.223/5.56 in combat

[sh3rm4nt4nk]

".25-06 runs quite a bit faster with 90-100gr bullets than 2800fps. A .25-06 will throw a 117gr at around 3200fps, so with a 90-100gr bullet I am guessing 3300-3400 is quite possible. While it would shoot nice and flat, and have good on target performance the weapon would be really large for a magazine fed rifle, and with a round that far overbore barrel life would be unacceptably short."

What is the expected life of a M16 barrel?
Looking up overbore I found definitions like "the case capacity in grains of water divided by the area (in square inches) of the bore cross-section".
I think friction and heat have the greatest effect on barrel life. Increasing the velocity and surface area of the bullet in contact with the barrel will increase heat/friction. This will be mutiplied by the length or the bullet as the longer any section of barrel is in contact with the bullet the hotter it will get. So any increase in bullet weight needs a porportional increase in bullet diameter to maintain the same heat and barrel wear at a given velocity.
I think if I were looking for something between .223 and .308 that's not very overbore .260 remington or something like it would work.
http://www.remington.com/products/a...istics_results.aspx?data=R260R1*R223R1*R308W2

 

[R.W.Dale]

bleh, stopped reading right here.

This doesn't take 8 million other factors into account. Weight, training, cost, etc.

There are plenty of dead terrorsists who would contend that the .223 does just fine.

Thanks for the service and first hand info c-grunt and Dan C.

I'm tellin ya. Why anyone even bothers reading anything written by Mr Hawks is beyond me. Line after line of useless incorrect pontification given as though it were all facts.

Chuck Hawks should be working somewhere behind a counter or steering wheel and nowhere near a keyboard

 

[mtlucas0311]

Coal Dragger, your a 51' for god sake! what are you screwin' around with a 16 for, did your A gunner forget how to load a tube or something? I know you had plenty of rockets, what's the deal?:

I have to admit I never got wind of the "shoot the radiator first" rule?
For us it was: if they don't stop by here, the 240's take over. The few times it happened the car usually swerved or drifted off the road quite quickly.

 

[Coal Dragger]

I was a 51 in a weapons company. So no rockets for us, we had Javelins. Seeing as how there was no armor to shoot up in 2004 they used us just like an 0311. So even though we had AT4's we didn't use them too much. We didn't have any SMAW's either (shame).

Last vehicle I had to shoot up was approaching the flank of my platoon which was already actively engaged at the time. My back blast area was far from being clear, so no AT4. Aside from that we tried the shots to the radiator as a warning at about 250-300M, then once he got within about 200M-150M I sort of popped the guy in the face. I tried for the front seat passenger too, but sadly he ducked. I am still surprised I made that shot, but then again I had been doing a lot of competitive shooting on my own and for Missouri State University prior to the deployment. Still I was damn lucky to calculate the correct lead and pull it off, especially with a trigger heavy enough to support the weight of the rifle.

 

[C-grunt]

While I never had a problem with the 855 round, I think going to a heavier round would be better.

 

[Byron]

Army and Marines are both accurate riflemen.The M193 worked well for me in 68-69 as a grunt in Nam.No repeated hits needed.Our CO kept us from using full automatic to which I agree.We operated in the Central Highlands in free fire. Rumour that one wounded takes three out.It is a fable that someone dreamed up. I spoke to a SF troop and they are using the M193. There are no magic bullets,including the 45 ACP.Every situation is different.
Support our troops.Don't ask them war stories.Thank Them,just Thank Them. It was not that way when many of us came home from Nam.
Byron D Co., 3/8th Inf, 4th Inf Div 68-69

 

[SHvar]

The 5.56 works far better than many will give it credit for, and most who say it doesnt cut through cars, trees, and didnt work in Vietnam werent there, or didnt fight with it.
Truthfully every vietnam vet I have known who was infantry, special forces, engineer, etc (combat arms in the Army or Marines), liked them, and had no problems with the M-16 or the 5.56x45 and its stopping power.
As for myself in Iraq, the round worked just fine, it will cut through a car and keep going, and it has no problem stopping enemies.
It wont have the take down power of the 7.62x51, of course, but it works more than good against any human or large animal.
Ask an inuit hunter what they use in Alaska or northern Canada hunting polar bear, seal, walrus, etc, many use the .223.
The 7.62X39 has a bit more impact at 100 yards or less, but just like the 5.45x39, its made to use in distances under 250 meters, after 200 meters the 5.56 works better than both.
I watched a good sized deer get knocked down with one shot (.223) at almost 400 meters, it never made one step alive, just jumped straight up then fell dead.

 

[mtlucas0311]

.223 for polar bear? you go first, I'll be in the hummer with coal dragger! We'll make sure we've got rounds for his SMAW this time.
A car isn't that tough a medium for any rifle cartridge to pass through, there isn't nearly as much to them as you may think. Unless it hits the powertrain or unibody (pillars) there isn't much to stop it.

 

[d2wing]

I agree with Shvar and the other vets that actually used the weapons in combat. The 5.56 does what it is designed for. I loved the M14 but if I had to hump it with ammo and pack and shoot in a hurry, not so much. Unless the army issued very fast gun bearers, I'd take an M16. If they did issue gun bearers, I'd use an M60. Yes the 7.62 is more effective. Especially in a fixed position. I rode in convoys on gun trucks sometimes and was a gunner on jeeps a couple times. The m60 and I were good friends.
Same with the M16 and .50 cal in other situations.
Those of you suggesting other rounds don't seem to realize that the 25-06 and .243 are simply less effective 30-06 and .308 rounds. There isn't anything in between that has proven an advantage over the .308 or .223 as an infantry weapon. The wound rather than kill is a doctrine of our enemies, not ours. Nobody in combat thinks, gee, I'd rather wound that guy than kill him. War is an excuse for unrestrained evil and violence, and those who (us) try to stop it with less evil and violence intent. I dunno I better take my meds now. Oh and armchair generals, never been in combat, have a cup of shut up. (words deleted here)

 

[Jaws]

I think the answer for what is enough and what isn't, is directly related to the time since the last time serious killing had to be done.
Is over 50 years since our troops faced a really big army throwing millions of soldiers at our lines. That's why we forget.
If you ask a self defense instructor what caliber firearm to get to protect your life with, he'll tell you to use the heavier caliber you can carry and shoot acurate.
What do we give to our soldiers? the smaller caliber that we can get away with. The further you get from the wars where we faced capable enemy, the heavier word bean counters have on what our troops should use.

 

[GRIZ22]

I beg to differ on the "can't hit a man-sized target beyond 200 meters."

The current generation of soldiers are much improved over those of Vietnam, or even Grenada. They spend more time on marksmanship, and use optical sights whenever possible.

Perhaps you meant that most LEO types can't hit beyond 200 meters? Our soldiers are actually doing quite well whenever distances are opening up.

The Army has spent more time teaching marksmanship in the past few years but I still stand by my statement regarding the marksmanship of most soldiers. I've witnessed this on qualification courses.

I didn't say anything about LEOs but being that you brought it up I agree most LEOs can't hit anthing past 200 meters or even closer. Why? Unless they have military or civilian shooting experience is most LEOs never get any rifle training.

There is no doubt that today's soldier in well trained and much better so than 10 years ago. They do well shooting at longer ranges but there are always the 2 or 3 in a squad that do better.

 

[d2wing]

As I recall everyone in the army or any service had to qualify in basic training. In those days I also think more guys had prior experience with firearms as well. The way weapons were used in training may have changed.
Also in actual combat most guys don't have time to carefully aim, especially
if you can't see the bastards, which is often the case. Training and equipment usually reflects the last war we fought. At least at the start.

 

[mtlucas0311]

I agree with you that most LEO's can't shoot worth a hill of beans, going to a PPC match where the host city or township has all of its officers qual for the year is pretty good evidence when you look at the scores, and thats 50 feet! All due respect to the population of LEO's that do take marksmanship seriously and are absolutly fine shots.

The respect given to marksmanship in the military is coming back (at least in the Marines). In 03' the word on the street was that they were pulling all the old 7.62 match rifles out of the armories, outfitting them with optics and testing designated marksman role in some units. there was a growing need for precise fire at distance (especially in the cities) but not enogh snipers to go around. They wanted the ability with the rifle, but didn't so much need the stealth or recon role of a school trained sniper. I believe they were going for 1 DM per squad.

 

[Coal Dragger]

^ Yep, by 2004 they were pulling the best two or three rifle qual scores from each squad and sending them to a quick down and dirty DM class for the ACOG at Camp Margarita or Edson Range prior to deployment.

I think now just about any 03xx Marine is issued an ACOG for the M16A4 and are being trained in its use. I know that friends of mine that are still in have mentioned changes to the rifle qualification too. There is still a KD course like we remember with the 200, 300, and 500 yd/M qualification, but there is a second day devoted to field firing at close range, at pop ups, at movers etc. You have to pass both, although the rating is based on your KD course score.

 

[punkndisorderly]

I never had to use my rifle in combat while in the Army. I was in in the mid-90's and we were barely trained on our M-16's. Granted, I was on self propelled howitzers (and not an infantryman. My buddy was infantry and was very well trained. We were lucky to shoot them twice a year. Between ancient and badly abused magazines which were pooled rather than issued to individual soldiers, beat to hell rattletrap rifles, and unskilled unit armorers we would have been in real trouble had we had to act as infantry.

I shoot about as many rounds in two months out of my AR-15 currently than I did in my entire 4 years not counting Basic Rifle Marksmanship in Basic Training. I actually intentionally flubbed the qualifications a couple of times just so I could run through it again.

 

[mtlucas0311]

Were the Marines that were getting pulled for the DM classes training on A4's with ACOG's or M14/M1A's with 10 powers? We were given a rather strong impression that they were dusting off the old rifle team service rifles in 7.62.

Coal Dragger, it's kind of funny that you guys had Javelins but no SMAW rounds; we had SMAWs and AT4's coming out of hind ends. The mound of sachel charges we had piled up was beyond belief for a fragmented rifle company (no engineers mind you) we even had a couple cratering charges. We didn't have the Javelins, but we had the CLU's. Go figure.

 

[Coal Dragger]

^ M16A4's with ACOG at that point. The M14's were still in really short supply, although there were some out there.

 

[sh3rm4nt4nk]

"I agree with Shvar and the other vets that actually used the weapons in combat. The 5.56 does what it is designed for. I loved the M14 but if I had to hump it with ammo and pack and shoot in a hurry, not so much. Unless the army issued very fast gun bearers, I'd take an M16. If they did issue gun bearers, I'd use an M60. Yes the 7.62 is more effective. Especially in a fixed position. I rode in convoys on gun trucks sometimes and was a gunner on jeeps a couple times. The m60 and I were good friends.
Same with the M16 and .50 cal in other situations.
Those of you suggesting other rounds don't seem to realize that the 25-06 and .243 are simply less effective 30-06 and .308 rounds. There isn't anything in between that has proven an advantage over the .308 or .223 as an infantry weapon."

I think d2wing has summarized the answers I'm hearing to my question. I have no military experience but a great interest in American military history and a great respect our military. Thank you for your responses.
None of us who enjoy freedom can thank you enough for your service.
Thank You

 

[SHvar]

The subject of the old M-14s being brought out.
There were a few M-14s precision hand assembled from what was left of the old rifles (a few were made, not many) to allow the snipers semiauto fire, after all snipers lugging 13+ lbs of bolt action rifle and loads of equipment were way to vulnerable and needed other soldiers (marines) to protect them. This was done before the new sniper rifle was sent to the field, the SASS from Knights armament.
The designated marksmen position was from adding the ACOG to the M-16A4, this allowed the Marines to be placed under investigation after a few battles, there were so many head shots that criminal investigations occurred to find out whether they were executing the enemy at point blank range or not, in reality these shots were made from 300-600 meters away.
Years ago (the first gulf war) our special forces were buying cheap 4X scopes adding Bsquare mounts to their M-16s and were making head shots at 650 meters. Its amazing how much the public doesnt know about what happened in the first gulf war, all because CNN didnt show it all. There were ground operations, and conflicts that occured long before the "ground war" started, in fact in and before the "air war" started.

 

[ACBMWM3]

I never had a problem with it.
In the sandbox I also had a 249 and it would chew threw whatever you wanted to, especially with M855.
its my caliber of choice even now after ive been out for a few years.
And i still love SS109/M855

 

[Coal Dragger]

mtlucas0311,

Yeah we had the CLU's as well, and plenty of demo on hand. The CLU's make a great night observation tool at least.

Rifle companies will have SMAW's as the 51's T&E table calls for them, but the weapons company usually won't have them and we didn't. About the only major weapons our weapons company really used on a regular basis were our M240's, M2's, and MK19's. Our 81's and Javelins were pooled together and split into two equal sized rifle platoons. The mortars, and any Javelin missiles we might have had never left their crates.

The heavy guns platoon, and the 52's paired up to form CATT teams and ended up doing a lot of convoy escort duty, while we got stuck with the foot patrol duty all around TQ and outlying areas/villages. We didn't need our 81's because honestly we had some motivated Army cannon cockers with self propelled 155's on call all the time and Cobra gunships aplenty.