5.56 AR stopping power (and the x39 and 5.45 competition)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mosin77

Mosin77

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
Let’s have a discussion on what’s (most) effective. I feel like it used to be dogma in earlier decades that 7.62x39, despite being Commie, was “best” because it’s a hard hitting .30 caliber, albeit one with limited range compared to .308. But the USSR switched to 5.45x39, evidently happily enough, and we’ve all heard the stories of the “poison bullet,” where these rounds were used to deadly effect in Afghanistan by the Soviet military. The 7N6 round apparently has a hollow cavity near the nose that causes the bullet to deform upon impact, making for a yawing wound channel and more damage than a 5.45mm bullet might otherwise cause.

And of course the Soviets were just copying the US move to a smaller caliber. I have heard 5.56 ridiculed as a varmint caliber, a poodle shooter, an ice pick, and lionized as a devastating round that causes a great deal of damage to anyone unfortunate enough to get shot with it. Having only ever used my AR to shoot paper, and generally feeding it whatever .223 or 5.56 ammo is cheapest, I have no firsthand experience here. There also seem to be a number of issue cartridge designations, some of which are alleged to fragment, some to tumble, some offering improved stability…

So, first question: what’s the deal with 5.56 ammo. Is it effective? Was one (eg m855) better or worse than another? If it’s designed to tumble, yaw, or fragment… does it require a barrel of a certain length to function as designed?

Second question: how did our stuff compare historically to the Soviet calibers in terms of effectiveness.
 
In my experience, the 223 is effective when it is fired into the center mass or head of a human- just like any other center fire round. I have also had excellent results with the round on feral hogs and deer. I never closely inspected a human shot with 5.56 or any other caliber, but I would say the bullets tumble about half the time in deer and hogs, which I determined by the exit wounds shaped like a sideways bullet. M855 is inconsistent in terms of accuracy, but I have seen it used effectively as described before in afg. For accuracy (which is also important for effectiveness) the 77 grain MK262 and the Hornady 75 grain BTHP match are superior to anything else in accuracy and terminal performance to anything else I have ever seen.
 
I'll give you my opinion. It's just my opinion, but I am a student of history, was hunting by 1st grade, well over 30 years ago, and enlisted in the infantry after 9-11.

Bullet construction is probably more important than anything else, with the cartridges we're talking about. As far as raw power, in my opinion, any centerfire cartridge more powerful than .22 Mag is powerful enough for military use, which dictates the ability to put one or more holes in a target at ranges up to 350 meters or so.

There are no magic bullets, and I've seen some crazy things shooting live targets. I've seen squirrels still alive after being hit with 00 buckshot. I've seen deer where the bullet entered the body, and instead of penetrating straight, followed the skin, and made a survivable wound despite "penetrating" over 14 inches. My point here is that, in a military context, I would almost never expect a single hit from a rifle to instantly incapacitate an enemy. With that in mind, the ability to carry a lot of rounds, and rapidly fire several with good control, is probably much more important than how "powerful" each round is.

The M16 had a 20" barrel. The 55-grain M193 proved to be very effective at reasonable distances. The 62-grain M855 is probably less effective overall, except at penetrating some light armor. It's a little heavier and slower. The combination of this round and shorter barrel lengths led to complaints about the 5.56's ineffectiveness.

With newer rounds like Mk 262 and Mk 318, shorter barrel lengths affect bullet performance less. If you have a large stock of M193 and a 16" or longer barrel, you're probably well suited for defense at 200 meters or less, and to be frank yet brutal- if there's enemy infantry at 300 meters, instant incapacitation isn't vital if you have the chance to poke some holes in them before they get to you.

HP/OTMs in the 68-77 grain range are the "best" for defense, if your rifle has a fast enough twist to shoot them accurately. If not, SP or HP in the 55-62 grain range will work fine.

For the 7.62x39mm, at close range, it's carrying more energy, but in a thick FMJ bullet, that energy just goes to making a hole, a lot of the time. I've already expressed my feelings about this in a military context, but for home defense, HPs are devastating and do not overpenetrate tissue: if anything, the cheap Russian sourced hollow points tend to be on the shallow side.

5.45x39mm with 7N6 is probably almost as effective as M193. I think it's a very good military cartridge, is small, lightweight, and has minimal recoil. if you were using it inside your house for defense, I would probably load it with Hornady 60-grain VMAX

To summarize, there are no magic bullets, anything worth shooting is worth shooting more than once, and expanding rounds are almost always significantly more effective than military FMJs.

In other words, individual round effectiveness of any of these calibers is much less important than other factors, like logistics, accuracy, and controllability.

John
 
JShirley said:
Bullet construction is probably more important than anything else, with the cartridges we're talking about.

The M16 had a 20" barrel. The 55-grain M193 proved to be very effective at reasonable distances. The 62-grain M855 is probably less effective overall, except at penetrating some light armor. It's a little heavier and slower. The combination of this round and shorter barrel lengths led to complaints about the 5.56's ineffectiveness.

To summarize, there are no magic bullets, anything worth shooting is worth shooting more than once, and expanding rounds are almost always significantly more effective than military FMJs.

John
Click to expand...

That... in a nutshell. A great comparison is M193 vs M855, and their differences in bullet construction within the same basic cartridge.

I would also second the .30cal argument that it, largely, just pokes a bigger hole in the same target (a body,) ...unless that body is behind cover, etc. Both the .22 and .30 bullets have their strengths and weaknesses, that's why I think so many people are searching the middle ground (read: .270...) for a balance of both. The caveat to that is... if the .270 bullet is built like the .30 bullet, you are going to get a slightly smaller hole in the same target, and nothing else.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, as I certainly am human, but I was under the impression that a big reason the 5.56 was originally chosen was it’s ability to seriously wound and not outright kill an enemy soldier. The rationale being that wounded men takes others to carry, treat, rehabilitate, etc. therefore adding to logistical headaches and sapping enemy numbers and morale. A dead man is just that, DRT. (Dead Right There)

Many of you far more knowledgeable will hopefully set me straight on this if I am off base. :thumbup:

Stay safe.
 
Mosin77 said:
So, first question: what’s the deal with 5.56 ammo. Is it effective?
Click to expand...

I have had a lot of fun shooting it. Won a number of matches with it. So it’s effective from that standpoint. Lots of people have died and or had to be removed from battle zones after being hit by one of more bullets from one. So, that box is checked too.

It’s also Illegal to hunt with FMJ in many locations, that says a lot about its effectiveness to me, at least with killing something quickly.

That said, that’s the bullet the rules of war dictate. You can choose projectiles that improve the effectiveness of the round but you can’t make it what it is not.
 
Last edited:
Riomouse911 said:
Correct me if I am wrong, as I certainly am human, but I was under the impression that a big reason the 5.56 was originally chosen was it’s ability to seriously wound and not outright kill an enemy soldier. The rationale being that wounded men takes others to carry, treat, rehabilitate, etc. therefore adding to logistical headaches and sapping enemy numbers and morale. A dead man is just that, DRT. (Dead Right There)

.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. That is armchair quarterbacking well after the fact. the original review of M16 performance in Vietnam spoke glowingly of its "killing power" compared to the m14. You can find the report online, if you search a bit.

Edited to add: you can see this is the link Dave posted: Early reports of experimental AR-15s from Vietnam talked about “devastating” damage and wounds. (Of course, there was a misunderstanding that these wounds were caused by the high speed of the bullet, instead of the actual wounding mechanism, which was yawing and sometimes fragmentation in the body.)
 
Last edited:
jmorris said:
I have had a lot of fun shooting it. Won a number of matches with it. So it’s effective from that standpoint. Lots of people have died and or had to be removed from battle zones after being hit by one of more bullets from one. So, that box is checked too.

It’s also Illegal to hunt with FMJ in many locations, that says a lot about its effectiveness to me, at least with killing something quickly.

That said, that’s the bullet the rules of war dictate. You can choose projectiles that improve the effectiveness of the round but you can’t make it what it is not.
Click to expand...

the part about FMJ is not necessarily true. It is illegal to hunt with non-expanding rounds in some states. This is despite the fact that something like a cast lead load from a large bore handgun or rifle is extremely effective on game. So, the fact that something is legal or not legal can't be taken as automatic guarantee that something will or won't work against a human attacker or target.
 
Eugene Stoner demonstated 556 to General Lemay @ a picnic by shooting a watermelon. If you have questions about 556 effectivness, you might want to try it. Is an eye opener.
 
Skinny Pete said:
Well worth repeating
M193 + 20" makes magic
Click to expand...
I hope it's clear from what I wrote that I'm not super, super concerned about bullet terminal performance for military style action, however, I wouldn't choose to use M193 in barrels shorter than 16 in, if I had a good choice.

All of my AR pistols are loaded with HPs of some sort
 
If you want the ultimate, get an FN SCAR in 7.62x51mm NATO, or an AR-10 or even an older pattern G3 or FAL and load them up with Winchester 120 grain PDX1 .308:



It takes the whole 5.56mm expanding/fragmenting concept and turns it up to 11. You’re dumping twice as much muzzle energy into the same length wound channel and the damage is... well, see for yourself.

There are also several surprisingly lethal soft point options in 7.62x39mm. The 125 grain Barnaul loads will get you there.

Really, they’re all excellent. Personally, I’d chose 5.56 every time, though. It’s fast lightweight bullet tends to not overpenetrate as badly as other examples, sometimes even less than something like a 9mm or buckshot believe it or not. That makes it an excellent urban defense round and with today’s tactical loads, it absolutely is highly effective and much more so than any service caliber handgun. It’s really all the power you need.
 
if I lived in a place where the deer were small, and it was legal, a 16-in AR-15 in 5.56 would be the one rifle I needed for hogs, deer, and coyote. Plus home defense.

A 5.56 AR-15 and a 7mm Remington mag, or .30-06 would be all the rifle that anyone in the US needed, until you get up to the big bears or moose. If you chose a .308 instead of the '06 or 7 mm, you could have two military calibers that would do everything you needed except for kill small game- and a .22LR bolt would work for that.
 
From my experience the intermediate rifle cartridges (5.56, 7.62x39, 5.45) have adequate lethality. There is no doubt that the legacy battle rifle cartridges (7.62 Nato, 30-06, 7.62x54R, 303) are more powerful and in my experience significantly more lethal. But I will gladly take the weight and recoil savings of a 5.56 over the full powered cartridges.

As far as 5.56 vs 7.62x39 goes, Ill take the 5.56. Within their intended ranges they are very comparable. I do think the 5.56 is more effective out past say 150-200 yards, but the x39 is no slouch there. My main reason for picking 5.56 is the flat shooting and weight advantage.

To paraphrase Chuck Pressburg (I believe he is the one who said this).... You step off the side of a Blackhawk on a hill top on the other side of the planet. You crest a ridge and find yourself looking down into a small valley that you've never seen before and have no map for. 10 seconds later you are in a firefight. You look across to another hillside and see an enemy fighter standing up behind a large rock shooting. You have 5 seconds to make a shot. Is he 200 meters away? 250 meters? 300 meters? You have 5 seconds to gauge the distance, get your rifle on target and break the shot. A faster, flatter shooting round will give you far room for error in range estimation and still make those hits. I had a similar situation in 2005. I made a shot that I believed to be around 350 meters. During the AAR back at the FOB it was actually found to be just over 400 meters. My aimed shot to the high chest turned into a shot in the abdomen just below the belly button. Still effective at taking the guy out of the fight though.

I have very little "real world" experience with 5.45. I dont remember ever seeing it in Iraq and Ive seen it maybe a couple times here in the US used in shootings. Ive shot it multiple times at the range as my brother in law is a big 5.45 guy. For a fighting gun, I would choose the 5.45 over the 7.62 in an AK for the same reasons I'd choose the 5.56.
 
Mosin77 said:
how did our stuff compare historically to the Soviet calibers in terms of effectiveness.
Click to expand...
One of the problems in "first hand accounts" is that the person reporting will have seen far more evidence of the effects the "bad guy's" ammo has than of their own.

So, there's often a "mystique" on the bad guy's stuff, which gets turned into lore, and gilded a bit with nostalgia, so, such reports often need a significant grain of salt.

This is not new. The War Department was putting out short films in 1943 & 44 to show US troops just how effective their own weapons were (if a bit couched in propaganda about the bad guy's weapons).

Not really a huge difference between 30-06, 303, 7.92mauser. 7.62x54r, 7.7 or 7.5carc. All about equal weight, and wanting weapons of about equal weight, too.

Now, "intermediate" cartridges, 7.92x33 & 7.62x39 attempt to bridge the gap. slightly lighter weapons, and much reduced ranges. Which adds a wrinkle to the equation.

A combat helmet is about 8" wide, that's 1 MOA at 800 yards. But, a 4 MOA milspec rifle at 800 yards is subtending 32"--and all of that requires being able to see that helmet, or the bad guy wearing it, at 800 yards (half a mile). Which will be complicated as the bad guy has every reason to want to not be seen.

Atop all that is the fact that, since WWII there has been an increasing requirement to ever more precisely identify your target, and not just fire indiscriminately. That will reduce actual combat ranges available to commanders.

So, if you are going to limit actual engagement ranges to 250-300m, and you can do so with twice the amount of ammunition in a smaller caliber, then why bring fewer rounds to a gunfight?

This is where the "poodle shooter" (o_O) rounds come to the equation. If you only need to be effective to 300m and you can carry twice as many, that's hard to argue. Factor in that the smaller caliber weapons are often easier to shoot (and/or to shoot well), this becomes a very compelling argument. Especially with an increased need to not have collateral damage.

Recall, too, that, if there is a need to spoil the bad guy's day at 1000m, there are plenty of tools for that (60mm mortars at the Platoon level for one). Get artillery assets in play and you can rain ruin 5 & 10 KM away. Get aviation assets, and you can reach even further.

Weight matters in combat. Every pound of ammo you don't have to bring is a pound of food, or fuel, or some other similar thing necessary to keep riflemen up by the FEB/MLR.
 
On the Army qualification ranges, with iron sights, I don't even shoot at the 300 meter targets. Practical accuracy with most iron-sighted rifles probably tops out around 250. The US has better iron sights than most countries have traditionally fielded, so add a bit more distance to those peep-sighted rifles. Optics of course add even more potential range. On my first deployment, a Marine with us was unsure if we were looking at a combatant, but he was definitely in an area primarily used for shooting at us. So he used his ACOG to put a round between the guy's legs at over 400 meters!

Hell of a warning shot. :what:
 
JShirley said:
5.45x39mm with 7N6 is probably almost as effective as M193. I think it's a very good military cartridge, is small, lightweight, and has minimal recoil. if you were using it inside your house for defense, I would probably load it with Hornady 60-grain VMAX
Click to expand...
Jeezus, my ears hurt just thinking about how loud an unsuppressed 5.45 fired inside a house would be...... especially from a Krink!
 
Sadly Fackler has mislead a generation or more of shooters. He claims of wounding mechanisms are in noway scientific or accurate. He never had any training in ballistics or how bullets work. He made up most of what he said. He was a coroner and part of a group bent on discrediting the AR.
Anyone with experience knows that the Army was correct in the research that a high velocity round like the 5.56 is far more lethal than the 7.62x 39.
 
d2wing said:
Anyone with experience knows that the Army was correct in the research that a high velocity round like the 5.56 is far more lethal than the 7.62x 39.
Click to expand...

I believe the 5.56 is potentially very destructive, but that's because the energy, in the right bullets, is translated into destructive bits of metal spraying into tissue. If you've ever shot a soft target with 7.6x39mm HP, you see the same thing. I don't agree the 5.56x45 is inherently more destructive.
 
JShirley said:
I believe the 5.56 is potentially very destructive, but that's because the energy, in the right bullets, is translated into destructive bits of metal spraying into tissue. If you've ever shot a soft target with 7.6x39mm HP, you see the same thing. I don't agree the 5.56x45 is inherently more destructive.
Click to expand...
That is not exactly how it works. One of Facklers mistakes. You can believe whatever you want. That doesn't make it true. Over the years I have explained how it does work. It doesn't seem to matter. So think what you want.
The primary reason 5.56 wounds are larger and more destructive to flesh is the high velocity. Flesh, like water, can only yield to objects at a certain rate until resistance causes the flesh to transfer energy more like a solid beyond the wound channel. Similar in principle to a boat achieving enough speed to go up on plane. Where the water no longer can flow around the boat so the boat rides on the surface rather than displace the water I hope that helps. Fragmentation occurs as a result of that resistance but that is incidental rather than the wounding mechanism.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
.30 cal FMJ rounds, what makes them better then 5.56 FMJ?
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
8K
Zerodefect
Z
V
  • Locked
5.45 vs. 5.56: Russian Improvement of the idea?
Replies
10
Views
3K
SaMx
S
L
  • Locked
Lethality in 5.56 and 5.45
Replies
20
Views
3K
The Grand Inquisitor
T
R
  • Locked
Rifle temporary cavity question(s)
Replies
0
Views
370
ramsfan
R
P
  • Locked
7.62x39 vs 5.45x39 Stopping Power
2 3
Replies
53
Views
12K
leadcounsel
L
Back
Top