I felt so "under gunned" holding my M4A1...

Yes, we've all heard it regurgitated a bazillion times...

"its all about shot placement" or "thousands of dead Viet Cong cant be wrong".....blah blah blah..

The things they forget to tell you is...they also had the "Ma Deuce"...and they also "sprayed and prayed" the jungle...

They also forget to mention that the majority of our allies over there with us were using the L1A1 (308) or 308 variant...and we also used the M102 Howitzer, and the 7.62 (308) Gatlin guns.. ....yet some still say the M16 is the one that made the difference....

When I retired from the Military, I told myself I would never own a puny 223/556...because I already have a 22LR in the closet, no need to buy a 22 that shoots faster 22caliber bullets...which is all the 223/556 is....a fast 22LR.



22LR (left), 556 (middle), 308 (right)






Now, I know this thread may cause controversy....but these are MY feelings of the 223/556.


I retired, saved my pennies...and bought this Falkor 308 on sunday, and I couldnt be happier with my decision.
...and I cant help but wonder...what if my Military brethren had this gun(308), instead of the M16 during our "conflict"?.
...would we have won decisively?

No we wouldn't. I was there. It was not a matter of firepower. It was a lack of political will...

__________________
NRA Life, COTEP 640

Absolutely no disaggreement there....

Maybe I should have said.."when using issued firearms, would we of done better with a 308, rather than a 5.56?"

....I think so

I hear ya, when I went in what was on my mind was Uncle Elmer's writings about how the round was good for coyotes, tops. One of my platoon mates who was from down South called the M16 his varmint rifle.

But it makes a lot more sense for general anti-personnel use, if not for shooting through cover or way out past Fort Mudge. Don't forget the tumble and fragment effect, which usually does more damage than hunting type hollow points. The fact you can have a heckuva lot more ammo per pound is nothing to sneeze at either. Then there's the military theory that wounding an enemy takes more people out of the fight than instantly killing them.

A while back I read a revealing account of small arms effectiveness, not from an infantryman, but from a medic with much sandbox experience in various locales, with various types of units. He had treated quite a lot of folks on the other side as well as our own troops. He said the M855 tended to do more damage than the 7.62x39, due to the velocity and tumbling effects. He also mentioned that he didn't treat very many people who had been shot with the 7.62x51, and IIRC only one hit with the .50, the reason being "You don't treat dead people".

__________________
TEAM DNF

When I was a crime scene investigator I saw several people who were shot by this round. It can be quite effective. Exit wounds were usually large and often the person didn't survive the first shot. In one case a SWAT officer shot a guy who was armed with a shotgun and standing in a hallway. His round passed through the suspects right forearm and into his body, killing him. Much of his forearm was sprayed across the ceiling and walls of the hallway in tiny pieces.

The tumbling of the 5.56mm round was a big controversy when the M16 was introduced into the Viet Nam conflict. IIRC, the initial twist of the M16 rifling was 1 in 14. After the "court of public opinion" decried the "terrible wounds" caused by the tumbling of the M16 rounds, the US Army changed the barrel twist to a much faster twist, making the bullet "more stable" so tumbling would not occur.

It is very interesting that the "court of public opinion" was a group in Sweden which was publicizing the devastating affects of the 5.56mm rounds in the Viet Nam war. They succeeded in causing enough controversy to cause the US Army to make the round more stable. It has been documented that the Swedish group was setup and funded by the Russian KGB.

When the Russians introduced their AK74 rifle and round, the 5.45mm round was specifically designed to tumble, the Swedish group said nothing about the lethality of those rounds. The 5.45mm round tumbled because the center of mass was behind the center of pressure. This was accomplished by having the lead in the bullet located at the rear of the projectile.

__________________
Bill

If you're looking at bullet size then you're still way off. The 30 caliber is the original poodle shooter. Remember what was prior to that? The 45-70. When the military switched to 30 cal most people had the same opinion as you do about the 556.

Spray the forest doesn't make the bullet any bigger. Whether it aimed or a lucky shot, neither the bullet nor the energy changes. Still a 556. And ..... I may not have been around for Vietnam but I don't recall too many GIs carrying around the Ma deuce. Gatling guns were also not carried. Both those were mounted to vehicles. No one on patrol through the jungle carried a Ma deuce or a Gatling gun and neither of those have any direct or indirect effect on the performance of the 556.

Majority of our allies were "bullied" into using the 7.62NATO. The FAL was originally designed for the 280 British round (7x43). All allies agreed that it was the way to go and many set up machines to start producing the FAL and the 280. US stepped in an nixed it. Mainly due to already having a large supply of 30 cal projectiles. There is more controversy to it but basically some people didn't care what came out as long as it was American. Didn't matter if it was better or not. To prove that point the US demanded a caliber at least equal in performance to the 30-06 but made and settled for the 7.62NATO. Other entities had too much invested in the 30 Cal to give in. Performance wise the 280 had almost the same muzzle velocity as the 303 and 30-06. At 100 yards it had penetration 2 inches less than 30-06 and half inch more than 303. At 2000 (two thousand) yards the penetration was 1.5 inches more than 30-06. It had 2000 ft-lbs of energy and half the recoil of the 30-06.

Feeling have nothing to do with performance.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

^^^THIS^^^

Profound words here. Well stated my brother.

From a Vietnam veteran who trained with the M14, then carried the M16 in the field:

1. M14 rifle weighs over 10 lbs, while the M16A1 weighs just over 6 lbs.
2. 200 rounds of 5.56mm ammo weigh less than 80 rounds of 7.62NATO ammo.

Going out for a week of humping the boonies? Guess which one I prefer to carry.

YMMV.

By your logic a 308 is just a fast 30 carbine or 30-30. Stick with what makes you happy and there is no need to justify.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

I always thought the devastation of the bullet tumbling effect was an overrated myth. I heard stories when I was young about the M-16, that you could shoot a man in the right arm and the bullet might end up in the left arm. That was a little hard to believe even when I was a teenager and it seems like punching a hole all the way through the enemy and tearing a big exit hole would be pretty effective most of the time.

No military experience here, just going on the word of a friend who recently retired after 8 years of active duty and 17 years of reserve duty including several trips to Afghanistan and Iraq. His opinion is that the standard M193 round isn't very good, the M855 is a bit better, and if you're in a unit that can use non-mil-standard ammo, the 5.56 can be very effective. If he had his choice though, they'd use the 6.5 Grendel.

This subject comes up from time to time. First, I don't ever want to find myself at the wrong end of any 5.56 mm round. If you're using a 5.56 mm rifle, it means that your adversaries are farther away than knife-fighting distance so immediate incapacitation would not be the issue as it would be in defending your home against an intruder while armed with the handgun of your choice.

Catching a round that's moving or at least leaves the gun at 3200 FPS, is going to do massive damage. As with any caliber choice, there are other factors involved. For a given weight load, a GI can carry 700 5.56 mm rounds or 400 7.62 rounds, ( I admit I could be way off on the actual ratio). I'm a Vietnam veteran. For me, I'd rather carry more ammo. I often wonder whatever happened to the starched-shirt idiot in government who decided an M-14 was an effective rifle on full auto.

I have definite opinions from 50 years of hunting game from coyotes to bison. Have shot seen shot well over 200 head of game and autopsied many. That aside I think this is the tread to tell the experience of a man I knew. He was in Nam and got in a firefight with a Cong that was also shooting an M-16. Laying in a rice patty he was getting sprayed with water as the bullets were coming towards him. The Cong made a fatal mistake and the shooting stopped. His mates said he needed to go to the hospital but he did not why till he felt the back of his head. Most of it was missing. He had been shot between the eyes with a M-16 and did not even realize it in all the excitement. The bullet left a scar just above his nose and came apart. A fragment went under his skin and exited his temple leaving a scar. Another fragment traveled under his skin till it got to his ear then entered the brain cavity and blowing off the back of his head requiring a steel plate in his head the rest of his life. Fred became a local politician. When asked how much brain damage he had received his reply was, depends if you ask a Democrat or Republican. And interesting side note that not many had heard till his funeral several months ago, was that when he came home in a wheelchair to recover, he was stabbed in the chest at the airport he landed at, by an anti war protester. A tough old dude he was.

100% agree with you Tank...beautiful gun...

One of the things I have studied over the years is the difference in field effectiveness between the .223 and 7.62x39. I have tons of first hand accounts of people putting a round of .223 on target and have seemingly no effect whatsoever... I have been able to find ZERO stories about the effectiveness of the 7.62x39.

A few off the top of my head...

Friend who was in Viet Nam was in a firebase that was being assaulted. He shot an enemy soldier three times at about 30 yards coming through the wire and the guy just kept coming. The guy next to him fire one shot hitting the guy in the head and he went right down. After the battle my friend went out to see what happened and when he rolled the guy over there where three holes coming out the guys back...

LEO who was involved in the Carl Draga shooting in northern NH. He and several officers were searching a wooded area when Draga fired on them hitting this officer in the upper left thigh. The officer said "I just started hopping up and down on my good leg in denial that I had just been shot with more bullets bouncing in the dirt around me..."

In that same incident a F&G officer was following Draga but lost sight of him when Draga's car went under a railroad bridge. Then the F&G truck came out of the underpass Draga was waiting with his AR and fired on the officer. The bullet went through the windshield hit the officers badge and stopped...

1986 Miami FBI shootout... Mirales was running up behind Gordon McNeil and took a bullet in his left foream. Bullet stopped in his forearm. If that had been a 7.62 it would have gone straight through his chest. McNeil was later shot through the neck. Bullet bounced off his spine and down into his chest temporarily paralyzing him. A 7.62 would have severed the spine. Orrantia across the street had a .223 bullet come through the dashboard of his vehicle and drop into the console...the 7.62 would have probably killed him. If Platt had been using a MINI30 instead of a MINI14 there would have been 3-4 more dead agents than the two that there were.

With 7.62x39 I've spoken to several people who have been hit with that round. One in the leg, one in the arm, one in the chest and one guy took three rounds from his knee to his chest. In all cases they said they were flopped to the ground. In many other accounts I have read the exact same thing...you are going down. You may get back up, you may not die, but you are going down.

A friend's son is in Special Forces. Before he got his beret he was in Afghanistan assigned to a remote firebase. His unit killed 130+ during his his deployment. They were not overly impressed with the current issue ammo... That said a SF Unit that was with them for a while left them a pallet of 75 gr HP ammo...he said that stuff worked MUCH better than the 62 grain penetrator ammo especially on shots over 200 yards when often a enemy at that range would be wounded and run off.

I have several M4s and all are loaded with 75s. I also have several 7.62x39s and while not as accurate as the M4s I have a lot more confidence in that round than the .223....

Bob

"It is very interesting that the "court of public opinion" was a group in Sweden which was publicizing the devastating affects of the 5.56mm rounds in the Viet Nam war. They succeeded in causing enough controversy to cause the US Army to make the round more stable."

There were no humanitarian reasons behind changing the rifling twist from 1:12 to 1:7. It was because that the decision was made to adopt the M855 round and abandon the M193 round in the interest of ammunition commonality. The M855 was originally developed for use in the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (Minimi), and used a new SS109 bullet which was 62 grains and somewhat longer than the 55 grain M193 bullet. The SS109 bullet will not stabilize in the slow 1:12 twist, so starting with the M16A2, the 1:12 twist barrel was replaced with a faster 1:7 twist barrel. It would not have been necessary to quicken the twist that much, but it was found that the companion tracer round to the M855, the M856, had an even longer bullet which did not stabilize at any lower twist rate.

My friend's dad. Fought in the Balkan wars. Shot 5 times in the chest with a 7.62x39. Laid in the field for 2 days. Was found barely alive when one side came to collect the dead. Today he is 95%. Has lost feeling in his fingers and has 5 scars from the bullets.

Plenty of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were shot by 7.62x39 and survived.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I probably don't have much to add to this discussion but after seeing that picture of the 22lr next to the 223/556 it reminded me of this article on TheFirearmsBlog site called .22lr vs. .223 rem. At the very end of the article they have some interesting pics and compare it with a 7.62

[Guest Post] .22 LR vs. .223 Rem. - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog

__________________
Ephesians 6 (Armor of God)

As with defensive handguns...killing isn't the object...immediate incapacitation is. If you shoot someone and they keep on shooting at you till they die you have a major problem. If you shoot someone and they flop and live that is a good thing.

It is also my understanding that one of the major driving forces behind the faster twist rate was the Army Marksmanship Unit... They were NOT pleased with the accuracy that was afforded by the 1/14 twist when match shooting at 600+ yards...

He never went into detail about how far he moved, how many he killed, or what he did after that. However, like I said before, plenty of US soldiers shot with 7.62x39 and continued to fight. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

In fact if you look it up there are first hand accounts of insurgents taking 50BMG, shrugging it off and continuing to fight. Only stopping when another one or two shots hit them.

Don't even have to go that far. Look up articles from the US. Plenty of odd gun related things happen that you'd think wouldn't happen. Man shot in the head with a 44 Magnum and lives. Cop shot in the head and face several times with a 45 and lives. That cop not only lived he continued to fight and killed his attacker with a 9mm to the head. You'd think that several 45acp to the head and face would kill just as well as a 9mm. A semi local gun range had a man shoot himself in the forehead with a 45 and he not only lived but was walking and talking when the medics arrived. He did die weeks later from complications from surgery

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

adrenaline tends to make the M-14 and even the M-60 much lighter-but point taken. Our enemy in SEA toted the AK-47 around-and it sure wasn't any light weight. The thing about it was that it worked under almost any conditions with very little maintenance, ie-it had a gas cylinder plug operating system like an M-14 and M-60.

I don't know anything about that - But the very earliest ARs had a 1:14 rifling twist. Early on, it was discovered that at very low temperatures, the 1:14 twist would not stabilize a 55 grain FMJ bullet adequately. So the twist was then increased to 1:12, which did. Bullet stability, among other factors, is also a function of air density which is affected by air temperature. Low temperatures = higher air density. Note that the earlier M193 round (55 grain bullet) works fine in a 1:7 twist barrel. One can fire M855 rounds in a 1:12 barrel, but accuracy suffers and bullet keyholing occurs. 5.56mm bullets DO NOT tumble in flesh, as so many seem to believe. But they do yaw and fragment.

We should adopt the .260 over the 5.56 IMO.

I believe it is everything we need and nothing we don't. Long range, hard hitting, light recoil.

Not a fan of the 5.56/.223, never have been.

I don't know how many have shot the carbine or the 45 cal. "Grease Gun" but I do not rate them as war weapons.

The .45 was good to 50 yards and the little .30's bad sights were good to 200 yards........
hitting a 300 yard target was luck........ and I don't know if the penetration would clear the skin ad muscle a that range ?

5.56 / 7.62
Ford / Chevy
9mm NATO / .45ACP
Plastic frame / Aluminum Frame / Steel Frame - pistols
Mary Anne / Ginger
TP roll positioned to feed over or under.
etc, etc, etc, etc.

People tend to hold strong positions on the aforementioned topics. Attempts at persuading them to abandon these positions usually makes them cling even tighter to their beliefs and defend said beliefs against any and all opposition (ie narrows their latitude of acceptance of anything that is counter to their core position.)

Congratulations on your new rifle, thank you for your service, may God bless you and your family.

__________________
Straight shootin'
SWCA#2439

I like that article..it shows a lot

Thank you...and well said.

99% of the time, it's all preference....and so is the last 1%

.

Sounds like "hot air"; should be, "cold air"...

There's been at least two twist-rate changes, starting from Stoner's original specification (anyone remember it? I don't), which afforded minimal stabilization to the M193 slug. That minimal stabilization was credited with spectacular terminal
effects, as the slug tumbled rapidly and violently, and that's the origin of the "hit him in the elbow and it came out the opposite shoulder" type stories.

During adoption trials, the Army fired the M16 at sub-zero temps and found the increased air density was enough to render the rifle unacceptably inaccurate (like 'pie-plate group' at 25 meters), and a faster twist rate was specified. Stoner disagreed with the change and warned this would reduce the lethality, but the Army wanted an "all climate" battle rifle, and the faster twist rate was implemented.

The A2 twist rate (anyone?) was adopted because someone in the Army hierarchy decided penetration of a steel pot (helmet) at 800 meters was essential...and the twist rate was spec'd for the M855 round.

The 5.56 is deadly at close range and in Viet Nam the amount of ammo you could carry was a significant advantage for the round. But we haven't fought a conflict at such close range in the 30 + years since! In the middle east, engagement ranges have generally been much greater and there the 5.56 just won't cut it with FMJ ammo./

__________________
Old paratrooper in NC

This ^^^^
Had nothing to do with the standard issue battle rifle.
I've never felt the need for a 7.62 for anything up to
200 pounds or so. The 5.56 will do just fine. It's cheaper,
and alot less weight which means i can carry more ammo.
There is a BIG difference between a 5.56 and a .22LR.
Don't fool yourself.
Just because they have the same diameter doesn't mean
much.


Chuck

__________________
They hold no Quarter

I was there too and I could not agree more!

__________________
Real men love cats!

I vote for 7.62 x 51. If I could carry a 50 cal. I would vote for it. 105mm is pretty effective as well if you have some cannon cockers to operate it.

__________________
Hue 68 noli me tangere

I'm not a fan of the M-16/AR rifles and it has little to do with the ammo. When I was in the Army (1972-75) we had the M-16A1 and it was a piece of poop. Oh, I'll admit it was quite accurate when it worked. The problem was getting it to work.
Failures to fire and jams were very common. Also saw quite a few that would fire when the safety was released without touching the trigger. Two of which went full auto and emptied the magazine. Seems like every time we went to the range that the majority of the time was spent with Safety Officers having to deal with one kind of malfunction or other on the firing line.
I, myself, had many FTFs and one fired when I hit the forward assist.
Every range day ended with at least a half dozen or more rifles being pulled from the firing line and getting sent off to the armorer.
I did not serve in Viet Nam. Could have, but somehow got lucky and ended up in Texas instead. However, I did serve with many Viet Nam veterans. Many of them said that if they were sent back, they'd junk their M-16A1 for either an AK or preferably a M-14 if they could find one.
Just to add, I never cared much for the varmint cartridge it shoots or the fact that it poops where it eats either.

Even today, I go to the range, see all the AR guys with their toys and it seems like every time there's at least one of them having trouble with their rifle.

Yeah, yeah, I know that supposedly all the bugs have been worked out of them by now. But my distrust for the M-16/AR rifles runs so deep that I don't own one and never will.

Nice summary of that procurement debacle. The French even had a .30 caliber cartridge in service that the US rejected. The 7.5x54 is a soft shooting round that might have been usable in an assault type weapon in the way that 7.62 NATO never could. I also have little doubt that the push for 7.62 NATO cost the US taxpayer money and the 5.56 "fix" cost lives in SEA.

^^^Priceless.

__________________
Release the Kraken

Interesting topic. OP, I like your new rifle!

From a civilian, non-military perspective, my opinion is the 5.56 is an excellent round for self-defense purposes.

The amount of energy created by the velocity is significant.

While it has extended range capabilities, my interest in it is relatively short range, say within 100 yards. Within that distance, I have a lot of confidence in the abilities of 5.56, within reason, of course.

In my younger days, I have shot jack rabbits with my AR15 using M193. The amount of damage created was sobering. Longest shots were maybe around 75 yards. Seeing the complete destruction left an impression on me.
On contrast, one of my buds was shooting a .22LR. It was difficult to find the entry wound.

In a military situation, I would think the 5.56 would be an excellent choice for close-quarter fighting. Longer-range engagement is where I would probably start wanting more fire power.

Bugs have been worked out. The problem you see at the range today is directly related to the fact that there are dozens of AR manufacturers and not all use quality parts. Add to that the typical AR owner's need to accessorize out the wazo with parts that are not necessarily quality made and you have the outcome that you see.

Let me put it a different way. If I constantly saw shooters having trouble with revolvers I'd think revolvers are junk. Of course I would be lumping in S&W/Colt/Ruger with Rohm, FIE Titan, cheap Spanish copies, and so on.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I was going to post pictures but they are not mine so I'll just post a link. This is from another forum. Guy uses AR 556 Cal on hogs. Check out his hunts. 100 yards out to 400 yard shots, 400# hogs, one shot DRT. He has about 40 pages worth of kills. If he can find them he posts the recovered bullets too.

.223 Barnes 70 Grain TSX Performance

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

It would not have mattered if we were carrying .458 Winchester Mag with 100 round magazines. The politics of the whole "conflict" was wrong headed, they didn't know or want to know how to do it right, it was a complete cluster from day one.

IMHO

We have 7.5 billion people in the world today and basically every country and every military had issued full power rifle rounds up to the 1950s. Then the Soviets started issuing their mid power 7.62 round and America later adopted the .556, and every other nation followed. Basically everyone uses the lower powered rifle rounds today and there has been a lot of fighting around the world in the last 70 years to see if they are better or not. I haven't heard of any countries switching back to the old full-power calibers for general issue.

As I indicated above....it isn't the cartridge, it's the bullet that is the problem. Getting hit with a JHP or even an expanding SP is a whole different thing than getting hit with a FMJ. It's just like the argument on which is better the 9mm or .45 ACP... In ball form the 9mm has the reputation as an unreliable "stopper". Put a 115 +P JHP in it and there are few complaints... Same reason that most F&G Departments don't allow the use of FMJ bullets for hunting...lack of energy transfer...

Bob

Interestingly, the 0.303 round was designed to tumble on impact in the Mk 7z version. Dave_n

When the 1st m16s were issued in RVN, they had some troubles.
No chrome lining, improper cleaning, no foreword assist and the
wrong powder in the ammo.
The problems were corrected and there was very little trouble with m16. AKs may do better in mud tests, m16 does better in
accuracy dept.
The m1 carbine was developed to replace the 1911 for a lot of
troops other than Riflemen. The m16 replaced the carbine, SMGs
BARs, and 1911s, with one rifle. I was there and didn't feel under
gunned. It was great for what it was intended for.

I was in Vietnam, high in the central highlands, the temps during the monsoon season could drop into the 30s at night and early morning. My M16 was a piece of junk, failure to fire, jamming fail to eject. our team had a mix of WWII rifles, and hand guns, I had a 12 gauge shotgun and a M1 carbine, we were effective in keeping the viet cong a bay and off the airfield. Our commander was unable to replace our weapons with ones that could be trusted. He unofficially accepted our use of unauthorized weapons.

__________________
Carpriver.

Few in our security detachment carried the 16-the oic had a Thompson. Shotguns, revolvers (didn't trust those old junker 1911's from WWII) a sawed off M-14 (Oh Wow!) and even a Swedish K. Nobody said a word.

See my post about my friend's experience with non-mil-standard 5.56 ammo over there

I like the .223 as a coyote rifle. Haven't used my ARs for anything else though a lot of folks use them for deer around here. I picked up a 6.8 SPC II upper a few weeks ago and thus far have been impressed. I plan to try it on hogs and deer next fall.

"Nice summary of that procurement debacle. The French even had a .30 caliber cartridge in service that the US rejected. The 7.5x54 is a soft shooting round that might have been usable in an assault type weapon in the way that 7.62 NATO never could."

Many may know that the 7.62x51 (7.62 NATO) cartridge is the direct descendant of the 1920 .300 Savage cartridge. In the closing days of WWII, the Army was already studying new rifle designs, and believed that the .300 Savage's performance and dimensions were what they needed. After considerable development it was decided that the neck of the .300 Savage was too short to support the bullet properly in full automatic fire. So they just lengthened the case neck slightly to create the 7.62 NATO case (AKA .308 Winchester). There was also a slight change in the case shoulder angle. The easiest way to make your own .300 Savage cases is to simply run a 7.62 or .308 case through a .300 Savage FL sizing die and trim the neck length. I have made hundreds of them.