Myths About the NATO 5.56 Cartridge *subjective*

[terraformer]

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.

The situation with Iran and N. Korea are interesting. They are professional armies with large numbers, but no real use of modern body armor. The only militaries that I know that employ it is European (UK, france, etc), US, Pakistan and Argentina. Not sure who else uses it but that list at least is not high on the probably foes list. But if one ever did, I can see your point.

im just going to leave it at this;

if you only knew.

BTW: The US is not a signatory to the Hague, but generally follows it. However NATO is and when the US is working with NATO, theoretically it should be following the hague (which means no firing from balloons).

 

[Dench]

The situation with Iran and N. Korea are interesting. They are professional armies with large numbers, but no real use of modern body armor. The only militaries that I know that employ it is European (UK, france, etc), US, Pakistan and Argentina. Not sure who else uses it but that list at least is not high on the probably foes list. But if one ever did, I can see your point.

most of the countries that have money in Europe have decent body armor.
if, for god knows why we ever had to fight a force like the EU, we'd be in a situation were we would have to fight a enemy with good body armor. that wont be happening any time soon though!

 

[bpm990d]

Time for a Change: U.S. Military Small Arms Ammunition Failures and Solutions by LCDR G.K. Roberts

This is interesting reading.

B

 

[vellnueve]

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.

The US never actually signed at that convention...

 

[terraformer]

The US never actually signed at that convention...

But NATO adheres to it.

 

[jkelly]

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 think that was a complaint in Vietnam also.

Respectfully,
jkelly

 

[z0mbi]

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

Actually, I was thinking zombies in my example.

 

[Nickle]

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

My brother-in-law was there. CSM Marler, ended up a Bde CSM before he retired.

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.

Nor would I. Not as good as a 7.62, but better than M855 Ball.

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.

Hollow points do not violate the Hague convention. Expanding bullets do. Not all hollow points expand. The current sniper ammo, M118LR (7.62 NATO) uses the Sierra 175 gr HP Match King. The Judge Advocate General has signed off on it, and I'd wager it applies to Mk 262 as well. Mk 262 is the 5.56 ammo using the Sierra HP's.

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.

You are correct. Match hollow points generally do not expand. The bullets in question most certainly don't.

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.

Bullshit. The difference is in the way the jacket is made (as in thickness), the amount of open space behind the hollow point, and the size of the opening.

I don't know where "hot poured" comes from, but that isn't a great way to make bullets, other than cast bullets. Jacketed bullets are made in a swage.

The situation with Iran and N. Korea are interesting.

BTW: The US is not a signatory to the Hague, but generally follows it. However NATO is and when the US is working with NATO, theoretically it should be following the hague (which means no firing from balloons).

N. Korea and Iran may have large armies, but, I'd hardly consider them "professional" or "modern". They don't have the same equipment European or North American armies have, and that's the point.

And, the US military is bound to follow both the Hague and Geneva conventions, whether we were signers or not, because it's a matter of policy and regulation. Violation of either may (and likely will) be considered a violation of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Lots of posts here by people that essentiually have NO experience in the matter and little clue. The military folks that posted may have some difference of opinion, but, at least they speak from experience, and are generally correct.

If I quoted you, don't think I singled you out. I just think you're wrong, and got your info from poor sources.

Dench and ChetD and a few others know what they're talking about.

Now, the original source quote is also wrong in a place or two.

The 5.56 was originally the .222 Remington Special and was made for Armalite to use to make the AR-15. Remington adopted it AFTER that, not before. Apparently, the .222 Mag wasn't right for what they wanted.

The twisat that didn't stablize the 5.56 was 1-14. The Army went with the 1-12 due to winter accuracy being better.

I've studied Wound Ballistics some, as my sorry ass might need to know about it someday (maybe as soon as next year).

The M193 (55 grain) actually seems to have better wound ballistics than M855 (62 grain). That's due to bullet design and velocity, though I don't think there's as much difference as many might think. M855 is said to tend to act more like M80 Ball (7.62 NATO), in that it's more likely to pass through, instead of fragmenting and tumbling.

I can say the 5.56 was originally (early 60's) made out to be more than it really was.

And, the real bottom line here?

BULLET PLACEMENT IS EVERYTHING!!!!

Better to hit with a .22 than to miss with a .45.

 

[terraformer]

Please read what people write and don't selectively quote them before blasting them for shit they didn't do.

Hollow points do not violate the Hague convention. Expanding bullets do. Not all hollow points expand. The current sniper ammo, M118LR (7.62 NATO) uses the Sierra 175 gr HP Match King. The Judge Advocate General has signed off on it, and I'd wager it applies to Mk 262 as well. Mk 262 is the 5.56 ammo using the Sierra HP's.

I would say that HP handgun ammo definitely do as they are all made to expand. The issue is rifle ammo, which a lot of people refer to as open tip is apparently also referred to hollow point. Different concept where in rifles soft point is typically the expanding type, open tip/hp is generally not. But early expanding non spitzer point designs were truly hollow point. Hence I am not used to referring to open tips as hollow points but I acknowledged the mis communication in my response above.

Bullshit. The difference is in the way the jacket is made (as in thickness), the amount of open space behind the hollow point, and the size of the opening.

I don't know where "hot poured" comes from, but that isn't a great way to make bullets, other than cast bullets. Jacketed bullets are made in a swage.

As I said, they are swaged. But if you want to get really detailed, the open tipped rounds are swaged from the base up with unformed lead cores. The core is pressed into the jacket and the wrapping of the jacket finishes off the top of the core and tip. Most match grade bullets have thick jacket bases. Std ball ammo, especially non spitzer, is swaged ogive down around an already formed (cast) core (the jacket is already formed much of the way in the case of spitzer). That's where the "hot poured" comes in. I never meant to suggest they pour molten lead into a jacket.

N. Korea and Iran may have large armies, but, I'd hardly consider them "professional" or "modern". They don't have the same equipment European or North American armies have, and that's the point.

The general use of the term "professional" usually refers to armies that are paid/conscripted by sovereign nations. I clearly indicated I did not think they would fit into the category of modernly equipped and never said as such. Dench clearly understood my point because he agreed it was EU/NATO armies most likely to be armored at the individual level. And my point was when did we really think a modern armored force would be a foe. Again, he clearly *got it*.

Lots of posts here by people that essentiually have NO experience in the matter and little clue. The military folks that posted may have some difference of opinion, but, at least they speak from experience, and are generally correct.

If I quoted you, don't think I singled you out. I just think you're wrong, and got your info from poor sources.

Don't selectively read and misconstrue statements then get all huffy based on the backgrounds of those who made them. Backgrounds which you may not know much about. Judge the statements for what they are and contain. It is the above type of ignorant generalization that gives us special classes of people such as cops and military who get special rules or selective treatment by the law (ie; ex military get carry rights in some towns where pleebs get restrictions) which have no basis in ability or knowledge. I was down on Langley AFB a few years back for work and was talking to some Airmen who knew nothing about firearms. Yet you seem to suggest they would know more than me simply because of their career choice. Think about that for a sec.

 

[wolf223]

please lets keep this open....


i agree with t-dog. i've learned more about firearms in the last 1+ year w / NES than I ever knew before i.e. M9, M4, M240, M-something something

 

[type911]

I love my 6.8, Ah hell I love my 5.56 as well. My 6.8 is my go to SHTF AR though. Such a fun round. I wish our Mil. would make it the new standard. Best of both worlds in my opinion. Still light, 28 vs 30 rds so plenty of ammo. But you are packing alot more umph.

 

[Nickle]

Please read what people write and don't selectively quote them before blasting them for shit they didn't do.

Well, I actually DID read it over well. I just disagree with some of the stuff posted, and to that much of a degree.

Some of the info is just flat wrong.

I would say that HP handgun ammo definitely do as they are all made to expand. The issue is rifle ammo, which a lot of people refer to as open tip is apparently also referred to hollow point. Different concept where in rifles soft point is typically the expanding type, open tip/hp is generally not. But early expanding non spitzer point designs were truly hollow point. Hence I am not used to referring to open tips as hollow points but I acknowledged the mis communication in my response above.

And, we were talking rifle ammo anyways, so the pistol ammo being what it is is irrelevant. We're not talking early ammo, we're talking modern ammo. Soft points weren't in discussion either, so they too are irrelevant (though you are right, they expand).

People can call target hollow points open tip all they want, but that doesn't make that the proper term (or even change what the manufacturer calls them either). What you call them isn't what the manufacturer (Sierra and Hornady), the government or the Hague convention calls them.

You're wrong on rifle hollow points being generally not expanding. Some even fragmentate, in an explosive manner. Some do neither.

Rethink taking me on in this area. I might know a fair amount about making ammo, much further detailed than the average reloader. Think Type 06 FFL (ammo manufacturer) level of knowledge.

As I said, they are swaged. But if you want to get really detailed, the open tipped rounds are swaged from the base up with unformed lead cores. The core is pressed into the jacket and the wrapping of the jacket finishes off the top of the core and tip. Most match grade bullets have thick jacket bases. Std ball ammo, especially non spitzer, is swaged ogive down around an already formed (cast) core (the jacket is already formed much of the way in the case of spitzer). That's where the "hot poured" comes in. I never meant to suggest they pour molten lead into a jacket.

FMJ is, as you say, swaged from the ogive down. Any other bullets, are done base up. That's hollow point, soft point or ballistic tip.

I'll tell you I'm not soi sure they use castings to make FMJ, and I really doubt they do.

They certainly don't to make the rest, they use cut lead tha thas been swaged to look similar to large spaghetti. I think you'll find FMJ's are made much the same these days.

The general use of the term "professional" usually refers to armies that are paid/conscripted by sovereign nations. I clearly indicated I did not think they would fit into the category of modernly equipped and never said as such. Dench clearly understood my point because he agreed it was EU/NATO armies most likely to be armored at the individual level. And my point was when did we really think a modern armored force would be a foe. Again, he clearly *got it*.

Professional, by definition, when it comes to military usually excludes conscripts.

You posted Iran and N. Korea. I see them as neither, and that was my point.

Don't selectively read and misconstrue statements then get all huffy based on the backgrounds of those who made them. Backgrounds which you may not know much about. Judge the statements for what they are and contain. It is the above type of ignorant generalization that gives us special classes of people such as cops and military who get special rules or selective treatment by the law (ie; ex military get carry rights in some towns where pleebs get restrictions) which have no basis in ability or knowledge. I was down on Langley AFB a few years back for work and was talking to some Airmen who knew nothing about firearms. Yet you seem to suggest they would know more than me simply because of their career choice. Think about that for a sec.

Post proper statements, they won't get misconstrued. Use the proper terms, not something you coined, and you won't get misconstrued.

I judge posts by content and accuracy, generally, and ignore spelling and grammar errors.

As to the Air Force knowing nothing about small arms, exactly how does that relate to Army or USMC veterans and members? (See, I DO pay attention to what's being posted.)

Look, I know most of my beef with your posts is inaccurate information being put out there. I may have quoted you a LOT, but, you aren't the only one that does it.

I'll add that you really should read some of what you post, as it frequently leads folks to believe you know little about the subject (and not just this thread). (The whole "I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV", or the "my cousin's ex-roommate's ex-boyfriend says it's so, so I believe it" approach.) Using the proper terms lends to credibility.

Dude, bottom line here is you set yourself up to get called on it. It just happened to be a "hot button" topic for me, so I replied. Just figure it isn't a personal attack, it's rebutting statements made that were less than accurate.

 

[CrossFrire]

"As to the Air Force knowing nothing about small arms, exactly how does that relate to Army or USMC veterans and members? (See, I DO pay attention to what's being posted.)" - Nickle

If memory serves me right, was it not Gen. Curtis LeMay, USAF, who first championed the AR as a service rifle?

I have a question as to another issue with the 5.56 round. I saw one or two articles online that discussed this but I can not say how real it is. The point was that the extremely fast twists used in new ARs effect bullet performance because the extremely high spin rates cause heat sufficient to melt the lead cores inside the jacketing. Is that even possible? One of the side in the debate felt that the molten core is what causes the rounds to effectively explode on impact. Anyone ever heard this effect and do you give it any credence?

 

[wolf223]

do you have a link?

 

[Mike S]

I love my 6.8, Ah hell I love my 5.56 as well. My 6.8 is my go to SHTF AR though. Such a fun round. I wish our Mil. would make it the new standard. Best of both worlds in my opinion. Still light, 28 vs 30 rds so plenty of ammo. But you are packing alot more umph.

I've heard many good things about the 6.8, I'm wondering, is it being seriously considered by the military? Is there any data out there on the ballistic difference between the 6.8 and 5.56?

 

[Nickle]

I have a question as to another issue with the 5.56 round. I saw one or two articles online that discussed this but I can not say how real it is. The point was that the extremely fast twists used in new ARs effect bullet performance because the extremely high spin rates cause heat sufficient to melt the lead cores inside the jacketing. Is that even possible? One of the side in the debate felt that the molten core is what causes the rounds to effectively explode on impact. Anyone ever heard this effect and do you give it any credence?

Good catch on LeMay getting involved. Yes, that's how the M16 got adopted. To replace the misutilized and inefficient M1 Carbine (it was supposed to replace the 1911A1, not the M1 Garand for some troops). In the original USAF use, a good choice. Base security (and AF Security folks CAN shoot well, they're pretty much Infantry.)

The twist causing melting is pretty much BS. Might have some effect, but not as much as they think.

Case in point. M193 Ball (555 gr) in an M16A1 actually has better wound ballistics than M855 Ball (62 gr) in the M16A2/M16A4/M4 series. Now, those newer rifles actually OVER stabilize the 62 gr round, as they need to be able to stabilize 62 gr TRACERS, which are quite long. Optimum twist for the 62 gr Ball is in the area of 1-9 (and why commercial AR barrels are 1-9, along with compromise for 55 gr ammo), not the military's 1-7.

I've heard many good things about the 6.8, I'm wondering, is it being seriously considered by the military? Is there any data out there on the ballistic difference between the 6.8 and 5.56?

No, and it never really was. It's birth was the Spec Ops community, and they get to do all sorts of things the rest of the military doesn't do, or will never do.

Go to Remington's website and check their ammo ballistics to see the difference.

Folks, lots of data floating around about the 5.56 round, and much of it is flat wrong. There's folks out there that let their bias get in the way of the facts.

Know this. I'm military (Army Guard).

I just happen to prefer 7.62 NATO over 5.56 NATO, and M14's over anything AR based. But, I see the facts for what they are, and can say the M16/M4 series rifles and the 5.56 round just aren't as bad as some claim. It works, they (like everything) require routine maintenace and cleaning, and aren't perfect. See, I don't let my bias blind me. So can you.

 

[Mike S]

Interesting info on the 6.8 as compared to 5.56. If the military was smart they'd make the switch now... oh wait...

If this information is correct and the round truly has 44% more energy with a marginal gain in weight/decrease in amount of ammo that can be carried it seems a no brainer, especially with the current contract for the next service rifle up in the air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC

 

[Bob P]

Interesting info on the 6.8 as compared to 5.56. If the military was smart they'd make the switch now... oh wait...

If this information is correct and the round truly has 44% more energy with a marginal gain in weight/decrease in amount of ammo that can be carried it seems a no brainer, especially with the current contract for the next service rifle up in the air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You're talking about costs to stockpile a brand new caliber as well as convert existing weapons to the new caliber - all in an economy that's in the toilet and with a President/administration that's sworn to cut 'unnecessary military expenditures'.

You can forget about a new service rifle and a new caliber for at least the next 3.5 years if not longer. Not going to happen.

 

[Nickle]

Yup, the Army just bought many thousand NEW M4 Carbines over the past 2 years. All in 5.56.

I would know, my current issue piece is one of them.

Why fix what's really not broken? The issue isn;t so much the tool, it's the user' sability to use it.

The Army has made marksmanship more of an issue over the past couple of years.

 

[Mike S]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You're talking about costs to stockpile a brand new caliber as well as convert existing weapons to the new caliber - all in an economy that's in the toilet and with a President/administration that's sworn to cut 'unnecessary military expenditures'.

You can forget about a new service rifle and a new caliber for at least the next 3.5 years if not longer. Not going to happen.

Unfortunately you're right. Somebody should punch all the people in .gov that make these decisions based on cost in the face, then again 44% harder. Maybe it will knock some sense into them and get them to stop giving trillions to their buddies in the banking industry, and start spending it where it's needed.

 

[cekim]

Unfortunately you're right. Somebody should punch all the people in .gov that make these decisions based on cost in the face, then again 44% harder. Maybe it will knock some sense into them and get them to stop giving trillions to their buddies in the banking industry, and start spending it where it's needed.

One of the many reasons why we don't want to give government power to decide life and death of its citizens is that it does and MUST make decisions based on money... That's the bottom line, even for a socialist government (though it may take longer to realize this)... All governments must at some point put a $ value on life. The more power you give them, the more often they must make this decision...

War is an economic phenomenon as much as, if not more than any other aspect of our culture...

Winning a non-nuclear war (which is unwinable) is about deploying and supplying troops/assets better than your enemy... Deploying and supplying troops is about economics... (of course, politics comes into play - note mistakes and politics of distribution of fuel/ammo in WWII - almost cost us the war)

Now, more efficient troops (increasing their effectiveness relative to the enemy) means lower per-unit cost of killing power relative to the enemy, so its not that cost decisions cannot/do not include marksmanship, stopping power, etc... but the ability to produce, buy, ship, carry/deploy and fire more rounds than the enemy is VERY important and generally decides the outcome (barring weather and very bad blunders of enemy leadership).

 

[bpm990d]

The point was that the extremely fast twists used in new ARs effect bullet performance because the extremely high spin rates cause heat sufficient to melt the lead cores inside the jacketing. Is that even possible? One of the side in the debate felt that the molten core is what causes the rounds to effectively explode on impact. Anyone ever heard this effect and do you give it any credence?

Lead bullets or jacket bullets, either FMJ or ones with and exposed tip (so that the base of the bullet is covered with jacket material) will upset upon firing. There is 50,000 psi +- of pressure on the base and they do deform to some extent as the bullet is swaged down the barrel. They also heat up from engraving friction. I believe the effect is that the bullet becomes longer.

From personal experience, I saw a guy at Camp Perry pull out a bullet that lodged into the target with his fingers. The bullet arrived at the target only seconds before with enough energy to stick in the cardboard target. Hoping to collect a cool souvenir, he reached up and grabbed it and burnt his fingers badly. The bullet was very hot, although I think it is mostly from air resistance and not friction forces generated upon firing, but I really don't know. I'll try and find some more information on that.

I have read of loose cores causing accuracy problems, but I agree that this is not something that one should be worried about, as it has been addressed in the engineering and manufacture of the the bullet. I just put a 6.5 twist barrel on an AR-15 that spins the crap out of anything I shoot in it, and I don't seem to have any problems. A 7 twist should not be a problem.

I don't know anything about the exploding thing on impact. Sounds like gun store talk.

B

P.S. There is an interesting thread on Benchrest.com with Eric Stecker of Berger bullets talking about research they did on Berger bullet failures. Apparently they had help from MIT.

 

[bodybagsryan]

fight the EU? I thought their MO was to sign on for peace keeping missions in third world countries where they could set up drug cartels and child prostitution rings. when it comes to fighting, don't they just hand their weapons over to the bad guys and di di mau back to Geneva?

And have Hans Blix send a letter of protest to the UN so Kim Jon Il will not throw him in a shark infested aquarium.

 

[Jason]

The main reason I wouldn't switched from 5.56 to 6.8SPC or 6.5 Grendel right now is that I never see those two calibers on the shelves of any local gun shop. They'll be a niche until the military switches to them.

 

[terraformer]

The main reason I wouldn't switched from 5.56 to 6.8SPC or 6.5 Grendel right now is that I never see those two calibers on the shelves of any local gun shop. They'll be a niche until the military switches to them.

And parts. I have two lower projects that time will not permit to get to but when I do, a barrel will be an issue. Yeah, you can get a barrel, but you don't have choices of all the different types of barrels you have with 5.56.