Myths About the NATO 5.56 Cartridge *subjective*

[wolf223]

i just love reading stuff like this.

http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge

There are a lot of myths and misconceptions surrounding the current NATO 5.56 round and its effectiveness on the battlefield. Now before you make a judgment as a soldier or as a firearm enthusiast (a more euphemistic way of saying “gun nut”), consider your sources. Who is it that is telling you the 5.56mm, or .223 if you prefer, is an ineffective round? Is this source an armchair general who has watched Blackhawk Down one too many times; or a Navy Corpsman who has been attached to a MEF fighting in Fallujah and has seen, treated and inflicted these wounds with his own M-4? People look at the .30-06 round from their grandfather’s M1 Garand and the 7.62×51mm round from their dad’s M-14 and compare it to the M-16/M-4’s 5.56 and think; “Wow, this is considerably smaller. Therefore, it must be less effective.”
Now Joe Nichols had it right when he said, “Size Matters.” However, when you are talking about combat cartridges this is not always the case, and I say that hesitantly. When the 5.56 was derived from Remington’s .223 in the late 1950’s, it was meant as a “force multiplier” if you will. By that I mean a soldier could literally carry twice as much ammunition as one who has the older 7.62 for the same weight. They wanted a soldier who could stay longer in the field without re-supply and could literally out-last and out-shoot the enemy in many aspects. The 5.56 is an incredibly fast and flat shooting round compared to the 7.62, but is under half the bullet weight.

So one might ask; ‘How in the world can a smaller bullet be more lethal than a bigger one?” One word: cavitation. Cavitation is the rapid formation and collapse of a substance or material after an object enters it at a relatively high velocity. I guarantee you have seen cavitation before. Next time you are in the pool or on the boat, look at your hand as it passes through the water or the propeller spinning. In both cases you will notice bubbles on the trailing edge of each. You see this because the liquid water falls below its vapor pressure. Without getting into physics and the hydrodynamics behind it, I’ll just leave it at that. When a human body is hit with a 5.56mm 62-grain bullet traveling at 3,100 feet per second; essentially the same thing happens but much, much more violently. For a split second, the cavity created inside the human body by the round from an M-16/M-4 is about the size of a basketball (if hit dead center of mass). The 5.56 creates this massive cavitation by tumbling through the body initiated by inherently unstable flight.
5.56 ballistic test

Other calibers of bullets travel through the body on, more or less of, a straight line after some fragmentation. When the 5.56 round was first designed by Remington, it was meant to tumble through a target, not kill with brute force. It did this not only by the relatively blunt shape, but also by using a rifle barrel with less of a twist. Next time you look at an M-4 or an AR-15, notice it says “5.56 NATO 1:7” on the barrel. This literally translates into; “the bullet will make 1 full rotation for every 7 inches of this barrel.” This was not always the standard twist set for the new NATO round. The first AR-15 made by Armalite, had a 1:14 twist making it a very, very unstable round. One can only imagine the orientation of the entry and exit wounds. Now if you haven’t figured it out already, the less the twist, the more unstable the round is. (1:14 twist is less than 1:7) It is said in “firearm enthusiast” legend that the first tests were done on pig carcasses and that the entry wound could be on the lower right stomach with an exit wound coming out of the back upper left shoulder. It left horrific wounds and terrible internal damage to its intended target, immediately drawing the interest of the US Military, in particular USAF General Curtis Emerson LeMay. That’s right folks, you can thank we in the United States Air Force for the M-16/M-4 legacy (I say this without sarcasm). He thought it was an ideal weapon for his deployed members of the USAF Security Forces for guarding the perimeters of Air Force installations in such places as Korea and Vietnam. Before military trials, Armalite increased the barrel twist to 1:12 to improve accuracy. But when tested in frigid Alaska, accuracy was decreased because of the increased friction from the denser, colder air. Therefore, the barrel twist was eventually increased from 1:12 to 1:9 and eventually to the 1:7 you see it today. Although some bull-barreled AR-15’s and Stoner Sniper Rifles can be found in a 1:9, most issued M-16’s and M-4;s are primarily a 1:7 twist.

This change increased the accuracy of the 5.56 round out past 500 meters, but decreased its lethality when striking a body. Now the real debate begins… How truly deadly is the 5.56? Well, this past April when I was going through Combat Skills Training at Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin, one week was spent in Combat Life-Saving class (CLS). The medics who instructed us had slide show after slide show of combat injuries they have treated over their last three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. And let me tell you, these were not for the weak stomachs among us. If you are reading this article, I bet you are the same type of person as I to ask, “What calibers caused those wounds?” These men and women have seen the worst injuries of coalition forces and enemy combatants alike. The Geneva Conventions state that medics must provide medical care to all captured enemy personnel when able. Therefore, many Taliban and Jihadist fighters came across their operating rooms. After class one day I asked all of them, “Do any of you doubt the killing power of the 5.56 round?” They all answered with a resounding, “NO.”
I personally don’t like telling war stories but I do enjoy telling hunting stories. I have brought down 180 to 200+ pound deer with a 55 grain .223 FMJ (full metal jacket) with no problem. Yes, I know, the counter argument to that is, “Well that’s not an enemy combatant hopped up on cocaine, khat or adrenaline.” I understand that, but if you saw the exit wound or those on the pictures from the combat medics, you would certainly cease your criticism of the 5.56. However, there are certain design features of the M-16/M-4 that continue to puzzle me.

We have all heard the reports of those rifles failing during combat during Vietnam and even yet today. During the 60’s when it was first introduced, it was hailed as “the self-cleaning rifle.” Of course that was proven to be a myth within the first months of its service. Soon thereafter, cleaning kits, cleaning manuals with attractive cartoon-like characters, and muzzle covers were issued in large numbers. A lot of the first problems the rifle saw were due to using ball powder vs. stick powder. Ball powder burns hotter, faster and dirtier than stick does. This caused the rifle to gum up quicker in the humid atmosphere of Vietnam and mis-feed the rounds. The U.S. Military then switched back to the cleaner burning stick powder and added a forward assist to jam the bolt carrier forward after heat expansion and carbon build-up. The military saw this problem and fixed it fairly early on, so why haven’t they saw the clear flaw in the 100% gas-blowback operation of the firearm? Why haven’t they learned lessons from rifles such as the AK-47, AK-74, G36, SCAR and countless other who have switched to a short stroke gas piston?
So far rifles such as the HK 416, HK 417, SCAR and MAGPUL Masada have all incorporated this short stroke gas piston in their designs and have all seen massive reductions in carbon build-up, over-heating, and mis-feeds. If this needs any explaining; what this basically does is stop the hot, carbon-filled gasses just rear of the front sight and pushes a pistol-like rod back instead of the gas traveling all the way back to the bolt carrier assembly. It is even possible to convert current uppers to this gas piston system using such kits as those offered by Bushmaster. If the cost benefit is too great for these kits to be installed, why not begin to install them on the floor as they are now? They are 100% compatible with all lowers used by the M-16 and M-4.
FN SCAR, gas piston operated

So in conclusion, the main flaws of the M-16/M-4 assault rifle system is not necessarily in the round itself, but in one minor design feature of just the upper. This article is meant as a predecessor to a piece in the making on the advantages to switching to a round such as the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel. The 5.56 round is effective, but could be better. I want to hear your feedback. Tell me why so many people (mostly civilians) think the flaws of the rifle are in the round. I’m looking to you military folks; tell me about your operational experience with it. Airsoft players, armchair generals, and firearm enthusiasts; let’s hear your voice, but don’t comment on its “knock-down power” unless you hunt big game with a .223 or were once in the military and have used it in combat. Next up: A viable future replacement for the 5.56 and the M-16/M-4 combat rifles along with first-hand news from the front on forces already making the switch.

Remember; every rifle and every round can be equally as deadly when put in the right hands. We seek to find the perfect round and the perfect rifle to increase that number of hands.

*note: date of the article is 6/22/2009

thoughts?

i'm no expert, but i agree to a certain extent.

 

[Spanz]

The "myth" started in desert storm I, where our troups were hitting Iraqi insurgents with the 5.56, and they were not staying down. Don't know what else you need for a test than that.

 

[Moderator]

I'm still a fan of the big hole theory.

 

[CRSIII]

If 556 was accurate at 1000 yrds,



I still would not want to get hit buy it!

 

[bpm990d]

For a split second, the cavity created inside the human body by the round from an M-16/M-4 is about the size of a basketball

I have a 2007 article from Military Medicine reporting a 6 inch temporary cavity for an M-16A2 and a 4.9 inch temporary cavity for the M-4 when fired into a ballistic gelatin block 3m from the muzzle. Not exactly a basketball.

I still wouldn't want to catch one.

B

 

[wolf223]

The "myth" started in desert storm I, where our troups were hitting Iraqi insurgents with the 5.56, and they were not staying down. Don't know what else you need for a test than that.

i agree, i have personally seen walking wounded "enemy personnel" with 5.56 nato rounds that went right through them. arms, legs, back... entry and exit wounds were pretty much "clean" too - aka "flesh" wounds

i have also seen foreign nationals with gun shot wounds from 7.62 nato that did the same.

one thing that comes to mind is cavitation. some of the trauma courses i've attended cover this with regards to treating such wounds.

i.e. - get shot through the bicep? it's pretty much a flesh would with a high-velocity FMJ.

so, IMO - the 5.56 or 7.62 is not the issue, it's expansion... especially within 150 meters (yards) when the military uses FMJ (ball) ammo.

 

[Chris]

All bullets will lose stability in a fluid mass. You'd have to spin it far faster than is possible to keep it stable in a dense medium. This is why the original 1:12 twist of the M-16 was unstable at extreme cold, the air was just dense enough to make the round unstable.

The thing that makes the 5.56 appear to become less stable than other rounds is that the fairly light mass allows the velocity to drop rapidly in dense material which provides more time for the instability to "work its magic".

Also note that it isn't the weight, but the length of the bullet that also determines what rate of twist is required to stabilize it. The longer the bullet, the faster you need to spin it.

 

[Rob]

The perfect weapon - the ZF-1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pxjnl1yuXk

 

[wolf223]

The perfect weapon - the ZF-1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pxjnl1yuXk

i can't get my hair that straight, but i'd like on of those "half neck - half cover my head" thingies

 

[wolf223]

yep. and expanded upon rather dramatically in the second battle of mog.

my old Bn was the unit from 10th MTN who went in to rescuse the rangers.

not what I was told. one of the guys - we called him "masscot" was a PFC during that deployment, he left Ft. Drum as a First Sergeant....

i'm NOT talking out my ass.

goes back to shot placement.

funny, i stumbled accross this as i was looking to substantiate my other thread with the "modular sniper rifle"

 

[Underwhere]

I spoke to a Vet who was working security at KTP a while back. He told me the day he got shot, he put 5.56 rounds through one particular combatant. He watched the guy shrug off multiple impacts and keep coming. He was hit 3 times by that guy with 7.62 rounds and survived.

 

[P-14]

Shoot hollow points! SEALs are using the 77 gr. OTM (HP) round in their Mark 12s in Afghanistan. I wouldn't want to take a hit with one of those.

 

[Gonzo]

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting three times.

Hell, the security guard at the Holocaust Museum and RFK are two examples I can think of off the top of my head that were killed with .22's.

I've never seen a bullet advertised as "non-lethal".

 

[jobowker]

Couple of things:
1) This is like asking the question "which would you rather have - a small hole in the head or a big one?" The answer is neither, but that doesn't mean they are the same.
2) Hollow points aren't an option - only ball ammo is allowed.
3) The article seems a bit suspect, as the guy doens't understand the difference between cavitation and ventilation - pushing your hand through the water won't cause cavitation, which is strong enough to erode the surface of a steel prop.
4) He is mixing up stretch cavity with a hole. The temporary stretch cavity is the area of tissue which gets stretched or distorted. This doesn't mean that there is physically a basketball sized hole. In fact, most human tissue can survive this temporary stretch.
5) I wouldn't want to be shot with a .22, but that doesn't mean it's just as effective as a 44.
6) Even IF a 5.56 isn't as effective(I'm not stating a fact), the question is whether or not it's effective enough. Since most conflicts are at a relatively close range, one could argue that shot placement is so much more important than caliber size that you don't lose very much by going to a smaller round, yet you stand a lot to gain (greater number of rounds, cost, weight, etc).

 

[Bob P]

So basically this is the rifle caliber version of the 9mm vs. .45 argument.

 

[Gonzo]

So basically this is the rifle caliber version of the 9mm vs. .45 argument.

Chevy or Ford. 1911 or Glock. Pitcher or Catcher.

 

[jobowker]

So basically this is the rifle caliber version of the 9mm vs. .45 argument.

Pretty much!

 

[Larry Legend]

4) He is mixing up stretch cavity with a hole. The temporary stretch cavity is the area of tissue which gets stretched or distorted. This doesn't mean that there is physically a basketball sized hole. In fact, most human tissue can survive this temporary stretch.

I was suspect when he mentioned "basketball sized hole".

 

[terraformer]

Shoot hollow points! SEALs are using the 77 gr. OTM (HP) round in their Mark 12s in Afghanistan. I wouldn't want to take a hit with one of those.

If US soldiers, ANY US soldiers, are using hollow point rounds or any rounds designed to expand or explode (including intentionally fragment which the 5.56 is not intentionally fragmenting but fragments because of it's mass) then they are violating the hague conventions. Violations of the Hague convention are a significant wartime crime so lets hope you are mistaken there.

 

[type911]

Lets talk about what range they are engaging their adversary as well. Velocity has to play a more significant role in this discussion.

 

[ranger4-7]

Originally Posted by jobowker
4) He is mixing up stretch cavity with a hole. The temporary stretch cavity is the area of tissue which gets stretched or distorted. This doesn't mean that there is physically a basketball sized hole. In fact, most human tissue can survive this temporary stretch.

I was suspect when he mentioned "basketball sized hole".

I don't think he states that there is a baskeball sized hole. Here's the direct quote:

"For a split second, the cavity created inside the human body by the round from an M-16/M-4 is about the size of a basketball (if hit dead center of mass). The 5.56 creates this massive cavitation by tumbling through the body initiated by inherently unstable flight."

That sounds a lot like "temporary stretch cavity"

 

[Spanz]

If I were sloggin thru the jungles of Vietnam, and needed to carry the maximum NUMBER of rounds possible in order to get thru a firefight without exceeding a 120# pack weight, I would love the 5.56. If I am 20 feet from my vehicle in Iraq, which has 500# of ammo in it, I would want big azz bullets!

 

[economist]

Shoot hollow points! SEALs are using the 77 gr. OTM (HP) round in their Mark 12s in Afghanistan. I wouldn't want to take a hit with one of those.

If US soldiers, ANY US soldiers, are using hollow point rounds or any rounds designed to expand or explode (including intentionally fragment which the 5.56 is not intentionally fragmenting but fragments because of it's mass) then they are violating the hague conventions. Violations of the Hague convention are a significant wartime crime so lets hope you are mistaken there.

Most likely the issue here regards open tip match-grade ammunition like the Sierra 77gr matchking as opposed to true hollow point ammunition. I am no expert on projectile design, so someone please correct the following if I am in error. My understanding is that open tip match bullets have the small tip opening as a consequence of the production process of wrapping the copper jacket around the core from base to tip. The small resulting opening is not intended to expand, and in fact does not expand like a hollow point bullet.

 

[Dench]

If US soldiers, ANY US soldiers, are using hollow point rounds or any rounds designed to expand or explode (including intentionally fragment which the 5.56 is not intentionally fragmenting but fragments because of it's mass) then they are violating the hague conventions. Violations of the Hague convention are a significant wartime crime so lets hope you are mistaken there.

im just going to leave it at this;

if you only knew.

 

[terraformer]

Most likely the issue here regards open tip match-grade ammunition like the Sierra 77gr matchking as opposed to true hollow point ammunition. I am no expert on projectile design, so someone please correct the following if I am in error. My understanding is that open tip match bullets have the small tip opening as a consequence of the production process of wrapping the copper jacket around the core from base to tip. The small resulting opening is not intended to expand, and in fact does not expand like a hollow point bullet.

Yes, that is correct. He said HP and it didn't occur to me he may have meant open tip. Open tip is swagged and not hot poured.

 

[z0mbi]

I have absolutely zero military experience, so my opinion is worth about as much as nothing, but IMO, shot is shot... and whatever rifle I can shoot faster and more accurately and reload quickly and weighs less, the better.

I'm not advocating soldiers carry .22's or anything like that, but if I had my choice between a large-capacity semi-auto .22 with 1,000 rounds of ammo or a bolt action .308 with 50 rounds, and there was 300 guys rushing my position... I dunno, I might prefer the .22.

 

[Dench]

I have absolutely zero military experience, so my opinion is worth about as much as nothing, but IMO, shot is shot... and whatever rifle I can shoot faster and more accurately and reload quickly and weighs less, the better.

I'm not advocating soldiers carry .22's or anything like that, but if I had my choice between a large-capacity semi-auto .22 with 1,000 rounds of ammo or a bolt action .308 with 50 rounds, and there was 300 guys rushing my position... I dunno, I might prefer the .22.

.22 isnt going to be able to get past any sort of body armor, vehicles or cover.

one of the main reasons why people are starting to want to see the end of the 5.56 is becuase their are better replacements out these days for it.

the war in iraq and afghanistan is aganst enemies that have light clothing on and no body armor whatsoever. whats the US going to do when it goes aganst a professional army that has excellent equipment including body armor like ours? 5.56x45 isnt going to cut it. its going to be a shit show.

 

[economist]

.22 isnt going to be able to get past any sort of body armor, vehicles or cover.

one of the main reasons why people are starting to want to see the end of the 5.56 is becuase their are better replacements out these days for it.

the war in iraq and afghanistan is aganst enemies that have light clothing on and no body armor whatsoever. whats the US going to do when it goes aganst a professional army that has excellent equipment including body armor like ours? 5.56x45 isnt going to cut it. its going to be a shit show.

This is probably a stupid question, but is the armor typically used by our troops sufficient to stop a 5.56 round at typical distances of engagement? Does the projectile matter (e.g., steel core vs. lead only)? And, if so, how far up does one need to go to overcome this armor (e.g., 6.8 spc, 7.62 NATO, etc)? I did some googling, but the level of BS on the net on this topic is substantial.

 

[Dench]

This is probably a stupid question, but is the armor typically used by our troops sufficient to stop a 5.56 round at typical distances of engagement? Does the projectile matter (e.g., steel core vs. lead only)? And, if so, how far up does one need to go to overcome this armor (e.g., 6.8 spc, 7.62 NATO, etc)? I did some googling, but the level of BS on the net on this topic is substantial.

the actual jackets are rated to stop 9mm and some fragmentation. the plates are rated to stop 7.62x51 (up to 3 before it becomes real iffy). i just read a article about new plates being able to offer protection from 7.62x51 AP. so its safe to say that 5.56x45 is going to be stopped by the plates.

even the new helmets offer more protection then the older helmets that were only intended to stop fragmentation.

i dont know if there are any differences between the cores and the type of round, youd have to look up how the current issue body armor reacts to specific threats, although its probably not public info

 

[economist]

the actual jackets are rated to stop 9mm and some fragmentation. the plates are rated to stop 7.62x51 (up to 3 before it becomes real iffy). i just read a article about new plates being able to offer protection from 7.62x51 AP. so its safe to say that 5.56x45 is going to be stopped by the plates.

even the new helmets offer more protection then the older helmets that were only intended to stop fragmentation.

i dont know if there are any differences between the cores and the type of round, youd have to look up how the current issue body armor reacts to specific threats, although its probably not public info

Very helpful. So does that mean that if our troops were to go up against an enemy wearing armor as good as ours including plates we might need something with more energy or better penetration than armor piercing 7.62x51? This is interesting, because it seems to imply that all of the recent 5.56 replacement candidates don't cut it.