5.56 very poor round for stopping power

I don't have any experience shooting people with a 5.56, but from my experience shooting deer with one the only way you'll drop one is with a headshot. Shot one in the head and it curved around her skull and came out her throat. She was dead before she hit the ground and didn't hardly have any blood left in her. Got a body shot one, and while it took out his vitals, the entrance wound was so small we couldn't find a blood trail and just lucked into finding him.
 
I wouldn't want to get hit by a slingshot, let alone a 5.56. I have an AR as my go to, SHTF long arm, and am quite confident in it thank you very much. It also has this thing called a magazine, which allows for quick follow up shots, as appropriate.

GS
 
No matter the caliber or weapon, no one bullet type is a cure all, for all circumstances. You get one bullet for every situation, whether it's for open field, jungle, arctic, urban, day or night. Same bullet if your enemy is wearing pajamas, body armor, or in a car, or a building. One size does not fit all, but the fmj is most likely the best compromise. Also remember the Soviets replaced the AK-47 with the AK-74.
 
That's why the 300 BO came about. And that's why a shotgun is better for home defense.

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk
 
We sometimes forget that the military need is different than ours where we tend to want instant incapacitation.....

This is the salient point, one that is routinely sidestepped in all these internet conversations. Most people are so obsessed with having the exact same stuff the "operators" use, that they miss the fact that their mission,support, skill, etc is vastly different than that of the average civilian just trying to defend the homestead.
We have the luxury of selectively carrying as much (or little) bulk and weight as we care to, while we're walking in and around our homes, and need only walk back to the closet for more ammo, while the miltary doesn't have this advantage.
If I'm on foot and miles away from any support, I'd rather still have some "puny,ineffective" 5.56 ammo in my lightweight weapon, than find myself prematurely out of ammo in my heavier, harder-hitting 7.62 rifle.
As the Russians are quoted as saying, "quantity has a quality all it's own". ;)
 
Last edited:
marathonrunner wrote:
Hey Guys, please read the following article. It pretty much states the 5.56 is basically a worthless round that is a poor shooting platform for stopping the bad guy. It sites [sic] many examples of soldiers in battle who had to shoot the bad guy 5 sometimes 6 times before they would go down. Maybe I should have went with .308 for SHTF but this article really concerns me.

If you want to be sure of a one-shot "put down" you should have gone for a .50 BMG.

You can see from the title that the author of the cited article was not writing a research paper, but a piece of propaganda in support of his beliefs. The question of whether the .223 or .308 is "better" has raged for more than half a century now. There is no absolute answer for all scenarios in all environments. You, as the buyer, have to decide what is the best choice for you in the situations where you are likely to have to buy it, maintain it and use it.

But let's move beyond the hyperbole and understand that military ammunition is required to be full metal jacket under the Hague Convention. While this has a humane component to it, the principal reason is that in the context of a European land war in the 19th or 20th Century, the objective of small arms fire was to not produce a wound that would immediately kill the target, but to produce a casualty. The reason for this was that if you shot an opponent and they died immediately, one man was taken out of the fight and his comrades would be inspired to avenge him. If you shot an opponent and severely wounded him, his comrades had to attend him and evacuate him from the battlefield effectively removing the wounded man and three others who would have to care for and evacute the wounded from the conflict. In the wars the Hauge Convention attempted to address, removing many men from the fight was more important than killing one.

So, the full metal jacket .223 round as well as the full metal jacket .308 round are intended to wound, not kill the target. So, battlefield reports of opponents requiring more than one shot to be killed is the very performance the drafters of the Hague Convention were attempting to achieve.



In a self-defense situation, you will - hopefully - not be using GI ball ammunition, but will have factory loaded ammuniton with controlled expansion bullets designed to produce debilitating wounds in the target, so comparisons of battlefield lethality using full metal jacket ammunition with self-defense ammuniton is essentially meaningless. As such, most people would find the .223 Remington to be sufficient for most of their needs most of the time - remember, neither round is going to be sufficient for all needs all of the time.

And if you are truly in a SHTF situation, then you not only have to use your rifle, but feed it and maintain it.

What is the prevalence of ammunition? After all, an AR-15 or AR-10 is nothing more than a crude club when you run out of ammunition. Go to the stores around you and see how much .223 is on the shelves versus .308. Once you run out of ammunition in whatever SHTF situation you envision, you will have to take ammunition from the houses of the dead or the corpses of your opponents and it would help to be carrying a gun that can digest what you're going to scavenge.

What is the prevalence of repair/replacement parts? Same question, go to the stores and look at how many AR-15s are on the shelves versus AR-10s since they are going to become the source of your spare parts or replacement rifles in whatever SHTF scenarion you envision.

With all things considered, if you feel you made the wrong choice with .223, then you can sell it and use the proceeds towards an AR-10 and then you'll be more comfortable you're ready for whatever awaits.

In my own case, I made this sort of analysis forty years ago and bought two Ruger Mini-14s (one as a spare) and loaded my own hunting loads with 60 grain hollow point bullets for harvesting the local wildlife because I figure in any SHTF situation, feeding myself and my family is going to be a much more immediate concern than getting into a fire-fight with some renegade and while the .223 makes harvesting the local deer a little more challenging than a .308, it doesn't mess up the carcases of smaller animals - as I said, you make the choice that best addresses the scenarios you think you will encounter.
 
...Well known story (probably happened more than once) from Korea where a lieutenant tried to force an enlisted soldier not in his chain of command to "trade" his Thompson for the officer's M1 Carbine...

Interesting.

My grandfather commanded an infantry regiment in Korea. He taught me how to shoot. He also taught me how to be an officer, so I know that had he been aware of anything like that happening with one of his officers, he would have relieved them.

My father (veteran of WWII, Korea and Vietnam) wouldn't carry anything other than an M1 (or later M2) Carbine. The round's supposed lack of stopping power didn't keep him from killing Japanese in Burma or Viet Cong in Vietnam.
 
I don't know if this is data or evidence or anecdotal or anything. I do know that just a few years ago the entire Washington DC area was scared to fill up with gas. A teen ager shooting from the trunk of an old Impala KILLED 11 of 13 people he shot with a .223. 11 of 13...1 shot KILLS!
 
I don't know if this is data or evidence or anecdotal or anything. I do know that just a few years ago the entire Washington DC area was scared to fill up with gas. A teen ager shooting from the trunk of an old Impala KILLED 11 of 13 people he shot with a .223. 11 of 13...1 shot KILLS!

They actually had at least 17 kills and ten injuries. There may have been more. At least one wounding was with a pistol. The adult involved was trained ex-military and served in the Gulf War.
 
Interesting.

My grandfather commanded an infantry regiment in Korea. He taught me how to shoot. He also taught me how to be an officer, so I know that had he been aware of anything like that happening with one of his officers, he would have relieved them.

My father (veteran of WWII, Korea and Vietnam) wouldn't carry anything other than an M1 (or later M2) Carbine. The round's supposed lack of stopping power didn't keep him from killing Japanese in Burma or Viet Cong in Vietnam.

Your grandfather must have been "decisively engaged" quite a bit! Not many field grade officers get trigger time when it counts.

Seems like every veteran has plenty of, "this gun works, this one does not" stories, and they're not the same across the board.
 
As someone new to AR rifles and the technical details of ballistics, I would like to say that I found this entire thread very informative and also somewhat entertaining. And, isn't that what a good forum should be?

For those of you who have hashed this subject out for years, just remember that there are always new folks coming in, and thread subjects will continue to reappear over and over. That is the nature of the beast. But, it doesn't mean that the thread is useless.

Thanks everyone who posted on this thread.
doug86
 
I'm in Mexico at the moment, and I notice there's been one heck of a lot of people killed down here with 5.56.....(and with .45, 9mm, and 7.62) they don't really seem to be that picky, and most of it's close quarters.
 
If you want to be sure of a one-shot "put down" you should have gone for a .50 BMG.

You can see from the title that the author of the cited article was not writing a research paper, but a piece of propaganda in support of his beliefs. The question of whether the .223 or .308 is "better" has raged for more than half a century now. There is no absolute answer for all scenarios in all environments. You, as the buyer, have to decide what is the best choice for you in the situations where you are likely to have to buy it, maintain it and use it.

But let's move beyond the hyperbole and understand that military ammunition is required to be full metal jacket under the Hague Convention. While this has a humane component to it, the principal reason is that in the context of a European land war in the 19th or 20th Century, the objective of small arms fire was to not produce a wound that would immediately kill the target, but to produce a casualty. The reason for this was that if you shot an opponent and they died immediately, one man was taken out of the fight and his comrades would be inspired to avenge him. If you shot an opponent and severely wounded him, his comrades had to attend him and evacuate him from the battlefield effectively removing the wounded man and three others who would have to care for and evacute the wounded from the conflict. In the wars the Hauge Convention attempted to address, removing many men from the fight was more important than killing one.

So, the full metal jacket .223 round as well as the full metal jacket .308 round are intended to wound, not kill the target. So, battlefield reports of opponents requiring more than one shot to be killed is the very performance the drafters of the Hague Convention were attempting to achieve.



In a self-defense situation, you will - hopefully - not be using GI ball ammunition, but will have factory loaded ammuniton with controlled expansion bullets designed to produce debilitating wounds in the target, so comparisons of battlefield lethality using full metal jacket ammunition with self-defense ammuniton is essentially meaningless. As such, most people would find the .223 Remington to be sufficient for most of their needs most of the time - remember, neither round is going to be sufficient for all needs all of the time.

And if you are truly in a SHTF situation, then you not only have to use your rifle, but feed it and maintain it.

What is the prevalence of ammunition? After all, an AR-15 or AR-10 is nothing more than a crude club when you run out of ammunition. Go to the stores around you and see how much .223 is on the shelves versus .308. Once you run out of ammunition in whatever SHTF situation you envision, you will have to take ammunition from the houses of the dead or the corpses of your opponents and it would help to be carrying a gun that can digest what you're going to scavenge.

What is the prevalence of repair/replacement parts? Same question, go to the stores and look at how many AR-15s are on the shelves versus AR-10s since they are going to become the source of your spare parts or replacement rifles in whatever SHTF scenarion you envision.

With all things considered, if you feel you made the wrong choice with .223, then you can sell it and use the proceeds towards an AR-10 and then you'll be more comfortable you're ready for whatever awaits.

In my own case, I made this sort of analysis forty years ago and bought two Ruger Mini-14s (one as a spare) and loaded my own hunting loads with 60 grain hollow point bullets for harvesting the local wildlife because I figure in any SHTF situation, feeding myself and my family is going to be a much more immediate concern than getting into a fire-fight with some renegade and while the .223 makes harvesting the local deer a little more challenging than a .308, it doesn't mess up the carcases of smaller animals - as I said, you make the choice that best addresses the scenarios you think you will encounter.

This is probably the best reply of them all. I was thinking why would anybody want a .22 caliber round when they can go with a much more effective round like the .308 but evidentily everything mentioned above makes sense to stick to 5.56
 
Although I have an AR-15 that shoots the 5.56/.223 I prefer the .30 for actual defensive work. I have a mini-30 that shoots the 7.62x39 and a SIG MCX in 300 BLK that covers any close in "tactical" situations.

JFE0T5w.jpg


Wn1hpAC.png


For longer range engagements I have a Ruger SR762:

J17lrnn.jpg


So I have guns that can use any of the typical ammo that is out there, should scrounging or scavenging for additional ammo be required. For the Ruger SR762 I bought a 1280 rd case of 7.62 South African Military ammo in sealed pouches. 300 BLK would be harder to find in a SHTF situation but I have about 1000 rounds in stock for that as well.

As for 5.56/223 I expect abundant supplies to be available so I don't really stock up on that.

digiroc
 
Last edited:
This is probably the best reply of them all. I was thinking why would anybody want a .22 caliber round when they can go with a much more effective round like the .308 but evidentily everything mentioned above makes sense to stick to 5.56
Not really. No one is trying to wound anyone. The point is to kill. By now everyone has special units just for treating wounded. This is why there are doctors, surgeons, hospitals, nurses. No one is getting pulled of the line to tend to the wounded. Every major army has dedicated staff just for this. They are taught and trained just for this. That's why there's a medic in every unit.

Every major military, including none NATO have gone to smaller calibers because in close proximity there isn't much for a difference. If it was that much of a difference you wouldn't have wounded soldiers in WW1 and WW2. everyone shot(excluding limbs) would be dead. In fact the Germans and Russians shot each other with exploding bullets to better the odds of killing.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top