Arms Locker banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Some pos on this site think (or brag) that the 223 is a wonder bullet, yet tried and true combat veterans seemingly disagree. Why is it that real men who have been in real combat numerous times in real wars and battle situations realize this round is basically a pussified round for panzies and wanna be bad boys who are probably really no more than Nancy Boys?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gripper

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
Check your history and ballistics Glenn. I know what you're doing and thats your business but you're off base in this post.

A friendly opinion - not a flame.

RIKA
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Here is an interesting article, and I have two more for you to read. The kill prowess of the 223 round is no where near that of the 308 or other larger calibers, ballistics don't tell you how a man will fall - so here is some history and some fine writing. Please pay particular attention to the part about the creation of this round, and its intended purpose by its manufacturer. Therein is a true history lesson:

The Last Big Lie of the Vietnam War

Maj. Anthony F. Milavic, USMC (Ret.)

From: [email protected]

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 13:44:04 EDT

At a Vietnam Special Forces base during 1964, I watched a U. S. soldierfire 15 rounds of .223 caliber ammunition into a tethered goat from anAR-15 rifle; moments after the last round hit, the goat fell over. Looking at the dead goat, I saw many little bullet entry-holes on one side; and when we turned him over, I saw many little bullet exit-holes on the other side. Over time, those observations were confirmed and reconfirmed revealing that the stories we were told on the lethality of the .223 caliber cartridge were fabrications. Those false reports drove the adoption of the .223 caliber cartridge as the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and, ever since, Americans have been sent to war with a cartridge deficient in combat
lethality.

The book Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden, illuminates that deficiency and the lethality necessary for warriors in combat. The author describes a soldier by the name of Sgt. Randall Shuhart who elected to carry the 7.62mm M-14 into the urban battlefield of Somalia in 1993 rather than the 5.56mm
CAR-15 (M-16-variant). With the wisdom of a combat veteran, this warrior tells us what level of bullet lethality a soldier needs in combat -- one-round knockdown power:

"His rifle may have been heavier and comparatively awkward and delivered a mean recoil, but it damn sure knocked a man down with one bullet, and in combat, one shot was all you got. You shoot a guy, you want to see him go down; you don't want to be guessing for the next five hours whether you hit him, or whether he's still waiting for you in the weeds."\1

How did we get from military cartridges with proven one-round knockdown power such as the 30-06 and 7.62mm to the 5.56mm? The journey started with the term "tumbling." This term "tumbling" has been associated with the .223/5.56mm cartridge since early in its marketing as a potential military cartridge and continues to be used by many to this day. The very word, tumbling, prompts images of a bullet traveling end over end through the human body in 360-degree loops: In reality, it does not. Dr. Martin L. Fackler, Col., USA (Ret.) served as a surgeon in Vietnam during 1968 and, subsequently, pursued the research of terminal ballistics by observing the effects of bullets fired into blocks of ballistic gelatin. In "Wounding patterns for military rifle bullets," he reports that "all" non-deforming pointed bullets "yaw" 180 degrees shortly after penetrating flesh, then continue on to exit base-forward; i.e., heaviest end forward. The .223/5.56mm full metal jacket projectile acts in the same manner with a very precise exception. If this round impacts flesh at 2,700 feet per second or more, it will "yaw" to 90-degrees, and then fragment at its weakened serrated band (cannelure) into two or more pieces. These fragments traveling in different directions cause an internal wound cavity.

Conversely, should these projectiles impact bone or the flesh of appendages, they will probably yaw less due to the shorter distance traveled through flesh. The term "tumble" was apparently derived from this yaw action and, as suggested by the following, was chosen in lieu of the word yaw because it would "sell" better.\2

The book, The Black Rifle, M16 Retrospective by Edward C. Ezell and R. Blake Stevens, " . . . is, so far as [the authors] could make it so, the truth about the controversial 5.56mm caliber AR-15 (M16) -- what it is, what it is not, where it came from, and why." Edward C. Ezell, Ph.D., now
deceased, was the Curator/Supervisor of the Division of Armed Forces History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC and the editor of perhaps the world's most famous gun book, Small Arms of the World. The book contains one of the earliest characterizations that the .223 tumbled in a brochure produced by Colt's
Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Company, Inc. The caption, written by the book's authors, reads: "From the first Colt AR-15 brochure, produced in a desperate attempt to interest somebody â " anybody - in the merits of the AR-15's 'unmatched superiority.'" In one of the three internal brochure illustrations is text reading, in part, "On impact the tumbling action of the .223 caliber ammunition increases effectiveness."\3

In 1961, Colt's did get somebody's attention. The Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) of the Department of Defense (DoD) was enjoined by the Kennedy administration to explore how the United States could support a foreign ally in a "limited" war. In the spring of 1961, ARPA's Project AGILE was implemented to supply "research and engineering support for the military and paramilitary forces engaged in or threatened by conflict in remote areas of the world." In October of 1961, ARPA provided ten Colt's AR-15's to Vietnamese Forces in Saigon to conduct a limited test. The Black Rifle remarks of this test, "The number of rifles might have been small, but the enthusiastic reaction of the Vietnamese and their American advisors alike who handled and fired the AR-15s was just as [Colt's marketing agent]
had predicted." Armed with these positive results, ARPA succeeded in expanding the Project AGILE study by procuring 1,000 AR-15s for distribution among select Vietnamese units for field-testing. Ezell & Stevens write that this approval resulted in " ...saving Colt's from almost sure financial disaster and also setting the stage for the most influential yet controversial document so far in the history of the already
controversial AR-15."\4

The purpose of this test, as set forth in, ARPA, "Report of Task 13A, Test of ArmaLite Rifle, AR-15," dated 31 July 1962, was " ... a comparison between the AR-15 and the M2 Carbine to determine which is a more suitable replacement for shoulder weapons in selected units of the Republic of
Vietnam Armed Forces (RVNAF)." The Project AGILE results were summed up, in part, by ARPA as follows: "The suitability of the AR-15 as the basic shoulder weapon for the Vietnamese has been established. For the type of conflict now occurring in Vietnam, the weapon was also found by its users and by MAAG advisors to be superior in virtually all respects to the M1 Rifle, M1 and M2 Carbines, Thompson Sub-Machine Gun, and Browning Automatic Rifle." NOTE: This study and its recommendations concerned the suitability
of the AR-15 for Vietnamese soldiers, who were described by the testers to be of "small stature, body configuration and light weight," NOT larger stature United States soldiers.\5

In any case, the report was widely read and some of its components came under serious question, especially those describing the demonstrated lethality of the .223 caliber cartridge. The following are three such examples from the Project AGILE report:

Example 1. "On 160900 June, one platoon from the 340 Ranger Company was on a ground operation... and contacted 3 armed VC in heavily forested jungle.... At a distance of approximately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an AR-15 full automatic hitting one VC with 3 rounds with the first burst. One round in the head took it completely off. Another in the right arm, took it completely off. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about 5 inches in diameter...." (Rangers)

Example 2. "On 9 June a Ranger Platoon from the 40th Infantry Regt. Was given the mission of ambushing an estimated VC Company.... a. Number of VC killed: 5 [Descriptions of the one-round killing wounds follow.]

1. Back wound, which caused the thoracic cavity to explode.
2. Stomach wound, which caused the abdominal cavity to explode.
3. Buttock wound, which destroyed all tissue of both buttocks.
4. Chest wound from right to left; destroyed the thoracic cavity.
5. Heel wound; the projectile entered the bottom of the right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip.
These deaths were inflicted by the AR-15 and all were
instantaneous except the buttock wound. He lived approximately five minutes. (7th Infantry Division)"

Example 3. "On 13 April, a Special Forces team made a raid on a small village. In the raid, seven VC were killed. Two were killed by AR-15 fire. Range was 50 meters. One man was hit in the head; it looked like it exploded. A second man was hit in the chest, his back was one big hole. (VN Special Forces)"\6

These "field-reports" are incredulous on their face and some in DoD requested that their explosive results be duplicated scientifically. The Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory at Edgewood Arsenal attempted to do just that. Using .223 Remington ammunition provided by Colt's representative,
they conducted their "standard lethality trials that consisted of measuring the cavitational and other effects of firing at known distances into blocks of ballistic gelatin, and where necessary, anaesthetized goats."

They failed to duplicate the explosive effects reported by Project AGILE.
In November 1962, the Army initiated "Worldwide" tactical and technical tests of the AR-15 using U. S. soldiers. Edgewood was tasked to perform further lethality tests using modified .223 caliber ammunition. Ezell and Stevens describe the modifications: "They had modified some 55-grain .223
ball bullets of Remington manufacture by cutting approximately 1/4 inch off the nose and drilling a 3/32-inch-diameter hole about 1/4 inch deep into the lead core of each bullet." The results? The authors continue, "As it turned out, even the hollow-points failed to duplicate anything like the
spectacular effects recorded by the Vietnamese unit commanders and their American advisors, which had subsequently been taken as fact and much used as propaganda."\7

The .223 caliber cartridge was morphed into the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and adopted for the United States Service Rifle M-16 (formerly, AR-15). How could such propaganda have convinced the Department of Defense to adopt the
.223 caliber cartridge? "All this was inspired by the principle -- which is quite true in itself -- that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously
or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods." Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf \8

As is usually the case, that error in judgment was to affect those at the "pointy end of the spear" and not the **************. Those warriors reported enemy soldiers continuing to close and fire their weapons after sustaining multiple hits by 5.56mm bullets. This was reported as early as 9
December 1965 in the official After Action Report of the Ia Drang Valley battle popularized by the movie and book We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young. The commanding officer of the battalion engaged there, Col. Harold G. Moore, USA, writes of assaulting enemy soldiers being hit by 5.56mm
rounds: "Even after being hit several times in the chest, many continued firing and moving for several more steps before dropping dead."\9 Later in that war, a similar experience is voiced by Col. John Hayworth, USA (Ret.):

"In one fire-fight, I saw my RTO place three rounds [of 5.56 mm] in the chest of a charging NVA regular at 50 yards. He kept firing his AK and never slowed down. At 30 yards, I hit him with a blast of double ought buck. It picked him up off his feet and he didn't get up again."\10

In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the DoD increased the weight of the 55 grain bullet (M193) to 62 grains and increased its length to accommodate a steel "penetrator." These changes resulted in a new 5.56mm round with the
designation M855.

In 1991, the Pentagon sent its warriors to the Gulf War with this new cartridge. Maj. Howard Feldmeier, USMC (Ret.) was there: " ... several Marines commented that they had to shoot Iraqi soldiers 2-3 or more times with the 62 grain 5.56mm green tip ammo before they stopped firing back at
them...." That report is exemplified by one of an Iraqi officer who was thrown from his vehicle and set afire by an explosion: "Somehow he managed to hold on to his AK-47. He also got up, still on fire, faced the firing line of Marines and charged forward firing his weapon from the hip. He didn't hit anyone but two Marines each nailed him with a three round burst from their M-16A2s. One burst hit him immediately above his heart, the other in his belly button. [He} ... kept right on charging and firing until his magazine was empty. When he got up to the Marines two of them tackled him and rolled him in the sand to put out the fire... He was quickly
carried back to the battalion aid station.... The surgeons told me he certainly died of burns, but not necessarily from the six 5.56mm wounds...."\11

In spite of the above "lesson learned," the DoD dispatched its warriors to combat in Somalia in 1993 with the same flawed "green tip" cartridge as testified in Mark Bowden's book Black Hawk Down: "His weapon was the most sophisticated infantry rifle in the world, a customized CAR-15, and he was
shooting the army's new 5.56mm green tip round. The green tip had a tungsten carbide penetrator at the tip, and would punch holes in metal, but that very penetrating power meant that his rounds were passing right through his targets.... The bullet made a small, clean hole, and unless it happened to hit the heart or spine, it wasn't enough to stop a man in his
tracks. Howe felt he had to hit a guy five or six times just to get his attention."

The Pentagon remained unmoved by that experience of its warriors and continues to send them to war underpowered. On 4 April 2002, I received an e-mail from a trooper in Afghanistan who appeals, in part: "The current-issue 62gr 5.56mm (223) round, especially when fired from the
short-barreled, M-4 carbine, is proving itself (once again) to be woefully inadequate as [a] man stopper. Engagements at all ranges are requiring multiple, solid hits to permanently bring down enemy soldiers. Penetration is also sadly deficient. Even light barriers are not perforated by this rifle/cartridge combination."\12

These reports are consistent with my own experience during three tours of duty in Vietnam from the goat incident in 1964 to service with the 3rd Marine Division in 1968-69; experience that repeatedly reminded me that this 5.56mm cartridge was nothing more than the full metal jacket military version of the commercial .223 Remington cartridge. The .223 Remington was
and is today commercially advertised and sold as a "varmint" cartridge for hunting groundhogs, prairie dogs and woodchucks. The cartridge is offered with soft point, hollow point, fragmentation, or projectiles incorporating two or more of these attributes to enhance its lethality and assure a
"clean kill" on varmints: one-round knockdown power.\13 States such as the Commonwealth of Virginia do not permit it to be used for hunting deer or bear because its lethality -- with or without those enhancements -- does not assure a "clean kill" on big game.\14 Yet, its full metal jacket
military counterpart continues to be issued to American warriors for the purpose of knocking down an enemy soldier and causing him to stop shooting. As evidenced above, this varmint cartridge fails to do that even with multiple hits.

In desperation, some troopers in Afghanistan are using the commercial .223 Remington 77-grain Sierra MatchKing hollow point bullet loaded by Black Hills Ammunition. Ironically, even this extreme effort has not fixed the problem: "Its performance on enemy soldiers is not much better, but it does
penetrate barriers. We're fighting fanatics here, and they don't find wimpy ammunition particularly impressive!" cries a voice from Afghanistan.\15

A rifle that entered testing for issuance to Vietnamese soldiers was adopted for the warriors of the United States. A bullet that was advertised to tumble, but did not, was accepted as the standard cartridge for that rifle. And, Americans were sent into battle with this cartridge based on
reports that it would: blow the head off a soldier with one round; blow the arm off a soldier with one round; kill a soldier with a one-round hit in either the stomach, back, chest, buttock or heel of the foot! From the Ia Drang Valley of Vietnam to the mountains of Afghanistan, our soldiers and Marines only found that enemy soldiers continued to advance firing their weapons after being hit by multiple 5.56mm bullets! From 55-grain (M193) to 62-grain (M855) to 77-grain (Sierra MatchKing), these changes in the weight and composition of the 5.56mm/.223 Remington bullet have failed to increase
lethality to that needed in combat: one-round knockdown power. The lethality of this cartridge, sold on lies, cannot be fixed in truth. It is time the Department of Defense recognizes this last remaining Big Lie from the Vietnam War and in the name of Honesty, or Transformation, or Combat Effectiveness replaces this varmint cartridge with one that gives our
warriors one-round knockdown power on an enemy soldier!
7th
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
Glenn, I am an advocate of the 308 and 30-06 myself so we have no difference. Since I have no personal combat experience with the 223 I have to rely on the testimony of others. It seems that there are as many pro arguments for the 223 in combat by knowledgable people as there are against. Most of the problems seem to come from the too short barrel and the use of inadequate ammunition. I myself do not have the facts at hand to argue this so I will leave it to 223 proponents much more knowing than I. I know for a fact that my Dad served 12 months in Viet Nam in combat he says he saw no problem with stopping power. Other combat vets I know pretty much agree. Maybe that was a fluke, I don't know.

This will be a very interesting discussion.

RIKA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,693 Posts
I carry the 223/5.56 daily, both personal and LE use, and am comfortable with it. That said, there are reasons I'm comfortable with it that have to do with my application and situation. I do recognize that it's not the "ultimate" round in a defensive longarm.

-Unlike the military, I can choose my own ammo, so I stick with the lighter 55-grainers for defensive and on-duty carry. 55-grain TAP in the gun, 55-grain remington SP in mags, and 55-grain (full 5.56, not .223) FMJ in one spare mag. If using a military M4, I would not want the heavy bullet the military now uses; heavy .223 fmj in a short barrel is a bad combination, imo. Too much penetration; not enough internal action.

- In my area, you just don't shoot more than 75 yards; almost never. So the AR works ok.


I won't dispute the .308 is "more" gun and a "better" stopper, if using similar ammo types in both guns. I own two .308's and like the round. If I was "bunkered in" and defending my road a couple hundred yards in each direction, one of my .308's would likely be my choice. But for an all-around, daily-carry, "utility" rifle, the little CAR works surprisingly well for me.


Not flaming, just genuniely curious on this: "...They had modified some 55-grain .223
ball bullets of Remington manufacture by cutting approximately 1/4 inch off the nose and drilling a 3/32-inch-diameter hole about 1/4 inch deep into the lead core of each bullet."


If you start with a small 55-grain, 22-caliber fmj, cut off a quarter inch the end, and then drill a hole another quarter inch down into it, what's left...? Wouldn't think it could be more than 20-30 grains; almost nothing but half a bullet jacket. Wonder what it would actually weigh?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Clint,

No he does not when you have an enemy that does not give a crap about his wounded comrade. Think about the enemies we have faced in recent years such as the North Vietnamese, those in Somalia, those in Afghanistan, and the friggin a-holes who want to meet all the virgins in heaven that flew planes into buildings. They are not going to take the time out to help their wounded comrade or use any resources on him.

There is one thing a wounded man can do better than a dead one, he can fight better and the guy he kills may just be you if you did not kill him first. I am a trained LEO and firearms instructor. If I am ever shot and not dead, know what I have been trained to do - and know it well if you are the one who has come for me - I was trained not to give up - to keep up the fight - and to take out my opponent. Sure my country, my agency, anmd my health plan will use resources to get me better if I am still alive, but they get something back for that, a guy willing to go on fighting another day.

That wounded man/resources stuff is the mentality of the first two world wars, it likely will not be part of the third.

Let me cite (not quote because I don't remember it that well) a Roman fighting manual that explained that 'A slash type cut was undesirable because it often left the opponent alive and able to fight. The stab wound on the other hand was much more likely to be fatal.' Thus a stab wound (with the Roman short or was it broad sword) more likely would result in the loss of the most valuable resource of any army - a fighting man. Until we use robots to fight, men are what make wars, and men are who will kill you whether they are healthy or wounded. Wounded men can often still fight. Dead men on the other hand, don't do much except rot. I prefer to face dead men than wounded adversaries anytime.

All the best,
Glenn B
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
RIKA,

I wonder did your dad ever use a .308 to kill anyone, if so how does he compare the .223 to the .308?

It is amazing that many states will not allow a .223 to take deer, yet our government went with it as a man killer. Although the government cannot be found as endorsing what I am about to say, my guess is that it was all money. Contracts, less expense for the smaller rounds, and payola. It is nowhere near as an effective a round as is the .308 or 30-06, except maybe on its intended targets of varmints, from what I can gather from real military men.

Best regards,
GB
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I could really emulate 223Fan and start another thread for this one, but I will only go so far to be like that pos (of course you will have to decide for yourself what pos means, I may not mjean it as he uses it at all), so I will keep this post in this thread where it belongs:

Here is another curiosity to ponder on this subject. Check out the caliber of choice among those who are snipers when they are allowed to choose. It will not be the 223, by a long-shot that gets most of the use by snipers. Why is that important when one shot kills are important for the sniper? Ask yourself this question - it is really a telling thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
Glenn,

Dad was a FO and got into a lot of strange things over there. Yes, he used a scope sighted M14 (XM21??). The sniper allowed him a shot or two and he hit his targets. He favors the 308 also.

Glenn says: "Here is another curiosity to ponder on this subject. Check out the caliber of choice among those who are snipers when they are allowed to choose. It will not be the 223, by a long-shot that gets most of the use by snipers. Why is that important when one shot kills are important for the sniper? Ask yourself this question - it is really a telling thing."

No argument from me but much combat doesn't involve sniping. I understand SWAT snipers favor the 223 at ranges under 150 yds though. Commonplace combat is what I want to hear discussed by our group.

RIKA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,584 Posts
I carried a 7.62mm NATO as my personal rifle for 13 years as my issue rifle, I carried it from British Coumbia to the middle East (twice), from Alaska to California. It worked irregardless of the season and weather conditions. I carried the 5.56mm for the next 15 years all over North America, given semi arctic, semi arrid desert conditions and exceptionally windy conditions on the prairies the cartridge and the gun just doesn't cut it. Given my experience, I want a reliable rifle in 7.62mm NATO. Thats what instills confidence in me.

Recent reports of the reliability of some 5.56mm firearms from places like Iraq, Afganistan, Somolia, etc only reinforces this belief. As for wounding someone, a wounded man with a functional trigger finger can still kill you. Something to consider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
Garand, you are addressing the 223 (M16) from an operational (reliability) standpoint. Can you give us your views from a killing standpoint?

RIKA
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Well for commonplace combat what better than sniping here in the old USA. If you mean grunt mud slinging combat there is nothing wrong with a 308 as it still has what it takes for much more effective chances of kill shots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
Erika,

You pretty much have a handle on the 5.56 abilities. It's the short barrel ruining the round. The 5.56s real problem is that it is pretty much an anti-personnel round for use on unarmored attackers. It's penetration of hard objects and the inability to put anything in it (like incenarary or true AP like the black tip 30-06 AP) that makes it limited in ability. I sure hope the 6.8mm round has lot's more ability.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Some of this article is a repeat of the first but not all of it. Credited to the author below:
31 July 2002

NOTE: The edited version of this article appears in the Professional Notes section of the August 2002 issue of the Naval Institute PROCEEDINGS.

=================================

It’s the Cartridge, Stupid, Not the Rifle!

Maj. Anthony F. Milavic, USMC (Ret.)

ISSUE: The Marine Corps is looking to change its Service Rifle from the M-16A2 to either the M-16A4 Rifle or the M-4 Carbine. Unfortunately, these weapons suffer from a common shortcoming: the impotent 5.56mm NATO cartridge and changing rifles does not correct this deficiency.

PROPOSITION: This cartridge was spawned by the proposition that volume fire is as effective as aimed fire. Therefore, by giving warriors a physically lighter-weight cartridge, they would: carry more bullets for the same load; put out a higher volume of fire; kill more enemy soldiers; and,
require less re-supply of ammunition. The current 5.56X45mm NATO cartridge is approximately one-half the weight of the cartridge it replaced, the 7.62X51mm NATO round; i.e., a soldier can carry approximately twice as many 5.56mm as 7.62mm. However, that ratio is reduced by the weight of the additional magazines and cartridge belt/pouches needed to carry that additional ammunition. For the purposes of this article, the two-to-one ratio will be used. In terms of combat efficiency, this ratio would only be an advantage if the 5.56mm had the same one-round knockdown power as its predecessor: the earliest evidence did not justify this judgment and subsequent U. S. warrior reports showed that multiple hits were necessary to stop an enemy soldier.

EVIDENCE: The 5.56mm NATO cartridge is the product of the .223 Remington, a cartridge that was and is today commercially advertised and sold as a “varmint” cartridge for hunting groundhogs, prairie dogs and woodchucks. States such as the Commonwealth of Virginia do not permit it to be used for hunting deer and bear because its lethality does not assure a “clean kill” on big game. Yet, it was selected for testing as a military cartridge for warfighting. In 1962, under the aegis of Project AGILE, 1,000 .223 caliber AR-15 Rifles were given to South Vietnamese soldiers for field-testing. They reported “instantaneous” one-shot kills from those cartridges; for example,

“On 9 June a Ranger Platoon from the 40th Infantry Regt. Was given the mission of ambushing an estimated VC Company.. . .

a. Number of VC killed: 5 [Descriptions of the five one-round killing wounds follow.]

1. Back wound, which caused the thoracic cavity to explode.
2. Stomach wound, which caused the abdominal cavity to explode.
3. Buttock wound, which destroyed all tissue of both buttocks.
4. Chest wound from right to left; destroyed the thoracic cavity.
5. Heel wound; the projectile entered the bottom of the right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip.

These deaths were inflicted by the AR-15 and all were instantaneous except the buttock wound. He lived approximately five minutes. (7th Infantry Division)”

The Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory at Edgewood Arsenal attempted to confirm those explosive results by firing .223 Remington rounds into ballistic gelatin--Edgewood failed in its effort. The Laboratory tried a second time using bullets that had 1/4 inch cut off their tips and a 3/32-inch-diameter hole drilled about 1/4 inch deep into the lead cores. Those modified bullets also failed to duplicate the spectacular results from Project AGILE. The Vietnamese reports, that were incredulous on their face and failed confirmation, served as proof that the .223 Remington was not just for varmints anymore but was lethal enough for the biggest game of all--enemy soldiers. As a result, it was morphed into the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and, ever since, U. S. Service shoulder weapons have been chambered for its use.

WARRIOR REPORTS: Over 36 years of use by America’s warriors has resulted in a recurring observation: after being struck by several 5.56mm bullets, enemy soldiers continued to advance and shoot their weapons.


VIETNAM, 1965--;


"Even after being hit several times in the chest, many
continued firing and moving for several more steps before
dropping dead." Col. Harold G. Moore, USA.

“In one fire-fight, I saw my RTO place three rounds [of 5.56
mm] in the chest of a charging NVA regular at 50 yards. He kept firing his AK and never slowed down. At 30 yards, I hit him with a blast of double ought buck. It picked him up off his feet and he didn't get up again.” Col. John Hayworth, USA (Ret.)

GULF WAR, 1991;
“ . . . several Marines commented that they had to shoot Iraqi
soldiers 2-3 or more times with the 62-grain 5.56mm green tip
ammo before they stopped firing back at them . . ..” An Iraqi
officer “ . . . still on fire, faced the firing line of Marines and
charged forward firing his weapon from the hip. He didn't hit
anyone but two Marines each nailed him with a three-round
burst from their M-16A2s. One burst hit him immediately above
his heart, the other in his belly button. [He} . . . kept right on
charging and firing until his magazine was empty. . . . The
surgeons told me he certainly died of burns, but not necessary
from the six 5.56mm wounds.” Maj. Howard Feldmeier, USMC
(Ret.)

SOMALIA, 1993;
“The bullet [5.56mm green tip] made a small clean hole, and
unless it happened to hit the heart or spine, it wasn't enough to
stop a man in his tracks. Howe felt he had to hit a guy five or six
times just to get his attention.” Black Hawk Down.

AFGHANISTAN, 2002:
“The current-issue 62gr 5.56mm (223) round, especially when
fired from the short-barreled, M-4 carbine, is proving itself (once
again) to be woefully inadequate as [a] man stopper.
Engagements at all ranges are requiring multiple, solid hits to
permanently bring down enemy soldiers. Penetration is also
sadly deficient. Even light barriers are not perforated by this
rifle/cartridge combination.” Anonymous

These warrior reports are consistent with my own experience during three tours of duty in Vietnam from 1964 to 1969.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE: By institutionalizing the proposition that volume fire is as effective as aimed fire, warriors are encouraged to engage a single target with automatic fire and therefore use even more ammunition:

“In late 1966 I was on an OP near Chu Lai with a squad of Marines at the time we transitioned to the M16 (*&^%$ toy). With my binoculars I spotted an NVA courier replete with pouch walking on the edge of a paddy about 300 m away, pith helmet with red star and all. Suggesting to the Lt. that he intercept the individual, he mistook that as a ‘Commence Fire’ command. The lads opened up, and most of them had their new toys on full auto. I could see splashes and puffs all around said individual, who was now sprinting rapidly away. I ordered ‘Cease Fire.’ grabbed an M14, sat, and drilled this guy with one shot at about 300 m plus . . .. Then I had the Marines police up the brass. 168 rounds fired, one slight nick on the target.” Col. Paul Davenport, USMC (Ret.)

CONCLUSION: The early judgment that the .223/5.56mm round had one-round lethality against enemy soldiers was based on reports that were incredulous on their face and failed two laboratory attempts at confirmation. Predictably, the fielding of this cartridge resulted in American warriors from Vietnam to Afghanistan reporting that enemy soldiers continued to advance while firing their weapons even after being hit by several 5.56mm bullets. Those reports show that the extra ammunition warriors are able to carry due to the lighter weight of this cartridge does not constitute an increase in combat efficiency. On the contrary, the evidence shows that warriors need even more rounds than the two-for-one replacement effected by this change. Therefore, replacing the 5.56mm M-16A2 with a weapon chambered for the same cartridge will only perpetuate the lethality deficiency of this cartridge and the higher logistics burden resulting from the necessary and consequential higher volume of fire.

I have one more article after this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,584 Posts
I shot Service Conditions matches at provincial level for 6 years, using both the 7.62 and the 5.56mm and in a unmodified rifle I found the 7.62mm had a slight edge over the 5.56mm. Remember in Canada only 2 modifications are allowed to the rifle, a crisp 6 lb trigger pull and a shaved front sight. Marksmanship skill is more important than bells and whistles. As for a viewpoint from killing, while I have never had to, I always believed that 147 grains is almost 3 times the weight of a 55 grain bullet. BIGGER IS BETTER!
While overseas I seen men killed with a .303 (.311 dia), they were very dead with only 1 bullet in them. Just my take.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
so? We all KNOW that the 223 should be used in Softpoint configuration, and SOME of us know that 6.8 ball, as well as 308 ball, ALSO sometimes fails to stop men with body hits. We ALSO know that soldiers are mistaken about things, and MOST WILL LIE thru their TEETH about how hard their combat experience really was. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
So we know that the .308 softpoint is far superior to the .223 softpoint. So what was your point? (pun intended with all those points)

Now as to this:
We ALSO know that soldiers are mistaken about things, and MOST WILL LIE thru their TEETH about how hard their combat experience really was.
So you have some kind of proof about this point? The point you made that MOST soldiers will lie through their teeth about how hard was their combat service? I would like to see you tell this face to face to one single Marine, or Soldier who has returned from Afghanistan or Iraq lately and who saw combat while there. You truly are, in my eyes, less than a pos to disrespect the fighting men and women of the USA with a bull dinkus remark like that! Then again - anyone who would expect more from you would truly be a fool.

Tell me something, in whose eyes are you trying to make yourself look like a man of worth. Are you trying to live up to expectations that daddy had for you, or ones that mommy had for you? Or are you trying to overcome the pall of a belief that either of them had about you that you were their little bad boy or maybe even their little girl? Is there some other traumatic event that warped you into what you are perceived as today; something that causes you great pain and makes you angry at the world causing you to lash out at others as often as you do? Why not tell us all, maybe someone can help. Not that I think anyone would offer to help, but it sure would be good for a laugh for the rest of us!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
Sure I have proof. Every time the bser's open their mouths. I see it on TV constantly. they don't have clue about proper maintenance of gear, nor much of anything else. They charge off to Iraq, ASSUMING that Uncle sam will have the "right' supplies, then WONDER why their oil-laden M16's choke on the sand. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,584 Posts
So we have proven that your "friend", this Harry Chaflin is a liar and you, yourself have admitted in the past that you didn't know how to completely disassemble the M16.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top