5.56 aint weak- .308 just isnt a-

Status
Not open for further replies.
I harvest several white tails every year with the .223. I neck shoot them and they drop on the spot. 90% of the deer shot in this country are shot under 100yds. If you can't make a neck shot from that range, you have no business in the woods with a rifle to begin with.

Like the previous poster I've seen deer hit in the boiler room with 22 center fires run a short distance. I've also seen them hit with 300 win mags run off never to be found.

It's unusual to shoot any big game animal in the heart/lungs and have them drop like a rock. It usually takes a central nervous system hit to do that.
 
Bowfin, Great argument if you ignore time, but none of those things you mentioned survived very long. The 5.56 is going on 40 years.
 
bowfin said:
/*The 5.56 is effective, otherwise it would not be the free world standard.*/

Then using that logic then:

...the Chauchat machine gun was a world beater, otherwise the French and Americans wouldn't have used it during WWI when the BAR was on the sidelines.

...The Mark VI torpedo detonator we used in WWII was flawless (despite a better than 50% failure rate), else we wouldn't have used it.

...the Brewster Buffalo was equal to the Japanese Zero and Me-109, else four different countries wouldn't have bought it to fight them.

...Ham and Lima Bean C rations were a national favorite, else we wouldn't have made millions of cans of them.

I started to think you had a little sense until you made those statements above...

None of those weapons were used for decades... the French gun was an peice of crap to begin with, it was all they had in numbers in country.

The Buffalo was the same thing, it was what was available at the time.

Same with the torpedo...

Make a valid arguement or go back to your latte.

You sound like my wife.... if you have no valid point attack the arguement.
 
Bowfin, You seem up on your history. Perhaps you could tell us how long the 7.62x51 lasted as a first line issue rifle caliber in the US?
 
/*Anyone who has spent time hunting will have witnessed Bambi and kin walk and run away after hits from everything from .22s to .300 magnums to Slugs*/

The "absolute" argument. If no cartridge has a perfect record, then they all must be equal.
 
The M-14 (and by default, this would be the 7.62) was accepted by the Army in 1957, and production ceased in 1964, if I remember right that would be seven years with the U.S. Army as a main issue weapon.
 
Bowfin, As I stated earlier, there are many rounds that are superior to the 5.56, but the military looks at many other factors. I feel they have made a good selection. The service life of the 5.56 has been quite long when one considers that it has existed in an era of very rapid technical advancement.
There is no magic involved and every mechanical device made has compromises made to optimize performance in other areas.
 
KriegHund said:
One stop shot.

I think people overestimate the power of the 7.62 calibres and this causes the weaker 5.56 calibres to look even more weak.
Mostly supported by the fact that many who bash the 5.56 claim the 7.62 will "Put em down in one".

Any comments on the validity (or lack thereof) of this statement?

A) the 5.56 is not enough gun for deer, much less anything bigger

B) the .308 is plenty for ELK to 300 yards, let along deer, with proper bullet selection of course.

So, you tell me which is more powerful. :rolleyes: If the .308 can take a half ton of animal and the .223 is basically a gopher getter, I'd say the .308 is the stronger of the two. Now, I don't really care about the military arguments because I ain't in the military, I'm a hunter. I don't have a .223 in my collection. I figure I don't need one. It's too much for squirrels and too little for deer and I we don't have prairie dogs or woodchucks down here.
 
and the 30-30 is no buffalo gun....yet they were nearly hunted to extinction with it.

But poor marksmen need all the gun they can get.

I'd never use a .223 on elk unless I was hungry. Even then a shot to the neck would drop one.

I love guys who think you need a cannon to kill something that's been harvested with bows and arrows for centuries.
 
bowfin said:
/...Ham and Lima Bean C rations were a national favorite, else we wouldn't have made millions of cans of them.

Now there's a blast from the past!:what: Ham and Lima bean C rations, ought to start another thread for favorite recipes for this succulent concoction that has nourished so many of Uncle Sam's nephews!!!:)
 
kaferhaus said:
and the 30-30 is no buffalo gun....yet they were nearly hunted to extinction with it..

I think the buffalo (bison) were pretty much gone by the time the 30-30 was developed.

From http://www.kidsplanet.org/factsheets/bison.html ...Shooting bison for their hides was a favorite frontier sport in the 19th century. Hunters practically eliminated the bison by 1890.

From http://members.1stconnect.com/anozira/SiteTops/weapons/3030faq.htm ...The oldest American smokeless powder cartridge is the venerable 30-30 Winchester. This cartridge was originally scheduled to be a black powder cartridge with a .30 caliber bullet, and 30 grains of black powder, but before production started, the new semi-smokeless powders invented in Europe became available, and Winchester used it as a sales ploy to enhance the new rifle. A gazillion of the Winchester Model 93 & 94 lever action rifles and the Marlin 336 lever action rifles have been sold in this country alone.
 
There seems to be an inverse relationship between cartridge power and skill. The worst offenders are fans of the Magnums for deer. Subsistence hunters take even the biggest game with puny cartridges. One of the greatest elephant hunters of all time used a 7mm Mauser. The best choice from a ballistics standard? No, but it is capable of doing the job when employed correctly.
When I hear of 500 yard shots in the game fields or the battlefields it is the very rare exception or the result of poor range estimation.
 
jungle said:
There seems to be an inverse relationship between cartridge power and skill. The worst offenders are fans of the Magnums for deer. Subsistence hunters take even the biggest game with puny cartridges. One of the greatest elephant hunters of all time used a 7mm Mauser. The best choice from a ballistics standard? No, but it is capable of doing the job when employed correctly.
When I hear of 500 yard shots in the game fields or the battlefields it is the very rare exception or the result of poor range estimation.

Even here locally I've heard guys telling about the deer they shot at 300+ yds... then when I ask them where they were, I know the shot couldn't have been over 75yds!

As far as the magnums go.... how many times have you read an article by one the supposed experts in the gun rags talk about how the magnum "made up for" the slightly misplaced shot??

If your thing is shooting very large game at 400yds to prove your weenie is not as small as everyone thinks it is then fine.

I've hunted all over N. America and with few exceptions taking such shots is more for the ego than out of necessity. I've shot elk in open country from under 100M.... they're not very bright and tend to move into certain areas at different times of the day. You just need to be waiting on them. I did not use a .223 though.

Any guide will fill your evening with horror stories of the guys with th 300s and 338 mags that either missed or horribly wounded animals that required hours of tracking or were never recovered.

But by god they had enough gun!
 
In the hunting field we take the best shot, with the most suited round, under the best conditions to honor the animal and the hunter makes every effort to be as humane as possible.

When faced with multiple fleeting targets that shoot back, it is logical that conditions are much less than perfect and each target will require multiple rounds from the shooter and his team to hit. The shoot them once and drop them concept is ideal, but how many rounds get fired to drop a single target? Hint: The count has been going up regardless of the weapon used. Tactics? Training?

Last I checked nobody was using covering fire on an Elk to allow a flanking movement by the rest of the team.
 
they did a couple of articles on military cartriges in shotgun news that might clear everything up. i agree 7.62x39 isnt that much more powerfull and it will lose whatever power it has pretty quick. .223 is even strong enough for 1000 yard shooting with a long barrel and some heavy bullets, but thats really pushing it.
 
Kaferhaus, are you full of it?

and the 30-30 is no buffalo gun....yet they were nearly hunted to extinction with it.

That's the second time you've posted that bovine excrement here on THR.

The American bison herd was so decimated by the white man that by 1889 there were only 541 of the animals alive in the entire country, and they were saved by an act of Congress.

Here's a photo from Wikipedia of bison skulls harvested in the 1870's, the heyday of the massacre:

300px-Bison_skull_pile%2C_ca1870.png


The Winchester Model 1894 lever action rifle, and its new cartridge, the .30 WCF, aka .30-30, were introduced in 1895.

You do the math. :scrutiny:
 
kaferhaus said:
and the 30-30 is no buffalo gun....yet they were nearly hunted to extinction with it.

But poor marksmen need all the gun they can get.

I'd never use a .223 on elk unless I was hungry. Even then a shot to the neck would drop one.

I love guys who think you need a cannon to kill something that's been harvested with bows and arrows for centuries.


I don't have to neck shoot 'em at 300 yards with a .308, I can place it in the shoulder. I've been hunting over 40 years. I've never known anyone who thought a .223 was anything more'n a gopher gun.:rolleyes: In fact, in most states I know it'd be illegal to take big game with it. In Texas, it is legal for deer hunting. But, I know of no one who thinks it's the ultimate choice.

And, yeah, by 1894, buffalo hunting was a distant memory.

Jeez, you think I'M a cannon toter???????? Guys, if you own a .300 mag for elk hunting, don't tell this guy. You apparently can't hit the side of the Astrodome from 50 feet or you'd be hunting with a rimfire, in his opinion.
 
colt.45 said:
they did a couple of articles on military cartriges in shotgun news that might clear everything up. i agree 7.62x39 isnt that much more powerfull and it will lose whatever power it has pretty quick. .223 is even strong enough for 1000 yard shooting with a long barrel and some heavy bullets, but thats really pushing it.


It would seem to me that in the great military debate, in the deserts of the middle east, the 5.56 would have a definite advantage over the 7.62x39 in range effectiveness. It is also capable of a higher full auto rate of fire in close quarter jungle or house to house city fighting.
 
We now have to ask how long a buffalo herd would last against a modern rifle company with air and arty support. My guess is about 15 minutes if the buffalo don't dig in.
The most deadly thing on the battlefield is a guy with a radio that can call in support.
 
Alex45ACP said:
I read somewhere (don't remember where, probably on this board) that the longest shot taken by a police "sniper" in the USA has been ~75 yards :rolleyes:

Actually thats the average range for a police sniper situation. The longest range recorded was a bit over 400 yards taken by a NYPD SWAT sniper in central park against a sniper. Not sure of the dates.
Pat
 
Sure

30-06 > 7.62x51 > 5.56x45

The 5.56 is not a direct replacement for the 7.62. Performance wise it is inferior. It does recoil less, weigh less, cost less, and is easier to shoot (for those who aren't shooters). I am not saying it doesn't work.

Trends are funny. We seem to start at one extreme, head towards the other, and hopefully come back towards the middle (where the truth usually lies).
 
The .223 was developed for hunting two legged animals not elk, or buffalo, or deer. Why does everyone want to use hunting experience as a basis for what cartridge the military should use? They are not the same thing.

.223 was made to be effective with light weight and smaller size to increase the amount of ammo a person could carry and decrease the weight of that load. I am sure logistics and supply are part of that also. It was made for the average infantry man who will be integrated with other infantry weapons, crew served weapons, artillery support, and air support.

I am not saying it is the best cartridge out there, just that it seems to fit the role the military wants it for. I do think .308 and other calibers have their place on the battlefield as well. The military uses them, but in smaller numbers.

As far as wound effectiveness, I am sure other rounds cause more damage at the point of impact, but I think .223 causes more than enough damage to get the job done. Shot placement is king if you are going for anything resembling a one stop shop. With proper shot placement, even .22 LR can provide a one-shot-stop.
 
hunting as a comparison

because the vast majority of us shoot animals (not people), and animals aren't that much different from people. The thing about this is; hunters want to kill animals on the spot. I am not sure the military is so concerned with one shot drops. They also don't really care about something being 100% effective (it would be nice but...). This is obvious by their choice of a varmint round for general issue.

5.56 is based on a civilian round isn't it?
 
I thought I heard it was deleveloped from the .222, but I thought it was developed for intended use by the military.

Personally, I think it is only a varmint round because hunting humans is not legal. :D Also, humans are not likely run real far or real fast after getting hit COM.

Seems to me that the closest thing the military does to hunting is sniping. In that specialist role, the military does typically use a 30 caliber anyway. So the military agrees that for hunting, 30 caliber out of an accurate rifle is often superior. Doesn't mean other stuff won't work just fine though.
 
atblis said:
because the vast majority of us shoot animals (not people), and animals aren't that much different from people. The thing about this is; hunters want to kill animals on the spot. I am not sure the military is so concerned with one shot drops. They also don't really care about something being 100% effective (it would be nice but...). This is obvious by their choice of a varmint round for general issue.

5.56 is based on a civilian round isn't it?

I THINK, but I'm not sure, that the .223 was an outgrowth of the adoption of the 5.56. I seem to remember reading the military was looking at the .222 Rem Mag round and designed the .223 off that round, at least the performance of it. But, I read that a long time ago and might easily have gotten it misconstrued.:D

As to the hunting vs military thing, I thought the title of the tread concerned people "over hyping" the power of the .308. I simply used the elk example as the fact that no, it's not over hyped, it is truly more powerful. As to whether it's a better military round, well, that all depends on the situation I reckon. I'll let those that care hash that one out. I do think the 5.56 is a better round than the 7.62x39 for battle rifles. It's got less kick and a flatter trajectory and enough power to take down opposing forces at long range whether they're killed instantly or not. I think, if I were a grunt, I'd rather be packin' MORE 5.56 than less 7.62. Never having been in the military, I'm not one to really know. What I know about rifle calibers is from my hunting experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top