Can someone experienced please explain to me HOW 5.56 is a Varmint Cartridge?

[Miracle Man]

The only "conditions" are proper shot placement! A poor shot with a .223 or a .30-06 is a poor shot and the animal will run. 90% of the shooters that I see at the range getting ready for deer season can't hit a "bull in the butt with a bass fiddle"! Sight alignment and trigger control will do the job, no matter the caliber.

I absolutely agree shot placement is the number 1 factor! However, "conditions" can and will contribute to a greater chance of loss of the animal with a 55 grain bullet that runs out of killing power very quickly. From the average, not very experienced, hunter.

Me, you and many others or here understand the limitations of such a small bullet, many others do not.

They'll take shots at way to far a distance. They try and shoot in high wind conditions that a 22 caliber bullet just won't cut it in. They'll try and shoot at a quartering away angle and if bone gets involved the 223 bullet blows up on the hip and doesn't produce a killing shot. One could go on.

But I'd way rather take my chances with a much heavier bullet out of a bigger gun to "help" ensure I don't wound an animal and doom it to a slow, painful death.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

Cuz it shoots little bullets at high velocity............Any rifle can be a varmit rifle/caliber.........If you have said rile in hand when you see the varmit

 

[Dave Lively]

Very true. A wounded man ties up a lot of resources.

True in the US and most first world countries. But some of our potential adversaries view soldiers as expendable cannon fodder and are much less concerned about the wounded. This is somewhat true in Russia's failed invasion of Ukraine. But it would be even more true if we have to fight North Korea or some group of fanatics in the middle east or elsewhere.

There's a lot of advantages for a light, low recoiling cartridge in a military rifle. But being less lethal isn't one of them. If it is less lethal it will also be less effective at stopping a determined opponent.

 

[LostintheOzone]

My definition of a varmint is some type of animal that one considers a pest that you don't plan to eat. Coyotes are varmints. Rabbits and squirrels are small game. But I think you already knew that.

I have a .223 varmint rifle and a 5.56 defensive rifle.

Both work very well. No need to disparage the cartridge. It's been around a long time and it's dirt cheap to load.

 

[WR Moore]

A bullpup would allow a 20" barrel in a weapon of the same overall length while achieving the required velocity with less pressure.

I read that some complain about the balance and length of pull of a bullpup. The first is a familiarity issue that would go away with use. The Croatians and Springfield have proved you can make a bullpup with an adjustable stock, so that is no longer a problem. Yes, some will whine that bullpups are ugly and unsuitable for "evolutions". All I can say to that is that "evolutions" does not appear on the "must have" list when it comes to a shooting war. Not needed on voyage.

I'll make a prediction: there will soon be calls to shorten the AR style 6.8x51 guns due to soldiers' complaints about embarking and egressing helicopters and armored vehicles. Then where will all that vaunted ballistic performance go?

Sorry for the thread drift.

One of the big issues with bullpups is the ejection pattern. The left handed can't use a rifle set up for a right hander and t'other way around. While not a really big deal by itself, one can't swap the rifle to the other side if that's where the cover is. SFAIK, there's only one example that ejects downward.

The only bullpups I've handled have been the AUG and the Tavor. The latter stuck me as a tank chock doubling as a infantry weapon.

You probably have a point on the barrel length. I'm kinda curious how those high pressure rounds work after they're been sitting in tropical/desert sunlight for awhile. Until the 5.56x45 mm cartridge, military loadings were kept comfortably below max pressures due to environmental concerns. There are now powders that supposedly aren't as temperature sensitive as the old timers, but one wonder just how temperature stable they may be.

 

[Nevada Ed]

A .223 round is called a Varmint round

because it is a lot less expensive and has a lot less recoil than a

30-06 round.

Next question.

 

[LVSteve]

One of the big issues with bullpups is the ejection pattern. The left handed can't use a rifle set up for a right hander and t'other way around. While not a really big deal by itself, one can't swap the rifle to the other side if that's where the cover is. SFAIK, there's only one example that ejects downward.

The only bullpups I've handled have been the AUG and the Tavor. The latter stuck me as a tank chock doubling as a infantry weapon.

You probably have a point on the barrel length. I'm kinda curious how those high pressure rounds work after they're been sitting in tropical/desert sunlight for awhile. Until the 5.56x45 mm cartridge, military loadings were kept comfortably below max pressures due to environmental concerns. There are now powders that supposedly aren't as temperature sensitive as the old timers, but one wonder just how temperature stable they may be.

There are forward ejecting bullpups, the FN FS2000 (AKA The Combat Tuna) and the KelTec RFB are two I can name. The Springfield Hellion seems to have a 2 o'clock/10 o'clock ejection pattern depending on right/left setup.

As for the hotrod powder, I had not considered that might be a problem. That is the why firearms are so interesting, the constant search for the ideal involves chemistry, physics, materials science, engineering, and ergonomics.

 

[DWalt]

Cuz it shoots little bullets at high velocity............Any rifle can be a varmit rifle/caliber.........If you have said rile in hand when you see the varmit

Absolutely true. In my younger days I shot lots of varmints with a scoped and sporterized 98 Mauser in its original 8x57 chambering. And I had a friend who used a .270 handloaded with light bullets for varmint shooting. A varmint rifle is whatever rifle in any caliber you use to shoot varmints with.

 

[AJ]

Absolutely true. In my younger days I shot lots of varmints with a scoped and sporterized 98 Mauser in its original 8x57 chambering. And I had a friend who used a .270 handloaded with light bullets for varmint shooting. A varmint rifle is whatever rifle in any caliber you use to shoot varmints with.

Had a M98 that someone had tried to sporterize. Cleaned it up and it was my plinker back them, ammo was $.04 a round. Wish I had kept it.

 

[Echo40]

Point is you posted you never killed any varmints with .223/5.56. Have you seen a dead enemy killed by M-16?

One would presume that the lack of any service credentials listed on one's profile would make the answer to such a macabre line of questioning readily apparent.

One would likewise presume that one might refrain from asking such questions of a civilian, as if they had indeed witnessed such a thing, then it would most likely be traumatic.
After all, civilians don't often witness such things, much less enjoy thinking/talking about them when they have.

 

[scattershot]

.223/5.56 is a dandy varmint cartridge. Flat shooting and speedy, it will vaporize prairie dogs and the like, but I’m with you on its use as a military cartridge. I understand that weight of spare ammo was a primary concern, and the bullets were designed to tumble via rifling twist.As someone pointed out above, incapacitating an enemy is preferable to killing him, since it takes a couple of his buddies out of the fight, too. Of course, the military is not known for stellar thinking when it comes to ordnance. Single shot rifles held sway in the military long after repeaters were available, because the brass thought soldiers would waste ammunition.

 

[old tanker]

The villain in the 7.62 NATO debacle was one Col. Rene Studler. He had "not invented here" disease worse than almost any other human in history.

Bingo!!!

He was aided and abetted by those who lied to Congress about the M14 being cheaper and easier to build because Springfield could use much of the existing tooling for the M1 Garand. Besides, winning at Camp Perry was more important than winning across the Fulda gap.

 

[TXBryan]

In spite of being used as a military caliber the 5.56/.223 is NOT generally an adequate cartridge for large game, usually defined as Deer and larger. Any rifle cartridge which is deemed inadequate for large game is classified as small game/varmint/target ammunition. It is just that simple.

The military intention of shooting people is to eliminate them as a threat and to make them a liability to the enemy, NOT specifically kill them. Wounded soldiers have to be cared for. Dead ones do not. The same applies to use of firearms for self-defense, or should. To incapacitate the assailant and end the threat, NOT to kill!

Boy; fully agree with all of this! I personally believe the .22 center-fires should generally not be used on deer. However, there are LOADS of whitetail deer killed in Central Texas every year by .22 center-fires - especially the .223. No data on how many are not found or expire from wounds later on. I suspect it's a fair number. The ones we tend to hear about are dropped where they stood.

Just as the .410 bore shotgun should rightly be considered an expert's hunting firearm and yet is too often relegated to inexperienced youth because of low recoil, the .223 is also considered a "kids" deer rifle around here. It's unfortunate.

No doubt in experienced or expert hands the .223 is perfectly capable of clean kills on 150 pound deer it seems a poor choice for 14 year olds. My "favorite" Texas deer rifle is a .257 Roberts with 100 grain bullets at around 2850 fps. Very adequate; yet I tend to hunt in the evenings with one of my .264 Win Mags simply because sufficient experience indicates a higher chance of DRT deer or at least piling up in my field of view. I'd rather not track wounded deer by flashlight - even for a few dozen yards.

I am a certified Texas Hunter Safety Instructor with Texas Parks & Wildlife and can't tell you how many sub-18 year olds indicate they'll be hunting with a center-fire .22 caliber rifle during our classes. If I was the ruler of the galaxy I would probably mandate .25 caliber minimums - but that's just me.

Bryan

 

[Dave Haynes]

I used to watch Nung Mike Force troopers heading out. An M1 rifle and clips all over their body, slipped onto shirt pocket flaps, several on the rifle sling, a few bandoleers and the web pocket belt. They wanted as much as they could carry. The M16 7 20's in a bandoleer was the answer.

Eskimos would "Get the big gun" when confronted with a Polar Bear. It was a 30-30. Skin out a 200lb Mule Deer that has taken one in the engine room with a 30-30, if it hits a rib going in it will blow a hole as big as your fist. Worst gruesome dead guy in VN? A Buddhist Monk killed with 5 gallons of petrol. Read "Blackhawk Down" and learn that Skinnies would take 3-4 M16 hits and just flinch.
It is more about carrying ammo and easier training than anything else. People who had never shot a weapon will be hitting everything. The average Doggie with a M14 couldn't hit his butt with both hands.

 

[scoobysnacker]

On a sort of related topic- the Russians (Soviets) developed the 5.45x39 rd, stepping down in caliber from the more commonly known 7.62x39. I think the purpose was for the same reason as the 5.56; lighter, easier for the soldier to carry more ammo.

Anyone know definitively what they're using in the current Ukraine conflict? I know, a bit of everything... but are they finding one to be more effective vs the other?

 

[DWalt]

Had a M98 that someone had tried to sporterize. Cleaned it up and it was my plinker back them, ammo was $.04 a round. Wish I had kept it.

The sporterized 98 I mentioned did pretty well on various small varmints out to beyond 100 yards. I picked it up cheap when I was in college, but I added the scope later myself and also had the bolt handle bent. Whoever did it knew his business. Barrel was nicely turned and polished, a good peep sight installed, and a good blue job. It had a perfect bore. The only thing I really didn't like was it had one of those fancy "Hollywood-type" stocks with lots of curves and a high cheekpiece. But I left that alone. It was a nice rifle, one of those I sort of wish I had kept. I never shot anything with it other than varmints and paper targets. Nothing wrong with an 8mm.

 

[John Patrick]

One of the big issues with bullpups is the ejection pattern. The left handed can't use a rifle set up for a right hander and t'other way around. While not a really big deal by itself, one can't swap the rifle to the other side if that's where the cover is. SFAIK, there's only one example that ejects downward.

The only bullpups I've handled have been the AUG and the Tavor. The latter stuck me as a tank chock doubling as a infantry weapon.

You probably have a point on the barrel length. I'm kinda curious how those high pressure rounds work after they're been sitting in tropical/desert sunlight for awhile. Until the 5.56x45 mm cartridge, military loadings were kept comfortably below max pressures due to environmental concerns. There are now powders that supposedly aren't as temperature sensitive as the old timers, but one wonder just how temperature stable they may be.

FWIW, the ADI supplied Hogdon powders are temperature insensitive. I tested several in below freezing temps and in near 100* temps, letting them cool in the shade in the winter, heat up in the sun in the summer. There was no discernable velocity change over my chronograph. More pressure = more velocity, so they were stable, as they were designed to be. ADI = Australian Defense Industries.

 

[John Patrick]

Fwiw, while I prefer to use a larger caliber bullet than .223" for deer, imo, with proper bullet selection the 223 Remington is adequate for large feral hogs, and for the much more lightly built whitetail deer. TSX and Federal's 62gr Fusion are two bullets that would are great.

The AR platform with thermal scope or night vision scope (second choice) is a great night time hog and predator tool since many times several, even many, targets present themselves on the stalk or coming to the call. I prefer the 6.8 SPC for hogs, but my son has killed more than his share with the 223. Coyotes and foxes at night with thermal scope on a 223/5.56 AR are a perfect match, imo. I like 50gr VMax's for predators.

 

[Barbarosa99]

223/ 556

Something that has always completely puzzled me is how .223 Remington and especially 5.56x45 NATO are both commonly designated as "Varmint Cartridges" despite the fact that they were designed for the purpose of and long since used for warfare between man.

Honestly, folks insist that .223/5.56 is both irresponsible as well as inhumane to use for Deer Hunting, yet trust it implicitly for self-defense. How does that make any sense at all?
So it can punch through soft body armor like it's nothing while retaining enough energy to inflict lethal amounts of tissue damage to a fully grown adult soldier, but White Tail Bucks will just shrug it off and dash away never to be found?

Furthermore, I imagine that only the absolute largest of "Vamints" could possibly be shot with a .223 without being absolutely eviscerated by it. Granted, I've never gone Varmint Hunting with .223, so maybe I'm dead wrong and you can actually shoot a Squirrel with a .223 without completely destroying it, but based on what I've seen and heard, it would seem too powerful.

So I'd really appreciate some information as well as explanation as to how 5.56 is both a Varmint Cartridge and a reliable Manstopper at the same time, as that would seem to be a contradiction.
Have I been completely mislead in regards to 5.56 being a powerful cartridge? I know it isn't outstanding in the greater scheme of things, but it confuses me that a cartridge with energy on par with .44 Magnum could be designated as a mere Varmint Cartridge, especially when it has been used in Warfare for the past 60 years, and is only now being replaced for seemingly no other reason than body armor which can stop it has become more common on the battlefield.

Simply bullet selection!

 

[BB57]

They are slow to change with good reason.
Procurement contracts are long-term agreements with all kinds of conditions and delivery schedules. Massive amounts of research and testing are involved. Potential stowage problems in armored vehicles and aircraft have to be considered, and any structural alterations required let out for bids.
Nothing involved in dealing with the government generally, and the military specifically, is easy.
Think in terms of years, not months.

I think it would be wise to simply adopt the 7.62X39 AK-47 round. All the R & D has already been done, and the world is awash with it already. Captured stocks could be used.
Lower receiver and magazine changes would be required, but it might be worth it. And the 7.62X39 round is a proven performer.

They are slow to change when it suits them. 7.62 NATO is a great example.

The US forced it down NATO’s throat rather than adopting the much better thought out .280 British or the compromise .280/30 (which could be made on existing .30-06 tooling). Then just 7 years after the 7.62x51 and M14 entered service the US military was switching horses with the M16 and 5.56x45.

——

But my concern isn’t the length of time it takes the US military to change a service cartridge, it’s the fact that nearly 80 years on, they still fail to grasp the fundamental nature of a good assault rifle cartridge.

They had a shot to get it right with an 6.8mm intermediate cartridge, but once again they’ve let themselves get drawn off track with an over emphasis on armor penetration which is driving them away from the essential need for an assault rifle round to not just be effective, but also to be controllable in full auto in a select fire weapon.