.223??

3089 Views 15 Replies 7 Participants Last post by llamase, Mar 1, 2006

IamaTurkey

Discussion Starter · Feb 25, 2006

what does everyone think of the .223(5.56) used as a military round??

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

Ben

· #2 · Feb 25, 2006

It's alright. Most combat firefights occur at relatively close ranges and under 200 meters the 5.56 is as effective as 7.62 at everything except penetrating solid objects. You can carry more rounds of 5.56 for the same weight, so that's a plus and less recoil so easier followup shots. I think they do need something with more power for modern combat situations though, to deal with body armor and penetrating walls in MOUT operations. 7.62 could do the trick, but with todays technology they should just design an all new round.

Need a thread complaining about 9mm for military pistols in the handgun forum.

Shad

· #3 · Feb 25, 2006

Ben said:
I think they do need something with more power for modern combat situations though, to deal with body armor and penetrating walls in MOUT operations.

The M855 5.56 NATO that we use in the military is actually more than capable of penetrating Class IIIA body armor. There's also the fact that you don't go around trying to shoot people through walls. That's how noncombatants get shot and you end up having a dead child on your concience the rest of your life or some other such thing. The only time you pull the trigger during a MOUT operation, or any other operation, is when you have positive ID on the target. Running around trying to shoot people through walls is a violation of the US's ROE and all it's going to do is eventually end up with dead COBs (civilians on the battlefield) and in the right circumstances with you in prison. There goes the whole "winning hearts and minds" thing if that shit starts happening.

Ben

· #4 · Feb 25, 2006

C'mon now, I'm not talking about blindly shooting up walls. In MOUT chances are the enemy is partially concealled behind some sort of cover while he's shooting at you. It's nice to be shooting a round back at him that will penetrate that cover like his 7.62 will be doing to you. Class IIIA is only designed for pistol rounds so yea 5.56 will penetrate it.

Adler

· #5 · Feb 25, 2006

Personally I hate it and the AR design in general as a military round and military arm.

The gun is too picky and dirty of a design.

I hate the way it feels when firing it(has an artificial feel)

the 5.56 is decnet but I was never one for the hi velocity, small slug idea.

The 5.56 really needs a 16in barrel to work well and keep the velocity high and the new short barrels kill its effective range.

I would personally like to see a return to a larger slug somewhere in the 25-30 cal range. I think 6.5 is the smallest slug I would ever want.

See less See more

Shad

· #6 · Feb 25, 2006

Personally, I like the round, hate the rifle. I disagree with a battle rifle that, due to design, basically shits where it eats. I wouldn't mind switching over to the HK416. Oh, and on the partial cover thing, in pretty much any type of battlefield, your enemy is going to be shooting from a covered position. Even someone with no training has enough sense to not stand in the open during a firefight. And by 7.62, are you thinking 7.62X39 like the AK-47, because that round doesn't penetrate better than a steel core 5.56X45mm round.

Jeremy

· #7 · Feb 27, 2006

It's to small, if you could use frangible ammo it might be ok but a .223 hole just doesn't do enough damage.

Adler

· #8 · Feb 27, 2006

Id like to see a steel core 7.62NATO come back. It would outpenetrate about anything in that case. The steel core is the only reason that 5.56 does better in that department.

Yeah the AR is crap in so many ways...most of all I hate the feel both of the gun and its recoil.....feels like I am playing with a friggin bb gun.

FALs and HK91 are much better rifles and they have their little 5.56 brothers that are better than the AR as well.

llamase

· #9 · Feb 28, 2006

It's sissy, good for whabbits not people. Shouldn't go smaller than 6mm. 55gr and 62gr 5,7mm bullets suck for long range. At 500 yards aiming at the head of a guy, your bullet will be 4 feet lower by the time it reaches him. The 5.56 NATO is defeated by concrete cynder blocks, so if someone is holed up in a concrete cynder block fortress you're screwed with the 5.56 NATO.

30 calibre needs to be updated badly.

Anyone ever hear of a .308x1.5" ? That could have potental, but I do not know how well it will do against the 6.5 Grender and the 6.8 SPC.

fatcat

· #10 · Feb 28, 2006

3

Cender Blocks will destableise most rounds out there... you hit the block once with a 5.56 its going to shatter it and keep going with a fair amount of force, we shoot them all the time for cheap targets that you know when you hit. Hell I punch holes in structural steel plate thats 1/2 inch thick with 62 grain lake city rounds it a fair range (fair enough to not get a hole in myself if it bouncs back) The 5.56mm round has enough stoping power with the right ammo... Just shoot some water jugs, watermellons or a big hunk of clay (Very impressive on clay) with with some of the good ammo out there and you can clearly see the hydro shock is well enough to drop someone with a chest wound.

The pictures shown here are of 1/2 inch structural steel plate ( Very strong stuff) shot at a high angle (The angle reduces the penatrateing power of the round by alot, that and at 35-40 yards to avoid bounce back.
As you see some rounds did not make it all the way... thats because there .308 FMJ (Yea I know yall arnt talking about FMJ rounds but I shot it with it anyways) Half inch may not sound like alot... When you see the plate of steel its alot thicker than it sounds, this is hard stuff here.
The penatrater that passed the plate kept on going for a long way... I have tryed to capture some but they just keep going!

Thats a .308 hit on the side.

The hits shown here were shot at a very steep angle because I was to scared of bounce back, therefore the holes are shown at high angles. Some random .308 hits there to.

This was after I got the balls to hide inside the bed of my truck and fire at it (Alot of good that would have done huh?) the angle was alot less so the rounds penatrated easly. huh? what are those under the holes? oh there Winchester FMJ .308. The round dispursed before making that big of a dent.

Sorry about the shitty pictures I have no idea why there so blurry, I cant figure out any of the damn settings on this thing!

As you said.....
(It's sissy, good for whabbits not people)

Unless your "Whabbits" happen to be in whole one inch thick steel box......

See less See more

Adler

· #11 · Feb 28, 2006

I have had turk 8mm go through 1/2 steel plates.

fatcat

· #12 · Feb 28, 2006

But this is 5.56, only 62 grains.

Adler

· #13 · Feb 28, 2006

But its steel core ss109 ammo dude. If it were lead it would work worth a damn. If you had a 7.62 Nato with a similar core it would slice through anything better.

What makes that Turk ammo impressive is that its lead. Now thats a round.

llamase

· #14 · Mar 1, 2006

If I'm mistaken I think the concrete blocks are solid concrete, not the cookie cutter kind, or maybe it was rebar reinforced cynder blocks put into cement.

Hrm maybe if we switched to the .204 ruger it would have even more penetration with a steel core.

Jeremy

· #15 · Mar 1, 2006

The thing I don't get is that in the eyes of Geneva and all the politicians who made the "rules" of war/ combat; it's ok to shoot a guy 7 times with FMJ or AP rounds and leave him alive but crippled for life but it's wrong to shot him once with a frangiable round and kill him instantly.

llamase

· #16 · Mar 1, 2006

It's the Hague convention that dealth with bullet types.

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.