Why would they give so small a caliber to our service man and women. Why not a good old 30-06 or 308 ? Just wondering.

The 223 has good penetration but it not extremely powerful.

Military rifles are not intended to kill the enemy . Its true, if you kill an enemy, they are dead and gone. However if you wound an enemy, it takes many support personal to help, support and keep them. So if you kill ten, they are dead bury them done. Wound ten you need medics, extraction personnel, hospitals and so on.

The other reason for the 223 is that most battles are close distance, the 223 has proven that at the average range it can do the job and be ready to fire the next round with out excess recoil. Basically its a good compromise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO

When we stopped teaching marksmanship and started teaching spray'n'pray, our troops needed to carry more rounds in a combat load. 8 en bloc Garand clips was 64 rounds, plus eight in the gun for 72. Now it's six 30-round magazines plus one in the gun for 210.

I'm not a caliber bigot, though ... I don't want to be in front of ANY round!

The 5.56mm round arose from a need for a lot of firepower at relatively close range as was needed for the war in Vietnam. The M14, nice as it is in a European theater for targets out to 1000 yards, just didn't meet the operational requirements in Vietnam, where most combat was relatively short range. That, plus a perceived need for overwhelming fire superiority, resulted in a relatively light recoiling round in a rifle with automatic fire capability.

Nothing wrong with the round, other than the Army has, in the past, neglected basic marksmanship training. When I was a company commander, we only qualified annually and even then it was cursory at best. Then again, I was in a combat service support unit and if I was training, then it meant my guys weren't in the shop fixing tanks. That lack of training resulted in the debacle with PFC Jessica Linch's maintenance company back in DESERT STORM, if you all remember that.

Umm, a wounded enemy can still shoot back, a dead one can not.

The reason we switched to the .223 from the .30 round was someone figured out that the M-14 fires .308 and holds 20 rounds in a magazine and an M-16 holds 30 rounds. Given the average load out of 16.2lbs of ammo in your gear that means you can hold 100 rounds of .308 vs 240 rounds of .223 and that's really the reason they went to the smaller round.

__________________
Regards,
Guy-Harold Smith II

With the three round burst on thats 70 rounds equivilant. The 10 pocket M1 belt holds 80 with the added advantage that you can shoot thru trees and such.

I actually have seen 400 rounds plus of 223 on a soldier. The special ops teams are not afraid of the old 308. They use it a sniper round (Army/Marines)and a heavy long range round in the Navy/Coast guard. The 223 vs 30 cal debate goes all the way back to 1966 (ish) when Stoner introduced the plastic gun. I like the power of the heavy round but when everyone else carries 300-400 rounds, I sure would not want to die from the lack of shooting back.

ChuckS1, please explain how lack of weapons training contributed to the PFC Linch 'debacle'. I thought they just took a wrong turn.

My answer to EVERY "caliber war" thread.

__________________
Don't need no stinkin' sigline

As Erich says, "shot placement is king."
IMO the AR holding a 30 rounder loaded with SP or HP bullets makes a pretty good defense weapon. Same for the Mini 14 and a 20 round magazine.

__________________
Geoff. Since 1960.

Jessica Lynch was captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom, not Desert Storm. The complaint with their unit was that most of the rifles, presumable A2s, jammed up on them. Lynch never fired a single round. Other soldiers in the unit had to load rounds in one at a time. One guy won a Silver Star for doing just that and continuing to return fire. Aiming was per se the problem, not maintaining the rifles apparently was. Quite possibly owing to the outmoded idea dating back to N.Africa in WW2 that one ought keep a rifle as dry as possible in the desert. Not a good thing since M16s/M4s/ARs like their lube.

Anyway, the military doesn't use .223. They use 5.56x45mm Nato. And no, it isn't quite the same thing.

The current load is the M855 for ball and the M955 for a very deep penetrating black tip AP round that is good for cracking rifle plates.

Short answer is that 5.56mm can deliver nasty wounds, is accurate, and one can carry a lot of ammo. It also makes for a relatively light kicking weapon if your weapon has a capacity for automatic fire.

M4 clones or even full size ARs do make good weapons for personal defense. If you load them with JHPs or M193 type ball, you can limit penetration a bit while still delivering nasty wounds.

The 5.56/223 with ball ammo at less than than 20 yards is curiously ineffective. At 3240 fps the FMJ just keeps on going...and going...

The original 1:14" twist, as used in the parent 222 Remington/Rem. Magnum cartridge, was used in the first-gen M-16's (AF)/ M16-A1 (Army/Jarheads). The twist stabilized the M193 round at the outer margins of gyroscopic stability. The least resistnce of flesh or vegetation led to instability and tumbling of the projectile and the vaunted "explosive" effect first described to us awe-struck recruitsa as able to tear off VC limbs and continue going to the center of the earth. Naturally, the DoD, under McNamara (the man who killed off the wonderful M-14 and Springfield Armory)and his Brilliant Ford PhD. Whiz Kids proceeded to improve the 55 gn round by going to a 1:12" twist on later M-16's/A1's to stabilize the round. Which led to neat holes up close, and very pissed off Charlies coming at you.

Thank God each squad still access to the clumsy and god-awfully heavy and ugly M-14. It simply worked. Case closed.

The newer 1:7" and 1":9" twists maintain the gyroscopic stability of the 62/69 grain rounds, and produces neat holes up close, unless hard matter (bone) is encountered. And then Newton's Laws take effect and the projectile tumbles and does damage.

The Russkis have since developed a series of mass off-centered standard-weight 5.45x39 and 7.62x39 MM slugs that exit their weapons at standard AK velocities, and upon meeting resistance have an intended tendency to tumble. Whether this theoretically violates Geneva Convention rules is unclear, not that they give a damnm, but it was reported as effective in their "field studies". They do seem to have their act together at rare times... but very rare.

All the above posts are correct. Use Siera Blitz or Nosler Varmint loads, and you might get better results. Personally, a S&W wheelie or bottom-feeder is a helluva lot more tactically efficient and effective. And Ruger DID market a compact Police Carbine (PC9/PC4)precisely for the home defense and LEO markets. And they went over like a lead balloon, as did AR-15's in 9MM.

On the other hand, remember the Korean merchants in LA during the riots in '92 that stood on their store tops brandishing Mini-14's, and surpringly did not suffer seeing their stored burnt down? My, My. Intimidation factor. Esp. a tricked-out AR platform with laser sights, might make a big impression.

IMHO - Any weapon with a a bright Laser Sight will serve as a wonderful intimidation device to any social deviant or miscreant intruding on your premises, when accompanied by a sharp command to cease and desist to the cretins to cease and desist with their dastardly actions . Preferrably attached to a S&W hunk of iron, of course.

And a well-placed round in the correct zone.

Just my .02 cents. Take it as such.

Cheers,

Sverre

The U.S. was slow to develop the assault rifle concept after WWII, compared to other major powers. The U.S. developed the M14 which was intended to give every soldier an M1 Garand and a BAR, the trouble was they weren't the right weapons for modern warfare, which changed with WWII.

Unfortunately when they did see the merits of Assault Rifles, politics was the major factor in their decision. The 5.56/.223 looked good on paper and the people that had the chance to choose something else didn't know the difference.

Sort of. The US Army went with the battle rifle concept instead of the assault rifle concept based on experiences fighting the Germans and the Japanese.

Circa 1945 the plan was to begin fielding what amounted to an M1 Garand with a 20shot magazine that could work in BARs as well. This was going to be geared up for production for the invasion of Japan. The surrender of Japan and the idea that nukes made future conventional wars obsolete delayed things a bit.

After Korea, and unhappiness with the M2 carbine pressed into service as a makeshift assault rifle, the M14 came along, revisiting the battle rifle idea.

Jellybean,

Just as an aside - You're right on the politicians screwing it up. The AF adopted the M-16 with the happy acquiescence of of Gen.Curtis LeMay, a man with a strong background in hunting and war,with the intentional deployment initially as a perimeter guard weapon at air bases. SF and recon units then got access to it, used it successfully in the 14 twist version. The program was derailed by the politics and service infighting soon set in with BS of the politicians and that ******* McNamara and the REMFs in the Pentagon and CONARC.

I'd really like to know what the SOCOM insights from the Stan or Sandbox are with respect to retrofitting the M-16/M-4 platform to 6.8 MM Remington, or some such caliber. Anyone know?

Cheers,
Sverre

I don't care what it is, if you push it 3000+ fps it will kill your *** dead.

.308/7.62 will just go through more.
But it doesn't go to a different place?

The M14 is a beautiful weapon, well built and effective. In semi auto mode it is a great battle rifle and can engage targets well beyond the average soldiers capabilty. The problem is that the 7.62X51 round is a little much for the average soldier to fire in full auto, and when you have a horde of enemy soldiers standing 30 feet away, shooting their AKs in full auto at you it doesn't help.

I have nothing against the assault rifle concept, there are times when it may be the best choice. But the ammo is a much bigger issue than if it will kill or not. You want a round that will kill or incapacitate your attacker(s) before they can deliver a fatal injury. You can hose them with several rounds of varmint ammo, and they will die eventually, but not before they dump a few rounds of 7.62X39 in you.

GatorFarmer, thanks, I'd never heard this before. Do you know if the weapon/project had a name?

T20 as designed by SA, T22/27 as designed by Remington. The final design, designated T20E2 was scheduled for series production, but cancelled in August 1945 with the surrender of Japan.

My, my time for a history lesson from an old fart. Studies by the US Army after WWII showed that most casualties were the result of crew served weapons/artillery. Small arms (rifle) fire was generally ineffective over 300 meters and when under fire, about 3 soldiers per platoon would return fire. The thinking was, that the ideal infantry weapon would be full auto to encourage return fire and the effective range could be reduced by use of less powerful cartridges.

The M-14 was a select fire 7.62 weapon which proved itself uncontrollable in full auto. You also need to understand that the 7.62 round was adopted as a result of strong-arm tactics by Uncle Sam as NATO standard. Many other members wanted to follow the intermediate cartridge path the Wehrmacht blazed with the 7.92 Kurtz round.

The Air Force adoption of the AR-15 for essentially guard duty was a reasonable step, since the training time was minimal and the Air Force doesn't engage in extended deployments to unpleasant places. It was arguably a good choice for special units and for any allies who might find the light weight and low recoil a benefit. It also fits into the performance envelope the theorists decided make up a better infantry rifle. Robert Strange McNamara was the driving force (explitives deleted) behind the service wide forced adoption of the AR-15 as the M-16. He was also the major obstacle to needed modifications to the weapons system.

Entire books have been written about this topic, I won't go further on it. I will say that, having used the system for over 40 years, if you take proper care of the weapon (and the manufacturers STILL don't have the maintenance/lubrication instructions correct!) it will take good care of you. It does take a properly trained, skilled and dedicated operator. Despite my distaste for the weapons system, it has the best human engineering on the planet for a CQB weapon.

Now about the OP, if used with 40-55 grain expanding bullets, the .223/5.56 makes a very good defensive cartridge at close range.

Some of this is just plain “Bull Feathers”. I was there I saw it. The simple truth is we (that being the collective we) never felt out gunned when facing off with the VC and NVA from in your face distances to out there distances. The M14 was an effective rifle. Only one in four M14 rifles was equipped with the selector switch for full auto fire. Predominately three out of four were not capable of selective fire as there was only one automatic rifleman to a four man fire team. The majority of us that carried the M14 given the option would have kept M14 over the M16.

The M-14 becomes extremely hot in auto fire to the point of the barrel warping...I think the last effective round used by the US was the .45/70...Well, maybe the .58 Minnie or the .75 Brown Bess...That one was designed to stop the horse a cavalryman was riding...interesting debate but I guess the little pill is here to stay. The debate between big and slow vs small and fast is endless I guess.

Well I never really had a problem with horses. I kinda like em'. But it is interesting to know how wars were fought years ago.Now cars on the other hand there are always a few of them I would like to get rid of on my way home from work!!! LOL!!!

Dennis, I never said anything about being "out gunned". My statement was about controlling fire while in full auto.


sub-moa, thanks for the info.

The 5.56 round suffers from what all military hardball does via "civilized" warfare - the idea that you can shoot someone just "a lttle bit". It's like being a "little bit pregnant".

No one taking shots from 45, 9mm, 7.62, or 30'06 hardball is going to fare very well, but the use of soft nose, hollow point, or frangible bullets will hasten the effect and increase the lethality.

I have yet to meet anyone who wants to demonstrate for the rest of us on themselves how ineffective and wimpy a round the 9mm or .223 is by standing out at 50 yards or so and volunteering themselves as a target.

Having said that, I like BIG boolits ! If it's worth shooting, it's worth shooting right. But I don't feel unarmed with a .223. I'm a big fan of the late Col. Cooper and agree with most of his views and don't disagree with his assessment of the "poodle shooter", as far as it's effectiveness when compared to the .308 or 30'06. But it has it's place and those who disparage it should read the third paragraph again.

__________________
Qui plantavit curabit

Many critics of the 5.56 rely on the complaints of ammunition effectiveness, or lack thereof, from soldiers during war time. I, for one, am not constrained to use fmj or "ball" ammo for when or if the need ever arises. JHP, JSP, ballistic tip, OTM, etc, etc. There are lots of wonderful types of ammunition that have come out over the last decade or so.

Knowing how accuracy falls off when your adrenaline is rushing and you are actually in the SHTF mode, I'd rather be able to carry as much ammo as I can, hence, 5.56. I've seen some pictures online of lots of dead or devastated humans who have fallen to the 5.56, so fear not. But practice!

Now to sound a bit hypocritical, I have ordered a complete upper chambered in 6.8spc. I am going to use this to hunt with, and just to have, in case the need ever arises to shoot at something 400 yards away.

One day soon the million man army of North Korea will come charging across the DMZ and we'll see just how many of them stop to pick up their wounded comrades who have been shot with our second rate varmint rifle.

Dave Sinko

Hopefully, they will be met by a wall of GE Mini-Guns!

__________________
'Merica!

With good JSP or JHP bullets, the 223 can be a very good defense round. Anyone really care to get hit with a JHP 223 round? I'd have no problems using the Cor-Bond DPX 223:

223 Rem
62gr DPX
2825fps
1099ftlbs
16.0

1100 FPE out of a 16-inch barrel will do the trick.

Well then we should shoot them with our first rate varmint rifle!

__________________
NRA Life Member

It is a great defensive round when loaded with 75 - 77 OTM bullets which break-apart with great results. Save the light-weight and hollow point bullets for varmints.

Some of what you say is true enough, but our enemies don't carry bolt action rifles anymore. More is always better...

__________________
.............SmithNut

I'd heard the statements about causing wounds instead of killing to take more people off the battle field, but I always figured that was an excuse more than a principle.

WR Moore, Do you remember when this study was done? I'd heard it was the reasoning behind the militarys adoption of the M16 but I thought it was from information gathered during the early part of the Vietnam War.

Not unusual to see the .308 come out for quick, long range engagement....neutralizing.

M/A/M,
That's why I said a year ago, even 25-30 years hence there will still be some Luddite wandering around a battle field somewhere waiting yet again to be called upon. You know. When all the whiz bang has gone south. The electronics have taken a dump and in general the entire philosophy has gone FUBAR. One person at some unit level will likely still be trudging along with a .308 caliber rifle of some ilk, bolt or auto. And if the Saints are with us, they'll still well know how to use one.

WR got it right...
Brigadier S.L.A. Marshall started it off @ the end of WWII and really got those concepts rolling in 1951 with his study, "Infantry Operations and Weapons Usage in Korea", that was followed by The Hall Study, "Effectiveness Study of the Infantry Rifle", 1952 which was followed by The Hitchman Report, "Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon" later in 1952, and all came to the same basic conclusion, with minor variations; even expert riflemen were only "satisfactory" at 100y and by 300y, for various reasons, marksmanship was pathetic.

Needless to say, this made Colonel Studler of Army Ordnance not a happy camper, but he's the one who commissioned, the Hall Study and then hoped the Hitchman Report would refute Hall. He didn't, he agreed. Oops...

But, we still went with the T65E3 (7.62x51) cartridge instead of something similar to the German 7.92x33 as our allies wanted. Those same studies then were used to bite ordnance in the ***** when the obvious fact that the 7.62x51 was not at it's best on full auto out of a 9lb rifle. Go figure...

That really got the "Small Caliber/High Velocity Concept" rolling and it opened the door for McNamara and his "Whiz Kids"...

Get "The Black Rifle" by Ezell...

BTW Jelly, Re: T20...You're welcome...

sub-moa, thanks again. I'll add that book to my list.

I'd heard the US had forced the 7.62X51 on NATO. I'd also heard they did the same with the 5.56, which most of the other countries didn't want either. Was that true?

Yep, we pushed NATO to adopt the 5.56x45 (approved originally as NATO “Secondary Standard”) in 1980 because we had already adopted the .223/5.56x45 ourselves for all the CH/HVC reasons; Nominally equal “lethality” on the battlefield (not the capability to stop mind you, just produce wounds sufficiently incapacitating to take the enemy out of the fight...Eventually. Military planner’s view of things has always been at odds with the view of the GI actually implementing the policy); lighter per round weight and as originally intended, lighter rifle weight, with all that entails for the individual GI (only in so far as that then allows them to weigh you down with something else…that probably weighs more…and you probably don’t need as much), the military logistics train and even strategic materials considerations; reduced recoil impulse permitting greater accuracy/hit probability at shorter perceived combat distances as well as, OMG, automatic fire capability (cause that sure wasn’t happening with the 7.62NATO in a rifle); better ergonomics; “modernization” for the sake of modernization…yadayadayaand and many more, including, unfortunately, internal US Military as well as civilian politics.

Our major NATO allies had, since the ‘70s, been seriously toying with all kinds of alternatives (British 4.85, German 4.7, even the fast twist 5.56 Belgian SS109 (that we ultimately agreed to as our M855 in our 1-7 M16A2-A4/M4) to the Standard 7.62NATO, the same 7.62NATO, as the US 7.62x51 T65E3, we had previously forced on them in 1954, (because we "won the war" with a battle rifle and we wanted to keep the power and range offered by the 7.62x51 over the WWII German 7.92x33 or even the British darling, the .280, in spite of what even our own post battle reports said)...and then, without so much as a by your leave, we abandoned ourselves in the ‘60s for the .223/5.56x45.

Much of that can be found in the "Black Rifle" as well Jelly

Oh, you're welcome again

The following questions are out of curiosity concerning the participants in this topic. How many of you have been involved in ground combat over a sustained period of time? Spray and pray seems too prevalent commentary in my opinion. What happens if the signature of muzzle flash is you’re only defined reference for POA? Have you ever been in a beaten zone? What about suppressive fire? Who has employed the M14 or M16? Is this all armchair reading or personal experiences? The questions are not intended to be antagonistic. I want to gain a perspective of those involved.

IIRC Platt was using FMJ ammunition in his Mini-14 during the Miami FBI shootout. He killed two agents and wounded five others. Certainly at close range the .223 was effective with tragic results.

Good points Dennis. The fact is battle tactics change and evolve. The style of standing toe-to-toe with foes like the British in exposed skirmish lines didn't totally lose it's hold on the military until the civil war and the advent of repeating weapons. The trench warfare of no-man's-lands of WWI gave way to open country and urban fighting in WWII in Europe, which was quite different from the jungle warfare of the Pacific theaters where we faced individual soldiers armed still with mostly bolt action weapons. Contrast that to the jungle fighting in Vietnam verses the throwback conflict now in the sandboxes.

Point is, no one shoulder fired weapon is suited to all those environments. Those who have been there and been under fire have their reasons for their opinions. Anyone who hasn't is armchair quarterbacking.

__________________
Qui plantavit curabit

I always thought the .223 was a bit too light for a standard military battle rifle. A .243 Winchester might be better.

I've mentioned this before but I remember my dad and oldest brother discussing the M16 when my brother returned from SVN in 1968. My brother liked the concept of the M16 but felt the caliber too light. Dad (Solomon Islands Vet) said if the Army wanted a good, light, jungle round they should have adopted a shortened version of that darned 25 Jap round.

A 6.5x45 in the AR platform would probably be interesting. I've never heard a Pacific Theater Vet talk down the 6.5 Arisaka round.

BTY, early M16 magazines were 20 rd, not 30.

Dennis, to answer your question, I've have no military experience. I have shot both M16s and M14s, and a host of other automatic weapons.

The few I've exchanged comments with felt that the 5.56mm with the 75/77 gr bullets did quite well and is far easier to sustain than changing to an entirely new caliber requiring new uppers, magazines and ammo plant retooling.

Paying more attention to the basics of marksmanship is also a big assist and that was done in SF and the regular forces.