5.56 nato "wounding" round?

[truun]

This thread has a ton of quality postings! It is music-to-the-ears to find so many comments that accurately but politely note that the 5.56/.223 is not a 'good' cartridge. It was developed hastily in response to the needs of a large, unskilled, short-term conscript army. The standard 7.62mm military calibre of the day (50's and 60's) had a wicked kick; the weapon was heavy (10 lbs + fully rigged) and thus fatiguing to field-hump; and it took a lot of time to train the average infanteer to hit a target, particularly under field/combat conditions!, something not available to a conscript force. The solution was a weapon and a round that reversed these characteristics. Unfortunately for soldiers the world over - at least the ones on 'our' side - the excellent British .280 was pushed aside by the inferior .223.

The unstable nature of the .223 was deliberately designed into the projectile to provide for a 'dum-dum' effect, namely, it inflict massive, debilitating wounds. The protests by proponents of the rules and spirit of the Geneva Convention against it adoption were ignored. Its main drawbacks were lousy penetration and short-range-only effectiveness. This was offset by it's wonderfully light weight, easy handling, low recoil, and the great number of rounds a trooper could tote around. To give 'confidence' to green troops, it had a full-auto capability (properly trained and experienced soldiers know that a well-placed shot is the preferred technique).

SIDE BAR : I was 'in' during the mid-60's when the M-15 arrived. We were using FAL 7.62 assault rifles and considered these new critters as toys for girls. Little did we know that when the Canadian Government decided to allow women into the infantry that the FAL was doomed. The ladies couldn't carry, shoot, or even manipulate these brutes so out went the good and in came the politically-correct 'toy'. Sure, they still couldn't hit squat with them but at least they weren't crippled when they yanked the trigger. Oh yes, since marksmanship was a required skill to become an infanteer, the government forced the military to lower the standards - and still the girls still couldn't hit a barn. In response to 'the Press' whined about 'inequality', our civilian bosses then just eliminated the troublesome requirement entirely and subsequently paraded the girls as 'fully trained and qualified front-line infantry'.

As for using the .223 for 'civilian purposes', there are many better cartridge/firearm combinations available that will out-perform this inferior choice. The main reason for the popularity of the M-15/AR-15 genre is its ability to generate male testosterone-driven, 'wanna-be' emotions. Let's face it, one of these civilian rifles all tricked up looks uber-cool and gets the Rambo-juices flowing! Fully accessorized, they now wouldn't out of place in the next Star Wars flick. That's all nice, but when i see someone in the field hunting with such a kit, it reminds me of a middle-aged, bald dentist who's draped in an open shirt showing a heavy gold chain, cruising the young jail-bait on Main Street on Saturday night in a red Corvette convertible... sad and creepy at the same time.

To summarize, for hunting, a medium to heavy calibre bolt-action rifle with a good scope is probably the best overall choice. Which one? The rig that gets the job done right for your needs and, after that, which ever one floats your boat! Personally, i use an 1878 .577/450 Martini-Henry Model II, shooting over the original iron sights, and the old girl is a deadly shooter. I do admit that i usually try to get close enough to tomorrow's intended dinner that it's prudent to fix the bayonet in case i only wound it and things get nasty, but then again my car has wing fenders and no top...

 

[ttoney83]

Some basic ballistics here concerning bullet wieghts and velocities. A higher velocity but lighter bullet will tend to dump most, if not all of it's energy into the target. A larger relatively slower moving bullet will tend to keep going, dumping much of it's energy beyond the target.

The greater physical mass of the 7.62 round will tend to make it a better penetrating round. But, what are you trying to penetrate? If you are talking about trying to punch through a cinderblock wall to hit a target behind relatively hard cover, then you want the 7.62. But, on a human target wearing little or no armour a 5.56 will have just as much if not more knock down power at close range than the 7.62.

At longer ranges where the mass of the 7.62 will tend to conserve more of the energy of the round the 7.62 will again generally out perform the 5.56, since the 5.56 will tend to lose more of it's energy against air resistance than the 7.62, hence the shorter "effective" ranges listed for rifles chambered for the 5.56.

All bullets will tend to tumble if they hit something relatively hard, like bone. They will even split and shatter. It will take less resistance to make a lighter round do this and will also tend to make the deflection of the less massive round greater than the heavier round. In other words, a heavier bullet will tend to stay closer to it's origional trajectory when it impacts a harder object like bone or even uniform buttons.

In the end the decision must be that of the user. What do you imagine this rifle being used for primarily?

My personal preferences are for the heavier round since a well placed shot, even if it carries much of it's energy through and beyond the target, will still tend to put the target down. And, if the target is behind relatively hard cover I would still have the potential of hitting that target behind the cover.

In addition I consider the greater effective range to be an advantage to the individual or small "unit" since, if your effective range is greater than that of your adversary you may end the fight before there is a fight.

I suggest 7.62X54 or the 7.62X39 as a compromise between the big and small. I prefer the 7.62X54 myself. In addition, these two rounds are easily as common and available as the 5.56 although an edge MIGHT go to the availability of the 7.62X39 since there are greater numbers of rifles and machineguns, world wide, chambered for that round.

 

[thejamppa]

I'm not thrilled with 5.56 nato nor its russian counterpart 5.45. Yes, they are ment to kill human beings and with greater speed they case some sevear damages due their proprties and behaviour of human tissue when it comes to contact with such high power and light rounds.

However lighter rounds do have limitation when fighting happends in dense forrest or in jungle. 5.56 was diesgned to use in conditions like desert, European plains or nature in the states. Very dense jungle like in Vietnam gave a slight edge to 7.62x39mm / M43 soviet.

I personally would take M1 Garad or M14 over M16 or newer AK-74's or other 5.45 Russian rifles. I rather take one accurate rifle with heavier punch that takes down anything I need with single shot. And IMHO 7,62's perform better in general hunting far better.

 

[oguruma]

I'm not thrilled with 5.56 nato nor its russian counterpart 5.45. Yes, they are ment to kill human beings and with greater speed they case some sevear damages due their proprties and behaviour of human tissue when it comes to contact with such high power and light rounds.

However lighter rounds do have limitation when fighting happends in dense forrest or in jungle. 5.56 was diesgned to use in conditions like desert, European plains or nature in the states. Very dense jungle like in Vietnam gave a slight edge to 7.62x39mm / M43 soviet.

I personally would take M1 Garad or M14 over M16 or newer AK-74's or other 5.45 Russian rifles. I rather take one accurate rifle with heavier punch that takes down anything I need with single shot. And IMHO 7,62's perform better in general hunting far better.

Why do you feel that the larger rounds have more of an advantage in jungle terrain?

7.62 performs better than 5.56 in everything, but is also much heavier and bulkier. If I am on a mounted patrol, then it's the M2 .50 cal for me, since size and weight isn't much of a concern at all, but if I am on a disjointed patrol, the M249 looks more and more appealing as the miles roll by vs the m240b. Same is true of the M14 vs M16/M4.

 

[truun]

Why do you feel that the larger rounds have more of an advantage in jungle terrain?

7.62 performs better than 5.56 in everything, but is also much heavier and bulkier. If I am on a mounted patrol, then it's the M2 .50 cal for me, since size and weight isn't much of a concern at all, but if I am on a disjointed patrol, the M249 looks more and more appealing as the miles roll by vs the m240b. Same is true of the M14 vs M16/M4.

The specific case of the 5.56mm vs the 7.62mm FMJ military cartridge in a jungle/bush environment favours the 7.62mm by a long shot (Freudian slip, not intended as a pun) due to deliberate and intended design considerations. The 5.56mm, if designed according to 'classic' military standards, would punch a clean, neat hole in the target but, being such a light bullet, the target will suffer comparatively little damage as there would be little energy transfer. So, to make the round effective, it was designed to tumble at the slightest interference in its flight as this tumbling would transfer the bullet's tremendous energy into the target, causing massive, debilitating damage.

Both are military cartridges designed to hit human flesh. Without the tumbling effect all the advantages accruing to the 5.56mm are rendered irrelevant as, comparatively, it would be unlikely to disable a motivated enemy. However, this same tumbling effect makes it fairly useless in a jungle/bush environment as it will tumble immediately on hitting the smallest, lightest obstruction, like a twig or leaf, and whizzing off its intended flight path to god-knows-where. In contrast, the heavier and stable, jacketed 7.62mm will punch through such minor obstacles, maintain its aim point, and poke a neat, clean hole in the enemy, transferring its energy (as noted in an earlier post) and likely disabling the bad guy. Comparing the great difference in the the 5.56mm's cavernous exit wound profile to the quite small (and neat) hole left by the 7.62mm explains why the Geneva Convention crowd opposed the introduction of this so-called ''wounding' round' (actually a quite inaccurate name as, comparatively, its brutal maiming effect makes it a 'killing round').

Sidebar : Another reason for the M-16's full-auto capability was to permit it to pump enough rounds in a bush/jungle situation to improve the odds of some of them actually reaching the target. This neatly frames an earlier posting that aptly highlighted the virtue of a single well-placed shot which is, historically, the veteran soldier's preferred engagement technique.

So, the inherent design of the 5.56mm makes it fundamentally flawed as an effective hunting cartridge in a forested/bush environment as it is too likely to hit the foliage and ricochet off into oblivion. At the same time, its specific design characteristics make it a deadly varmint round over open fields, i.e., a very effective meat grinder!

To summarize, a firearm or a cartridge is merely a tool, and a good workman always uses the tool best-designed for the job at hand...

 

[BlackHills]

if I am on a disjointed patrol, the M249 looks more and more appealing as the miles roll by vs the m240b.

While I have no experience with the M240 (though I do have experience with a M60) I would never pick a M249 over it. I agree with you on the weight aspect but the SAW is not a weapon that I'm fond of at all. And that's coming from a guy who would pick the 5.56 rifle over the 7.62 rifle 95% of the time.

The 5.56mm, if designed according to 'classic' military standards, would punch a clean, neat hole in the target but, being such a light bullet, the target will suffer comparatively little damage as there would be little energy transfer. So, to make the round effective, it was designed to tumble at the slightest interference in its flight as this tumbling would transfer the bullet's tremendous energy into the target, causing massive, debilitating damage.

Please see my post #34 in this thread, in particular "The increased wounding effects produced by bullet fragmentation were not well understood until the mid-1980’s. Therefore the wounding effects of the original M16 rifle bullet were not an intentional U.S. military design characteristic."