.223 / 5.56 NATO - good or bad?

[Ace_doc]

well i have seen my fair share of gsws also( i hope) . i had the fortune to be with an outfit which conducted effectiveness test on both the 5.56 and the 7.62 soviet.
despite the difference in caliber the 5.56 caused more extensive trauma. the 7.62 (soviet, mind u)would leave lesser destruction in its wake. any way as said by timmy the best caliber would be one u like the best and/or have in your hand. i vote for the 5.56 as it enables u to carry more ammo and is reasonably powerful. the 7.62 x 39 has a mv of 700 mt/s and a me of 1400 ft/lbs. the 5.56 has 900mt/s and 1325 ft/lbs. however the 5.56 fragments more rapidly and causes more damage. the 7.62 is more likely to just go through. the 7.62 Nato you are referring to jefe has an mv and me of 840 mt/s and 2470 ft/lbs . now that is great but the round weigh a lot and the wpn is a b**ch to carry.

[eljefe]

That it does, but won the brits a lot of wars-from malaya to Malvinas.I've used it enough to respect it for its power, but the weight of the SLR/FN does leave the joints and ligaments a creaking at the end of the day...
Like the 303 which was ennobled in the trenches of ypres and was expected to perform over long ranges
( it still does!) with the scenarios changing, as well as the doctrines of war, each round has a place -in history and in the logistics.What is well recognised now is:
level of training and scenarios dictate the equipment.the 'spray and pray' attitude has its backers, and firepower superiority is an asset. What would be good is, if every squaddie was given a , say, MINIMI or a SAW in 5.56 with a 200 rd box? considering that most experienced MG types prefer a short belt of 20-30 rds as 'carry, let off that as cover, and change over to a regular belt for the rest of the fire mission...
lets try the each man armed with a SAW and a couple of 200 rd boxes

[penpusher]

lets try the each man armed with a SAW and a couple of 200 rd boxes

...and a pack mule to carry all that ammo.

[nagarifle]

some may complain about the weight of the 7.62 ammo, if weight was the problem many battles/war would have been lost as eljefe says. least we forget that the modern army tend to travel via motor transport of some sort or the other, up to a point in battle and not much walking is involved,as compared to say in the 50s,60s, or the seventies. sure patrols are done on foot, but even so, wight is not the problem as a solders carried as much as he could into battle weather its 7.65 or 5.56. a solider would be given his share of the ammo so weight does not come into the question.

with the 7.62 you had four or five mags plus around 200 rounds, with the 5.56 its the same amount, the point is if you have a full auto weapon and unlimited supply of ammo then no point in one shot on dead rule as been pointed out spay and pray.

on the other hand unlimited supply you tend to go for one shot one kill principle..

and thats my other half cent worth

[BJL]

So what was the purpose of the thread anyway? A debate about the superiority of 5.56 or 7.62? The similarities between the .223 and the 5.56? The more ammo, or more powerful ammo debate?

[Mark]

So what was the purpose of the thread anyway? A debate about the superiority of 5.56 or 7.62? The similarities between the .223 and the 5.56? The more ammo, or more powerful ammo debate?

I think it started by comparing the differences between the 5.56 and 223, then drifted over into what was better, etc.

Currently I don't own a 223, having built a rem 700 rifle chambered in a 20 caliber wildcat based on the 223 but I have shot them enough to know that for deer sized animals they can fail pretty dramatically. (many states -mine included- here in the US have the 223 as too small to legally hunt deer with). Believe it or not, the 7.62 X 39 is a good deer cartridge for hunting in the woods. The SKS has its supporters for being an inexpensive and effective woods gun.

Another issue learned in Vietnam is the 223 is easily deflected when shooting through bamboo, not so the 7.62 X 39.

Don't get me wrong, for anything up to coyote size the 223 is great, and works well for many hundreds of yards but as a battle rifle cartridge it would not be my cup of tea.

Here is a real thread hijack- what the M16 should be is the AR10, basically the big brother chambered in 308 (7.62 NATO, here we go again!). Now that is a rifle and cartridge combination!

[BJL]

I've used someone's AR10, side by side with an AR15. That would indeed have been a much better adoption than the AR15 variants. The cartridge makes it a completely different rifle (duh). I do love the .308

[cottage cheese]

All well and good...very educational.

But for most (or dare I say almost All) Indian citizenry, the comparison is next to meaningless since in the first place the 5.56mm is a no-no .223 as a consequence will also most likely be a no-no. Secondly hunting is banned in the country- so the debate on terminal ballistic performance and idiosyncrasies of either round in small, medium or large game or whichever else, is as I see, largely theoretical.

Not to put down the useful inputs from all the knowledgeable members...the NRI's in particular.

Of course, my hear skips a beat when folks talk about AR15's, AR10's and the like.

I'm green with envy.

[Ace_doc]

well sorry guys! the purpose of the thread was to get the opinion of u gents re 5.56 nato . unfortunately the .223 bit added ambiguity. rest the thread was very informative. rest in a country like yours where soldiers still trudge on foot ( mec transport is a dream ) IMO every bit counts. rest wish they would issue M 249 to the armed forces. most would carry the load without grumbling ( no pack mules needed).
thanks guys.

[eljefe]

Ace Doc,
google Di Maio VJM &Fackler ML,also
Fackler ML, Surinchak JS,Malinowski JA,Bowen RE: wounding potential of Russian AK47 assault rifle,J trauma 24:263

[Ace_doc]

did it ! as u had read the article u must realise that most of the bullets exited the "subjects".however in a series of similar experiments i found that very few 5.56 rds exited the "subject". as soon as the tissue diameter (to be penetrated) increased the tendency to exit decreased .if bone was struck the results are to be seen to be believed.
again all i can say is that i wish we could meet and discuss this over a few drinks.

[cottage cheese]

again all i can say is that i wish we could meet and discuss this over a few drinks.

Bring along some cadavers to test the ammo on, while were at it...

[Ace_doc]

wish we could generate some from our policy makers!

[Grumpy]

.223/5.56 ?
Good for Foxes.......utter crap as a military calibre.

[Timnorris]

I have fired this cartridge (5.56mm/.223) on targets at 300 m and found it to be very accurate....................5.56 mm has a thicker case because it has to deal with higher preassure (NATO standards) ............... .223 has a thinner case which is useful for civilians reloading the cartridge.

Hunting

It can be used upto deer hunting but I dont think you should try it on wild boar

Combat

It is a lighter round half the size and weight of 7.62 mm (.308 win) so you can carry more ammo than the 7.62 mm for the same weight.....................the rate of fire is good ........the rifle is light because it uses a less powerful round ...........and rifle and ammo weight is a big factor in combat...........now it is also being used as a sniper round..................but I think 7.62 mm (.308 win) makes a better sniper.................


Tim
Tim