Marshall 357
Member
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.
.223 is it a good defense round?
- Thread starter Marshall 357
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
wheelgun28
Member
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
Military rifles are not intended to kill the enemy
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!
I'm not a caliber bigot, though ... I don't want to be in front of ANY round!
ChuckS1
US Veteran
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.
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.
Smith357
US Veteran
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.
Douglas Haig
Member
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.
minuteman
US Veteran
ChuckS1, please explain how lack of weapons training contributed to the PFC Linch 'debacle'. I thought they just took a wrong turn.
reerc
Member
My answer to EVERY "caliber war" thread.
geoff40
Member
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.
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.
GatorFarmer
Member
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.
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 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.
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.
GatorFarmer
Member
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 bastard 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
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 bastard 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
Spotteddog
Member
.308/7.62 will just go through more.
But it doesn't go to a different place?
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?
sub-moa
US Veteran
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.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,755
- Reaction score
- 7,157
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.
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.
