So why the 223?

[Alex23]

The aim might be to kill the opfor but the geneva convention prohibits the use of hollow points in theater. This has an upside as wounding an enemy does cause the opfor more grief than killing them.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

The aim might be to kill the opfor but the geneva convention prohibits the use of hollow points in theater.

The Geneva Conventions says nothing about bullet types. The Hague Convention of 1899, on the other hand, does.

 

[WC145]

Isn't it a Rush Limbaugh quote that the job of the military is to "kill people and break things"

which is a pretty fair assesment in my book.

I got that line from my brother who is in the USAF. He said that his drill instructors would say that to him, IIRC.

Your brother must be in a different USAF than I was. Back when I went through USAF basic the TI's didn't talk about such things, probably because there's not that many people in the USAF that do those things. There are less than 1000 airmen in jobs that actually put them on the ground killing people and breaking things. Other than them it's the fighter and bomber pilots, drone "pilots", and aerial gunners doing it from aircraft. The other 300,000+ are "supporting the mission".

 

[BurningSaviour]

Good catch, thank you. So it's a majority but not all

Yes.

earliest convert was the French with the FAMAS

France's adoption of the FAMAS was a reaction to the realisation that their (then) current service rifle (the MAS 49/56). France wasn't a member of NATO at the time, and their adoption of this cartridge was probably due more to better ties with the West than with the Warsaw Pact (much the same as other neutral, but more Western-aligned countries such as Austria, Switzerland, and Ireland).
It wasn't until production of the FAMAS F2 began, for the French Naval Infantry (Marines), that the rifle began accepting the NATO STANAG magazine - the original F1, which is still in widespread use in the French military - uses a proprietary 25 round magazine.

 

[bhinks]

Hello all- I've been reading THR regularly for quite some time, but this will be one of my first posts. I prefer to mostly sit back and soak up the wisdom of the good people here

As far as the above quote, it's certainly an old one and we'll never know exactly where it came from. But I am currently enlisted in the USAF and leaving for OCS in the spring- a lot of my closest friends are already finished so I have a decent perspective (at least from the AF side of things, I'm sure that saying is passed around in different forms in all the services). But from my experience, the quote originally came into use during pilot training, specifically the F-16 B-course, and was worded as "your purpose in life is to kill people and break their s*@t". Just as a little reminder to the guys who do take the most lives, but never see the up close consequences of their attacks; to keep their real purpose in the front of their minds. But I can assure you that at least as far back as 2004, the TIs at enlisted basic training are using that. As the Army and Marine Corps are spread more and more thin fighting two wars, the AF has been changing. We are having more and more often to not only provide our own security but to fill in gaps in Army units. Our Security Forces, which is our version of MPs, are turning more and more into a dual-role force, as law enforcement stateside, but essentially as infantry units overseas. In my unit alone, there are well, well more than 1000 personnel whose specific job in theatre is to be boots on the ground and rifle in hand.
I'm certainly not claiming that the quote originated in the AF or in pilot training, but I can testify first hand that it has been used in both those circles for quite some time.

 

[Pyzon]

Cool..........But do soldiers still call you guys zoomies ?

Just kidding, friend. Thanks for the heavy lifting you are doing for all of us, and for the sacrifice you and your family make to keep all of us free, even the dirtballs that don't speak up.

 

[bhinks]

Hey, zoomie is just like grunt, jarhead or squid- a title you wear with pride.

And I always feel more like I should be thanking ya'all for paying me to do what I dreamed of as a little kid!

 

[WC145]

As far as the above quote, it's certainly an old one and we'll never know exactly where it came from. But I am currently enlisted in the USAF and leaving for OCS in the spring- a lot of my closest friends are already finished so I have a decent perspective (at least from the AF side of things, I'm sure that saying is passed around in different forms in all the services). But from my experience, the quote originally came into use during pilot training, specifically the F-16 B-course, and was worded as "your purpose in life is to kill people and break their s*@t". Just as a little reminder to the guys who do take the most lives, but never see the up close consequences of their attacks; to keep their real purpose in the front of their minds. But I can assure you that at least as far back as 2004, the TIs at enlisted basic training are using that. As the Army and Marine Corps are spread more and more thin fighting two wars, the AF has been changing. We are having more and more often to not only provide our own security but to fill in gaps in Army units. Our Security Forces, which is our version of MPs, are turning more and more into a dual-role force, as law enforcement stateside, but essentially as infantry units overseas. In my unit alone, there are well, well more than 1000 personnel whose specific job in theatre is to be boots on the ground and rifle in hand.
I'm certainly not claiming that the quote originated in the AF or in pilot training, but I can testify first hand that it has been used in both those circles for quite some time.

The dual role for Security has been around forever, I was an SP in the early 80's and back then we were divided - Security Specialist and Law Enforcement Specialist. The SP's primary job was more combat oriented base, weapon storage area, and flight line security, while the LE's was working the gates and base patrol, like a town cop. It was later, when they changed to "Security Forces" that they tried to integrate the two roles, I guess it's coming back full circle now.

As far as "boots on the ground and rifle in hand", there's a big difference between securing a base perimeter and going outside the wire looking for trouble. The USAF has only three frontline combat jobs - Combat Control (CCT), Tactical Air Control Party (TACP), and Combat Weather (SOWT). These guys are often assigned outside of the AF, usually with the Army, working outside the wire, fighting side by side with their counterparts from the other services. In fact, TACPs are assigned to Army bases, they live and deploy with the units they support. There's only about 1000 total CCT, TACP, and SOWT.

 

[oldfool]

c'mon people, arguing that civilians ought to choose for (home and self DEFENSE whatever the military chooses (for COMBAT) is pretty silly; the 50BMG has surely proven it's worth in combat, but rare few civilians need one for CCW.

military does not choose based on any ONE criteria, nor should you choose on any ONE criteria for your personal needs... but they very likely are very different criteria (and if they are not.. duh, buy more rope)... if 223 fits your needs, it fits your needs.. ok, no problem
but arguing that the 223 is a great one stop instant man-killer is a tad silly
the multiple criteria that the military considers ought to not require lengthy explanations... and anything either Sarah Brady or Rush Limbaugh says about it ought to be greeted with laughter, no matter what she/he says about it, "sound bite slogans" notwithstanding

whitetail deer are a LOT tougher than homo-sapiens, and 223 (legal for deer or not) is not famous for dropping deer stone cold dead on the spot, nor is 30-'06 or 45-70 required to kill a big goat, on average approximate same size as an infantryman (whether or not the goat happens to be shooting back at you)

instead of woobie wars about "if it's good e'nuff for infantry, it's good e'nuff for me", you would be better off doing the AK vs AR woobie war, which is pretty silly, given the track record of both in combat...all the same can be said for the "std" AK round as for the "std" AR round... great combat carbine rounds, poor Grizz killers

 

[Gungnir]

France's adoption of the FAMAS was a reaction to the realisation that their (then) current service rifle (the MAS 49/56). France wasn't a member of NATO at the time, and their adoption of this cartridge was probably due more to better ties with the West than with the Warsaw Pact (much the same as other neutral, but more Western-aligned countries such as Austria, Switzerland, and Ireland).
It wasn't until production of the FAMAS F2 began, for the French Naval Infantry (Marines), that the rifle began accepting the NATO STANAG magazine - the original F1, which is still in widespread use in the French military - uses a proprietary 25 round magazine.

Indeed France did "retire" from NATO in '67 until 2009.

However they are in NATO, and they do use the 5.56mm and the G2 FAMAS does use STANAG magazines, the G2 was developed in 1994, and has a 1:9 rifling rather than the F1's 1:12, which also incidentally rated for steel cartridges (SS109) to cycle effectively, not M855 (so regardless of magazine the FAMAS F1 is not "interchangable" with standard NATO ammunition although it is a standard NATO caliber) perhaps this is to allow the French to take a break while awaiting resupply. Therefore I'd say that the FAMAS is now compatible with STANAG as is the HK G36 for similar reasons.

However it wasn't my intention to go into a technical discussion on the FAMAS, more a discussion about the 5.56mm round.

 

[Skid_McCoy]

If you search around the internet, you'll find some interesting info on the 5.56mm round (.223). Somebody (DOD I think) compared 8 soldiers carrying M16s that could outpower 12 soldiers carrying M14s with 7.62mm (.308). The British were working on a round closer to a 7mm that they were promoting at the time. They hate the 5.56mm because it doesn't have the killing power a military round should. Same for the 9mm. Like SiRed said, it's intent is to wound.

 

[crasen]

I think the 5.56 or 9mm would be more effective for our troops if they did not have to use FMJ bullets. From what I remember the US did not sign the Hogue convention but does not use hollow points due to allies that signed on to the Hogue convention and the need to be able to share ammunition in theatre. It is about time to start using todays modern ballistic technology. I can understand the reason for not using 7.62x51 for a firearm fireing a 3 round burst or full auto. There are many soilders that are too small and lightweight, some even have trouble with a 5.56 in burst. I think in missions where they are more likely to engage CQC a cartridge with more power may be advantageous. The 6.8mm may be a pretty good compromise in some situations.

 

[C-grunt]

If you search around the internet, you'll find some interesting info on the 5.56mm round (.223). Somebody (DOD I think) compared 8 soldiers carrying M16s that could outpower 12 soldiers carrying M14s with 7.62mm (.308). The British were working on a round closer to a 7mm that they were promoting at the time. They hate the 5.56mm because it doesn't have the killing power a military round should. Same for the 9mm. Like SiRed said, it's intent is to wound.

Urban legend. The 5.56 does actually do a pretty darn good job at killing people when you hit them COM.

 

[Hold My Own]

Like someone said, you can carry around wayyyyy more .223's than you can .308's. I think it was around the time of Vietnam that started to use the .223? I'm not sure, don't kill me guys.

But yeah, guys were talking about they'd rather have twice the ammo, and give up some range/knockdown power so hence the .223.

Also, the .223 isn't as wimpy a round as people make it out to be. How I see it, if you wouldn't let someone shoot you with it, then it's not a wimpy round.

I personally like the 5.45x39 more, and they're dirt cheap. But they're pretty close in comparison.

 

[YaNi]

Urban legend. The 5.56 does actually do a pretty darn good job at killing people when you hit them COM.

+1
The 77 grain round has only improved the 5.56's capabilities. I have friends + relatives over there that have nothing but glowing reports about the 77 grain. The 5.56 isn't gonna blow off someone's arm like a .308 would, but hit em in the chest and theres a good chance they are going down and not getting back up.

 

[devildog32713]

"Intermediate rounds" are a compromise of the rifles power, the SMG's controlablity, fire rate. The first prduction example of this was the StG44, or MP44, designed by Nazi Germany.

Spain used the CETME,

the CETME was derived from the StG. 5.56x45 (or .223, 5.56 NATO has more pressure, thicker casings) ammo is lighter than 7.62x51 NATO, for the same weight, you could carry twice as much 5.56 as 7.62x51, 5.56 is more controlable in select-fire weapons, the Army's research stated that many men in battle never fired their weapon, but if they had a "rapid-fire" weapon, then they were more likely to fire, more rounds fired=more enemy casualities,
Armalite sold the production rights of the AR-15 to Colt, and Colt produced it as the Model 601, they (Colt) submitted it for Army testing, whatnot, and now it is produced in many variants, for our military. Some modern assault rifles fire the 7.62x51 NATO (SCAR-H) but all in all, .223 is reliable, can penetrate (M885 NATO has a steel rod) high velocity (up to 3,051 NATO) is very controllable.

 

[youngda9]

Wounding your adversary takes more men out of action than outright killing them.

In many states it is illegal to hunt deer with a 22 caliber rifle(.223)...it's in-humane and doesn't kill the small animals quick enough. True.

 

[Brimic]

The 30-06 and various mauser cartridges developed around the turn of the century had in mind the biggest menacing living thing on the battlefield- the cavalry horse. The Germans and Soviets got it right during WWII with the development of the 8mm Kurz and 7.62x39, the British later had a 270 or 7mm intermediate round, but the American military wanted a shorter fatter 30-06, and we ended up with the .308/7.62NATO.

 

[KBintheSLC]

The military doesn't pick the best tool as much as it picks the best compromise. Sure, there are many calibers that are more capable than the 5.56 NATO, but the 5.56 made sense from other perspectives. Same thing goes for the switch to 9mm in sidearms.

I personally believe that the 7.62x39 is the perfect compromise for basic infantry use... but I doubt NATO will ever accept a Russian cartridge. The 7.62 NATO is also a great cartridge for all-around use. I could imagine we might see a resurgence in 7.62 arms like AR10/M14/SCAR type stuff in the future.

Also, the .223 isn't as wimpy a round as people make it out to be. How I see it, if you wouldn't let someone shoot you with it, then it's not a wimpy round.

I agree that the 5.56 isn't wimpy, but that argument doesn't do it for me... I mean, I wouldn't let someone shoot me with a BB gun. That doesn't mean I would consider the BB gun to be a viable battle weapon.

...

 

[Hatterasguy]

I'm just a recreational shooter, but from my experiance 400 rounds of 5.56 is a heck of a lot lighter than 400 rounds of 7.62.

If I had to pick which to hump around in the crazy heat of the desert I would take the 5.56.

 

[W L Johnson]

I personally believe that the 7.62x39 is the perfect compromise for basic infantry use... but I doubt NATO will ever accept a Russian cartridge.

Why would they when even the Russians starting moving away from the 7.62x39 in the 70s to the 5.45x39 which is considered by many to be a twin of the 5.56 NATO.

 

[Shadow Man]

Why would they when even the Russians starting moving away from the 7.62x39 in the 70s to the 5.45x39

Maybe because the Russians then started going back to the 7.62x39 in the early 90's. Of course, that could have had to do with their economic collapse, but I kinda doubt it...

The .223, or 5.56x45 (since we are debating military use) is an acceptable round when used within its design parameters. Mainly, a 20" barrel, and unstable rounds like the M193 and MK262 Mod1. No, the round may not have the most "punch" at range, but follow up shots are ridiculously easy because recoil is so light. It does exactly what an infantryman's rifle should do, and no more; light recoil, accurate and flat shooting from 0-500yds.

And no, the M-16/5.56x45mm platform was not designed to "wound." The system, when used correctly, will not fail to kill a typical target (ie: not drugged, not too far away, not too close with heavy cover, etc.).

 

[W L Johnson]

Maybe because the Russians then started going back to the 7.62x39 in the early 90's. Of course, that could have had to do with their economic collapse, but I kinda doubt it...

Yep, when their economy went to pot they looked around and they had piles upon piles of 7.62x39. Their main army mostly still went to the 5.45 but alot of their 2nd string forces got stuck with the old stuff.

 

[Shadow Man]

Well, I'll admit, I'm not an expert on the Russian military, I just seem to remember a current issue rifle for a front-line unit I worked with being chambered in 7.62x39, that's all I have to go on though.

 

[W L Johnson]

That's why I said "mostly". The Russian's are not going to let anything go to waste.
Here's a link to a Russian Website on the Ak-74 http://world.guns.ru/assault/as02-e.htm