G-Gordon says it's a "Pop gun"

[355sigfan]

Aw, c'mon, 355sigfan, I really doubt one's criminal status determines one's level of knowledge on a subject.

G. Gordon is amusing, although his callers tend to come from the strange-creature pool. There's nothing wrong with his being opinionated, but he does tend toward undue excitement on some things.

I'd like to see a bit more Oomph in our military cartridge, but as long as the users know the limitations, the .223 works.

As far as bullets and wounds and penetration, I don't have the proper military attitude. I like max-load expanding bullets from an '06, myself. Red Mist Is Good, anyoldtime.

Art

I simply have no respect for the man at all. I have heard his show. Same goes for Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio. I used to listen to that stuff before I knew better.
Pat

 

[Smith357]

The g-man is not all that knowledgeble about firearms, but I would not hunt deer with a .223 why would I want to use it for hunting something that shoots back.

 

[355sigfan]

The g-man is not all that knowledgeble about firearms, but I would not hunt deer with a .223 why would I want to use it for hunting something that shoots back.

Because it does just fine on people. Deer are considerably more muscular than people and need more penetration. .223's do fine on people. The cartridge also is easy to fire rapidly and accurately allowing more rounds to be placed on more targets. Again comparing hunting to combat is idiotic.
Pat

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Military riflecraft is oriented more towards high volumes of gunfire, as opposed to high quality gunfire. Their goal is to keep the enemy pinned down, which leaves them free to manuever or otherwise carry out their mission.

Large magazine capacities and handy/portable rifles are ideal here. If I were a private in a modern infantry squad, a .223/AR-15 would be perfect for me. A Garand would not.


But military tactics don't work for the individual rifleman. The single riflman is best served by keeping distance from his enemies and by staying hidden. Spraying magazine after magazine from a full auto rifle is NOT the way to do that.

For an individual rifleman, the ability to make one or two solid hits from 300 yards is more important than the ability to carry piles of 30 round magazines. A scoped hunting rifle makes a lot more sense for a rifleman than the .223/AR-15. A Garand or M14 would be better still, but mostly because scoped bolt guns are slow and clumsy to reload.

It all depends on what job you want to perform with your rifle. By rifle standards the AR-15 is a popgun. But so what? That's what it's designed to be, and it works well that way.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Again, my comments are in red.

Google it yourself.... My own tests and observations on the barrier penetration of the .223 do not agree with yours. I asked for sources so that i can look up the data and compare it with my own.

If the first three lines of my original post irritated you, they were meant too.

M16 mag = 30rds, M14 mag = 20rds one mag change on a M16 = 2 mag changes on a M14. You can run the math backwards if you want, you'd still be wrong. Yes, but 180 rounds is six magazine changes on an m-16, and 9 with an m-14.

I've been in the army 27yrs, fought in 4 different conflicts graduated from the "war college" and will retire next year as an 06. I'm not denying that your opinion has weight, or even suggesting that the m-16/.223 is inadequate within its engagement range. I was suggesting that the .308 has a role on the battlefield still, even though that role may be limited.

I'm sure you're much more qualified than I on any subject concerning the effectiveness of our systems, their ammunition and manner in which they are employed. I've actually done first hand barrier penetration tests on .223s and .308s and several other calibers, and as a range officer at the SWAT magazine 3-gun Match, i've seen more rounds impact barriers first hand than a whole lot of people.

 

[0007]

If the 5.56 is such a fine all-round cartridge/weapon system, why do you suppose the Army and the Marines are pulling those "useless" old M-14s out of storage and issueing them out to some their troops.

 

[antsi]

No personal experience here, but I have a good friend from my local highpower club with extensive combat background in Korea and Vietnam. His take on the m16/.223 bashers was "I bet those guys never had to carry a rifle and all their ammo 30 miles through a jungle."

 

[rbernie]

why do you suppose the Army and the Marines are pulling those "useless" old M-14s out of storage and issueing them out to some their troops.

Actually, that has been extensively discussed here and elsewhere. Do a quick search for Designated Marksman, and see what comes up. You'll find that the numbers of M14s pales in comparison to the number of M16 variants, and that the M14 is being used to augment and complement the strengths of the M16 platform; not to replace it or somehow cover up for any glaring weakness.

The long and the short of it is that 7.62x51 has a definite but LIMITED role in todays' combat. Putting all of your eggs in the 5.56 basket is no more or less silly than placing them in the 7.61x51 camp. It's the proper mix of things that makes the Big Green Machine move along best....

 

[Terrierman]

will retire next year as an 06.

Couldn't make General?

 

[MechAg94]

No personal experience here, but I have a good friend from my local highpower club with extensive combat background in Korea and Vietnam. His take on the m16/.223 bashers was "I bet those guys never had to carry a rifle and all their ammo 30 miles through a jungle."

That is what my Dad said as well. When you have to carry all the ammo you will have for a few days, you want to carry as much as possible. That was what he considered to be the best advantage of the M16. He said he would rather go hungry than run out of ammo.

 

[MechAg94]

M16 mag = 30rds, M14 mag = 20rds one mag change on a M16 = 2 mag changes on a M14. You can run the math backwards if you want, you'd still be wrong. Yes, but 180 rounds is six magazine changes on an m-16, and 9 with an m-14.

I think you missed the point. If you start with a loaded rifle and shoot 60 rounds, you only need one mag change with an M16. 2 for an M14.
On your example, it is 5 and 8 mag changes.

 

[Smith357]

Because it does just fine on people. Deer are considerably more muscular than people and need more penetration. .223's do fine on people. The cartridge also is easy to fire rapidly and accurately allowing more rounds to be placed on more targets. Again comparing hunting to combat is idiotic.
Pat

You want to use a .223 on a semi armored target that shoots back then by all means knock yourself out. If the army, and police want to give all their undiciplined shooters small caliber lead sprayers that's up to them. I can hit what I aim at, so I don't need to throw vast amounts of lead down range willy nilly, here in america I have choice, I choose a .308 or .30-06 when I go hunting humans. And take it from someone who has done both, combat is very comparable to hunting for the Marine on the ground. I use .233 for ground hogs and prarie dogs, anything bigger than a cayote gets a bigger bullet.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The problem with the .223 round is not lethality. This high velocity smallbore is devastating on tissue. I can't imagine you'd see a big difference in the wound between .223 and the various .30 caliber cartridges using FMJ bullets. The 5.56mm round does have a serious disadvantage in another area, however; barriers. It does not fair well against any of them, including interior walls. Many tests, formal and informal, have proven that a 5.56mm projectile will begin to tumble immediately on impact with any barrier, thus loosing energy rapidly and deviating wildly from the original flightpath. The heavier and slightly slower .30 caliber rounds are much less prone to this phenomenon, making them far more effective for engaging targets behind cover.

This same characteristic makes the 5.56mm a very good choice for CQB in an urban area. It drastically reduces the chance for collateral damage. The .223 is less likely to leave a dwelling than most handgun cartridges.

 

[rbernie]

If the army, and police want to give all their undiciplined shooters small caliber lead sprayers that's up to them.

Wow - that's a bit of a strong statement, and certainly isn't terribly flattering to the many current and former Service Members on this forum.

You seem to have missed a number of points along the way to formulating that conclusion, not the least of which is that nowhere since the AR15/M16s introduction has it been official published doctrine in any US armed service to 'spray lead'. If you can provide proof otherwise, I'd love to see it.

 

[Bigfoot]

here in america I have choice, I choose a .308 or .30-06 when I go hunting humans. QUOTE]

Huh?

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

There are reasons that the 5.56mm NATO is a good military cartridge. There are many other considerations other than how well something supposedly kills that must be considered when evaluating a cartridge for military use.

The 5.56mm NATO is small compared to the 7.62mm, and that is one of it's advantages. I can carry two hundred or more of them for miles and miles. I can get to the objective faster, with more ammunition, and less exhausted than with a 7.62mm NATO. Also, one man can carry 1620 of them in two ammo cans for a short-range resupply. A helo can carry significantly more 5.56mm.

I can load my rifle with 30 of them and still have a comparatively lightwieght package. If it is required that you fireman's carry or drag a wounded friend while pointing the rifle downrange and firing with one hand, as I was taught to do, that lightwieght package, low recoil, and 30-round capacity would be appreciated. If need be, I can put all 30 of them downrange accurately very, very quickly due to the very light recoil of the cartridge.

To those who contend that the 5.56mm is good for untrained, undisciplined troops so that they can "spray and pray", I contend that applying a high volume of accurate fire is a very valid and important tactical concept. ("accurate" used here does not mean shooting cute sub-MOA groups. It means putting lead downrange that impacts somewhere in the enemy's position). Applying a high volume of fire, called suppressive fire, is a tactical concept taught to every recruit, fire team leader, squad leader, and boot 2ndLt in our nation's military. The 5.56mm cartridge's size allows more ammunition per rifleman, plus more ammunition per resupply, which means a higher suppressive fire capability.

I post the above words as a five-year veteran of the US Marine Corps, and a veteran of combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

-Sgt Bartlett, USMC

P.S. I have respect for all individuals who have counter-opinions regarding my statements. However, if your knowledge of tactical environments comes from the internet, a book, word-of-mouth, or anywhere else other than actually serving in and operating in tactical environments, please understand that, although I have respect for YOU , I will probably consider opinions on such subjects to have very little, if any, merit.

 

[rbernie]

Applying a high volume of fire, called suppressive fire, is a tactical concept taught to every recruit, fire team leader, squad leader, and boot 2ndLt in our nation's military.

And anyone who characterizes this as 'undisciplined shooters....spraying lead' has never actually been thru any formal military training. This is semi-automatic rapid fire, not rock-n-roll from the hip. There *is* a difference; one is disciplined and has decades of tactical effectiveness studies behind it, while the other is the undisciplined conversion of ammo into noise.

I suppose I shouldn't, but I really take umbrage at folks who presume to paint anyone in the military as a lead-sprayin' poodleshooter when they themselves have likely never bothered to put skin in the game.

I have respect for all individuals who have counter-opinions regarding my statements. However, if your knowledge of tactical environments comes from the internet, a book, word-of-mouth, or anywhere else other than actually serving in and operating in tactical environments, please understand that, although I have respect for YOU , I will probably consider opinions on such subjects to have very little, if any, merit.

Well stated, and if you can do this you're a better man than I.

 

[Smith357]

Huh?

In combat your quarry is an armed human. Don't try to read things into it, just a poor choice of words.

 

[Roudy]

Sergeant Sabre,
While still prefer the .308, probably because of my familiarity with it, I think your comments were well put.

I liked the way you presented your thought, much better than the fellow who claimed he was going to retire as an O6. Guess he is a good example of why I had less than full respect for military officers.

Roudy
7th Marines
Da Nang

 

[MechAg94]

You want to use a .223 on a semi armored target that shoots back then by all means knock yourself out. If the army, and police want to give all their undiciplined shooters small caliber lead sprayers that's up to them. I can hit what I aim at, so I don't need to throw vast amounts of lead down range willy nilly, here in america I have choice, I choose a .308 or .30-06 when I go hunting humans. And take it from someone who has done both, combat is very comparable to hunting for the Marine on the ground. I use .233 for ground hogs and prarie dogs, anything bigger than a cayote gets a bigger bullet.

That's great that you can hit what you aim at. I would say, however, that if you hit what you aim at (heart, head, central nervous system) you can use any caliber and get the same result. I you don't hit what you aim at, you may still need several shots of even 30 caliber to take someone down.

Personally, I think the skill of the shooter determines effectiveness in any given situation more than the rifle/cartridge the shooter is using. I think that is why ancedotal evidence and personal accounts are often misleading and biased. Use the rifle you believe you use the best and don't look back.

 

[Bigfoot]

In combat your quarry is an armed human. Don't try to read things into it, just a poor choice of words.

Ok no problem. The scrutiny was because you did specify choosing a 30-06 when you go hunting humans and no military that I know of carries those.

 

[Bigfoot]

Hit wrong button. Doh!:banghead:

 

[355sigfan]

You want to use a .223 on a semi armored target that shoots back then by all means knock yourself out. If the army, and police want to give all their undiciplined shooters small caliber lead sprayers that's up to them. I can hit what I aim at, so I don't need to throw vast amounts of lead down range willy nilly, here in america I have choice, I choose a .308 or .30-06 when I go hunting humans. And take it from someone who has done both, combat is very comparable to hunting for the Marine on the ground. I use .233 for ground hogs and prarie dogs, anything bigger than a cayote gets a bigger bullet.

The 223 is the best caliber for law enforcement use and for civilian defense. ITs quite lethal and a good stopper inside 300 yards. It also has less overpenetration than most handgun rounds. And no Hunting is nothing like combat. I have faced the end of a muzzle myself and been hunting. Their nothing at all alike. Anyone who has done both would know that.
Pat

 

[mustanger98]

The 223 is the best caliber for law enforcement use and for civilian defense. ITs quite lethal and a good stopper inside 300 yards. It also has less overpenetration than most handgun rounds.

What if I'd out and said "I don't like .223"? (As I said, I shoot .223 and .30-06 and like both.) That's the great thing about an American civilian- having a choice. We can all have what we like. And people who like to make blanket statements can't tell us otherewise and hope for it to stick.

 

[Deer Hunter]

ITs quite lethal and a good stopper inside 300 yards. It also has less overpenetration than most handgun rounds.
Pat

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have seen many penetration tests in my time on the internet (not going to lie about my sources), and in everything that I've seen the .223 will penetrate much better than handgun rounds. The only place a handgun bullet penetrated more on was water and sandbags.