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

[Echo40]

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.

 

[Alk8944]

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!

 

[Drm50]

I would say OP knows little about the 223/5.56 cartridge and even less about hunting. High Velocity 224 cartridges are basically for varmits. This because of their flat trajectories. Varmits are no generally eaten but usually are troublesome critters like prairie dogs, groundhogs, coyotes and such.
Squirrels are usually listed as game animals.
As far as deer gun, there is a big difference in the killing of an animal when it’s stationary and shooting same animal when pumped full of adrenaline and running full bore. Many a head of big game is shot with the lowly 22rf.
A 22 will drop a 1200lb steer right between its hoofs, if hit right. So sitting in a stand with a scoped rifle to take game coming out to feed doesn’t take a bazooka.
5.56 probably isnt the best military all around cartridge but it gets the job done. That’s probably going to be determined where the fighting is going to take place. Lot of differences between house to house and mountains.
Go rule is to use a cartridge that will get the job done under the worst conditions. Under favorable conditions almost any cartridge will do.

 

[ralph7]

Varmints are frequently shot at long distances and a caliber with a flat trajectory such as the 5.56 is perfect for this. If the varmint blows up, who cares, as it usually isn't eaten.
In warfare, a round that disables the enemy will take more manpower to come for aid, tying up those that would be a threat to the other side.

 

[Bald1]

I’ve often thought the same thing. An old hunting buddy of mine used to use a .223 during PA doe season near Punxy. It was a stainless stalker Browning A Bolt. He hand loaded 62gr boattail hollow points. I’ve seen him drop three in one day. Complete pass through behind the shoulder. Some dropped some left a blood trail a blind man could follow. My son has taken 4 Oklahoma hogs on one night with thermal vision and an AR in 5.56. Same old story. A good shot is a good shot. A bad shot is a bad shot.

 

[RMFnLA]

FWIW, the military is making great efforts to replace the 5.56 with something more robust…

 

[Miracle Man]

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.

You're kind of mashing things together a bit. First off there are many peels to this onion so to speak. 1. Varmits and Small game are two different things. Varmits - ground hogs, prairie dogs, gophers, crows and so on aren't considered table fare in most circles. Who cares if you blow them into a dozen pieces with a soft/hollow point bullet?

Small game - squirrels, rabbits, game birds, and so on you want to not damage a lot of the meat with high powered rifles no matter the caliber.

The military adopted the .223 with a lot of thought towards the weight of the ammo a solider is carrying. .308 or 30-06 weighs a lot more than 5.56 Soldiers can carry a lot more ammo.

Also the military uses FMJ, it doesn't "blow up" like pointed soft points or hollow points do when hitting a person or animal.

In the animal world a human isn't a very tough target. A deer or something bigger isn't easy to bring down with such a small 50-70 gr. weight bullet. Add in an angle or slightly off shot and you have a wounded animal suffering.

There's many other issues but perhaps this helps?

 

[lihpster]

Varmint hunters aren't really caring if there's much left, they aren't gonna eat it. Big game hunters have a moral duty to not cause undue suffering. A cartridge that will kill, eventually, is not acceptable. Need one capable of making the animal DRT. But there is no such moral duty when it comes to fellow humans. An incapacitating wound, whether it kills later or not, is the desired effect. Also, the smaller cartridge, and it's correspondingly smaller recoil, leads to more hits in battle than the 7.62X51 fired in the M-14 that the .223 replaced.
As far as how deadly the .223 is in it's military use, there's a reason many soldiers requested a bigger caliber rifle. Especially when fighting in open spaces where the range is often 200M or more.

 

[Rpg]

Fortunately, here in Colorado, the smallest cartridge you can use for deer and larger game (big game) is the .243.

Smaller calibers are small game or varmint guns.

You can get away with using a 223 on the little white tails folks hunt in Texas and back East. Our Mule deer are a bit larger.

 

[AJ]

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!

I taught a Combat Pistol Course in the Corps. We stressed to our folks working security that we were not teaching them to kill. We were teaching them to stop a fight, but if the other guy died in the process.......Oh, well he started it. Object for them was to come home when the job was finished.

 

[BB57]

The 5.56x45 / .223 Remington was based on the .222 Rem. Which was in fact a purpose designed cartridge for target and varmint rifles.

Eugene Stoner needed a bit more velocity to meet the penetration requirement for the proposed AR-15 and its cartridge and thus developed a larger version of the cartridge in conjunction with Sierra ho designed the bullet.

He stated at one point that had he known Remington was developing the .222 Remington Magnum, he would not have bothered with the .223.

Ironically when Remington got the contract for M193 production they used a shorter in-house designed 55 gr FMJ rather than the slicker 7 caliber secant ogive bullet Sierra had designed. This resulted in the loss of about 150 fps at 500 yards which caused it to fail the require 10 ga steel penetration test. That led to an eventual waiver for maximum pressure as well as shortening the penetration range requirement.

Had they adopted the .222 Rem Mag instead, or retained the higher BC Sierra bullet that whole mess could have been avoided.

—-

In any case the .223 Rem / 5.56x45 NATO is in fact a Varmint cartridge (with a suitable bullet), and it’s also a superb rabbit and predator round.

As an old school battle rifle round it’s a pale shadow of the .30-06 pr .308.

As an intermediate military round, it was adequate in the M193 loading from a 20” barrel, but it became progressively worse with the heavier 62 gr bullet and the 14.” M4 barrel as both cost velocity and terminal wound effectiveness that it could not afford to lose.

Thus the military is going with the new 6.8x51 round with a 135 gr bullet at a potential 3,000 fps. from a 16” barrel.

That’s a step in the right direction back toward the .280 British round that launched a 140 gr bullet at 2,550 fps. from the FN FAL. The .280 Brit is the round both NATO and the US should have adopted in place of 7.62x51 NATO. It had a .280” groove diameter (.284 land diameter) and the bullet had optimum tumbling / wounding characteristics long with suitably flat trajectory for infantry rifle use and recoil for full auto capability in an infantry rifle. If we had adopted it, we’d still be well equipped round wise today, whether it was used in a FAL, M14 or AR style rifle.

—-

If history is any indicator the XM1168 Common Cartridge still hotter than it needs to be. The lower pressure Sig .277 Fury civilian version of the round with a 130 bullet at 2750 fps in a 16” barrel and 3000 fps in a 24” barrel would probably be ideal for a select fire assault rifle, with a better balance of long range performance and full auto controllability.

But if anything the US military is a very, very slow learner when it comes to small arms acquisition.

 

[smoothshooter]

Ballistically the .223 fits in between the .222 a Remington and .22/250 Remington/Winchester.
Both have been, and still are, very effective “ varmint “ cartridges.
In skilled hands, both have been used many times as effective big game cartridges as well.
Out to 175-200 yards, all 3 will put down a large variety of animals and humans. Beyond that, larger bullet diameters and weights do better.
Since the majority of shooters cannot hit much past 200 yards under stress in combat conditions anyway, the .223/5.56 is not a bad compromise in most hands for that use.

 

[smoothshooter]

Self defense is almost always done at ranges from physical contact to no more than 50 yards. Almost any cartridge will work under those conditions.
For self-defense, it is immaterial whether the target lives or dies or suffers a long, lingering death.
Most of us are more considerate and ethical about those things with game animals.

 

[s&wchad]

.223 Remington/5.56 NATO works fine for varmints at medium range. The Military likes it because soldiers can carry a lot of rounds and recoil is minimal.

If I was glassing a trophy deer/antelope/elk, I'd want something more powerful.

 

[smoothshooter]

The 5.56x45 / .223 Remington was based on the .222 Rem. Which was in fact a purpose designed cartridge for target and varmint rifles.

Eugene Stoner needed a bit more velocity to meet the penetration requirement for the proposed AR-15 and its cartridge and thus developed a larger version of the cartridge in conjunction with Sierra ho designed the bullet.

He stated at one point that had he known Remington was developing the .222 Remington Magnum, he would not have bothered with the .223.

Ironically when Remington got the contract for M193 production they used a shorter in-house designed 55 gr FMJ rather than the slicker 7 caliber secant ogive bullet Sierra had designed. This resulted in the loss of about 150 fps at 500 yards which caused it to fail the require 10 ga steel penetration test. That led to an eventual waiver for maximum pressure as well as shortening the penetration range requirement.

Had they adopted the .222 Rem Mag instead, or retained the higher BC Sierra bullet that whole mess could have been avoided.

—-

In any case the .223 Rem / 5.56x45 NATO is in fact a Varmint cartridge (with a suitable bullet), and it’s also a superb rabbit and predator round.

As an old school battle rifle round it’s a pale shadow of the .30-06 pr .308.

As an intermediate military round, it was adequate in the M193 loading from a 20” barrel, but it became progressively worse with the heavier 62 gr bullet and the 14.” M4 barrel as both cost velocity and terminal wound effectiveness that it could not afford to lose.

Thus the military is going with the new 6.8x51 round with a 135 gr bullet at a potential 3,000 fps. from a 16” barrel.

That’s a step in the right direction back toward the .280 British round that launched a 140 gr bullet at 2,550 fps. from the FN FAL. The .280 Brit is the round both NATO and the US should have adopted in place of 7.62x51 NATO. It had a .280” groove diameter (.284 land diameter) and the bullet had optimum tumbling / wounding characteristics long with suitably flat trajectory for infantry rifle use and recoil for full auto capability in an infantry rifle. If we had adopted it, we’d still be well equipped round wise today, whether it was used in a FAL, M14 or AR style rifle.

—-

If history is any indicator the XM1168 Common Cartridge still hotter than it needs to be. The lower pressure Sig .277 Fury civilian version of the round with a 130 bullet at 2750 fps in a 16” barrel and 3000 fps in a 24” barrel would probably be ideal for a select fire assault rifle, with a better balance of long range performance and full auto controllability.

But if anything the US military is a very, very slow learner when it comes to small arms acquisition.

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.

 

[kbm6893]

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 thing 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.

But it’s not a NATO round, so it won’t be used.

 

[pharmer]

Down here in the Swamp, deer are about the size of a Doberman. Not many use the .223 althoug the '06 is a bit much. Joe

 

[diyj98]

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.

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

Also the military 5.56mm has/had full automatic or at least three round burst capability.

 

[Greyman50]

Seems OP has never shot any “ varmints” with a .223, DRT. Also has never seen an enemy shot by a 5.56. Also DRT as most rounds do not go straight through as most .30 Cal. rounds.

 

[smoothshooter]

But it’s not a NATO round, so it won’t be used.

It could be, though.