Big Bullet Blues [5.56mm round stopping power inadequate. Study says aim higher and fire two]

Strategy Page ^ | Feb 2, 2007

[SJSAMPLE]

The 5.56mm round achieves its best fragmentation at sub 100m ranges. Inside that, it's downright deadly. The 7.62mm offers no advantage because it doesn't fragment as well and only leaves a slightly larger hole. It doesn't offer the volume or controllability of the 5.56mm. It's only advantage is increased penetration on structures.

[backhoe]

My brother owned one of those until just a couple of months ago. It had become worth so much he just couldn't justify not selling it. On slow fire, that thing was surprisingly accurate at very long distance and was just what the doctor ordered for washing machines, refrigerators, engine blocks, and the like.

While the BAR is considered obsolete, you could do a lot worse for a heavy weapon- like the later M-60, it had a reputation for "making things happen" when you opened fire with it.

[untrained skeptic]

While I'm making "corrections" I'll correct myself while I'm at it. :)

It appears the most applicable part of the Hague Convention of 1899 isn't what I quoted in my earlier response but is instead Declaration III which can be found here.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm

"Laws of War : Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899"

I was close, but still not really correct.

[backhoe]

I presume you started out pointing it right in front of your feet. < }B^)

Nope, it's where it started at the beginning of the burst- it's very easy to shoot accurately. Anyone who can handle a full-size rifle or shotgun can be made into a BAR Man with about 30 minute's instruction. My wife is scarily accurate with the thing.

[Tolsti]

DC snipers proved, .223 is deadly. It can enter you leg and exit your chest, and vice versa.

At under 200 yards, you can't beat a .223 55 gr. If you need a bit of penetration, you trade off with a 62gr green tip.

[ctdonath2]

See #150.

"Cost" includes time, effort, and disruption. Retooling ammo factories, doubling inventories & processing, transitions, sorting out problems with new stuff, etc. - all is huge.

Yes it can be done, and has been done before. Not something one wants to do unless the benefits are dramatically superior and cannot be achieved any other way.

These "5.56 sucks" discussions tend to not note that the new Mk.262 round (a 5.56 subtype, a hot & heavy 77gr HP) seems to be doing quite well. Yes, the M855 is a problem - because it wasn't meant for that application. The Mk.262 is apparently doing quite well, and was designed for that application.

Much better to go with something that works AND fits the existing supply line.

[kiriath_jearim]

"I would go with this for such close-in, running around corners operations:..."

***
I thought the Germans in WW2 solved the "around corners" problem with their "krummlauf" version of the STG44...

[ctdonath2]

The P90 was designed specifically for people whose primary job was not using it, like tank driver, but who needed some real firepower in a really compact package. It's primarily defensive. If using it is your primary job, use something else.

[agincourt1415]

I know the army would never accept a 22LR.

But I think if they could develop a round that is small and expands, it would be better than a "heavy" round with lots of recoil.

I would make a expanding small round with no recoil and with 100 or 200 round magazine capability.

But then there is the Geneva Convention on ammo to that prevents that.

[dangerdoc]

bump

[ctdonath2]

If you need a bit of penetration, you trade off with a 62gr green tip.

And that brings us back to the lead article. The tradeoff is proving unacceptable; the "penetrator" is doing so much more cleanly than is desireable.

[mouser]

If it were me I would be looking at some 7mm calibers. The best mix of range, accuracy, and stopping power.

I have hunted antelope and deer with both the 7mm tcu and the 6.5 tcu using Thompson center pistols. the 6.5 with a 120 to 130 grain bullet seemed to be the better of the two.
these are just .223 cartridge with the neck opened up for 6.5mm or 7mm bulletts i would think either could be made to work in the current rifles the only problem with the 7 mm would be the very short shoulder.

[Prodigal Son]

The 5.56 was intended to be used in a war of attrition against the might of the Soviet Union.

Which begs the question- which side had the right idea? The Soviets would have had the same concerns as us- a war of attrition (thus why not use lighter ammo?). They chose to go with the heavier round. The 7.62 works in all situations that the smaller one does. The Soviets maybe figured it was better to kill your enemy than to let him live to fight again.

The 7.62 would seem the better choice in Iraq- according to the infantry. Perhaps the Soviets had a longer range of vision concerning weapon evolution and possible future battlefields.

I know that personally, I would rather carry a 30/30 than a .22 rifle. I mean, I know you ought not to shoot squirrels with a deer rifle but these things will happen on occasion. It's mightily impressive what a 30/30 will do to a small critter like a bunny or squirrel (or- skinny Arabs).

[ctdonath2]

The 5.56 in the M16 platform has practically no recoil.

The 5.7 round is probably what you're looking for, putting 50 rounds in a very compact CQB package. That's probably the best power/capacity tradeoff you're looking for.

[untrained skeptic]

The P90 was designed as a "personal defense weapon". It's meant to be a replacement for a sidearm for military personnel that don't typically carry rifles. The desire for such a weapon came from the increasing use of body armor on the battlefield, and the ineffectiveness of handguns against such body armor.

It's smaller and lighter than a regular rifle. The individual AP bullets penetrate well, but have poor stopping power, so it's mean to be used to fire bursts.

While it's effective at longer range than a handgun, it's still an in close weapon. (Which is what you suggested it be used for)

It's kind of large in heavy compared to a pistol (and it eats lots of ammo), so it's really doesn't replace a pistol as a backup weapon. It doesn't have the range to replace a rifle. You also don't want to have your forces using too many different types of weapons or supplying ammo becomes a logistics nightmare.

It's an impressive firearm that does what it was designed to do well. It would be good for clearing buildings, but I just don't see it having wide enough appeal due to it's lack of effective range.

[brityank]

What do you expect from the government that gave us the flush twice toilet?

[wildbill]

When this rifle first came into use, I remember that the explanation for the smaller-sized high velocity round was that it would tumble on impact and create much worse damage than the old MI round.

[agincourt1415]

I know the army would never accept a 22LR.

But I think if they could develop a round that is small and expands, it would be better than a "heavy" round with lots of recoil.

I would make a expanding small round with no recoil and with 100 or 200 round magazine capability.

But then there is the Geneva Convention on ammo that prevents that.

[agincourt1415]

Sorry about the double post, at work, and the stupid work tasks distracted me.

[Beagle8U]

I know that the 7mm is a very versatile caliber. I've never used anything in 6.5 mm. I do shoot a 6mm rem. and like it for both varmints and deer.

In the 7mm cal. the 280 Rem is my favorite. 30/06 case necked down for 7mm except its case and shoulder is .050 longer. 30% less recoil than the 7mm mag and only 150-200 fps slower in max loads.