In reality, which is the more effective combat round?

[kir_kenix]

i voted for the good 'ole 30-06 round but it really depends on what the situation is. as everyone has already stated, you can carry twice as many 5.56 rounds, and the rate of fire is considerably faster. a 30-06 is heavier but has way more killing power and accuracy out past 300. i personally agree with whoever said we should be discussing a 5.56 vs .308 here....but the '06 is still a great round. in our current situation in the desert, a .223 round makes more sense, since 90% of the shooting occurs in either sub-150 yd outdoor enviroments, or indoors during room clearing. now if it was just me, and my own personal preferance, i would go w/ something in the 30 cal family, cuz how often do you really need to lug 500 rounds along w/ you (with the obvious exception of our military personell deployed overseas). i want to be able to put a guy (or deer) down in one shot. and i mean down, as in he gets knocked down by the round...and he aint getting back up. now if i were w/ my fire team invading some south asian jungle county, id want us to have 5.56 rounds that we could spray and cover with. just depends on what the situation is, and what the round is intended for.
god, i found myself contradicting myself alot here, but its like comparing a race car to a monster truck...both of them are great at what they do, but neither could replace the other.

schram

 

[MrAcheson]

BUT the .308 doesn't deflict like the .223 does.

True but the difference isn't as much as people think. If you hit a tree branch with a 5.56 and the bullet ends up sideways, chances are the 7.62 round will do the same. And 7.62 isn't really any better of an anti-materiel weapon either.

If we're talking modern warfare, we're talking 5.56. For precise aimed fire, the 7.62 is better round for round. It's bigger and more powerful and can reach farther. But none of this matters. But once you figure tactics like suppressing fire, burst fire, and logistics in the equation, the 5.56 wins. Sorry.

 

[Terrierman]

If I have to carry my own ammunition make mine 5.56. If I'm mech, lets just go ahead and skip right on up to Ms. Deuce (or 40 MM) please and thank you. .30 caliber is becoming more and more marginal on the modern battlefield.

 

[SnakeEater]

It always amuses me to hear people declaring that all future wars will be short range / CQB type actions. How quickly will they jump on the 7.62 Nato bandwagon when we're fighting the Iranians/Chinese/Russians? Although we won't be at a major disadvantage because said countrys have also downsized, I'd rather we have the advantage of the 7.62 Nato when the time comes.

 

[HorseSoldier]

How quickly will they jump on the 7.62 Nato bandwagon when we're fighting the Iranians/Chinese/Russians?

Probably not real quickly. I don't see any arguments for 7.62x51's use against notional Chinese, Russian, or Iranian opponents that offset its well documented disadvantages. It's just more round than is needed for real world battlefield use.

 

[roscoe]

It is pretty clear the .30-06 is better because the greatest generation fought with it, beating the Jerries senseless with the greatest battlefield implement ever devised! Yah! Take that, Nazis!

Wait - are we really discussing .30 versus .223? I thought we might have had this conversation before. Maybe once or twice.

 

[vmfrantz]

i'd rather have one well placed shot and a kill then have to put 5 well placed shots before a kill with the 5.56

 

[Kent]

30/06 if effective means landing a round in a human. Way overkill. .223 might be a bit light, but effective none the less. After 5 hours of combat, I prefer the .223 because of it's lighter delivery system and ability to shoot 3 as a burst.
Thread is 30/06 vs .223, so I won't comment on .308 or others. Personally, I use a .243 auto for self defense in a long range situation.

 

[Metapotent]

If you follow to its logical conclusion the argument that the main criterion for a modern military assault rifle round is small size and light recoil, then you can do much better than the 5.56x45.

Small size and light recoil aren't the ONLY thing that matters, you are being very 1 dimensional. It's a balancing act between lightweight, small size, accuracy, and adequate killing power. The 5.56 is all around a very good cartridge for what it was designed for: WAR.

The 5.7x28 FN and the 4.6x30 HK are both effective out to feasible assault rifle ranges (they will penetrate CRISAT body armour out to 150-200m) and are much smaller and lighter than the 5.56x45, with far less recoil. And they fit into much smaller and lighter guns, like the FN P90 and the HK MP7 - as well as into handguns.

But those rounds are still inferior in killing power even compared to the 5.56. Plus they drop off in velocity very quickly and have alot of bullet-drop past 100m. I doubt that anyone would want a P90 or MP7 in a modern battle where engagement ranges can and do exceed 200m, sometimes even out to 500m as is the norm in Afghanistan. The P90 and MP7 are mostly law-enforcement rounds designed for very close-quarter battle against criminals and poorly trained terrorists in specific counter-strike missions, not weapons designed to win wars in every aspect. These guns might have a niche in some Special Forces applications but they would be dismal in infantry warfare.

We all know that CQB is the norm, but its not the ONLY scenario. There are many times when the long range accuracy of the 5.56 is exploited to great affect against our enemies who usually cannot shoot accurately past 150m or so due to lack of training and inferior equipment..

So since we keep being told that what matters is suppressive fire to keep the enemy's heads down, plus accurate bullet placement when you want your shooting to count, why not go the whole hog and downsize?

Its a balancing act, its a compromise between killing power, accuracy, volume of fire, low-recoil and logistical superiority. You can't have it too one-sided either way. You can't have too small of a round because it would be deficient in killing power and accuracy at medium to extended ranges. You can't have too powerful of a round because it would have too much recoil, be much slower in rate of fire, lack supressive capability, and it would be too heavy and costly which would weigh more on an economy of a country and the logistic capability of it's military.

The 5.56 is a superior combat round for infantry-oriented combat. There is a place for more powerful rounds, less powerful rounds, and similar medium-power rounds like the 6.8 SPC and/or the 6.5 grendel. But the overall purpose of an infantrymen is better surved with a 5.56 rather than a more powerful (or less powerful) round in these days.

 

[MachIVshooter]

As said a dozen or more times thus far, it is always a trade-off. .30 caliber battle rifles are undoubtedly more effective with fewer rounds, especially where barriers are a factor. But the extra weight of the rounds means that a soldier's combat load must be reduced, and the greater recoil makes volume of fire more difficult. 5.56mm is pretty controllable on FA in a ~7 lb rifle. 12 lb 7.62 NATO rifles in rock'n'roll mode tend to give the individual firing a real workout, and hit probability goes down; A hit with a .22 short is more effective than a miss with a .50 BMG.

Currently, there are many M60's still doing service in Iraq (not just mounted), but for the infantry soldier, the reduced weight of the M16 or M4 and their 5.56mm ammunition means they can carry more ammo and other important gear without being overloaded. 5.56mm ammo weight is barely more than 1/3 the weight of 7.62 NATO.

But 7.62 is still a major player on the battlefield.

 

[berettashotgun]

If I go to the mens club I don't ever want to go on "A" cup night- DOH- I just thought............. anyways, bigger is most always better. 223 is legal for deer here in OK, but when they run from a hit with a 280, I like more. BTW, I hunt alot and have found I get 5 ducks with 6/7 shots from my old single shot. I dove hunt with a O/U and do decent- less than a box per 15 birds. This talk of supressive fire is an excuse for $hi++y marksmanship. I believe in hitting'em hard, fast and where it hurts with all I can carry.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

What is the more effective combat round for overall purposes. The larger and heavier round or the smaller and lighter round? The 30-06 vs. .223 for instance? There are theories about both, but in practice and war, what is the reality? (Note: this thread is about the round itself, not the kind of gun it comes out of which would be another interesting debate)

MY VOTE: In my personal opinion, there is no comparison, the .30-06 without a doubt. Its a larger round with A LOT more power behind it. A high cap M1 Garand or even better a BAR would be much more effective than an AR 15 (not that an AR 15 wouldn't drop a man or do the job in most circumstances, but in terms of effect and penetration the 30 caliber is far superior) Or for those who perfer a pistol grip or a more compact weapon, I'm sure gun company could produce such a weapon for the 30.06

Interesting, you ask about which is the more effective combat round for overall purposes, but fail to define what you consider to be "combat" or "overall purposes" and then followup with a choice justified simply by terminal ballistics.

Do we want to speak of military battlefield combat or urban police action combat? How about personal self defense combat?

For "overall purposes" do we also need to consider the platforms involved? As noted, folks have already considered aspects of rate of fire, weight for humping, etc. etc. etc. So obviously, the round cannot be considered outside of the several other considerations such as weight and platforms. From there, weight and platforms cannot be fully considered without context of application. Obviously for stationary and well supplied locations with hard mounted setups, you want the biggest bang you can get. This is a very different context for "overall purposes" than a humping soldier's overall purposes.

Just how much more effective is a .30-06 that misses? If 10% (military combat generous estimate) of a soldier's rounds hit the enemy and if a given soldier's ability to carry ammo determines the number of rounds carried, a soldier carrying 5.56 may be able to carry about, say, twice as many rounds, the the soldier hypothetically will be able to hit twice the targets. Would you rather a soldier only outfitted with 150 rounds who can therefore only hit 15 targets on one with 300 rounds who can hit 30. So which is more effective given such considerations? A LOT of ammo goes down range that simply doesn't actually go into terminal performance.

 

[degen118]

30-06 vs .223

There is no comparison. The 30-06 is a most wonderful cartridge. Unless a person is very recoil sensitive, most of us can shoot this cartridge accurately. The .223 is a very good groundhog catridge, while the 30-06 can easly knock down a Bull Elk. The larger diamiter of the bullet the bigger the wound channel. Give me a .30 caliber bullet any day.

 

[Metapotent]

There is no comparison. The 30-06 is a most wonderful cartridge. Unless a person is very recoil sensitive, most of us can shoot this cartridge accurately. The .223 is a very good groundhog catridge, while the 30-06 can easly knock down a Bull Elk. The larger diamiter of the bullet the bigger the wound channel. Give me a .30 caliber bullet any day.

You just don't get it do you?

YES, everyone knows that the .30-06 has alot more power. But most educated people know that the 5.56/.223 is a much more capable COMBAT ROUND in modern BATTLES. Only a fool would arm his squad with .30-06-chambered rifles for an infantry firefight on the modern battlefield. Especially considering that the obsolete 06 was replaced by the 7.62x51 NATO round.

People are just too 1-dimensional in their thinking to even attempt to understand why the 5.56 has been deemed a more effective combat round in all aspects. They just want to stick by the uninformed view that "big is better, har har."

 

[Dienekes]

Sometimes "less is more".

The 5.56 fills a definite tactical niche very well--urban combat which limits things to 150 yards max, and often much less.

I am extremely fond of my M1s but that's the reality. Change the setting to 200 yards and out and then watch "the greatest battle implement" go to work with AP. Unfortunately that situation is going to occur less and less often in the world we live in.

BTW fragmentation is a big factor with that 55 gr FMJ woodchuck round from 150-250 yards, depending on barrel length.

 

[HorseSoldier]

There is no comparison. The 30-06 is a most wonderful cartridge. Unless a person is very recoil sensitive, most of us can shoot this cartridge accurately.

Shooting it accurately is not the problem.

Shooting it rapidly with accuracy is a problem. No matter how much you man up and get on the gun, you can't put aimed 30-06 fire downrange as fast as you can put aimed 5.56mm fire downrange. It ain't a hairy chested manly thing, it's physics.

If we ever go back to an era where our military is indulging in slow aimed fire at enemy troops walking across miles of clear fields in open order, 30-06 might have something going for it. For the way wars have actually been fought for most of the last 100 years, it comes up short in just about any way that matters. Too heavy, excessive recoil for the ranges it actually needs to work at, too much power (requiring too heavy a weapon to shoot it), etc.

The .223 is a very good groundhog catridge, while the 30-06 can easly knock down a Bull Elk. The larger diamiter of the bullet the bigger the wound channel. Give me a .30 caliber bullet any day.

The 5.56mm round kills folks quite nicely -- at least that's what the guys actually killing bad guys these days report. Internet mileage may vary.

As for the lethality of 30-06 -- yeah, it has more thump. But it's still not a silver bullet.

For instance -- take one 30-06 bolt gun. Load with a top quality hunting round designed for expansion in deer and similar targets (and consequently absolutely illegal for use on the battlefield). Take one hundred adult deer (somewhere near the mass of an adult human, more or less). Shoot every one of them at typical combat ranges (say sub 100 meters) with perfect broadside shots into the heart and lungs.

How many drop like you hit them with a death ray? Some of them will. Some of them will manage to get 50, 100, 150 meters before they drop, even with an ideal engagement angle at very close range.

Now make that deer an insurgent with an AK, and guess what? By the end of the first week you've reissued 30-06 to guys in combat you'll get your first complaint about 30-06 not getting the job done. Factor in guys who just can't hit what they're aiming at to begin with, but who "know" they hit the bad guy and it won't last the first day in combat without the first bitter email getting to the guys at Soldiers For the Truth or whoever.

Admittedly, the complaint will be from someone who knows nothing about ballistics, medical aspects of penetrating trauma to the human body, etc. But he'll still complaining . . .

 

[Roadwild17]

I'm a young timer here, but dosent the 06 have about 60 years on the 5.56? Is the 5.56 getting the job done right now?
If so, why change? Just let the round develop, someone may figgure that the 5.56 with something becides FMJ is a good round.

 

[Tony Williams]

Metapotent said:

Small size and light recoil aren't the ONLY thing that matters, you are being very 1 dimensional. It's a balancing act between lightweight, small size, accuracy, and adequate killing power. The 5.56 is all around a very good cartridge for what it was designed for: WAR.

Yes, I know - but you didn't mention that in your previous post, which was all about the importance of suppressive fire.

My personal opinion, FWIW, is that the 5.56mm is marginal even at short range. I have some slides comparing gel tests of the M855 with the chest thickness of a typical male from the Middle East, and it is clear that in many circumstances the bullet would zip straight through without even tumbling, let alone fragmenting. After much reading of such tests and directly contradictory views from users on this subject, I have formed the conclusion that the 5.56mm is erratic in terminal effects - sometimes it works very well, sometimes it just doesn't (and yes, I know that there's no such thing as a guaranteed one-shot stopper, short of a tank gun round).

I am in favour of an intermediate round in the approx 6.5mm range, because with the right ballistics and bullet construction, that could achieve two objectives: better effectiveness at short range, with a higher percentage of "one shot stops", and a long-range performance good enough to replace the 7.62x51, thereby saving a complete weapon system and round of ammo from the inventory. The downside would be ammo about 30% heavier than the 5.56mm (but still much lighter than 7.62mm), plus recoil energy about double that of the 5.56mm (but still only half that of the 7.62mm).

But those rounds [4.6 and 5.7mm] are still inferior in killing power even compared to the 5.56. Plus they drop off in velocity very quickly and have alot of bullet-drop past 100m. I doubt that anyone would want a P90 or MP7 in a modern battle where engagement ranges can and do exceed 200m, sometimes even out to 500m as is the norm in Afghanistan.

Yes, they are inferior in killing power. In part, because they don't seem to have got the optimum bullet design yet (I recently read of one police incident where a 5.7 bullet zipped straight through a felon, killing him (it was a heart shot) but wasting most of its energy in making a large hole in a concrete wall behind him - that shouldn't happen). But on the other hand, the light recoil makes the guns more controllable in auto fire, so you stand a better chance of scoring multiple hits at short range, and the ammo is so light that you can carry lots more of it. Swings and roundabouts...And their velocity doesn't drop off THAT fast. I have just re-read the stats from HK and they state that the 4.6mm will penentrate the CRISAT target out to 300m - which is enough to deal with 90% of all fire-fights (a figure obtained through analysing experience in 20th century wars). The 5.7mm is at least as good. For longer distances, you would of course keep the 7.62x51 for GPMGs and DMR/sniper rifles.

That wouldn't be my preferred choice of calibres, but I can see a reasoned case for it. So you'd have a 4.6/5.7 for most troops (in handguns as well as SMGs), backed up by 7.62mm weapons for more reach and punch. My preference would be 6.5mm instead of 5.56mm and 7.62mm, plus a pistol/compact SMG round (probably .40 Auto). However, there is no right answer, each has its pros and cons.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[CTI1USNRET]

When you see the bad guys seek cover behind cinderblock or adobe walls you wish you had a 7.62 to chew through them. The 5.56 doesn't do it very well.

 

[MechAg94]

The .308!! Yes you can carry more .223 ammo vs. .308. BUT the .308 doesn't deflict like the .223 does. It penetrates foliage, dirt, mud etc. better. Most times in combat your target isn't standing out in the open so I would opt for the .30 caliber weapon ever time for that reason. Ask any Vietnam vet that used both.

How much dirt and mud can .308 penetrate?

 

[MechAg94]

i'd rather have one well placed shot and a kill then have to put 5 well placed shots before a kill with the 5.56

If they were actually well placed, do you really need 5 shots? A .22 LR can kill a person with one "well placed" shot.


I guess if you go interview WWII vets, they would all tell you that the 30 caliber had magical abilities drop every soldier after one shot. I guess very few Germans were wounded. Those that were must have all been shot with a carbine.

 

[Glamdring]

I think the 5.56 is much much better for home defense and CQC, for self defense situations I know it will do the job. My research indicates in actual shootings at self defense ranges the 5.56 is slightly better than 12 gauge buckshot.

My gut doesn't believe that but that is what my study of shootings have shown me. I still keep my 12 gauge loaded with buckshot for now, but once I get an AR the 12 gauge will be loaded with Foster slugs or Buckhammers, with Brennekes on the buttcuff.

For general Combat, I would feel better with a 30-06/308.

 

[HorseSoldier]

My personal opinion, FWIW, is that the 5.56mm is marginal even at short range. I have some slides comparing gel tests of the M855 with the chest thickness of a typical male from the Middle East, and it is clear that in many circumstances the bullet would zip straight through without even tumbling, let alone fragmenting. After much reading of such tests and directly contradictory views from users on this subject, I have formed the conclusion that the 5.56mm is erratic in terminal effects - sometimes it works very well, sometimes it just doesn't (and yes, I know that there's no such thing as a guaranteed one-shot stopper, short of a tank gun round).

It's not really all that inconsistent -- it's just that humans are not homogenous blocks of gelatin. If the bullet gets placed somewhere important, the guy who got shot is going to be on his way out of the fight in short order, fragmenting bullet or no fragmenting bullet (as well as +/- secondary fragmentation from shattered bone, etc.). If the bullet goes somewhere relatively unimportant, it's unlikely to put a guy out of the fight, fragmenting or not. A knitting needle jammed through the meaty part of one's thigh is unlikely to be life threatening (be it a quarter or a third of an inch in diameter), but a knitting needle jammed through one's sternum will likely, at the very least, prompt one to sit down and reassess one's priorities.

You'll get some degree of better peformance with fragmentation, as you get multiple wound channels, improving the chance of puncturing or severing something important, but the notion that 5.56mm is dependent on fragmentation to be lethal is, at best, rather heavily overstated on the internet. It helps when it happens, but it is in no way necessary to ensure killing or incapacitating a target.

The problem with a heavier caliber replacement round for 5.56mm is that, at least in the circles I move in professionally, it just is not necessary, from a lethality perspective at actual combat ranges. No one I work with who has actually used a 5.56mm weapon in combat has any reservations about the lethality of either 5.56mm in general or M855/SS109 ammunition in particular. Quite simply put, if the shooter can do his job, it does its job.

In light of that, I tend to suspect that the majority of complaints about lethality from troops on the battlefield are mostly the result of the shooter not doing his job. Actual documented cases where it can be proven that the bullet failed to perform are quite a bit harder to come by.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I have some slides comparing gel tests of the M855 with the chest thickness of a typical male from the Middle East, and it is clear that in many circumstances the bullet would zip straight through without even tumbling, let alone fragmenting.

I think that is more of an issue with M855 specifically. The complex construction of the bullet with the penetrator insert means it is more difficult to have a consistent bullet from lot to lot. Some lots fragment even below 2,500fps. Some lots don't fragment at 3,000fps and initial penetration to yaw can vary a bit as well.

I'd say a simpler solution from a logistics/cost perspective is to abandon the 600m penetration of an M1 steel helmet requirement and go with 5.56mm match-type ammo that will have more consistency and a shorter initial neck.

 

[vmfrantz]

i agree with roadwild if the 223 is so wounderful why is the top brass pushing for change? and a change away from the nato round? you are right in saying that not every deer goes down when hit with a 06, but if you have a poor shot on a insurgent, will he be able to carry on the fight if hit by the 06? at one time i was told the 5.56 was better because it had a higher chance of wounding. instead of a kill from the higher caliber rounds. they thought this way you take 3 people out of combat. one injured and two to care for them. looks good on paper, but injured people heal to kill another day.