PDA

View Full Version : 5.56 Lethality


Lawless
10-25-2008, 15:47
Im on another gun related site and this seems to be hashed and re-hashed more times than I can count. We all know that the 5.56 has some serious issues stopping a man who is bent on killing you. That said the AR platform is my baby. I love the modularity of it and I happen to own 13 of them in different configurations. Many have attributed the lack of stopping power to the current m855 ammo being like an ice pick going through human flesh. The original twist rate of the barrel was 1-14 if I am correct. Out of neccesity it was changed to 1-7 to accomidate more chemicals in tracer rounds. Longer bullets need a faster twist rate to stabilize. The current ammo could not effectively hold enough of the glow stuff to give the tracer rounds effective range. Thus the current ammo we have. The platform was originally designed with the 1-14 twist so it would barely stabilize in flight and cause major tissue damage due to the tumbling effect upon impact. This is less likely to happen with a bullet that is incredibly stable (1-7) than it was with the original 1-14 twist. Then we have revisions in bullet design that have come about as of late. Im talking about the 77gr mk262 ammo that is being issued in small amounts to our boys over there. Ive had experience with both and neither is a shining example of the ideal round for combat. Both have tradeoffs that I would like soldiers not to have to make. The 77gr rounds are more effective at killing the enemy for sure but penetration of that ammo can be stopped effectively by drywall it would seem. Likewise the M855 ammo can penetrate moreso that the 262 but I have seen and heard of more than one instance where an enemy has absorbed upwards of half a mag and didnt go down. Both are definite problems but both kill the enemy. Just not as well as I think most would like to see. So what would you gentleman like to see in regards to the caliber we are issued. All Ideas are welcome but I prefer it to be from people with actual experience in the field of which I speak. Thank you in advance.

Pete
10-25-2008, 16:33
Im on another gun related site and this seems to be hashed and re-hashed more times than I can count. ........


Oh, we've had the go-round here more than a few times. Most understand the barrel length/rate of twist/speed issues between the M16 and M4 when using military ammo.

Most like the AR based platform and like to use it.

Others prefer something else.

A very few come along and try and pimp the cool gun of the week.

Welcome to the board from a FOG. Not vintage yet:D

Pete

Lawless
10-25-2008, 16:42
Thanks, I did a quick search for 556 lethality but didnt get anything. The other site is Silencertalk.com and the thread is going on now. That site is primarily people that arent using it and never have in a military fashion. I favor the increased lethality of the 77gr round but mud huts and vehicle glass put a stop to that. That sucks in combat however ideal in home protection. I load my guns with the heavy stuff that breaks up so I dont have to worry about shooting my family or the neighbors. But in combat I want that round to keep going.

Pete
10-25-2008, 17:02
Here is a good thread to look through for fun.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10252&highlight=%22Gun+porn%22

Not related to the subject in this thread - but fun none the less.

Trip_Wire (RIP)
10-25-2008, 19:09
As an old FOG, my experience is somewhat dated on actual kills; however, I will say this based on my experience in combat in Korea.

I broke my arrse making sure I was armed with an M-2 .30 Carbine with 30 Round magazines, before I had much experience with real combat.

After a few mass frontal attacks by NK and Chinese soldiers, I changed my mind and decided to carry and use the old reliable M-1 Garand, because the .30 Carbine round wasn't knocking them down. Also, in full auto-mode, most of the rounds were wasted, even turning it sideways. The old 30.6 round is hard to beat for 'knock-down power!'

When I was able to I also used the 30.6 BAR, which was my most favorite combat weapon, even though it drew fire when fired on full-auto in bursts. It did the job though!

I'd also have to give high marks to the WWII entrenching tool for CQC, when we were overrun and or/out of ammo. (As well as the .45 pistol.) :eek:

Lawless
10-25-2008, 20:12
Thanks for your input Trip Wire. However old your knowledge may be it is still knowledge. I tend to be in line with your thinking that bigger is better. No pun intended. I used higher caliber rifles alot but for main battle applications I mainly used the M4. I had an mM14 but kind of shyed away from using it when I had a delinked M80 ball round blow up in my face. Also our contact was primarily in MOUT situations and the m14 in its full length form does not lend itself to house clearing. Its almost dangerous in that regard. Todays fighting has changed so much and the weapons systems have not caught up. 5th group has something with the 6.8 for sure. Its a great caliber. Ive got an AR in the caliber but Id be lying if I said I had any experience in the sand box with it. I imagine it would perform as well as I would think but thats not real world experience.

HOLLiS
10-25-2008, 21:11
Having served with those who fought in Korea and spending my time in the puddle. 30 Carbine is not, a M 16.

The E-tool is effective for CQC. (A Gunny of mine, mentioned he had a number of confirms from that weapon)

There are a lot of dead NVA and VC because of the M16 and a lot of living soldiers, Marines and other because of the M16 too.

The AK 47 was superseded by the AK 74, 5.45 round.

In RVN, if some one offered a M14 instead of a M16, it probably would be rejected. With a M16 you can carry twice as much ammo. For those who had to walk for a living that was a big concern, weight.

There are many great calibers. Also that is why there are squads, and squad size weapons. To help fill in the down side of what the standard arm does not do.

Lawless
10-25-2008, 21:30
Ive walked with plenty of ammo in my day in different terrain. Ammo carrying was always an issue. When you thought you had enough you were always calling for more and when you didnt get contact it was easy to think it was too much. The heavier weapons were not always carried either. A SAW is in the same caliber as our rifles and it takes just as many rounds to kill someone. Like I said earlier I love the M16 and its variants. Just that the caliber seems more like a compromise when applied to later barrel design. Im merely trying to pick the collective mind of people I know of whoms opinion I can respect. I can think of a few situations where it would have really eased my mind to see the bad guy dead on the ground and not stumbling around a corner.

EDIT Almost forgot to mention the 74. The 5.45 is a deadly round. The Afgans refer to it as the poison bullet if I remember correctly. It is designed to and does exactly what the M16 did with the slower twist rate. It accomplishes this by having a long light round with weight mainly in the back of the bullet. In testing it has been shown to start to tumble within 1.5 inches after impact. This creates a massive wound channel that causes serious CNS damage. That said the M16 now relies on fragmentation of the round rather than tumbling which relies on velocity which relies on barrel length and the list goes on. For comparison a krink in 5.45 is just as deadly at 100 meters and in as its full size parents. If you had an M16 with a barrel length of 8.5 inches you would be lucky to get fragmentation across a big room. That seriously hurts the lethality of the round. Im not trying to be arguementative, just stating fact. Its apples and oranges with the two rounds because of the way it accomplishes its job is totally different than our M16.

The Reaper
10-25-2008, 21:37
This horse has been beaten to death here already.

The Search button is your friend. The Ammo Talk thread has a variety of 5.56 ammo discussions.

TR

Lawless
10-25-2008, 21:58
No problem TR.

Oldschool45B
11-24-2008, 22:34
I have both Crane NSWC and the FBI testing results for the 5.56 (and others) for anyone here that would like them. I can put them on a disk and send it to you, as well as some other usefull stuff I have accumulated like the Marines study of the 5.56 effectiveness after Faludja. Or I can email it to you if you can receive large files.

Just send me an email at James@fbmginc.com with tests results in the title. And yes, according to both if the right grain weight is twisted properly it will fuck your day up.

tom kelly
12-01-2008, 19:16
When our Team Det. A-333 arrived in Nha Trang in June 1964 we came from Okinawa with the 7.62 M-14 which we handed off to the departing Team for their AR-15 the orginal Armalite/Colt model 5.56 rifle, without the foreward assist charging handle. Coupled with this we also had the orginal ball ammunition with the incorrect powder charge which caused many mal-functions, Needless to say No One took this POS out of Camp on patrol. Sure the 5.56 Ammo was lighter 12lbs./500 rounds vs the 19.4 lbs. for the BAR let alone the weight of 6 to 10 magazines of 150 grain 30.06 you carried for the basic load. When you engaged in a firefight you were dam happy to have that air cooled, gas operated, magazine fed, 20 rounds sholder type w/bipod AR.Just my .02 cents of long ago history....Regard's, tom kelly

Gene Econ
12-01-2008, 20:28
I have both Crane NSWC and the FBI testing results for the 5.56 (and others) for anyone here that would like them. I can put them on a disk and send it to you, as well as some other usefull stuff I have accumulated like the Marines study of the 5.56 effectiveness after Faludja. Or I can email it to you if you can receive large files.

Just send me an email at James@fbmginc.com with tests results in the title. And yes, according to both if the right grain weight is twisted properly it will fuck your day up.

OS:

So tell us all the right 'grain weight' and 'twisted' is necessary to kill any human being at any any range from the barrel to lets just say 300 meters?

TS, TR, or Mr. Peregrino -- take over please. I have work to do with men who are serious about their profession and don't have time to play with guys who define rifling twist as 'twisted' or bullet performance as being a factor of 'grain weight'.

Gene

Peregrino
12-01-2008, 20:40
OS:

So tell us all the right 'grain weight' and 'twisted' is necessary to kill any human being at any range from the barrel to lets just say 300 meters?

TS, TR, or Mr. Peregrino -- take over please. I have work to do with men who are serious about their profession and don't have time to play with guys who define rifling twist as 'twisted' or bullet performance as being a factor of 'grain weight'.

Gene

Gene - If I haven't weighed in on this one yet, what makes you think I'm going to "take out the [expletive deleted]" now? :p Are you headed this way anytime soon? I want to pick your brains about the RA's experiences with the 110. (Last time I asked LR1947 it took drugs to get his BP back to normal!)

Sinister
12-01-2008, 20:49
"(Last time I asked LR1947 it took drugs to get his BP back to normal!)"


Heheheh.

Gene Econ
12-02-2008, 07:55
Gene - If I haven't weighed in on this one yet, what makes you think I'm going to "take out the [expletive deleted]" now? :p Are you headed this way anytime soon? I want to pick your brains about the RA's experiences with the 110. (Last time I asked LR1947 it took drugs to get his BP back to normal!)

PG:

May be pretty soon in fact due to some news I just got about some training.

Not much to pick about the M-110. My information is that it "needs work" and that is putting it politely. Never had much luck with the SR-25 either. I have had an AR-10 for about ten years and mistrust it due to repeated failures to function. Funny thing about it and other .30 caliber gas guns is that they all seem to love that old M-852 Match but sucks with anything else.

Maybe my 'bullet grain' and 'twisted' aren't right.

Gene

The Reaper
12-02-2008, 08:03
Gene:

I think he was trying to be glib, not using the terms literally.

Have you tried any of the new AR-10 mags? They seem to improve function significantly with mine.

TR

Gene Econ
12-02-2008, 19:15
Gene: I think he was trying to be glib, not using the terms literally. Have you tried any of the new AR-10 mags? They seem to improve function significantly with mine. TR

TR:

Roger -- knew that. He has a sense of humor similar to mine. Very dry.

No, haven't tried new AR-10 mags as of yet. The problem wasn't necessarily with the magazines but extractor and ejector this go around. The last couple were over gassed systems common to commercial uppers. Finally I got it rebuilt with a decent gas system and a decent barrel. Still a beast to deal with. Awkward is about the best way to explain it. Not sure I want to pump more money into it but will take a look at some magazines.

A strange beast indeed.

Gene