Of course there is no way to confirm someone's bona fides over the Internet but I seriously doubt everyone is a liar.
BTW, don't believe everything you read at Box o' Truth.

Not everyone is a liar, but a fair few on pro-gun forums are range commando types who come across as complete nutcases.

I rather like the Box o' Truth.... given that they provide photographic evidence of most of what they do, I would think them one of the better internet gun sources.

This cannot be seriously questioned by anyone with a shred of first-hand combat experience with the cartridge.

 

Based on what I've experienced in my "shred" of first-hand combat experience:

5.56mm has reliably penetrated body armor and helmets from 1980 through 2003 (first and last use)

5.56mm has reliably penetrated vehicle windshields, side windows, and door panels.

5.56mm has no need to penetrate "concrete block, brick, live wood, etc." because (1) if you are hiding behind them you are not a threat to me since the 7.62x39 won't penetrate them either, (2) I'm not going to waste ammunition firing at a concealed target that is unable to threaten me, and (3) I have much more efficient ways to kill you should you choose to become stationary behind those types of cover, not the least of which is maneuver.

When an aimed 5.56mm round hits a vital area of a human being, the human being dies quiet rapidly and very permanently.

 

My experience in combat, at the range, and in the ballistics lab also informs me that neither 5.56mm, 7.62mm, nor .50 cal will penetrate a 4 inch barrier of water so maybe we should scrap them all in favor of 25mm or larger rounds so we can have reliable penetration. 

Glad to hear you've had good success with the 5.56. But that doesn't mean a lot of others haven't. The fact remains there are plenty of ballistic deficiencies. The good guys in Army SF didn't develop the 6.8 SPC because they had nothing better to do. Nor is it just on a whim that so many M14's have found their way to Iraq and Afghanistan decades after it was officially replaced by the M16. Perhaps the effort to develop and field heavy bullet 5.56 loads is governmental foolishness at the taxpayer's expense?

 

I love Eugene Stoner's baby in just about all varieties. It's a great handling, very accurate carbine much more reliable than many of its critics concede. I own a Rock River M4gery myself and plan on another full-size weapon in the near future...just not in 5.56mm.

Not a soldier, but I will paraphrase what Horsesoldier will tell you about SF and 6.8mm SPC.  There are no weapons in the US inventory for that caliber...the advantages did not outweigh the costs.

By who's standard...the soldiers in the field or bean counters at the Pentagon? I think I'll side with the guys actually doing the fighting.

Uh by the standard that the troops in the field DON'T USE THE 6.8MM SPC...that would seem to refute your claim would it not?  The bean counters AND the troops shooting have been unimpressed with the 6.8mm, again according to a 20 year veteran.  I shouldn't say "Unimpressed" better to say they were not impressed ENOUGH to push for the 6.8mm.  Please note that SCAR is in 7.62 SovBloc or 5.56mm not 6.8mm.

 

Finally, the point of the thread seems silly.  5.56mm won't penetrate wood or steel, OK.  but does that make it an INEFFECTIVE round?  If you are hiding behind a barrier and I can't hit you, BUT YOU STAY BEHIND THE BARRIER AND DON'T SHOOT, i.e., you are "suppressed" what difference does the penetration effect have on the tactical situation?  In short, being able to penetrate wood or dirt or many field fortifications is nice, but as long as the round will kill or wound the unshielded opponent and as long as the opponent, realizing that, makes no contribution to the firefight is the lack of penetration really a problem?  I believe someone else has already said, if you're hiding in your hole, and pinned in position there are other weapons and tactics available to the US unit, indirect fire, or maneuver.

5.56mm M855 is a semi-armour piercing round, and will penetrate more steel than 7.62mm NATO.  7.62mm has the advantage in penetrating wood and brick etc, as a result of its far greater munition weight.

 

Justbill, you claim you stand on the side of the soldiers in the field, but some of those very people are who you are arguing with here.

 

5.56mm M855 is a semi-armour piercing round, and will penetrate more steel than 7.62mm NATO.  7.62mm has the advantage in penetrating wood and brick etc, as a result of its far greater munition weight.

 

Justbill, you claim you stand on the side of the soldiers in the field, but some of those very people are who you are arguing with here.

 

http://limewoody.files.wordpress.com/2006/03/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg" width=300 border=0>

 

Any further discussion about the effectiveness of M855 ammo deserves this picture.