .30cal or .223cal WILL DO WHAT IT'S DESIGNED TO DO....and thats KILL.
 
The "urban legend" as you guys call it was told to me by one of my Drill Sergeants at FLW.
Click to expand...

I had a firearms instructor at the police academy tell our class that the M16 round (.223) tumbled in flight. That was why it caused such devastating wounds.

I asked him if the bullet was intended to tumble, why was the M16's rifle barrel rifled. He thought about it for a while and realized what a silly thing he was saying.

Pilgrim
 
...umm maybe the M16 barrel is rifled so the bullet doesn't tumble inside the barrel...umm yeah, thats it...

Just like your instructor, the media has turned people into tape recorders...repeating and believing everything they hear without first thinking if what their hearing is total bull????. :barf:

All things bad in our time stem from media pollution. Chew on that one for awhile :cuss:
 
Just to wound...

and the military classified certain nukes as "tactical" with almost surgically controlled destruction as well.

The .223 is just to wound just like all the other ammo is designed just to wound. That is just what it does if you hit and fail to kill the target.

I don't know that the myth has been around since WWI and Jim Keenen noted, but what he said was solid. Americans and at least some of the western European militaries seem fixated on aiding the wounded and it isn't a bad thing, but not when the cost is greater in saving the wounded than just letting them die. Any idea about which enemies this myth has proven successful for? It did prove accurate with the Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, or Iraqis who seem to value the objective over the lives of the individual soldiers, something Americans find apalling and who keep enforcing with such myth.

Probably the most stupid aspect of the myth is that unless the wounded is incapacitated, the wound does not result in 3 people being taken out of battle any more than it represents taking the wounded person out of battle. The wounded often can and do fight and in cases where they are mobility impaired, they fight even harder as they can't retreat or seek other cover.
 
It really comes to the lowest common denominator.

Light ammo, able to spray n pray, light recoil, likely improved hit ratio for the untrained recruits. A 40 yr old policy.

Think about this. I bet most of you hunt. Would you hunt a 200 lbs buck with a .223? Unlikely. The old motto is "use enough gun."

Well, some Pentagon genius decided that, during the Vietnam "jungle" scenario, the 5.56 round was superior. Maybe so. Maybe not. Now, with the SS109, it is a straight-thru shooter. No expansion.

The argument that a 5.56 wound channel is equivalent to a 7.62 wound channel is bogus on its face. You can not wish away physics (62 gr .223 rd @3300 fps versus 150 gr .308 rd @2,600 fps). File this under wishful thinking.

Where are we fighting now? IN THE DESERT. Longer distances. IIRC the M16A3 is moving away from full auto to semi/3 rd burst. We are moving away from full auto spray n pray.

It may be time for the Pentagon to re-visit this issue.
 
Demise, thank you for the kind words.

As far as the whole "wound, not kill" rationale, I believe I first heard it from my Professor of Miltary Science during an Army ROTC class, lo these many years ago; and, since I started out enlisted, I remember thinking at the time that draining the enemy's resources was all well and good, but if I were in a firefight, I'd MUCH rather have the enemy soldier become DRT-ASAP.

I mention this not to argue, flame or put on airs, but to let you guys know where and how I obtained the background that informed my previous post.
 
[sigh] this is getting old [/sigh]

7.62FullMetalJacket said:
Well, some Pentagon genius decided that, during the Vietnam "jungle" scenario, the 5.56 round was superior. Maybe so. Maybe not. Now, with the SS109, it is a straight-thru shooter. No expansion.
Click to expand...

Well, the fact of the matter is that M193 doesn't expand either. SS109 is NOT a round issued by the U.S. military. We use a loading identical to it known as M855. Tests done by Dr. Fackler in the late 1980s revealed that M855 exhibited the nearly the same terminal effects as M855 and both round exhibit superior terminal effects to M80. that is scientically proven fact. Not speculation.

The argument that a 5.56 wound channel is equivalent to a 7.62 wound channel is bogus on its face. You can not wish away physics (62 gr .223 rd @3300 fps versus 150 gr .308 rd @2,600 fps). File this under wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Actually the opposite is true. M80 does not fragment and creates a 7.62mm permanent cavity except for a small area where the round yaws and ends up boatail end first. This is physics. All spitzer type bullets will yaw in flesh and end up heavy end first. M193 and M855 break at the cannelure and fragment creating a much larger permanent wound cavity then M80.

Where are we fighting now? IN THE DESERT. Longer distances. IIRC the M16A3 is moving away from full auto to semi/3 rd burst. We are moving away from full auto spray n pray.
Click to expand...

We are fighting on the streets of Baghdad and Tirkrit. Engagement distances are arms length to 100 meters. Even when we were out in the desert we had no problems with the enemy out ranging our small arms. Special Operations Snipers have made many kills at ranges exceeding 600 meters with their Crane built SPRs and MK262 Mod I ammunition. The M16A3 is full auto. Current M16 series weapons are M16A1 = safe-semi-auto
M16A2 = safe-semi-burst, M16A3 = safe-semi-auto, M16A4 = safe-semi-burst, M4 = safe-semi-burst, M4A1 = safe-semi-auto.

Jeff
 
Not trying to be a know it all jerk, but I am sure that no one that has ACTUALLY seen someone that has been shot by a .223 rifle would buy into the idea that it was designed to only wound. The wound produced is horrible. The wound produced makes a handgun wound look like a pinprick by comparison.

How does the bullet accomplish this ? "I am supposed to penetrate the body, and some organs but not the vital ones because I am only supposed to wound".
Then we get into this idea that a bullet has enough energy to "bounce around" inside the body, yet it doesn't have enough energy to exit the body. :confused:


I have seen people that have been hit with the .223 cartridge from a rifle. I saw their wounds right in front of me and I touched them.
I have actually seen a person shot with an M16 by a SWAT officer, right before my eyes.
* I have never seen anyone that was shot with GI ball ammo. Only civilian ammo.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that this stuff is myth, legend, something to occupy internet bandwitdth, possibly the by-product of video games....................................... The one thing that it isn't; it isn't the truth.
 
I shoot a .223, and this guy at work tells me that I need to shoot a .308, because the .223 is such a wimpy round. I asked this guy if he would volunteer to get shot with a .223, and he wouldn't :).

I asked my Dad (Vietnam Veteran) if the .223 was a killing round, and he said, "If it wasn't, I wouldn't be here, and neither would you". That is good enough for me :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
 
Ask the victims of the DC snipers if the .223 only wounds---Oh wait!!!---you can't---cause they're freakin dead. DUH

Enough with stupid posts please............
 
Do a search in the Hunting section for the varmit hunting videos. Those exploding varmits were severly "wounded". It would have taken a dozen of their buddies to carry the pieces...I mean "the wounded" ones out. Same localized effects on the human body.
 
Varmint rounds are designed to violently fragment. Military rounds are not. Let's not confuse the issue with even more urban legends, eh?

If you think about it, the only people burdened with dealing with the wounded are the victors of a battle. So, to suggest that the .223 is designed to wound and create a burden is to suggest that military planners also intend to lose battles so that won't have to deal with the wounded they create...
Does that make sense? I didn't think so...

The .223 is supposed to kill, it just doesn't do as good a job of it as heavier rounds.

Keith
 
Who designs a gun or cartridge to wound? :rolleyes:

That being said, I think the "wound, not kill" myth regarding the .223 was spawned from the differences in the military 5.56 versions used. The 55gr version has far less overpenetration issues and is more likely to inflict greater tissue damage due to its increased likelihood to fragment (origin of the "tumbling" hypothesis?). Multiple projectiles = multiple wounds and wound paths.

The 62gr for the military was created for armor penetration, hence does not fragment, and thus is far less likely to create massive tissue damage in the body. The military currently uses the 62gr version and also did so during Somalia. It was my recollection that the Delta guys on the BHD mission were quite disappointed with the round precisely because of its inability to inflict massive tissue damage.

It's not the cartridge size itself, but the difference ballistics of the different versions.

So, no, the 5.56 (or non-military .223) was not created to wound. It's just that the cleaner wounds from the 62gr version probably left the enemy alive longer than the 55gr versions did. But like was said before, a well placed shot is most important. A clean hole throught the heart is just as deadly as a jagged one.
 
The .223 is supposed to kill, it just doesn't do as good a job of it as heavier rounds.
Click to expand...

Dead is dead. It's like pregnancy, one either is or isn't. There aren't any degrees of deadness.

This statement is really about the time it takes someone to die from his wounds. I can shoot the enemy in the gut with a .223, and assuming he gets no aid, he's gonna die. I can shoot the enemy in the gut with a .308, and again, assuming no aid, he's gonna die. The only difference is that he might die faster with a .308 hole in him than a .223 hole in him. Bigger hole = faster blood loss = quicker death.

The only thing a larger caliber really gives you is physical knockdown power. And even that's not guaranteed.
 
According to at least one person I have talked to that truely knows told me that the 5.56 causes much more tissue damage than the 7.62 round in military configuration. The reason is that the 5.56 tumbles and fragments where the 7.62 just punches a .308" hole through the target. This person has actually shot humans with both rounds in combat which led him to this conclusion.
Obviously I assume this refers to shots at reasonable ranges.
 
Keith: I realize there is a difference in bullet construction, however, a .223 delivered at the proper velocity, and on target, will devistate the target. Per the photo's shown in the DC sniper case last week, the female FBI victim was missing half of her face. That is urban fact.
 
The only thing a larger caliber really gives you is physical knockdown power. And even that's not guaranteed.
Click to expand...

I realize there is a difference in bullet construction, however, a .223 delivered at the proper velocity, and on target, will devistate the target.
Click to expand...

Well, I've seen large animals shot with both .308 and .223 - .308 is better. Both rounds will kill, you just get a lot more window with the bigger round.

I realize that a deer is not a man, etc, but all things being equal, big holes and deeper penetration kill faster and more certainly than smaller holes.

But, MORE IMPORTANTLY, heavier rounds are better at breaking through cement, vehicles, heavy auto glass, dirt - all the things that men hide behind when the bullets are flying. And this theme comes up again and again from Somalia to Baghdad. The .223 doesn't do a good job of killing the guy shooting from the window of the cinder block building. A 60 grain round simply doesn't have the kinetic energy that a 150 grain does and won't break through light cover.

And in a REAL war, the enemy is not standing out in the open, he's hunkered down behind something - and so are you. It can be uncomfortable if his 125 grain 762x39 bullets bust through the wall you're hiding behind, while your 60 grain bullets can't reach him.

Keith
 
I don't disagree.....and own one MBR..a FAL. I just think the idea of a weapon "designed to wound" is ludicrous. People have gone over Niagara Falls and survived - doesn't mean the falls were designed for safe passage.
 
5.56mm Ball creates 6" diameter wounds in center of mass shots; 7.62mm NATO and .30-06 create .3" wounds.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Right.

I think Jim is on the money. The thinking went like this:
Engagements are typically at fairly short range, so we do not need 800 meter effective ranges
Smaller rounds weigh less and take up less space
Smaller rounds are more controllable on auto

Jeff, I'm pretty sure you've got the M4 nomenclature backward. We had M4's in
my battalion. We briefly had ONE M4 with Safe/Semi/Auto capability.

FWIW, the most outlandish "information" about firearms I have encountered in my thirty-something years has been from drill sergeants.

"You can shoot 7-6-2 [NATO] in an AK. I've done it." Sure. While you're at it, let's discuss the insidious Germans/Japanese/VC/Commies who had rifles that could fire our ammo, but whose ammo would not fit our rifles. I am aware of *1* weapons system with this capability, and that is the ComBlock 82mm mortar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Debunking the TKO myth
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
5K
Art Eatman
A
M
  • Locked
Combat wounds proving less deadly
Replies
14
Views
1K
Glockster35
G
P
  • Locked
Michael Moore Used columbine kids to boost agenda
Replies
7
Views
413
kcmarine
K
H
  • Locked
What the M855 really does
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
MTMilitiaman
MTMilitiaman
H
  • Locked
The M855 and what it really does
Replies
3
Views
643
Dr.Rob
Dr.Rob
Back
Top