TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/ ... am_ki.html

I ran across the above link while researching for another post. it is dated (August 2004), but it talks about 5.56 ammo in current use by deployed troops, and it raises questions because so many of us (myself included) have invested considerable time, money, and effort in procuring weapons chambered in this caliber. Personally, I find that the advantages of light weight, accuracy, and capacity offset the possibility of reduced firepower, but I also have two other rifles in .308 if a heavier caliber were called for, so I am comfortable with it.

What do you guys think?


....edited to correct date typo...

...makes sense to this old M14-trained Marine...never liked the M16-never liked that the military uses FMJ...the military don't care what I like...if I had to choose a battle rifle, it'd be the M14 or like platform in 6.8...for defense as a civilian....30-.30 does well...

The Annoyed Man wrote:http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/ ... am_ki.html

I ran across the above link while researching for another post. it is dated (August 3004), but it talks about 5.56 ammo in current use by deployed troops, and it raises questions because so many of us (myself included) have invested considerable time, money, and effort in procuring weapons chambered in this caliber. Personally, I find that the advantages of light weight, accuracy, and capacity offset the possibility of reduced firepower, but I also have two other rifles in .308 if a heavier caliber were called for, so I am comfortable with it.

What do you guys think?

(it is dated (August 3004) Welcome back from the future, TAM. A man ahead of your time!

...that explains the long burned stretch in his alley...

Sure the .223-5.56 will get the job done. Is the .308 better in power? Of course!

My cousin did several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and I asked him the same question. He said in a squad or platoon a .50 cal is never far behind or someone with a .308 and scope if need be. If that wasn't enough artillery or airstrikes would solve the problem. For close quarter combat it was a plus for him. More rounds, less weight, less recoil, you can move faster. He said with the body armor and everything a few pounds makes a huge difference by the end of the day! He specifically liked the 5.56 for Baghdad and several soldiers had .50 cal and .308 in a platoon in Afghanistan. For him they were two totally different wars but in the city the m4 was king for him!

puma guy wrote:(it is dated (August 3004) Welcome back from the future, TAM. A man ahead of your time!

Ooops! Fixed it.

This is not new news. When the M16 was first issued to combat troops in Vietnam in the early '60s the ammunition was "too lightly powered and would never gain wide spread acceptance." Well folks, it is 2012 almost 50 years since that first deployment. The 5.56 is still a good viable round for 300 meters and in. In trained hands kill shots out to 700 have been made. For ranges beyond 300 meters yes, an M-14 would be a better choice. From my experience, remember I was there when the transition was started, Mr. Average Soldier or Marine doesn't have the skill to make proper use of the long range potential of a 7.62 NATO round. Another thing to consider is the average range of most fire fights - - - they occur at less than 300 meters. There are exceptions, especially in Afghanistan. Remember, the 7.62X39 is a 300 meter round too.

I joined the Army in 1960. I was trained to shoot with an M-1 Garand. Later came along the M-14 (.308 or 7.62 Nato). The standard carry amount of ammo for these two was 100 rounds. In 1966 I was stationed in Hawaii an was asssigned as a rifle squadleader in a recon platoon. I was an Infantry Soldier, nothing special just a regular grunt. Then came the M-16 (.223). Then to Vietnam. As the only rifle squad assigned to a recon platoon my battalion commander like using us alot. In the first 60 days in country we had 58 night ambush patrols and 14 day time recon missions. Then as the battalions missions expanded we were sent out to recon areas for four and 5 days at a time. By the way I made Staff Sergeant E-6 on the way over to Nam. Here is my point, with the M-16 you could carry alot more ammo. I carried 500 rounds on me. When our missions expanded to more than an over night patrol and being far from any help it was very important to have as much ammo as you could. In my first tour (12mo's) We incounter the enemy on a regular basses. As for as the ability of the .223 to do its job, it worked fine and took many of the enemies lifes.

I doubt all these folks who talk about the 5.56 being 'underpowered' would volunteer to get shot by one.

Is it the 'perfect round? No. But then again, none are. Every round is a bit of a compromise in any given situation. Each round excels in some areas, not in others. But the 5.56 is a decent compromise given that the military gets recruits from all corners. Some are good shots and could handle the .308 or 30-06 no problem. Some have no experience with firearms and have difficulty with recoil. The 5.56 is a decent compromise given the wide range of environments its used, and the variety of firearms competence of the users.

Well said XinTx. Our scout section consisted of two sections, a 10 howser section and a scout section with mounted M-60's. They were both ran with Jeeps. Some of the scouts prefered the M-14 and carried them in thier jeeps. For us (my rifle squad) we walked. The jungle was intense at times and the fields were soggy from the rice paddies. It was a very humid heat there. For us the light weight of the M-16 was a blessing. I liked all the weapons I used during my time in the Army.

I believe that the M855 was a poor choice of round to be made the standard for NATO. The penetration tip ammo was designed to do just that, penetrate. Specifically, body armor that Soviet shock troops were expected to be wearing when they poured through the Fulda Gap in Germany. That didn't happen, of course, but our folks are stuck with that round. It is NOT designed to expand due to the treaties that we have signed onto and also has a lessened fragmentation effect due to the lowered velocity. Now, couple this with the greater distances that our folks in the "Stan" are firing this stuff at and I can certainly see a lessened effectiveness. All that said, IF our nation ever decides to buy a completely new firearm/weapons platform, maybe this time they will do it the RIGHT way and get several calibers and have a proper competition. But, if its anything like the M9 replacing the 1911, I wouldn't hold my breath.

SkipB wrote:I joined the Army in 1960. I was trained to shoot with an M-1 Garand. Later came along the M-14 (.308 or 7.62 Nato). The standard carry amount of ammo for these two was 100 rounds. In 1966 I was stationed in Hawaii an was asssigned as a rifle squadleader in a recon platoon. I was an Infantry Soldier, nothing special just a regular grunt. Then came the M-16 (.223). Then to Vietnam. As the only rifle squad assigned to a recon platoon my battalion commander like using us alot. In the first 60 days in country we had 58 night ambush patrols and 14 day time recon missions. Then as the battalions missions expanded we were sent out to recon areas for four and 5 days at a time. By the way I made Staff Sergeant E-6 on the way over to Nam. Here is my point, with the M-16 you could carry alot more ammo. I carried 500 rounds on me. When our missions expanded to more than an over night patrol and being far from any help it was very important to have as much ammo as you could. In my first tour (12mo's) We incounter the enemy on a regular basses. As for as the ability of the .223 to do its job, it worked fine and took many of the enemies lifes.

That's exactly the kind of confirmation that I was looking for. The reason I posted this article is that I thought the discussion in military circles had been settled long ago and I was surprised to see it in an article From as recent as 2004. I follow Michael Yon's reporting quite a bit, and he made reference in one of his posts to men complaining about the relative lack of effectiveness of the cartridge, both in certain urban combat situations (unable to punch through certain kinds of barriers that a .30 cal will penetrate) and the usual grumbling about its effecteness in longer range firefights and bucking wind. But on the other hand, it's not something that he spent a large amount of time complaining about......not like his more recent criticisms of MEDEVAC policies.

As I said in my OP, I like the cartridge, and I like the platform, but I'm relating to it from a civilian perspective, never having served in the military or having seen combat any closer than my TV screen. The author of the article made note that some states will not allow the cartridge's use for hunting even thin-skinned game, but I wonder how much that is an institutional bias within the ranks of government in those states. My best friend here in Texas has two hunting rifles: a highly accurized home built AR15, and a custom built bolt rifle in .264 Winchester Magnum. He has put the smack-down on mulies at longer ranges in west Texas using the bolt-gun, but he does about 95% of his hunting with that AR, and he's been very effective with it. The one time I went hunting with him, he shot a smallish doe in the back of the head from a tripod 95 yards out, and the bullet made a clean exit hole right between her eyes that was about 3/4" across. The bullet was a 65 grain Sierra Gameking. My son built an AR carbine for his boss, who promptly took it out hunting somewhere west of Ft Worth and put down about a very large hog with two 55 grain FMJs behind the right ear. In the picture (which I have posted a link to it previously) you can't even see any blood on that side, but the left side of the head was a mess from what I've been told.

I can easily understand how it would not be the best choice for larger game, or even for thin-skinned game at longer ranges, but for this particular part of the country, it seems ideally suited for hunting, and of course it is a varmint cartridge at its roots, so it is a great choice for that application too. I don't know if the "one perfect rifle for all purposes" exists or not. That may be a romantic notion and nothing more. But, there are certain rifle/cartridge combinations that stand the test of time, and that find wide acceptance precisely because they have good track records. Lever rifles in .30-30 come to mind. Bolt rifles in .270, .308, and .30'06 fit that description. Many of these have their roots in military success. I think the AR15 in .223/5.56 is one such combination that makes sense for a lot of reasons in the civilian sector.

There's always going to be detractors for any particular cartridge or weapon system, and newer and perhaps better rifle platforms come along from time to time and tantalize. There have been a number of developments which threaten to replace the AR as the "king" (by American standards) of infantry small arms—the FN SCAR and other concepts similar to it for instance. Perhaps it is because of the sheer number of Americans who have served in the military since the mid 1960s which makes this weapon system so attractive in the civilian market. One could debate these things until the cows come home without ever definitively answering the question.

All I know is that for me, as a civilian, the cartridge and platform seems to be ideal. They are simple to build. They can be built relatively inexpensively......granted, maybe not as cheaply or simply as an AK, but then the AK is not as instantly familiar to millions of Americans as is the AR platform. (I don't say this to knock the AK as my plans are to own at least one in the future.) Ammunition for the AR is relatively inexpensive when comparted to larger calibers, and for the most part, it has good availability. As importantly, there is a broad array of different loadings for it with different bullet designs for different uses. The rifle is relatively light.......as long as you don't play Barby with it. The platform is relatively accurate for a mass-produced fighting carbine. I think the biggest drawback it has when compared to the AK is the lack of a folding stock option which leaves the rifle still usable (which is the primary reason I want an AK). But that in and of itself is not a disqualifier when balanced against all of the AR's positives. And it has one huge advantage over the AK and that is the ability to mate upper receivers in different calibers to a single lower receiver. Granted, it's not as elegant a solution as with a SCAR or an ACR, but it does work, and it is efficient. My next AR related purchase will likely be an upper in a 6.5 to 6.8mm chambering.

Better yet, I was unable for years and years to get my wife interested in shooting rifles. But when I built her an AR carbine, she liked it and she shoots it periodically. She'll likely never be as interested in firearms as I am, but it was important to me for her to have one long gun she was confident with in the event of.........whatever.

None of this means that I think the AR is the perfect "do-all" rifle. If I had to settle on just one rifle, I couldn't do it. I'd still keep my bolt gun in .308. All of these many words simply add up to my disagreeing with the premise of the article I posted.

Anyway, I didn't mean to drag this post on and on........but you guys know me.

Another question for you guys...........If you had to choose between M193 ball and M855 ball and could only have one, which would you pick? I ask because I'm about to pick up another 1,000 rounds in the next few days.

interesting read. I don't know how much of that is really true in practice though. Our government spends loads of time and money making tools to kill other people with. I think they would have abandoned the 5.56 a long time ago if it was really that bad. I have heard many say that the 5.56 is underpowered and special ops are using things like the 6.8 and stuff but the most important target we have executed a mission on in recent years was Osama Bin Laden and he was killed with a 5.56 shot from a hk416. If kills from the 5.56 were iffy after 5 or 6 shots very often I really think they would have chosen something else like maybe even the HK417 which is in 7.62. Just my opinion.

That said I don't want to be shot with any firearm or even a slingshot for that matter. If I was tossing lead at someone else something in the 7.62 variety would likely be my first choice.

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Another question for you guys...........If you had to choose between M193 ball and M855 ball and could only have one, which would you pick? I ask because I'm about to pick up another 1,000 rounds in the next few days.

M193 unless you need the penetrator in M855. For plinking 193 is usually a little cheaper, for anti-personnel M193 is all you need. My social ammo mix is 80% M193 10% JSP and 10% specialty ammo, M855, tracer to announce the last two shots in a magazine, etc.