Is the 5.56 mm round good enough?

[Administrator]

Does 5.56 mm ammo give you the stopping power you need?

[Lobo(AW)_guest]

People are put down when shot due to shock and kept down by body fluid loss. The fluid loss is critical, as this is what results in a drop in blood pressure, unconsciousness, and death. This is referred to, when talking about bullets, as a bullet's "stopping power," the likelihood of a hit to have someone drop and not get back up due to fluid loss. For fluid loss to occur, it is not enough that a hole is stuck through the skin - as you know from getting a shot, the body closes over holes or tunnels and thereby keeps much fluid from being lost. Bullets, of course, dig wider tunnels than needles, but I was just using an example. Body tissue tends to collapse in on the tunnel (the effect of something passing through the body and producing a tunnel is called "cavitation"). Wider bullets tend to produce more cavitation than thin bullets. Any bullet can be made to produce greater cavitation, and therefore more stopping power, by making it expandable. Hollow point rounds are an example of this. However, due to restrictions in the rules of warfare, the U.S. does not use expandable bullets. So cavitation effects are dependent upon bullet width. The 5.56mm round inherently produces less cavitation than the older 7.62mm NATO round of the M-14 and less than the 30.06 round of the M-1. The effects of velocity increase cavitation as a faster bullet will go through more body tissue than a slower one of the same weight and size. However, if the bullet is so fast it goes through, then that excess energy contributes nothing to stopping power (that velocity might be useful for range and penetrating obstacles, don't get me wrong). The 5.56mm round is very fast and can easily go through a human body. If it strikes something hard like bone it will impart a solid shock to the body about equivalent to the recoil the shooter experiences. Having said all that, many shooters I've discussed this issue with since the issuance of the first M-16s in the '60s, take the position that, while there are advantages to the 5.56mm round over previous U.S. bullets in several areas (weight, for example), stopping power is not one of them. All of the above, imho, of course.

[CaliMoon2005- Lover_guest]

No, it do not have effective knock down power not like some other caliper in service usage, IE the 45cal.

[minelab]

Short range yes, long range NO.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by minelab

Short range yes, long range NO.

Of course, the 5.56 round was designed for use at "short range" wasn't it?

One .303 round carefully placed in the center of the forehead at 600 m is likely to be more effective than 30 5.56 rounds sprayed in the general direction of where the shooter thinks the targets might be at 200 m.

On the other hand, with the 5.56 rounds you can carry enough of them so that you can afford to spray them in the general direction of where you think the targets might be - and it doesn't take anywhere near as much training to enable troops to do that as it does to enable them to (reliably) hit targets out to 800 m.

In other words, the 5.56 round substitutes quantity for quality and you eventually reach the point where "Quantity has a quality all its own.". (Five points for correctly identifying the origin of that pithy little saying.)

[CaliMoon2005- Lover_guest]

Originally Posted by The Universal Curmudgeon_guest

Of course, the 5.56 round was designed for use at "short range" wasn't it?

One .303 round carefully placed in the center of the forehead at 600 m is likely to be more effective than 30 5.56 rounds sprayed in the general direction of where the shooter thinks the targets might be at 200 m.

On the other hand, with the 5.56 rounds you can carry enough of them so that you can afford to spray them in the general direction of where you think the targets might be - and it doesn't take anywhere near as much training to enable troops to do that as it does to enable them to (reliably) hit targets out to 800 m.

In other words, the 5.56 round substitutes quantity for quality and you eventually reach the point where "Quantity has a quality all its own.". (Five points for correctly identifying the origin of that pithy little saying.)

.303 IS NOT A U.S. Service caliper round nor a standard NATO round!!! 5.56 is a NATO round and I don't know how the 303 came into this topic......

Any 5.56 round to the forehead will knock down any one, but it's would be a "lucky shot" at 300 meter and out, no scopes or a 303 will matter with a forehead hit..... LOL.......so please.....

I don't think you have any military training......, and to just brunt stated a off a air 303, and it's not a NATO round LOL

FYI.... the effective range of the 5.56 is 800 meter, or did you knew that???? LOL........

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by CaliMoon2005- Lover_guest

.303 IS NOT A U.S. Service caliper round nor a standard NATO round!!! 5.56 is a NATO round and I don't know how the 303 came into this topic......

Probably because I introduced a factor that had previously been left out of the discussion - namely "Good enough for what?".

Originally Posted by CaliMoon2005- Lover_guest

Any 5.56 round to the forehead will knock down any one, but it's would be a "lucky shot" at 300 meter and out, no scopes or a 303 will matter with a forehead hit..... LOL.......so please.....

Exactly. So again, the question is "Good enough for what?" The 5.56 is more than adequate if the soldier using it is simply going to be waving it in the air so that it points in the general direction of where the soldier thinks the enemy might possibly be and then holds down the trigger until the magazine is empty. You can actually do that with the NATO standard 5.56 round - it doesn't work so well with the older 7.62 round.

Originally Posted by CaliMoon2005- Lover_guest

I don't think you have any military training......, and to just brunt stated a off a air 303, and it's not a NATO round

Actually it is. It isn't used very much, but it does have a NSN and it is the "round of choice" in the "weapon of choice" under certain specific conditions - conditions where the M-16 has a tendency to qualify as a club and not much else.

Would you like to take a wild stab at that the above referenced "weapon of choice" and "specific conditions" are?

BTW, what language is the middle part of your sentence in? I managed to make out what the first and last thirds meant, but the middle is totally incomprehensible.

Originally Posted by CaliMoon2005- Lover_guest

FYI.... the effective range of the 5.56 is 800 meter, or did you knew that????

That sort of depends on what you mean by "effective range". I can see that you are going with the manufacturer's definition which breaks down to:

:: With a weapon that is in perfect condition, and which has been perfectly sighted in, and using perfect ammunition, a perfect shooter, under perfect conditions, who has all the time in the world and who is shooting at a perfectly still target that is perfectly defined will hit the target at 800m more often than not - provided that the target is large enough for them to hit more often than not at that range and under those conditions.::

I, however, prefer the definition:

With a weapon that has been receiving only field cleaning for two weeks, which has been bumped and bashed around to the point where the only thing you can say for sure about the sights is that they are still on top of the weapon, using grubby ammunition that the soldier has picked up out of the dirt because the last supply run simply didn't get there, shooting almost off-hand at a vaguely defined and possibly moving target (while scared shitless) will hit the target at ___m more often than not.

BTW, depending on the source that you use, you will find sources that list the M16A2 as having an "effective range" as low as 250m. The average of five measures of "effective range" for the M16A2 is 462.8m. For a "point target" the M16A2 (in the hands of a competent shooter) has an "effective range" of (for all intents and purposes) 500m and for an "area target" the M16A2 has an "effective range" of (for all intenst and puropses) 800m.

In case the terms "point target" and "area target" aren't familiar to you (some people haven't heard them before - no matter how many times their Sergeant mentions them)

"Point target" means:

(in really general terms that a military unsophisticate who does know that the bullet comes out of the narrow part of the rifle and not much else)

"something that you actually have the ability to see, identify, and aim at with some degree of accuracy and which you actually have some intention of hitting with one of the first two rounds that you fire"

while "area target" means:

(in terminology similar to that used for the definition of "point target)

"a chunk of ground that you hope that most of your bullets will land in, more or less, sorta, usually because there may or may not be something there that would be worth hitting you think, maybe"

BTW, I joined the military in 1961, was commissioned in 1964, and left (when I reached the mandatory retirement age) in 1999. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that, in 1961, your parents weren't even dating each other - but I could well be wrong about that.

[CaliMoon2005- Lover_guest]

Originally Posted by The Universal Curmudgeon_guest

BTW, I joined the military in 1961, was commissioned in 1964, and left (when I reached the mandatory retirement age) in 1999. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that, in 1961, your parents weren't even dating each other - but I could well be wrong about that.

I think you are going to wrong on that part. . Just say my parents was dating in the 1940's , so you are just a couple of year older then me. .. I left the service same years Oct 1999.

Any how it's off the topic,,,,,,

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by CaliMoon2005- Lover_guest

I think you are going to wrong on that part. . Any how it's off the topic,,,,,,

There are (generally) only three types of people who write posts that look like they are trying to convey that they know everything about a subject - [1] experts (who actually do), [2] YPs (read as "young punks") who think that they do - because they heard someone use the terms once, and [3] RFOFs (read as "Retired Fat Old Farts") who probably know more than they think they do but can't get it all organized any more and some of what they "know" ain't so.

I suspect that you and I fall into Category 3 and are probably the only ones who are even likely to consider the question "Good dnough for what?" (At least we are so far.)

[richman]

The 5.56 (.223 caliber) NATO round was originally designed for the M16 with Improved Military Rifling (IMR) powder in the that burned cleaner (but slower) than standard the standard powder used by the military.

A little history as I know it - The M16 was designed for close-in operations, not for long range operations and was not designed to replace the M14, but it did eventually anyway.

The round was designed to go slower out of the barrel, and thus be unstable, and when it would hit it's target (preferably the enemy) it would do more damage by staying in the body but bouncing all over inside rather than going in the belly and out the back of the enemy. It would go in the arm and come out the foot of a guy. Tearing up his insides.

But the Army Ordinance Corps decided to use the standard powder of the day which the M16 was not designed for and the rifle would jam because the powder was dirtier (leave more residue) and would bung up the gas tube and head space. The round would also leave the barrel faster. Making the round more stable but not like the 7.62. The rifle got its first combat testing in Vietnam where it played hell with those who learned fast that it had to be kept much cleaner than the M1 or M14 to operate. The Forward Assist was added and the thumb grove on the bolt was added to help. I think that is when the model of M16A1 came out. Not sure of that.

I learned on the M16A1. It had 9 twists in the barrel (for the bullet spin) which (even with the increased speed of the round) it was still unstable with winds blowing for long range targets. I had a hell of a time at the 500 yard line hitting a 6 inch target but I would still qualify as expert.

When the M16A2 came out it had 12 twists and that stabled the round significantly to where it was so much better for long range shooting. I had an easy time at 500 yards plus.

What I am getting at is that the 5.56 was originally designed as a close in, squad type weapon that was supposed to supplement the M1 Carbine and M14. The M16 was designed in the 50's! It was not supposed to be the replacement for them.

But lighter ammo meant that you could carry more and the M16 was lighter as well so military nature of natural selection worked and it became the weapon to carry after all the bugs got worked out. The M14 and its 7.62 (.303) round was gone as well as the M1 Carbine with its .30 caliber round, and the brass had to fill the role of long range firing so the M16A2 came out.

I learned all this through the History channel HA HA and my memory is short but this is what I know.....

So to answer the original question: "Yes", the round is good enough if used for what it was originally designed for. "No", if it to be used for long range (Marine Corps style) enemy target marksmanship. "No", when it comes to killing the enemy with with body armor.

Depending on the mission I go on I would select a modified M4 (5.56 round)for kicking in doors and close in ops or I will select another weapon (7.62 round) for longer range targets, (which is a rare thing for me nowadays). Just my opinion!