Whats the truth about the 5.56 round?

[Sheltie]

I have always thought that the 556 was kept because of weight and cost.

A soldier can carry more rounds of 5.56 than 7.62 if weight was equal.

It would cost more per bullet if it was larger and used more powder.

 

[dukeboy_318]

Having served in and with the 5.56, i for one would favor something in .308 or 7.62x51(aka 7.62 nato) the 5.56 does OK for what its intended purpose is, it does penetrate rather well but with the scarafice of knock down power over distance. to be honest, anything over 300yds and the 5.56 is nothing more then a .22LR at 50 yds. Upclose in urban terrain and it simply makes a clean hole right through. Hints why the military had brought the M14 back out of retirement and began issuing it to some units heading to afganistan or they are issuing the new .50 beowolf upper and simply having soldiers swap uppers in the field when needed. I think an AR chambered in .308 would work great so that they dont have to re-train the soldiers on handling of the weapon, just get them use to firing the larger round.

 

[Nemick]

I really appreciate the insightful comments made here and feel that its one more example of how good this forum is. Every day I learn something new and useful.

Neil M.

 

[yotewacker]

I had an uncle tell me many years ago when he got back from Nam. And was some of the first troops to use the 5.56. He was told this. In the military, your purpose is not to kill anyone, but wound them. Then when they lay there yelling and screaming, someone else, usually two troops, will stop shooting at you to help them. Now you have three people not firing at you. If he dies and does not scream, then only one is not able to shoot. Makes sense. Also the weight of the rifle and the ammo was a lot less than its predecessors.
I Saw also were the army is switching from 55gr to 69gr bullets. Just ordered several million of them. More weight, more down range knockdown

 

[Mr. Habib]

Most of the problems that the military is having with lethality using the 5.56 caliber are not due to the caliber, but bullet construction. The M855 round in common use was never designed as a general purpose rifle round. It was designed for use in the M249 SAW. The M855 bullet is designed to defeat light armor. Lethality and accuracy were secondary consideration at best. It's biggest problem, in terms of terminal ballistics, stem from it's yaw dependency. This is why SOCOM and the Marine Corp are going to the Mk272 mod 0/mod1 and Mk317 rounds. The 5.56x45 M16/M4 platform can and is very effective with the right ammo.

 

[kedie]

I don't know about today but the Army was training their troops to shoot at 300 yards and the Marine training involves different positions and different yardage up to 500 yards.

I went through Army Infantry OSUT in 1998. We shot at 500 yard targets during BRM at a range on main post Ft. Benning.

 

[SKSnut]

I went through Army Infantry OSUT in 1998. We shot at 500 yard targets during BRM at a range on main post Ft. Benning.

i was at Ft sill in '95 and 350 was the farthest we shot.

 

[wally05]

I went through Army Infantry OSUT in 1998. We shot at 500 yard targets during BRM at a range on main post Ft. Benning.

Yes, but did you need to demonstrate proficiency in doing that? Was that part of the qualification?

 

[kedie]

It was not part of the qualification. We did have to demonstrate some sort of proficiency but it wasn't all that hard. I think it was a certian amount of rounds on target but I don't remember exactly. What I do remember is pulling targets behind the berm. That was pretty cool.


I think the Army has changed the rifle qualification here recently.

 

[johntheplinker]

Another problem I read about in a declassified DOD report (maybe in the one posted above) was that the 5.56 round requires a certain velocity at impact to work as designed. With the shorter M4 that the Army uses more of, the bullet drops below that velocity at about 150-175 meters. If you would shoot somebody at 200 meters with the 62 gr. round, the bullet will not tumble or fragment and instead just whistle straight through.
Since the Marines are using more of the longer barrel versions, their effective range is quite a bit further. That combined with their better training, reports of ineffectiveness are much fewer from them.

 

[thompal]

I can tell you from personal experience from Nam, that the round does not punch a clean hole. It does tumble and makes a mess out of a man.

Weren't these specific problems fixed when they went to the 62gr ammo, and the M16A1 with a different twist?

 

[XtremeVel]

Weren't these specific problems fixed when they went to the 62gr ammo, and the M16A1 with a different twist?

Well, they were addressed when they went from the 55 gr M193 to the 62 gr M855 round and also went to a faster twist, but I don't know if I would say that any problem was " fixed ". It all depends on whats needed or wanted. A bullet / twist combo that makes a mess out of a man, or a bullet / twist combo that can penetrate a steel helmet 500-800 yards off...

FWIW.. For any AR fan or anyone interested in AR's, the " Black Rifle I & II " by Collector Grade Publications is a great read. It covers the whole history of M16's and AR's 15's from the beginning.

 

[Mr. Habib]

I can tell you from personal experience from Nam, that the round does not punch a clean hole. It does tumble and makes a mess out of a man.

Yeah, the M193 round has a pretty good rep. I think the problems started when the military wanted a longer, heavier bullet to get better long range performance. The M855 round has some real problems, especially at close range. It is very yaw dependent. Up close the bullet tends to punch right through. At longer ranges the bullet has begun to precess and has enough yaw not to strike directly point on. This causes it to tumble and it frequently will fragment at the canilure. When this happens it acts much like the old M193 and does substantial damage, but when it doesn't it will just punch a nice clean hole.

 

[XtremeVel]

I can tell you from personal experience from Nam, that the round does not punch a clean hole. It does tumble and makes a mess out of a man.

Yeah, the M193 round has a pretty good rep. I think the problems started when the military wanted a longer, heavier bullet to get better long range performance. The M855 round has some real problems, especially at close range. It is very yaw dependent. Up close the bullet tends to punch right through. At longer ranges the bullet has begun to precess and has enough yaw not to strike directly point on. This causes it to tumble and it frequently will fragment at the canilure. When this happens it acts much like the old M193 and does substantial damage, but when it doesn't it will just punch a nice clean hole.

+1 I agree also. Only thing I might add is the shorter barrels in the M-4's also gives up a lot of accurary but more importantly velocity. This round relies on velocity !

 

[Joe Williams]

I believe that it came with 20 round mags. If the military had not wanted a 5.56mm platform most likely, IMHO, the standard serrvice rifle would have been the AR-10. I think that you can find 30 mags for the civilan versions of the AR-10, though I have not really looked for them.

I carried the M-16A2 and the M-4 while I was an Air Force Security Forces member. In all of the time that I spent at the range I only ever had a few fail to feed issues, a couple of stove pipes and one or two double feeds (the mags were probably 15 years old and only used for training). I liked the M-16A2 much better than the M-4, to me it seemed like the M-16A2 was more accurate. Plus the M-16A2 had the M-4 beat on a point target by 50 meters (550 meters vs. 500 meters).

When did they get the A2s? When I got out in '95, we still didn't have A1s. The good, ole fashioned ones, no forward assist, skinny barrel, at one point one of my weapons even had the old style three prong flash hider.

I don't know if it's good they've upgraded or not. I liked our M16s. They were lighter, quicker handling in close space, more accurate, and had better triggers than the A2s I tried. But, they were old guns As to the reliability with the weapons, the only malfunctions mine ever had were with blanks. I liked them, a lot.

 

[XtremeVel]

When did they get the A2s? When I got out in '95, we still didn't have A1s. The good, ole fashioned ones, no forward assist, skinny barrel, at one point one of my weapons even had the old style three prong flash hider.

I don't know if it's good they've upgraded or not. I liked our M16s. They were lighter, quicker handling in close space, more accurate, and had better triggers than the A2s I tried. But, they were old guns As to the reliability with the weapons, the only malfunctions mine ever had were with blanks. I liked them, a lot.

If I remember right, we turned our A-1's in sometime in 1985 and got the first A-2's. That was the first time I think the Corps got something before the Army. LOL I might be wrong, but I still don't remember being issued any M855 ammo though and I got out in 1987.

 

[deanr]

When did they get the A2s? When I got out in '95, we still didn't have A1s. The good, ole fashioned ones, no forward assist, skinny barrel, at one point one of my weapons even had the old style three prong flash hider.

I don't know if it's good they've upgraded or not. I liked our M16s. They were lighter, quicker handling in close space, more accurate, and had better triggers than the A2s I tried. But, they were old guns As to the reliability with the weapons, the only malfunctions mine ever had were with blanks. I liked them, a lot.

I was in the Air Force from 2000-2006. We had the A2s when I went in. I only carried an M-4 for about 1.5 years before I got out. I liked the M-4 because of its compactness, but it seemed a lot less accurate than the A2s.

 

[daclamdvm]

The other thing you have to keep in mind is how bureaucratic decision making works. First, it is easier to not make a decision than to make one. Second, you're trying to meet many conflicting demands. Third, whatever new decision you make will have its own drawbacks. I think it does say something that the military has stuck with the 5.56 for so long and while they are pulling M14s out of mothballs for special purposes and are playing with things like the 6.8 and 6.5, they still issue the M16 and the 5.56 with some modifed bullets. Its good at most of what it needs to do. Different guns and different calibers will continue to be tested, but until something new rises to the top of meeting all of the different needs (short range, long range, soft targets, armored targets, manageability, ability to train new recruits, carrying a lot of ammo, cost, etc. etc.) we're probably going to keep using it, and 8/10 responses from people on the forum who actually used it in combat seem to support it. I've never been in combat or in the service, but I am an avid deer hunter. I've shot right through deer with larger calibers and good expanding projectiles, and I've knocked them dead with smaller rounds. And vice versa. Nothing will ever be perfect so they have to go with what seems to work most of the time. I had nothing good to say about an AR15 and the 5.56 until I bought one and now I think I'd be as comfortable with that as either of my .308s. But if I had to choose.... I wouldn't. I'd have my buddy carrying one and me the other so we'd be ready for anything. That and a radio for a back-up air-strike.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I have proof from this weekend that the 5.56 round is plenty to take out a pesty grackle (bird) at 75 yds. 1 shot - 1 kill.

Entered center of mass where the left wing meets the body, and exited in the same place on the right. Very little blood, but litterally clipped his wings and killed him instantly.




All kidding aside, we were shooting steel at 100 yds and this bird thought it would be smart to land a bit closer to us. So, he was eliminated.

Watching and hearing the 5.56 hit the gong was fun, but when we started hitting it with the M1 garand, 7.5 Swiss, K98, and M91/30, it was plain to see that the larger full power .30 caliber rounds definitely had a bit more punch.

 

[mrussel]

its a 55 grain .22 round. whats next, give our guys Red Ryder bb guns. bring back the .308.

Its all about weight. 308 weighs alot more,so they cant carry as much ammo. There are in fact all sorts of interesting concept weapons the army has developed which never made it out of the testing stage,becuase they weighed too much.

The army certainly recognizes the shortcomings of the round,but the real answer is,is there something better. So far they havent found it,if they found it,they would be buying it.

The idea rifle of course is obvious. It has the stopping power of a 30-06,but it weighs as much as a 22lr,when fully loaded (I think the frame is speced out as being made from 'unobtainium'). The rifle itself is more accurate than the most skilled soldier can shoot and holds 500 rounds of ammuntion. It also never malfunctions,needs cleaning or needs maintinance and cost 10 dollars a piece. If you know who makes this rifle,give the DOD a call,Im sure they will place an immediate order for a few hundred thousand.