The 223

[JrRanger]

I go back in this week. Here's to your son and all the proud LC folks. Yes. They frag! Tested on live targets in Iraq and Afghanistan by Special forces. M80A1 is very close to the field if not there already.

 

[Skribs]

That was kinda my point, Sam. If the majority of the use is covering fire, then it's not about whether it is a better killer or only designed to wound. It's the fact that you can fire 210 rounds of "make charlie duck" instead of 100 rounds. Actual effectiveness in living tissue is unimportant for that role.

Was sort of tongue-in-cheek.

 

[d2wing]

If you got a clear aimed shot each time you were in a different part of Vietnam than I was. I did not say they did not happen. They were exceptional in my experience. Most of the time I did not see who I was shooting or only got a glimpse. Most of my shooting was from trucks or jeeps. If you had a different mos you experience may differ. The imaginary remark was not intended for you but for guys who have never been in combat that think they get to aim each shot.
One of my best friends was a sniper. He got to aim each shot as a rule.

 

[Paul7]

Pick up an M 1 Garand and an AR 15. Which one would you want to carry all day?

The strange thing is, the A2 weighed about what the Garand did.

 

[breakingcontact]

The gun grabbers are talking like the 223/556 is magic.

 

[d2wing]

Paul7 that is wrong, ever pick either one up. The Garand weighs about 10 lbs empty, the M16 varies by configuration 6.5 to about 8 lbs. plus the Garand has more forward weight. The Garand, and M-14 are great rifles with accuracy and power with far greater range than the M-16. They all are great weapons. I was never told anything about shooting to wound. I recall a trainer telling us in AIT that the shock from a M-16 would kill a VC if you hit him in the arm. So I guess there was all kinds of BS flying around. I dunno, the OP said the rifle only wounds then turns around and says it killed a 1,000,000 enemy. Then claims it's my fault I didn't kill everyone I shot at. Too much dumb, too much BS. Bye.

 

[Kurt_D]

Quote:
Early 5.56 round did tumble in the air in cold weather, they were redesigned as they were extremely unaccurate when they did so.

Ahh? The bullet wasn't redesigned.
The rifle was redesigned.

The AR-15 started life in Vietnam with a 1/14 barrel twist.
The first M-16 was changed to 1/12 twist.
The M16A2 was changed to 1/7 twist and the M193 55 grain bullet was replaced with the M855 62 grain bullet.

And thats when the problem with lack of stopping power all started.

The bullet is TOO stable in a 1/7 twist now and sometimes shoots a .22 hole through people at long range, instead of tumbling and fragmenting and tearing them a new one.

The new M855A1 EPR round may address some of that, as they are supposed to break & tumble better then the old M855 bullet. Time will tell.
http://www.pica.army.mil/picatinnypu...01960-2010.pdf

My son is at work right now making the steel penetrator tips for them 24/7 as we speak.



rc
__________________

You almost had it until you got to 1/7 twist making the bullet too stable... That is IMPOSSIBLE, the number of rpm to stabilize a bullet in fluid (flesh) is too high. Testing in ballistic gel using different twist rates confirms it.

The velocity to induce fragmentation remains about 2700 fps between M193 and M855. M855 does give up around 100 fps to M193 in a 20" barrel (~3300 vs ~3200 fps) but fragmentation range due to velocity isn't really reduced much. What started hurting M855's fragmentation is the bullet's construction. Simply it was inconsistent compared to M193 which had it sometimes yawing late (if at all) and breaking up late (if at all) compare to a previous or later lot. Even so the M16A2 with M855 didn't have a bad rep.

The shift to the M4 is what gave current 5.56 a more earned, not imagined but slightly exaggerated, bad rap. The velocity of the M855 round is greatly reduced compared to the M16A2 and A4 due to the 14.5" barrel, sometimes as much as 300 fps (~2900 fps). That doesn't sound like much but consider the threshold velocity for fragmentation is ~2700 fps and you see you don't have much range. Add that to the inconsistent construction of ss109 bullets plus longer engagement ranges and you get problems. Now you have M855A1 attempting to solve that problem by building a bullet that will consistently frag at lower velocities, like Mk262, but maintain penetration.

Lastly there are a few reasons for the switch to .223/5.56 and the M16. The M14 was a beast to build and a beast to handle full auto. The AR10 set out to solve these issues using modern materials like forged aluminum and plastics and modern design. It was too new, too late and the Springfield won. Later, the M14 couldn't be made fast enough, the engagements changed and it was still a beast to handle in full auto. Enter the AR15: smaller, lighter, modern rifle firing a smaller, lighter, faster round; which means you can carry more "stuff" like ammo and armor. The AR15/M16 just fit the bill for what we needed vs. the AK.

Also as it stood 5.56 M193 was actually better than 7.62 M80 because of its ability (added bonus, it was never design to) to frag. 7.62 made the nice "clean" holes where as 5.56 broke apart and made a real mess of things. Of course, 7.62 was able to punch through stuff better but that's not what we needed back then. Today we've figured out there's no one "do-all" round so 7.62 Nato has come back some, 77gr 5.56 Mk262 was made and now M855 is being upgraded to A1.

 

[dastardly-D]

556

D2wing....It is turning into a pissing contest between us. I never said the 556 was only ment to wound and not kill,that is just you turning things out of context.I never said all shots were well aimed shots,I said there were opportunities for a well aimed shot. I never said you had to kill everyone you shot at,but there you go,making stuff up. All I ever wanted was some opinions about the round being designed to be more of a wounder than a killer.After all,if your enemy is incapacitated,he's out the fight just like a dead man,then you have to use resources to care for your man.
M16-A1.....7.06 loaded
M16-A2.....8.79 loaded
M16-A4.....10.09 loaded
M16-M4......7.5 loaded
M-1........11.25 loaded
M14.........11.00 loaded but could vary by density of wood or fiberglass
The weight of the m16-A4 surprised me ?
I enjoyed the discussion and information.....

 

[d2wing]

How about blaming me for losing the war? I doubt anyone that served with me would agree with that as my actions lead a convoy out of an ambush once, and turned back an attack another time. You inferred that I am a coward, my men would disagree and that doesn't set well with me. I am going to forget about it and ignore you. I hold no grudges.

 

[Sam1911]

Oh just STOP.