.223 is it a good defense round?

[dennis40x]

Originally posted by Jellybean:
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.

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.

 

[Frizzman]

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.

 

[Marshall 357]

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!!!

 

[Jellybean]

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.

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.

 

[NFrameFred]

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.

 

[RobO]

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.

 

[David Sinko]

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

 

[G-Mac]

Originally posted by David Sinko:
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!

 

[animalmother]

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.

 

[perpster]

Originally posted by David Sinko:
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

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

 

[RGAmos]

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.

 

[SmithNut]

Originally posted by zercool:
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!

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

 

[Jellybean]

we'll see just how many of them stop to pick up their wounded comrades...

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.

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.

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.

 

[YeshuaIsa53]

Originally posted by jbouwens:
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.

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

 

[Spotteddog]

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.

 

[sub-moa]

Originally posted by Jellybean:

we'll see just how many of them stop to pick up their wounded comrades...

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.

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.

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.

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...

 

[Jellybean]

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?

 

[sub-moa]

Originally posted by Jellybean:
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

 

[dennis40x]

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.

 

[240grJHP]

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.