>5.56 was designed to wound a guy, so you could take out the

>>32123268
That's fuddlore. It's deadly enough. It fragments and yaws - being a surgeon's nightmare.

>>32123268
This is 100% correct.

It was designed to penetrate body armor, because they thought we'd be going to war with Russian supersoldiers, not rice farmers and goat fuckers.

>>32123268
Fuddlore. This is based on the assumption that an enemy will come pick their buddy up. That shit is rare. Our own doctrine is to have the wounded apply self aid if possible, while everyone else takes out the enemy combatants. Also, 5.56 kills fine.

>>32123268
5.56 was made to still fuck someone up without hollow point

File: tips fuddora.jpg (10KB, 277x320px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 277x320px

>>32123304

>>32123268
It's a shit round until you get into 62gr territory, then it's okay

I think the poor fuckers in Vietnam had to use a 55gr FMJ until NATO adopted the 62gr in 1977

>>32123268
>5.56 to the skull will only wound
It was designed to be lighter so a soldier can carry more and bitch only a moderate amount.

Not true. 5.56x45mm NATO was designed as a 55 grain projectile to be shot out of a 20 inch barrel with a 1 in 12 twist rate. At the muzzle it's moving at about 3,000 feet per second with most of the weight in the rear. When it hits something, especially a human comprised mostly of water which is not compressible, the rear starts moving ahead of the tip and it's so violent that the bullet rips itself apart. All rifle rounds will yaw, not all FMJs will fragment. However the SS109/M855 you have pictured has a steel penetrator in the tip which neuters this effect and will just poke a small hole and keep on going. This is where the myth that 5.56 isn't lethal.

>>32123268
You are not allowed to fire at those who trying to give medical aid to a person (disregarding if that person is a civilian, an enemy or a friendly) unless they fire at you if you follow the Geneva convention.

However, a wounded enemy needs treatment and help, and will use a lot more resources than a dead one, so in that way your enemies longterm ability to fight is reduced compared to if you just kill everyone.

>It's a shit round until you get into 62gr territory, then it's okay

55 grain M193 works great against unarmored targets. SS109/M855 was developed with the requirement to pierce a Soviet helmet at 600m. One of the reasons for the switch to intermediate cartridges was that it was determined that multiple smaller projectiles were more effective than larger single projectiles.

File: bullets-v-max-cutaway.jpg (8KB, 90x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 90x250px

>>32123268
greentips are designed to pen combloc steel helmets at range, modern heavy non-fmj bullets in CBQ settings are very different

>>32123345
I'm sorry to jiggle your factoid but 5.56x45mm m193 is not , and never was, a NATO munition. NATO only spec'd the SS109, which in itself was a modified m855. A modification in the thickness of the copper jacket, making it fragment less. It was quite effective as designed originally.

>>32123268

The M16 was initially introduced by Air Force Gen. Curtis Lemay. Eugene Stoner apparently met Lemay at a 4th of July picnic or something and Lemay had a chance to fire a few rounds out of an AR-10. Lemay was very impressed with the gun, and he requested that Stoner design a scaled down version in a smaller caliber as a replacement for the M1 carbine. The .223 round was created to fill this need. Thus, the only real requirement for the 5.56 was the it had to exceed the .30 carbine cartridge in accuracy and lethality.

>>32123307
>WRONG

It was designed to be lighter recoil than .308 style heavy rifle rounds. Also cheaper to manufacture.

M855 will kill the shit out of you.

The problem was it too was designed for a 20' barrel, and the fucking Army went for 14.5' barrels, and fucking surprise! After 90M, the round doesn't fragment.

Also, if you shoot scarecrows the round exits before fragmentation. That's why we should issue HP ammo for insurgents, it's perfectly legal.

>>32123268
it was designed to allow shitty pussy soldiers to be more accurate by shooting a non-recoiling caliber that took the cost out of training marksmanship skills.

as a secondary benefit, soldiers were able to carry more ammo to further accommodate their shit skills

>>32123268
Extreme fuddlore. Hell, before the M855 came along, the round would commonly fragment, essentially becoming a hollow-point. We were killing gooks left and right, but the international community caught wind and we had to switch to something that actually acted like FMJ. Now we can't kill shit.

>>32123853
Conscript gun? Check
Fast, light round? Check
Simplified manufacture and maintain? Check
M16 a shit? NO

It's made for pot smoking conscripts to use. Why hand out heavy and accurate weapons to soldiers who can't shoot?

File: 1475808460928.jpg (2MB, 2400x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x1600px

Meh most these guys got the effect right except

>designed lighter bullet to match or surpass effectiveness of .308
>designed for supersonic to mimic larger round at close range
>m16 designed to mimic machine gun so enemy may think there fighting a full platoon with on rifleman

At any rate build a 20".
Does Del ton do cyber Monday?

Do hard cast bullets exist in .223?

>>32123977
Eh? Someone makes a drop-in rail that uses the triangle handguard socket? Is that a 20 inch barrel?

>>32123307
What? No, it just makes more sense to have a lightweight round that shoots flat, recoils lightly, and is high-velocity for cover penetration. Soldiers can carry more ammunition and put more rounds on target accurately than with something like a 7.62x51mm. Full-auto is more controllable with a lighter round, and it can still kill a human with a hit to center of mass.

cheap
lightweight
more per truck/plane load
fast
less drop
carry more
low recoil

that's why they switched to it
nothing more
nothing less

>>32124056
if you want to lead the ever living fuck out of your barrel, you could probably use them

>>32123268
That's more a sniper tactic, so m16's having a longer accurate range meant more soldiers could employ it in firefights I guess

>>32123321
you're a fucking dumbass, the M193 was considered inhumane because it was way more likely to fragment

lighter is better, especially when it's non-expanding

>>32123977
Deletion chrome lining is shit
T delton owner

>>32123300
Yeah -- after Mohammed finishes the ambush and runs all the way back to the hospital.

>>32123407
The DoD study on carious 5.56 rounds in service found that all grains and bullet types were more or less the same lethality, but the 62gr M855 did the best in both controlled pairs and single hits.

http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/File/small_caliber_lethality_556_performance.pdf

>>32124625
damn. was thinking of getting an AR but it sounds weaker than my .22, at least that shit bounces around and causes more damage

File: 1477878534368.jpg (62KB, 700x690px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 700x690px

>>32124323
>Longer accurate range
Wat?

File: Screenshot from 2016-11-26 15-15-53.png (216KB, 985x726px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 985x726px

HEY EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD --

HERE'S A STUDY BY THE ARMY ON REAL-WORLD 5.56 AMMO KILLING PERFORMANCE:

>>32124655


M855 GREEN TIP WINS. EVEN BEATS 7.62 M80.

AMAZING.

>>32124131
Implying soldiers actually hit what they're shooting at

>>32124664
I hate you.

>>32123895
>"Extreme fuddlore."
>nothing but fuddlore.

>>32124655
>what is MK 318
>what is MK 262

>>32124131
>high-velocity for cover penetration

Clearly you've never shot light bullets through heavy cover.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-40-deflected-bullets-and-the-box-o-truth/

>>32124740
>Publication Date: April, 2008

>>32124693

Gee, it's almost like 14.5" barrels are a fucking stupid idea if you want to kill things.

>>32123853
>Never carried an ar in combat operations

I'd take the ergonomics and weight of my issue m4 than anything else.

>>32124693
This graph means nothing without a Y-axis.

>>32124740
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa7TQPeAWRY

>>32124834
Read the paper maybe?

>>32124780
>>32124870
Fair enough, I didn't really know that. Thanks for the education.

>>32123268
Partially fuddlore.

The idea behind it is to allow for easy follow-up shots while making single hits "count" at intermediate ranges.

So if you're fighting up close you can safely hit few times because recoil isn't that heavy while the poor sod hit by you at 400 yards will have nasty wound and if you hit some remotely vital area he will almost certainly bleed out if not given good treatment. Of course they would rather want it to kill him dead(so your myth is bust) but it's the compromise - you can't have super-light recoil and ability to easily kill shit dead with single shot at the same time so you get very-light recoil and ability to cause ugly wound with single shot.

>>32124625
14.5 inch barrel + m855 = icepicking

it's not rocket science

>>32124723
nope, he's 100% correct. The rifling twist on the early M16 was not good for stabilizing the 55gr projectile, that and it's 20 inch barrel made it extremely effective.

>>32125095
which is why m855a1 was developed specifically for carbine length barrels.

>>32125109
He is wrong about why we had to switch though. There was some bullshit media buzz about how the M16 was inhumane or something because of the big ass wounds M193 out of a 20 inch barrel caused, but nobody really cared. We swapped because NATO decided M193 didn't penetrate cover well enough, and M855 was better suited to longer ranged engagements. One of those, anyway, I can't remember specifically.

>>32123268
If it was meant to wound, why wouldn't we just switch to light loaded 7.62 an modify the m14s we had issued instead of adopting a completely new rifle and cartridge?

>>32123268
It was sold as being sufficiently lethal out to a reasonable small arms range, while being substantially lighter than 7.62

all that wounding strategy? i don't think they planned that far ahead.

>>32123268
There is some truth to this as killing is not nearly is critical as incapacitating. Nobody really care how many enemy you kill as long as your objective is attained. Also you can carry more 5.56 in the same space weight than you can 7.62 So if you have a lower casualty per hit that can be offset by a hicher casualty rate per lb given alarge enough force.

File: m855.jpg (108KB, 998x748px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 998x748px

>>32123268

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#Criticism
>if 5.56 mm bullets fail to upset (yaw, fragment, or deform) within tissue, the results are less significant wounds that may not cause adequate blood loss or damage to immediately stop the target's attack or advances . This is true for all 5.56×45mm bullets, including both military FMJ and OTM (open tip match) and civilian JHP/JSP designs used in law enforcement. As expected, with decreased wounding effects, rapid incapacitation is unlikely: enemy soldiers may continue to pose a threat to friendly forces and violent suspects can remain a danger to law enforcement personnel and the public.


5.56 was designed to stop the enemy.

if they die, they die. if they get shot and fall down but have a survivable wound they stopped doing what they were doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55CkeT7qdtM

>>32123895

>fragment
>hollowpoint

hollowpoints expand and dump all the energy in a soft target.

>>32123307
Whether it was meant to or not, it makes a fool out of any other common cartridge on hardened steel.
Idk for sure on softer steel, large stuff like 308/54r would probably win, but it outdoes 762/545 easily. I did a test a couple weeks ago. 545 was about twice as deep as 762, and 223 was double of 545.

>>32125567

m14s innavietnam swelled up from the humidity (lol wood stocks)
and theyre heavy as shit

>>32123268
OP here, the same (ex-mil) guy who told me this shit also gave me the ".223 bounces off any bone it hits" meme. He thinks you can't shoot through a deer skull with it.

>>32123268
In these kinds of topics, I never see anyone mention how wounding and killing are linked. Killing is proportional to wounding, give or take because of all the variables involved. If you wanted to, you could investigate a conversion factor for cm^3 of destroyed flesh per death. But you'd need a hell of a sample size to overcome the statistical noise caused by anatomy and a bunch of other independent variables.

>>32123307
What you say is true about M855. There's lots of M193 and other loads out there though.

>>32123321
>It's a shit round until you get into 62gr territory, then it's okay
The common 62gr bullet is widely acknowledged as a crappy compromise that trades barrier performance for terminal effect when compared to the original 55gr bullet.

It was originally made to ensure SAWs could defeat helmets and flak vests at range after the 6mm SAW program was abandoned.

>>32123268
It was designed to be lighter, meaning you could carry more for the same weight and have more accurate sustained fire due to less recoil.

>>32125780
Try shooting a coyote at 100 yards with a 50gr hollow point.

It grenades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af5Z-0yALr8

>>32124625
I think there's a reason it's used and it's not because of the jews or lobbyists or anything like that if it was really such an ineffective round then it wouldn't have been used since 1963, and the russians wouldn't have copied it with their 5.45

>>32123314
Hahaha have. This is funny. Thanks for the sensible chuckle good sir

>>32125782
I have some standard 55 gr fmj and it rips through .250 steel plates. 409 stainless steel