[Guest]

So my FIL gives me a copy of Gun Annual 2008 because he wants me to see an article. So as I'm reading through the issue, I notice two articles written by Charlie Cutshaw. In both articles he wrote, he rips on the 5.56 cartridge as only good for varmint and not well suited as a man-stopper.
I disagree. Your thoughts?

 

[Guest]

After seeing some firsthand ballistic gelatin results from 62gr 5.56 & .223 Hollowpoints, I certainly wouldn't want to be the test subject...

 

[Guest]

Disagree. Sure the 6.8 and all the new rounds are nice, but I think .223 hits can still be pretty nasty.

 

[Guest]

A lot of oold-school people are used seeing the damage caused by battle cartridges like 7.62x51 and 30-06 and then compair that to the 5.56. Me? I think the bottom line is that bullets hurt, and I don't wanna be hit with any caliber. That being said I'd still place myself in the "no love" crowd. While I may not like the idea of being hit with a 5.56, if I needed a rifle to save my life, I'm afraid I still hold anxieties that it would take more shots of the 5.56 than the 7.62x51 to take down an attacker. But, I'm just me. Soldiers usually have other soldiers with them to help with supressive fire; which, to my understanding, is what the 5.56 was made to do.

 

[Guest]

There are plenty of veterans who could testify about the stopping power of a 5.56 round. Anyone who was in the military knows it's a good round, I've seen the damage one well-placed round can do. Just my $.02.

 

[Guest]

There are plenty of veterans who could testify about the stopping power of a 5.56 round. Anyone who was in the military knows it's a good round, I've seen the damage one well-placed round can do. Just my $.02.

Very true, but why don't people have this debate about other cartridges?
Maybe not everyone in the armed forces loves it, but a great many of them at least. Regardless, I still think your right, it is a good military cartridge.

 

[Guest]

just old schoolers that cant get over that the 308 and the 30.06 lost the top spot like the 45 acp did.

the crap reallys going to hit the fan when the top brass decide to go to a new caliber because im sure it will be a "new" possibly smaller round to go with the whole urban combat way of thinking..then we will be posting about how we wished the armed forces had stuck with the 5.56 and is a better manstopper then the new whatever they decide to go with.

 

[Guest]

If I HAD to choose, I would rather get hit by the 5.56 than a 7.62x39.

 

[Guest]

Alot of people are always looking for bigger and better. I have shot several coyotes with the .223 and it drops them dead. I know that these are coyotes and not people, but if you ask the varmint crowed, then I should have used a .204 or .22-250 maby even a .243. Many of the magnum cartriges today are overkill, but alot of folks are very interested and infatuated by them. Dead is dead, I love my 5.56!
DaFunk

 

[Guest]

I've got a .223 and it's a great varmint gun but it's not the rifle I'd pick up if I knew I needed to take somebody down at 200 meters, or beyond.

I love the government's fetish for designing new cartridges which serve the same role as existing cartridges. The 10mm Auto and the 6.8 come to mind.

The fact is we could have taken the 7.62x39, blown the shoulder out a bit, used modern powders, and gotten a 125 grain BT bullet up to about 2700 fps. This would hit harder out at 400-500 yards, where volume fire gets imperfect hits but gets them just the same. That's also about about where the 5.56 becomes a 22 mag FMJ. At 600 the '7.62 American' is still equivalent to a .357 magnum.

I don't wanna get hit eith either of them at 600 yards myself- but I can damn sure tell you which one I'd rather NOT get hit with.

 

[Guest]

Just curious, what took the place of the .45? I haven't seen many people carrying around .50 cal

 

[Guest]

Just curious, what took the place of the .45? I haven't seen many people carrying around .50 cal

9mm replaced .45acp

 

[Guest]

I think the real trick is getting the round to do more damage than with just "hole punching". If a person were to get struck with a big bullet...and it just leave an entry hole, and then an exit hole....the patient would be able to patch both holes etc...Pick out the bullet etc.
The catcher is like the military's m193 round that'll fragment upon impact with flesh type...thus having an entry hole..and a big mess inside. That's the trick to "knock down power"...causing enough mahem inside to shut down vital systems...and not just making bigger holes. IMHO of course....

 

[Guest]

There was a thing on discovery chanel about the ak vs. m16 it's floating around on youtube. Part of it is about 7.62 vs. 5.56. it showed when the 5.56 round entered it tumbeled and fragmented causing more damage than the 7.62.

 

[Guest]

Like Fat Matt said a through and through is not as bad and has less knock down power b/c there is enegry still in the projectile when it exits

 

[Guest]

I like heavier caliber rifles, too. However, 300 rounds of .223 in AR mags weighs the same as 100 rounds of .308 in M1A mags. With so many gunfights being prolonged affairs on the battlefield, I think I like the idea of a smaller caliber weapon, compatible optics and lots of ammo, rather than a 10 pound rifle and far less ammo... but this is for the masses and units. If the mushroom appears on the horizon...I would take an FN FAL w/optics and 12 mags in a BAR belt... plus my suppressed .22 pistol. One gives me ballistic advantage over most AR's... the other gives me the capability to get more.

 

[Guest]

If I HAD to choose, I would rather get hit by the 5.56 than a 7.62x39.

Well, if that ever happens, good luck with the path that little 5.56 takes as it tumbles through your body. Don't count on a quick entry/exit like the 7.62, but rather lots of internal tissue damage. Maybe you will get lucky and it will miss several vital organs as it runs a marathon through your body.

 

[Guest]

I don't own a rifle yet, but when I think of the 5.56, I think of my friend during Desert Storm. They were authorized to shoot these wild dogs that were around the camp. He said he hit one in the chest area and the exit wound in the leg area caused his guts to be wrapped around his leg. The dogs leg was tangled in his own intestines. Sick.

 

[Guest]

I like heavier caliber rifles, too. However, 300 rounds of .223 in AR mags weighs the same as 100 rounds of .308 in M1A mags. With so many gunfights being prolonged affairs on the battlefield, I think I like the idea of a smaller caliber weapon, compatible optics and lots of ammo, rather than a 10 pound rifle and far less ammo... but this is for the masses and units. If the mushroom appears on the horizon...I would take an FN FAL w/optics and 12 mags in a BAR belt... plus my suppressed .22 pistol. One gives me ballistic advantage over most AR's... the other gives me the capability to get more.

man I wish i could have one of those!

 

[Guest]

The fact is we could have taken the 7.62x39, blown the shoulder out a bit, used modern powders, and gotten a 125 grain BT bullet up to about 2700 fps. This would hit harder out at 400-500 yards, where volume fire gets imperfect hits but gets them just the same. That's also about about where the 5.56 becomes a 22 mag FMJ. At 600 the '7.62 American' is still equivalent to a .357 magnum.

They already did this (pretty much)... It's called the 6.5 Grendel. It could feasibly replace the 5.56 and the 7.62 NATO rounds out to ~1000 yards.

I think a lot of the old-timers' dislike for the 5.56 as a "man stopper" has to do with the use of FMJ ammo. If our troops could use more hollow-points and/or frangible stuff, it would be a different ballgame, especially the way bullet technology has evolved in the past few decades. But no, we play by the rules... Even though nobody else does.