Metapotent
Member
MTMilitiaman said:
I never said that the 5.56 is guaranteed to fragment. Besides, isn't it illegal to use .223/5.56 on deer, let alone mule deer?
But you are still missing the point. The attributes of the 5.56 are numerous. The killing power based on fragmentation is not what is emphasized when comparing the 5.56 to other cartridges. The all-around efficiency of the 5.56 round when used in large-scale wars is the biggest argument in its favor. Accuracy, volume of fire, range and logistical efficiency has been deemed to be more important in large-scale wars than killing power alone. That is why almost all professional militaries have adopted the 5.56 or similar rounds based on research and experience.
I have also experienced cases in which 5.56 military rounds have failed to fragment. I shot a coyote at about 100yds with an SS109 round through my 24-inch barreled Bushmaster predator that I had rechambered for .223 wylde. The round failed to kill the coyote efficiently and I found it 600yds away from where I shot it the next morning, the round deflected off its rib, failed to fragment and exited through its hind leg!. Does this cause me to lose my faith in the 5.56 round? No, especially considering my experience when I have used hollowpoint or soft point ammo in the past and dropped coyotes in their tracks, and once before when I used M193. I still would rather hump around 5.56 rounds over x39 rounds if I was in combat.
Maybe if you articulated your point more clearly I wouldn't have misinterpreted what you said. Now, I still don't believe that a Kalashikov in x39 is more effective than a NATO rifle in 5.56 from 50-300 meters with all things considered. But I do see why the Russians emphasize designated marksman. But the thing is, the services of the US military have hitherto seen little need for them considering other weapons that our military employs. Different tactics have been used by our forces to deal with longer range threats, and our superiority in air support, medium/heavy machine guns and snipers has been used to deal with it. But nowadays the situation has changed and our military has largely trained designated marksman per squad to deal with threats at extended ranges. I would rather be armed with m16/m4s complemented by m14/Mod 0's in a squad than be armed with inferior AK-47's complemented by Dragunovs.
It is true that the x39 is better at penetrating barriers like bricks and concrete, but it is a FACT that the SS109 5.56 is more efficient at penetrating body armor.
You know, people choose to underestimate the enemies that the US has faced, while overestimating the enemies that the US might potentially face. The North Vietnamese Army that the US faced in the Vietnam War, no matter what people want to believe, was a high-trained, highly determined enemy who were very good at what they did. They were armed with the AK-47 and they themselves complained to their soviet supporters that they were vastly outgunned by US forces who were armed with the M16.
I don't doubt that the AK-47 is effective when used in the right hands, but it is far inferior to the 5.56 when you take into account all aspects and all dimensions of a battle and a war. Completely unbiased sources have found that a much smaller force armed with 5.56-chambered rifles can vastly out-gun a similarly-skilled opposing force armed with 7.62x39-chambered rifles in an infantry battle. You can't judge the effectiveness of these rounds based on just the killing power and the ability to penetrate cinder-block.
Ok maybe you are a highly-skilled marksman, and maybe you can reliably hit a torso at 300yds (which i doubt based on my experience with the x39). But even a novice could pick up a 5.56-chambered rifle and hit a torso at that range. So wouldn't a skilled rifleman be even more effective with a 5.56 rifle than with a x39?
Rapid, highly accurate, well aimed shots with speedy and tiny bullets are more effective than a large cone of rapid, inaccurate, well aimed shots with slow yet harder-hitting bullets (which are rarely fired accurately anyhow). I'd rather hit an enemy with a .17 HMR than miss him with a .50 BMG, in fact, I’d rather hit an enemy with the pebble launched from a sling-shot than miss him with a 5000lb laser guided bomb.
With that said, if I hit an enemy with a 5.56 knowing that in that same situation I’d miss him with a x39...I’d be more than content to say the least.
I've shot a small muley buck with Winchester's M193 load and it didn't fragment either, so saying that the 5.56 is guaranteed to fragment is also incredulous at best.
I never said that the 5.56 is guaranteed to fragment. Besides, isn't it illegal to use .223/5.56 on deer, let alone mule deer?
But you are still missing the point. The attributes of the 5.56 are numerous. The killing power based on fragmentation is not what is emphasized when comparing the 5.56 to other cartridges. The all-around efficiency of the 5.56 round when used in large-scale wars is the biggest argument in its favor. Accuracy, volume of fire, range and logistical efficiency has been deemed to be more important in large-scale wars than killing power alone. That is why almost all professional militaries have adopted the 5.56 or similar rounds based on research and experience.
I have also experienced cases in which 5.56 military rounds have failed to fragment. I shot a coyote at about 100yds with an SS109 round through my 24-inch barreled Bushmaster predator that I had rechambered for .223 wylde. The round failed to kill the coyote efficiently and I found it 600yds away from where I shot it the next morning, the round deflected off its rib, failed to fragment and exited through its hind leg!. Does this cause me to lose my faith in the 5.56 round? No, especially considering my experience when I have used hollowpoint or soft point ammo in the past and dropped coyotes in their tracks, and once before when I used M193. I still would rather hump around 5.56 rounds over x39 rounds if I was in combat.
You are taking what I said and putting it out of perspective to manipulate my argument and gain favor with yours. For the purposes of the Kalashnikov in Russian military doctrine, CQB is all that matters. It is intended to provide automatic fire capability and Minute-O-Capitalist accuracy to the extent of typical engagement ranges. This is right around 300 meters. The Russians put a designated marksman in every squad to extend the effective range of the squad past 600 yards with a Dragunov SVD. None of the intermediate powered rounds, including your precious 5.56, are going to be able to compare with the effectiveness of the 7.62x54 round, nor will most be able to compete with the level of accuracy provided by a scoped precision rifle.
Maybe if you articulated your point more clearly I wouldn't have misinterpreted what you said. Now, I still don't believe that a Kalashikov in x39 is more effective than a NATO rifle in 5.56 from 50-300 meters with all things considered. But I do see why the Russians emphasize designated marksman. But the thing is, the services of the US military have hitherto seen little need for them considering other weapons that our military employs. Different tactics have been used by our forces to deal with longer range threats, and our superiority in air support, medium/heavy machine guns and snipers has been used to deal with it. But nowadays the situation has changed and our military has largely trained designated marksman per squad to deal with threats at extended ranges. I would rather be armed with m16/m4s complemented by m14/Mod 0's in a squad than be armed with inferior AK-47's complemented by Dragunovs.
The NATO obviously trumped both of the intermediate powered rounds, but the 7.62x39 also clearly dominated the 5.56mm when penetrating cinder blocks, brick, concrete, and wood. While a short burst from a Kalashnikov was able to easily penetrate the bricks and the cinder blocks and remaing lethal, it took several bursts from an M249 to chew through the same barriers with the 5.56. That is the penetration I am concerned about. My brother's DI in Fort Benning took 7 rounds to the trama plate at across-the-room distances and none of them penetrated. To insinuate that the 5.56 would have done any better is assinine.
It is true that the x39 is better at penetrating barriers like bricks and concrete, but it is a FACT that the SS109 5.56 is more efficient at penetrating body armor.
The real potential of the Kalashnikov as a weapon of war has yet to be realized by the US as anything other than a utilitarian weapon of mass production. In its most modern forms and in the hands of a professionally trained military force, I think Western forces would be shocked at what the AK is truely capable of.
You know, people choose to underestimate the enemies that the US has faced, while overestimating the enemies that the US might potentially face. The North Vietnamese Army that the US faced in the Vietnam War, no matter what people want to believe, was a high-trained, highly determined enemy who were very good at what they did. They were armed with the AK-47 and they themselves complained to their soviet supporters that they were vastly outgunned by US forces who were armed with the M16.
I don't doubt that the AK-47 is effective when used in the right hands, but it is far inferior to the 5.56 when you take into account all aspects and all dimensions of a battle and a war. Completely unbiased sources have found that a much smaller force armed with 5.56-chambered rifles can vastly out-gun a similarly-skilled opposing force armed with 7.62x39-chambered rifles in an infantry battle. You can't judge the effectiveness of these rounds based on just the killing power and the ability to penetrate cinder-block.
But I know that with mine, 300 yards doesn't seem like much of a stretch. Still, I am anxiously awaiting the moment I realize I have student loans and credit cards under enough control to order that FAL I want.
Sorry for the novel. Shoot straight and keep your powder dry.
Ok maybe you are a highly-skilled marksman, and maybe you can reliably hit a torso at 300yds (which i doubt based on my experience with the x39). But even a novice could pick up a 5.56-chambered rifle and hit a torso at that range. So wouldn't a skilled rifleman be even more effective with a 5.56 rifle than with a x39?
Rapid, highly accurate, well aimed shots with speedy and tiny bullets are more effective than a large cone of rapid, inaccurate, well aimed shots with slow yet harder-hitting bullets (which are rarely fired accurately anyhow). I'd rather hit an enemy with a .17 HMR than miss him with a .50 BMG, in fact, I’d rather hit an enemy with the pebble launched from a sling-shot than miss him with a 5000lb laser guided bomb.
With that said, if I hit an enemy with a 5.56 knowing that in that same situation I’d miss him with a x39...I’d be more than content to say the least.