Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The truth about the 5.56mm round
TriggaFingaz    1/24/2004 1:51:19 PM
To all infantrymen and gunusers out there , tell me this: is the 5.56x45mm round an effective round or is it so weak that you need more than one shot to drop a man? Some books say that it is absolutely lethal, able to stop one's heart owing to sheer velocity. Other accounts claim that enemy soldiers hit with this round continue charging. Some books claim it will tumble and dig multiple wound channels in the body, detractors claim it drills straight though people but yet has poor anti-material penetration. Which is more accurate? Please specify whether you used M193 or M855 'green tips'.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
Yimmy    RE:P.S.   11/10/2004 1:32:46 PM
"If the Brits ever release the SA-80 for sale to civilians" There are a number of deactivated weapons, and straight pulll cadet rifles on the market; I do not know if it would be posible for an American to get a live weapon.
 
Quote    Reply

Td    TD   3/21/2007 7:18:09 PM
Hi i have been reading ur strategy pages for a while maybe couple months i was eager to join in i own a Ruger Ranch Rifle chambered in .223 REM i done alot of experiments of my own with that caliber cuz i haeard so many stories abt it from Nam i am 33 years old i am Deaf , o respect the 5.56 rd as much as i respect the soldiers who served in Nam i know .223 Rem is Almost same as it i punched holes thru 1/4 inch Steel plates at 50 yds with 55 gr FMJ and 50 Gr JHP they went right thru i was amazed by the power of a tiny bullet and i hear all theses stories from the troops that they want more firepower more high power bullets.... they dont need it cuz i used a scope with shot placement it worked everytime 5.56x45mm RD is more then enough to kill almost anything with a scoped semi-auto rifle with 18.5 inch barrel with 1:9 twist rate forgive me for disrespecting hte troops who didnt like the 5.56 mm but i think they need to aim more calmly and have better scopes and little bit longer barrels then they will be the best fighting force in the world with 5.56x45 mm with 55 gr fmj IMHO.........
 
Quote    Reply

Td       3/22/2007 8:00:01 AM

Hi i have been reading ur strategy pages for a while maybe couple months i was eager to join in i own a Ruger Ranch Rifle chambered in .223 REM ,i done alot of experiments of my own with that caliber cuz i heard so many stories abt it from Nam i am 33 years old i am Deaf , i respect the 5.56 rd as much as i respect the soldiers who served in Nam ,i know .223 Rem is Almost same as it, i punched holes thru 1/4 inch Steel plates at 50 yds with 55 gr FMJ and 50 Gr JHP they went right thru ,i was amazed by the power of a tiny bullet ,and i hear all theses stories from the troops that they want more firepower more high power bullets.... they dont need it ,cuz i used a scope with shot placement it worked everytime 5.56x45mm RD is more then enough to kill almost anything with a scoped semi-auto rifle with 18.5 inch barrel with 1:9 twist rate forgive me for disrespecting hte troops who didnt like the 5.56 mm but i think they need to aim more calmly and have better scopes and little bit longer barrels then they will be the best fighting force in the world with 5.56x45 mm with 55 gr fmj IMHO.........



 
Quote    Reply

Td    5.56X45mm and .223 REM are plenty of firepower   3/22/2007 8:08:55 AM
sorry guys i am new at doign this i went back to correct errors and spelling and i ended up printing the same page twice , tell the troops to complain and get 18.5 inch barrels with 1:9 twist rate and get 9X40 scopes and try the rifles in semi- auto i assure them they will kill alot more insurgents then firing in fully automatic wasting bullets hitting the walls and it ,also alarms the other insurgents nearby of fully autimatic gunfire so IMHO semi-auto is better and try not to shoot too often it confuses where the bullets are coming from........
 
Quote    Reply

historynut       3/22/2007 1:38:56 PM

To all infantrymen and gunusers out there , tell me this: is the 5.56x45mm round an effective round or is it so weak that you need more than one shot to drop a man?

Some books say that it is absolutely lethal, able to stop one's heart owing to sheer velocity. Other accounts claim that enemy soldiers hit with this round continue charging. Some books claim it will tumble and dig multiple wound channels in the body, detractors claim it drills straight though people but yet has poor anti-material penetration.

Which is more accurate? Please specify whether you used M193 or M855 'green tips'.
I think the question is like like asking which is the best man stopper - the 9mm, the 45ACP or the 44 mag. The 44mag would be best but it's too big. Then you end up with the question does the difference between the 9mm and the 45ACP make it worth going to the 45ACP. Spec Op troops think it is.
So what we have is the question is the difference between the 5.56 and a 6.5mm or a 6.8mm round make at worth going to a larger round. The Japanese 6.5mm round seem to do a good job in WWII.  I world let some Spec op troops try it out and see what the difference is. Sooner or later all those M16's will wear out, lets make sure we get the best replacement.

 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       3/22/2007 2:55:35 PM
I'm fairly sure that the SA80 rifle and LSW were offered for sale in the US. They're not made any more but you ought to be able to find some on the market somewhere. I've seen SA80s in private hands on Youtube, amongst  other things.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       3/22/2007 3:07:51 PM

The "Biomass Energy Conversion" senario is one of the biggest frauds ever perpitraited on the public at large. The technology has existed since before WW-II when it was used extencivly in France and Germany. Look at fotos of the time. Any time you see a car with a torpedow like tank on the roof, that is what you are talking about.
1. Untill it is in wide scale comertial production so that the liquid product is available from gas station pumps, it is a non-starter.
2. It will never ever make the USA or any other country energy independant.
3. It is terrably in-efficiant.
4. It compeets with food production for Biomass that some think is waist. I.E. the stuff we do not eat is fed to cows and pigs.
5. The only viable replacement for focile fuels is nuclear power plants and lots of them. So that they can replace very efficiant oil as a motor fuel with electricity and all of its intendant in-efficiancies! Because of those deffects and lack of efficiancy, it takes about ten to twenty times more total electrical power to move your tiny little two person commuter car a mile than it takes oil energy in the form of gasoline to move your six pasenger Dodge or Ford the same distance.
6. If all oil production on the planet was privatised and forced to compete for customers, the price of oil would fall dramaticaly.
7. All other energy technologies that promice "Independance" are frauds or so defective in one way or another as to be of no practicle use.
I can't wait to hear the howls about this post. So please do your reasearch before writing.
From pumpout from the oil well to the car's tire meeting the pavement, the cumulative energy efficiencies across the industrial process involved from extractiuon to the final work done on the pavement is less than 18%.Depending on the car it could be as little as 15%.

Using the same extrapolated model, from fission nuclear power plant supported seawater electrolysis to hydrogen PEM fuel cell car, we obtain, currently, a wheel to the road efficiency of 17-20% using existing technology. The question is why we don't convert over.

The answer is both political and economic. One is that we don't see the immediate return as being worth it to completely retool our auto industry to a new source of energy. We are conservative animals. We don't like massive economic change and  social dislocation. A hydrogen fuel cell economy would be more socially disruptive than the great depression was.

The political answer is that we have a generatioon of technological luddites and idiots who would oppose the wheel on the grounds that it causes ruts in the ground and requires us to build railroads and roadnets thereby destroying the "natural" ecology.

To be fair there is one very practical reason to be cautious about converting over to  hydrogen  PEM  fuel cell tachnology.

Its hard to build 600 Kwatt motored trucks and 6000 Kwatt locomotives using PEM fuel celled electric motors.

And there is this;

   
http://www.greatamericanink.com/thumbs/25094.jpg">

Imagine Betty Rubble, typical suburban housewife, changing out pressurized catalyzed hydrogen gas fuel bottles..........in her car at a filling station.

I wouldn't let my local Gomer Pyle auto mechanic change out a cracked car battery without close supervision.

KABOOM.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Sorry about the thread hijack.......   3/22/2007 3:14:52 PM
but I am something of a hydrogen fuel cell fanatic and I spout off about it every chance I get; as I regard water vapor as being much better for the overall environment than carbon monoxide and nitrous sulfate.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Bullet Mass   3/22/2007 3:15:48 PM
Bullet Mass Kills...you'd look awfully stupid trying to kill a buffalo with a 5.56...but we americans managed to slaughter millions of them with 45.70's loaded with 500 Grain Bullets. Bullet mass kills better...it just that heavier, slower bullets don't shoot as flat so they're harder to use. If I wanted to shoot a poodle I'd use a 5.56...anything man sized use a 7.62 and learn to shoot. If the troops can reliably hit on the first shot...which looks very likely with all the new training and optics...then you are good to go. You probably won't ever run out of ammo in most engagements because you use less. Not to say that there is no need for full auto suppression fire...thats what SAW's are for. This brings us to the interesting paradox of a Infantry rifle being better in 7.62 but the SAW  in 5.56...more ammo, more controlled auto fire. Basically we're back to 2 types of ammo...just opposite of what we had in the 60's-mid 80's with a 55.56 rifle and a 7.62 SAW.
In addition someone made the comment that Boat-Tail bullets are designed to "Tumble" better..thats a load of crap. Boat Tail Bullets are designed to give you a better ballistic coefficient which means the bullet will fly further and straighter than a non boattail bullet. For most shooting ranges..under 300 yds or so it really doesn't matter, but once the range gets out there you want to use a boattail bullet. Just look at the National Matches...all boattail rounds...there's a reason for that.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/22/2007 3:19:25 PM
The old British .303 round was the best design for yawing and tumbling in flesh, having a light (sterile wood filled) nose, and a heavy (non-boat tailed) rear.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics