"Small Caliber Leathality" or Why .223 Doesn't Suck

[benEzra]

Also important in the discussion is delivery method. The AK is reliable as the sun coming up in the morning, but any hit beyond 100 yards is pure luck or spray and pray.

Haven't shot AK's at range much, I take it?

An AK with crap ammunition will keep every round on a B21 target at 200 yards, slowfire; a good AK with good ammunition will stay on a basketball at that range. If someone is missing COM shots at 150 yards with an AK, it's because of the shooter, not the platform, and that individual would probably miss just as well with an M4.

 

[d2wing]

I differ with you greatly on AK accuracy. I have owned several and not one
could consistently group basketball size at 100 yards, much less 200. Maybe 50 yards. This is also the case on a recent military channel show. I am an Army qualified expert shot and NRA certified instructor. I currently own a Saiga version. I agree that it is a good weapon at close range and mass assault but accurate it is not. Hitting a basketball at 200 yards is not a high standard but it is exceptional for an AK in my experience and many others.

 

[gregormeister]

re-instate the 30-06, re-instate the 30-06, re-instate the 30-06...O.K. I'm done...

 

[Lucky]

Don't forget things like Autonomic dysreflexia that can happen when a bullet misses the spine but passes by it close enough for the wake to knock the neurons funny and the subject loses control of limbs. Probably not something to try at home but I've known a person who was subjected to a quick blow to the spine and they experience brief paralysis. So it seems any bullet that can penetrate a person and leave a wake will be able to knock a person down, and it's not unreasonable to suppose the bigger bullet with a bigger wake could be further from the spine and still have effect.

But if the bullet doesn't do the aforementioned things to cause permanent stoppage it probably doesn't make much difference.

 

[elmerfudd]

I differ with you greatly on AK accuracy. I have owned several and not one
could consistently group basketball size at 100 yards, much less 200. Maybe 50 yards.

If that's the case, then you're doing something wrong. I have owned 7 AK's and fired several others and every last one would shoot much better than basketball sized groups at 100 yards. My worst one, (MAK90), fired about 8" groups at 100 yards and I dumped it because of that. All of my remaining AK's, (4 Saigas, 1 PSL, 1 SAR3), will group under 3 MOA with their preferred ammo and under 6 MOA regardless of what I feed them. That's fairly typical AK accuracy.

If anyone would like me to, I'd be willing to meet sometime at the Tacoma Sportsman's Club and demonstrate either basketball sized groups out to 200 yards or 6 MOA groups, (about the same thing). I can guarantee those. If you want the 3 MOA groups I'll have to bring along the quality ammo and skip the morning coffee.

Using handloads and allowing the barrel to cool between shots, I've gotten fairly consistent sub 2 MOA groups out of my S308.

 

[M&PVolk]

Your experience differs greatly from mine, but I have a much smaller sample size. I have only shot two different AK's, one woody, one all synth and tricked out. Full auto would be a requirement to hit anything at 200 yards. They were very inaccurate. That said, the two others I know who have AK's seem to agree that my experience is the norm, not the exception. They love them, but believe them to be close quarters only.

Again, not hating on the AK at all, just stating that the AR and AK are two TOTALLY different rifles when it comes to accuracy and effective range.

 

[elmerfudd]

Again, not hating on the AK at all, just stating that the AR and AK are two TOTALLY different rifles when it comes to accuracy and effective range.

This is true, but not to half the extent that people make it out to be. In my experience, a typical M4gery made by Bushmaster, Olympic or one of the other reputable makers of lower end AR's is also about a 3 MOA weapon. Unlike the AK however, they usually have excellent iron sights and excellent scope mounting provisions and that means that the average shooter can make use of that 3 MOA, or should be able to anyway. The truth is I see plenty of AR shooters firing basketball sized patterns at 25 yards, but just like with the AK, that has nothing to do with their rifles. A smoothbore musket shooting a properly patched ball will shoot basketball sized groups at 50 yards, (they'll actually do somewhat better), so anytime someone tells you a rifled bore won't shoot better than that it means there's either something wrong with the rifle or the shooter.

The AR also has some features which really lend themselves to accurization, so it's no great feat to achieve 1 MOA out of an AR. Getting that kind of accuracy out of an AK would require a dedicated build by a talented gunsmith.

 

[MartinS]

http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-66124.html

Scroll down to the post by YODA!#1:


C.E.Harris Quoted )
Approximate Extreme Spread for 10-Shot Groups, Estimated from
Measured Radial Standard Deviations, (assuming MR as .9xRSd and
ES as 3xMR) NRA Master gunners in favorable conditions adapted
from U.S. Army APG data, AMSAA Technical Report No. 440 , May 1987.

________7.62x39____5.45x39____5.56x45____5.56x45
________USSR PS___USSR PS___US M193___US M855
RANGE:___AK-47_____AK-74_____M16A1_____M16A2
(metres)
100_______4.8________3.5________2.7________2.7
200_______9.6________7.0________5.5________5.5
300______14.4_______10.5________8.9________8.6
400______19.6_______14.9_______12.8_______11.9
500______25.0_______19.6_______17.6_______16.0
600______30.6_______25.5_______23.0_______20.4

And just below.

 

[Funderb]

that was a fantastic article! I can tell that some of the posters of this thread did not read at all, or in any form the article before posting.

Wow, that is cool.

 

[Kurt_D]

rcmodel is onto something here; the origional ar's had a 1/14 twist for the 55 grainer, barely stable at all, and when it did hit flesh, tumbling began instantly.
Very ouchy. Some of those early reports from Viet nam with this setup where very gruesome. but who bi@$ched about them? The Airforce, which gave us the AR in the first place. They pantygriped that in supercold weather temps, if the flyboys had to ditch and drop out into survival mode, that the 1/14 ar twist was not accurate enough for them, and what they wanted to accomplish. I guess that was to be able to hit a snowshoe rabbit for food at 300 meters, apparently the stability was pretty much zero , in cold temps approaching or going below 32 degrees. So the army Switched to a 1/12, and the rest , is history.

No, rcmodel missed it completely. Twist rate has NOTHING to do with terminal balistics. I'm not going to dig up the formulas (I've seen it posted on AR15.com with actual numbers), but basically it takes way more rpm to stablize a bullet in water (most of human tissue) than air. A great deal more than even 1:7 can produce.

Facts are: 1) the 55 gr M193 fraged because of high velocity + thin jacket walls = the bullet couldn't hold up to the pressures as it yawed through flesh.
2) 55 gr doesn't always yaw consistantly.
3) drop the velocity below ~2600 fps by a short barrel or long range and the bullet doesn't frag.
4) the 62 gr ss109 bullet yaws and can frag too.
5) the 62 gr is slower than 55gr, shortening the fragmentation range. Multiply that effect by the use of shorter barrels and longer ranges. Notice most reports of M855 not being effective is from guys using M4 vs. M16.
6) 62 gr ss109 is even less consistant about yawing and fragmentation than it's 55 gr counterpart, and vary not only from lot to lot but from bullet to bullet.
7) the 77 gr SMK OTM used in MK262 is very consistant in yawing early in flesh and frags at a lower velocity than the other two bullets.
8) the 77 gr OTM has more mass to frag and, like the Russian 5.45x39, is a very long bullet with a air pocket in the tip.

source: http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_tighttwist.html

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Lucky writes:

Don't forget things like Autonomic dysreflexia that can happen when a bullet misses the spine but passes by it close enough for the wake to knock the neurons funny and the subject loses control of limbs

Blunt Trauma Concussion of Spinal Cord as Mechanism of Instantaneous Collapse Produced by Centerfire Rifle Bullet Wounds to the Torso

Why does a felon (or a large game animal) instantly collapse after being shot in the torso with a centerfire rifle bullet when the speed in which this occurs is obviously too quick to have been caused by substantial blood loss?

The reason is most likely due to the diameter of the temporary cavity produced by an expanding centerfire rifle bullet, combined with the location of the temporary cavity within the body. The temporary cavity produced by an expanding .30 caliber rifle bullet ranges between 7-9 inches in diameter, which is about the diameter of a volleyball. Violent displacement of such a large mass of tissue within the thoracic or abdominal cavity can cause the spinal bones to collide forcefully against the spinal cord, disrupting nerve transmissions and causing instantaneous flaccid paralysis, in which the felon (or animal) drops in his tracks like a rock.1 The effect is indistinguishable from a shot that physically severs the spinal cord. Once the felon (or animal) is down, the effects of blood loss take over and a complete loss of consciousness may occur in a matter of seconds.

The location of the temporary cavity is an important component of this mechanism, especially with large game animals. A shot that impacts and penetrates low in the chest of an animal may not have the same effect as a shot that hits the middle or upper chest closer to the spinal column. This explains why some animals instantly collapse, and why others might run until blood loss finally brings them down.

The temporary cavity produced by common combat handgun cartridges, even high-velocity loads like MagSafe, is too small to produce this effect. Handgun bullets simply cannot duplicate the wounding effects of centerfire rifle bullets.

For comparison purposes, an expanding .223 Remington bullet produces a temporary cavity that is approximately 5 inches in diameter, and the high-velocity (1700+ fps) MagSafe .45 ACP Defender handgun bullet produces a baseball-sized temporary cavity slightly less than 4 inches in diameter. Although the temporary cavity of the 223 cartridge can produce blunt trauma concussion of the spinal cord, the effect is less reliable because it is highly dependent on shot placement and the location where the temporary cavity is formed in the body. In 1989, an Alexandria, Virginia police officer was killed when a .223 bullet failed to quickly incapacitate a felon who was high on PCP and cocaine, and holding a 12 gauge shotgun to the head of a civilian hostage. According to the police report, the bullet "...struck [the felon's] back in the center of his torso, grazed a vertebrae, severed the aorta, penetrated his right lung and liver, and exited his body in the right abdominal area." As he fell to the ground, he fired a shot from his pump-action 12 gauge shotgun directly into the face of a nearby SWAT officer killing him. He was able to pump the shotgun’s action and wound a second officer before he was finally stopped.2 (The second officer committed suicide a couple of years afterward as a result of the incident.)

Endnotes

Fackler, Martin L., M.D.: "Incapacitation Time." Wound Ballistics Review 4(1), Spring 1999; 4-8.
Walts, Earl, Lt.: "Report on the Special Investigation of the March 22, 1989 Incident at 316 Hopkins Court." City of Alexandria, Virginia; April 3, 1989; 12 pages.

 

[benEzra]

Your experience differs greatly from mine, but I have a much smaller sample size. I have only shot two different AK's, one woody, one all synth and tricked out. Full auto would be a requirement to hit anything at 200 yards. They were very inaccurate. That said, the two others I know who have AK's seem to agree that my experience is the norm, not the exception. They love them, but believe them to be close quarters only.

I would suggest that the problem there is either lack of experience with AK sights, improper muzzle support, poor trigger technique, a supremely defective rifle (or most likely) a self-fulfilling expectation of inaccuracy.

My cheap Romanian SAR-1 with the cheapest crap-awful Norinco ammunition will keep every shot on a B-21 target at 200 yards. Wolf 122-grain Wolf JHP (not known for accuracy either) will do considerably better.

 

[BornAgainBullseye]

I have owned 2 romanian AK's one was a SAR-1 and the other I built from a Romanian G parts kit. From a rest or prone supported I can put 30 holes in a paper plate at 100 yards per 30 round mag. Can somebody tell me how that is luck or spray and pray???

 

[Art Eatman]

The thread's subject is small-bullet lethality, not about 7.62s...

 

[benEzra]

Sorry, Art...

Getting back on track, there are really two separate questions here.

(1) Is 5.56x45mm 62gr FMJ (as currently issued) an adequate round for military infantry use, and if not, (a) are there any better performing FMJ's in that caliber, and (b) do the alleged shortcomings of 5.56x45mm justify a change to a larger caliber?

(2) Are 5.56x45mm/.223 Remington civilian JHP's and SP's adequate for general civilian defensive and law enforcement use?

To me, the answer to question (2) is unequivocally yes. (1) is much more subjective, IMO. But .223 JHP/SP are consistently good performers in gelatin and have proven so in actual police use as well.

 

[hank327]

IMO, I think the military would be better off going back to the old M193 55 grn FMJ round. It has a higher muzzle velocity and is more likely to yaw and fragment than the current 62 grn round. IIRC, the current round was developed to increase the 5.56mm ability to defeat body armor and helmets at an increased range than the M193. The rifle used at the time was the M16A2 with a 20 inch barrel and not the current M4 with its stubby 14.5 incher. So it's not surprising that the resultant loss of velocity has resulted in a decrease in lethality especially at anything over close range. So why not return to the M193 which has had a pretty fair reputation when compared to the 62 grainer? Especially since the likelyhood that we will be fighting body armored infantry is basically zero these days.

Does anyone know what the Marine's experience has been with the standard 62 grain FMJ out of their M16A4s? I would think that they have had significantly better results with that rifle.

 

[SnakeLogan]

Don't forget things like Autonomic dysreflexia that can happen when a bullet misses the spine but passes by it close enough for the wake to knock the neurons funny and the subject loses control of limbs. Probably not something to try at home but I've known a person who was subjected to a quick blow to the spine and they experience brief paralysis. So it seems any bullet that can penetrate a person and leave a wake will be able to knock a person down, and it's not unreasonable to suppose the bigger bullet with a bigger wake could be further from the spine and still have effect.

Which is why I believe the bullet's temporary cavity should occur late (approximately where the spinal column on the average BG is).

 

[HorseSoldier]

IMO, I think the military would be better off going back to the old M193 55 grn FMJ round. It has a higher muzzle velocity and is more likely to yaw and fragment than the current 62 grn round. IIRC, the current round was developed to increase the 5.56mm ability to defeat body armor and helmets at an increased range than the M193.

If we were going to switch, I'd think we'd be better served by going to the 77 grain Mk 262 (or a downgraded mass production version -- every guy with a gun doesn't need sniper rifle precision and match grade ammo). Either 55 grain or 77 grain without the steel core penetrator gives up some ability to penetrate cover as well as armor, though.

Does anyone know what the Marine's experience has been with the standard 62 grain FMJ out of their M16A4s? I would think that they have had significantly better results with that rifle.

I'm not aware of any studies translating theoretical fragmentation ranges and all that into an actual variation in battlefield lethality between 20", 14.5" and shorter barrels used by different end users.

Though this lack may reflect the fact that most engagements in Iraq are occurring at extremely close range (if I remember right, a USMC study found that average engagement range was 31 meters). Also, firefights usually aren't subject to definitive CSI sort of study and reconstruction, so lethality at longer range is going to be a fairly murky topic in most cases.

Which is why I believe the bullet's temporary cavity should occur late (approximately where the spinal column on the average BG is).

This assumes that the bad guy you're shooting at is upright and advancing directly at you in a pose similar to a ISPC paper target. Actual engagements involve major variations in target posture (i.e. prone, crouched to use cover, etc), direction of engagement can be pretty close to anything in terms of both horizontal and vertical relationship between shooter and target, and actual angle of attack of the bullet hitting the bad guy can vary (and result in dramatically different ballistic effects, as the paper in the link points out).

 

[elmerfudd]

(2) Are 5.56x45mm/.223 Remington civilian JHP's and SP's adequate for general civilian defensive and law enforcement use?

To me, the answer to question (2) is unequivocally yes. (1) is much more subjective, IMO. But .223 JHP/SP are consistently good performers in gelatin and have proven so in actual police use as well.

Actually, I'd reverse your answer. I'm not a big fan of the .223/5.56, but I think it is better suited to the infantryman than the civilian. Soldiers have fully automatic weapons and have to carry their ammunition with them and the 5.56 is both lightweight and very controllable on full auto.

As a civilian however, I don't have access to full auto and I can't envision any firefight I would ever be in which would require more than a couple of mags. So for me, those two issues, which are extremely important to the military, are incidental.

 

[Ringtail]

I am not a soldier, have no combat experence and cannot comment on the combat effictivness of the 5.56mm cartridge. I also have the greatest respect for the service and scarifice of soldiers in every branch of the service. However, mijdeckard,s comments earlier in this thread reminded me of an experince recently at a rifle qual that changed my opinion of the M16 and 5.56 cartridge.

About 30 solides were qualifing with the M16A2, there were 14 rifles for qualification and one M249 SAW for familiarization firing. These soliders had all been through basic training and many had been deployed to Iraq, some had been over there more than once. During the exercise I made several observations that were, at the very least, eye opening.

Of the 30 or so trying to qualify, 3 shot expert, one shot high sharpshooter, and the rest shot marksman or were unable to qualify at all. The target was the standard 25 yard reduced target. I observed many soldiers that didn't know how to adjust the sights on their rifle. One individual couldn't get any evelation adjustment out of his front sight because it was broken. When I suggested that his back sight had plenty of elevation in it to get him in the black he declined my advice, had his sgt. tinker with the sight and eventually failed the qual because his rifle wasn't zeroed. Another solider was unable to zero his rifle because his 25 yd. "groups" were so large it was impossible to find the center and make a useful sight adjustment.

To be fair these soliders were part of an engineering bat. Even so I was suprised at the lack of enthusiasm for rifles and marksmanship. Even more surprising to me, when it came time to break out the SAW, no one wanted to try it out. Maybe after you shoot one enough the new wears off, but these guys didn't have that much collective trigger time on a SAW.

I don't want to sound critical and I have been intentionally vauge with the details, but if you can't shoot an M16 you probably can't shoot any rifle. I can only imagine what the outcome would have been if these guys had been trying to qualify with an M1 or M14. I would also not want to the the person in the Army responsible for training 1000s of new recruites to a minimum standard of marksmanship. If I was that person the M16 would be the only rifle I would want. I don't know how they did it back in the day of the M14, but in this modern age we live in marksmanship doesn't seem to come naturally to a lot of people including cops and soldiers.

If the M16 and 5.56 round are lacking in combat effictivness there must be another reason it is still in service after over 40 years. Only hits count and it seems to me that the modern solider needs all the help he can get when it comes to putting rounds on target.

 

[kcmarine]

Hm... can't we end this argument by issuing the 6.8 or something? I mean... that'd shut the 7.62 (39 or 51) devotees up... and we could keep the M16A4...

 

[HorseSoldier]

To be fair these soliders were part of an engineering bat. Even so I was suprised at the lack of enthusiasm for rifles and marksmanship.

In a lot of duty positions, it can be hard to build real competence with weapons if your only training is what the military says you need. (It's also possible to be downright phobic about weapons and get by okay in some jobs, strangely enough.) This has gotten better in the last few years, though it sounds like the unit you observed was not where it needed to be yet.

Even more surprising to me, when it came time to break out the SAW, no one wanted to try it out. Maybe after you shoot one enough the new wears off, but these guys didn't have that much collective trigger time on a SAW.

Did the guys who shot the SAW have to clean it?

 

[Ringtail]

HorseSolider,

If that was all that held them back, they should have taken a turn on it because they wound up having to clean it anyway.

 

[C-grunt]

I think we should switch to a heavier grain bullet. Its not that I dont think the M855 is good, because it is, I just believe a 70+ grain bullet would be better. They tend to have better on target ballistics and would be more lethal at longer range in my opinion.

A large portion of the Army, including most of my division (3rd ID) didnt have the M4s. We had mostly M16A4s and the only ones, for the most part, that had the carbines were officers, tankers and people in special roles (ie snipers).

Hell a good many of the Marines I happened across had M16A2s still.

 

[C-grunt]

If we need to replace any weapon in the inventory its the SAW. Each one has its own little quirks that the gunner learned to keep it running. Mine hated being squeaky clean and didnt like under 5 shot bursts. Once I learned my SAWs quirks in 03 it ran great. We did a live fire exercise and I went through 3 boxes, 200 rounds each, in about two minutes with only one malfunction. My team leader said if I could lay down good suppressive fire he would help me clean it afterwards. Aimed 100 round bursts was pretty good suppressive fire.