Is 5.56mm effective in combat?

Once in for all I would like to have Vet's only respond from Nam and Iraq tell us your first hand experience in combat shooting live people what you think.
PS please do not respond if you were not there first hand.

Thank you to all our troops for making safe for my little girl to sleep at night.

 

This is way out of line and VERY far from the High Road.

 

I don't understand, what's so bad about what he said?

 

Yes please tell us all about that. That's really the only way we'll know if the 5.56 is effective. Post pics too if you got 'em......

Aside from that it's generally considered quite offensive to ask vets for those kinds of stories.

Maybe poor wording but it seems in bad taste at the very least.

 

A better question would be to ask all the NVA, Iraqi insurgents, and Taliban now pushing daisies how effective the 5.56 was in killing them.

 

TexasRifleman is spot on.

Beside that, anybody that would answer a question like that here is probably full if it anyway.

 

Oh, absolutely not effective. You may as well be throwing rocks. In fact most guys often go to their 9mm instead of M4 as it has much more power and better range. In fact the 5.56 is so bad the government has decided to change it in the middle of the war to the .389 Magnum ultra mag.

 

It may have been worded funny, but we discuss terminal ballistics in real life quite often. That is all that is being requested and so isn't not High Road.

 

00Spy is right, we do discuss terminal ballistics. But this request is out of line. IMO those of us who haven't seen the elephant shouldn't be asking for descriptions of what it looks like, smells like, sounds like, etc.

When a vet volunteers stories, I'm all ears. But I don't ask. And I don't think I've ever heard a first person shooting story, it's usually skirted around.

Lost in space, if you don't mind a little coaching, ask vets technical/geographical/equipment type questions. Where/when did you serve, what was your job, personal weapons, equipment, etc. If they want to talk about other things, they can instigate it.

There are plenty of books and Military Channel shows.

 

I have no complaints. But, I never tested it in the places you mentioned.

To me, this question is meaningless. If it wasn't effective, we wouldn't use it. I have no reason to believe my fondness for .308 trumps the findings of mechanical engineers and scientists who make six figures testing things like this.

 

Effective is a relative term. Only James Bond can go out into the field and shoot combatants with several different calibers to determine if one was more effective than another.

Militaries around the world are not a bunch of morons like the net implies. There is a TON of research done by various governments that the public will never be allow to view which determines what equipment they use. The 5.56 is in service in more countries than any other caliber. Even the Russians are starting to use it. If it wasn't an effective cartridge do you really think it would have such wide spread usage......not to mention increasing usage?

 

This is clearly a plot by the UN to disarm the world. Once all the militaries of the world are armed with the ineffective 5.56mm it will be ripe for take over.

 

What do you think dude? How many years has the m16 been in service and how many people have been killed with it? Do you think we or anybody else would be using it if it didn't work.

 

The use of 5.56 is a contract round, it's lifespan in the US military is not testament to its effectiveness. It stays because :
A. it is effective enough
B. it's a lot cheaper to produce than pretty much all other combat rounds.
C. Military/government contracts are a tenacious breed.

As an answer to the post:
My good friend served 4 tours in Iraq. He said after a while, especially with some insurgents on drugs, it got frustrating to see them stand back up after being shot six or seven times. When he worked with Iraqi police and soldiers, by his own testament, people went down faster after being hit with the AK, and the the ones on drugs took fewer shots (2-3) before being rendered, not dead, but combat ineffective. (these are center mass hits, not head hits, obviously a headshot from any round is devastating)
So that's the foundation of my doubt for the AR as a combat rifle.
Even though it's probably the most precise firearm I've shot to date, the round just isn't that good past paper.

 

That was my best answer too.
Perhaps the question would be better put to some of your vet-buddies
who truly don't mind the question. You would avoid the possibility of
being shamed, and offending vets who don't like to talk about such things.
I have a few pals who have been in combat, and heard other vets say other
things on this subject of the 5.56, and the only conclusion I can come to
is that the answers you get are not going to be too far off from some of the
other threads around here on the subject; it's probably going to be split down
the middle. I have heard vets say both ways.
However, unless one seemed willing to talk about it, I would be hesitant to
run the risk of offending the ones that served our country well.
I would dishonor myself as well as embarrass an honorable veteren.
not the answer you wanted, and not from the person you wanted it from,
just my very humble .02

GP

 

or, just look to the upper right and click on "Search" because there's only been 1000 threads about this.... in the last month.

 

There's no need to go pestering veterans. There's no secret to cartridge selection. Hunters do it all the time, with little worry or controversy. And humans are just thin-skinned game.

So here's what you do...

Go down to your local sporting goods store, buy a box of .223 ball, and loudly announce that you can't wait to take it whitetail hunting.

 

Of all the threads that get locked, this one's still open!

 

There are literally dozens of threads where members stating they were veterans have voluntarily shared their impressions of the cartridge. Please feel free to use "search" to review those threads.