The overlooked facts about the 5.56

it's just a big boy's .22

File: DSC_0014.jpg (373KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1024x678px

>>33740859
You're not counting in the fact that we use a completely different projectile, the m855 and such today, compared to the xm193 that would create absolutely devastating wound channels.

>>33740893
basically it is 55gr vs 62gr?
and now everyones hyping the 75gr...

>>33741478
Also, steel core vs non and also the difference in velocities

>>33740859
Intermediate cartridges were a mistake

>>33743938

THE MEMES™

5.45x39 a best

>>33740859
M193. And yes, for 5.56 velocity is GOD. M855 had no issue till the Army went 14' barrels and then issues started.

File: 1437780419069.jpg (35KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 400x400px

>>33740859
>The guns chambered in it were problematic

Ammo issued and cleaning were the problems. The round is just find as is the gun. Problems come from where they always do, the government.

>>33744176
For the record I wasn't talking shit on the AR platform, just the early M16 model

>>33744176
Issued ammo causing malfunctions in the rifle were the big problem. They reloaded the 7.62 real fucking NATO powder that they stockpiled for the M14 trying to cut cost. Instead it was just really shit ammo that caused problems for a gun that ran with such tolerances.

>>33743995
>THE MEMES™
They're objectively inferior. They were a mistake.

This is /k/ - people here will insist that anything less than .50 Beowulf is inadequate. Ignore caliberfag orders.

>>33741478
I thought it was 77 and 80 grain. Never heard of 75 grain being common, though it wouldn't surprise me.

>>33744830
>They're objectively inferior. They were a mistake.

Please take a seat in the armchair, Mr.General. Please do provide proof that it is "objectively inferior" as you are oh so knowledgeable and wise.

>>33744858
>anything less than .50 Beowulf is inadequate
pleb, anything less than 20mm is inadequate for general use

>>33744873
MK262 or whatever it is called has a 77gr Sierra TMK bullet.

Everybody else with law enforcement loads just uses their own 75gr OTM bullets.

File: 5.56 brone shredder.jpg (1MB, 1280x3218px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x3218px

>>33740859
>5.56 being somewhat "overkill"
well they did hot load the early rounds to the point it drove the cyclic rate too high

but people do overstate its fragmentation effect
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/5-56mm-fragmentation-statistics.264565/

File: IMG_1344.jpg (98KB, 1024x748px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1024x748px

>>33741478
It's not as much bullet weight but bullet design.

The basic bitch ball M193, with a thin copper jacket over soft lead, had a very high chance of disintegrating and fragmenting when hitting people, which creates brutal wounds.

The design of M855 reduces the chance of this massive bullet separation by putting a soft steel core in the round, thus giving the round a better ability to penetrate without fragmenting.

This is pretty much the exact opposite of what you want in an antipersonnel round.


M855 also surprisingly has LESS penetration on hard targets in many cases, and is regularly a 3-4 MOA round out of rifles that would shoot 1.5-2 MOA with M193.

The appeal of heavy 5.56 rounds like Mk262 is again based off the bullet design.

OTM projectiles like Mk262 are generally more accurate, and a distinct cantilever in the bullet allows it to fragment much easier at lower velocitys, thus extending the range at which bullet fragmentation occurs.

The military went full retard when they adopted M855, which is in almost every way imaginable worse than M193.

>>33744889
(62 gr) M855A1 FMJBT
3,100 ft/s
1,359 ft·lb
sauce: US Mil-spec MIL-C-9963F

(152 gr) .30 M2 Ball
2,740 ft/s
>2,428 ft-lb

Inferior

>>33745022
Can you recommend a place to read up on this outside of /k/? Perhaps also with relation to barrel length?

>>33745087
So simply the kinetic force is the sole reason why a round is inferior?

Huh, where did you get the factoid from?

Do you have any experience in the army? Have you ever been deployed? Do you have a firm understanding of logistics? Do you understand what weight limits are? Have you done any studies or read any studies on effective combat range? Do you understand contemporary military tactics? Do you understand weight to round ratio? Do you understand you only posted a single type of round for each one despite the fact there is a multitude of bullet types and powder differences? Do you understand by your logic that .308 is inferior to .50 cal, which is in turn inferior to 20mm, which is in turn inferior to 35mm, which in tern is inferior to 120mm, which in term is inferior to 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, which in turn is inferior to Atomic Annie?

>>33745098
Honestly I learned from a few months of hard research and I found an absolute shit ton of misinfo online.

You have to realize there is a camp that is actively trying to bait the military into thinking X thing is shit and needs to be replaced with this new expensive wonder gadget.

So read online sources with a grain of salt.

I should also add that not all Mk262 has a cannelure, which is pretty important in helping it fragment. Mk262 Mod1 is ideal.

TLDR, lurk more and feel free to ask more questions

>>33744917
Neat, didn't know those existed. Thanks.

>>33745022
Are you sure about hard target penetration. I thought that was one of the few advantages to the M855 (it is for the M855A1)

>>33745195

>Do you understand by your logic that .308 is inferior to .50 cal, which is in turn inferior to 20mm, which is in turn inferior to 35mm, which in tern is inferior to 120mm, which in term is inferior to 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, which in turn is inferior to Atomic Annie?


Uhm. Yes.

Tell you what, you take a 5.56, I will take an atomic annie. You let me know what is more damaging.

File: IMG_8440.jpg (4MB, 3888x2592px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3888x2592px

>>33745301
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S14LyHUsZI0

Green Tip might penetrate soft steel or wood better at longer range but my belief is that this is in fact the ONLY thing it does better than M193, for the loss of a ton of performance in accuracy and lethality and even armor penetration.

File: NotGoodEnough.png (46KB, 453x485px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 453x485px

>>33745357

>>33745195
>Do you understand by your logic that .308 is inferior to .50 cal, which is in turn inferior to 20mm, which is in turn inferior to 35mm, which in tern is inferior to 120mm, which in term is inferior to 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, which in turn is inferior to Atomic Annie?
I'd be disappointed if they weren't. I should point out .223 is inferior to all of those as well.

>>33745253
What does mk262 do out of a 10.5" barrel compared to m1993 from a 20" barrel?

File: 1489437583829.jpg (201KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1024x640px

>>33745253
I hate to ask this, but you said ask questions and I'm curious what you say.

The fuck is a cannelure, and what's the load on 262? Is a cannelure that dip in the tip of the bullet?

If so, what's the dip in the cost of production cost? While it might miss material (If I'm thinking of the right thing) wouldn't the mold and all the rest of it make it more expensive? Though I bet that'd disappear in mass production.

>>33745357
>>33745481
So let me get this straight, you expect troops on lugging around an Atomic Annie, a weapon that weighs probably double your guys weight, around in the field?

File: IMG_1420.jpg (205KB, 674x878px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 674x878px

>>33745489
I'd take the 20" M193 if I had to choose between those two combos.

M193 Fragments to about 2700 FPS, which out of a 20" gives me more than 120 yards of comfy JUST FUCK MY SHIT up distance.

Mk262 Mod1 fragments to 2300FPS, and with a 10.3 Inch barrel only gets about 2350 FPS. So very little distance until I can't reliably fragment.

File: IMG_1421.gif (22KB, 630x790px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 630x790px

>>33745489
Here's M193 data by comparison

File: IMG_1422.jpg (36KB, 480x131px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x131px

>>33745489
And lastly here's some load data from a 10.3" Barrel

>>33740859
It's a poodle shooter, little more than a hopped up 22 magnum.
>>33740859
>well over 3000 feet per second
Not at impact. 55 grain 22 caliber bullets have piss poor sectional density.

>>33745751
>poodle shooter
uh oh, there goes your credibility, homo

File: IMG_1419.jpg (65KB, 650x742px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 650x742px

>>33745519
The Cannelure is this bit of a bullet, pic related is Mk262 Mod 0 on the left, no cannelure, and Mk262 Mod 1 on the right, with a cannelure.

The jacket is thinner there and it's a natural weak point, allowing for the round to break into peices and fragment easier.

OTM is generally considered more expensive because of manufacturing limitations in the application of a jacket to a bullet. I don't really know why it is, it just is.

OTM is really just a different way to jacket a bullet, it's kinda like a reversed jacket, where in a regular round, the jacket is drawn from front to back (often leaving the base of a bullet unjacketed).

With OTM rounds, the jacket is drawn from back to front, which is supposedly a more precise way to draw a jacket, thus creating a more accurate round.

>>33745765
Not an argument.

>>33745519
The cannelure is the little textured part around the midsection of a bullet that the case crimps onto

>>33745787
I fucked ur mom in da ass faggot
Dats not an argument bitch.


Someone plz ban the first fucking faggot who said not an argument and the rest of the faggots who follow trend.

>>33745630
Wouldn't be the dumbest thing the military does.

>>33740859
This. Sweden even started crusade against 5.56x45 demanding to ban it worldwide. So inhumanly effective it was.

>>33745022
>The military went full retard when they adopted M855, which is in almost every way imaginable worse than M193.
M855 has 1200 meters effective range vs 500 meters of M193.

>>33745781
>which is supposedly a more precise way to draw a jacket
It increases precision of bullet base. And base of the bullet has much more effect on accuracy.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-49-damaged-bullet-accuracy-and-the-box-o-truth/

>>33746006
>M855 has 1200 meters effective range vs 500 meters of M193.
Yeah, right. Good luck even hitting a man at 400 meters with a poodle shooter.

>>33745195
For the modern battlefield, 5.56 is better, but if we're talking JUST the bullets themselves, .30-06 creams 5.56, easily.

>>33744912
>he doesn't use a flak 88 as his HD gun
Look at this faggot.

>facts about the 5.56

I can already tell this thread should be deleted by the mods

If your barrel is 16+ inches, (Assume both are 1:7inch twist) get M193, if it's less, get M855.

File: heavymatch_s.jpg (13KB, 350x190px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 350x190px

>>33745288
It doesn't stop there

>>33745991
>Sweden
Why am I not surprised in the least

>>33746170
>if you're not using HE rounds on your HD flak 88 just kys

>>33746006
Too bad the guys shooting it don't have a 1200m effective range

>>33746208

>100 grain 5.56

Neat, I didn't know they made that.

>>33745399
To be fair, the plate he's using he admits was pretty garbage tier compared to others.

>>33746288
You'd need a super fast twist rate to shoot it. It would also be very slow.

>>33746006
Well, considering using either beyond 500 is buttfuck retarded, that point's kinda moot senpai.

>>33745022
SO MUCH WRONG IN THIS POST.

>>33745087
Sure if you're shooting at paper, you wanna shoot the biggest most fun gun you can get your hands on to shoot.

From a military standpoint. Intermediate cartridges are in every way superior.

>>33744176
If you believe Chris Bartocci (who seems to know his shit well) the main issue was rust caused by lack of chrome lining. Can't remember where but it's in this vid. Guns like the M14 received chrome lined barrels while the M16 didn't, leading to rust in the hot humid Vietnam environment. Pitting in the chambers then caused failures to extract.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLYLkrethQA&t=3092s

>>33746385
ignore that time link, copy-paste failure

>>33746320
please elaborate. I'm >>33745098, and a cursory search brought up a bunch of arfcom threads containing shit quality debate.

>>33746467
The M855 is SUPERIOR to the M193 in nearly every category, it's just from a 20' barrels at POINT BLANK RANGE it can pen AR500 which /k/ loves to hate.
The M855 has superior accuracy in 1/7 rifles, is effective for point targets out to 500M and area targets to 800. Futhermore, M855 has far better barrier penetration, and can punch through vegetation easier. The issue with M855 began with you guessed it, the retarded Army issuing everyone with carbines which past 90M WILL NOT FRAGMENT. Against body armor, M855 is better against ceramic and HDPE plates. Against a steel helmet the M855 can defeat out to 800M, compared to the M193's 400M. The M855 was developed by FN Herstal as the SS109 for the FN Minimi. Both it, and the M16A2 it was developed for had 20' barrels. The original twist rate for both was 1/8 but the M856 tracer required a 1/7 to stabilize.

>>33746525
>Against a steel helmet the M855 can defeat out to 800M
It is actually 1200m.

>>33745253
> feel free to ask more questions

What is better for penetration? Normal ball 55gr or 62gr bullets (not with steel core)?

>>33746562
Ya know everytime I've seen that claim it grows by 200 meters.

File: 13108663_442046932632432_426911545_n.jpg (89KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 612x612px

>>33746306
It's pretty much a bolt action only load thanks to the OAL. Apparently it acts like generic 7.62x39

And since I can't find the pic I wanted this will have to do

>>33746600
Commercial loading like TAP, Bear Claw and Gold Dots

>>33740859
> Soldiers reported that the round would "blow people apart"
This feels like copypasta. Stale copypasta, at that.

>>33745668
>>33745685
>>33745700
Where can I find more like this?

>>33746623
How about lead-free Bullets like GMX or TSX since they do have a copper-core and dont have the "soft" lead

>>33746525
My only issue with this analysis is that most people want fragmentation, not barrier penetration. After reading a NATO report on the subject, I guess it's an attempt to substitute a rare actualization of "stopping power" for CNS hits.

>Some complaint about how marksmanship is hard here
Yeah, I can't group for shit either. Doesn't change the fact that bullets need to get close to the CNS to truly shut a human down.

>>33745630

I dont need to lug shiiiet. In a military doctrine largely backed by bombs, the big boom beats the little boom every time.

Logistics aside, The 5.56 round's performance is less than that of a comparable .30 cal bretheren.


You can dance around with muh logistics as much as you like but you certainly cant say the 5.56 is a better round in the same way I couldnt say .22lr is a better round than 5.56.

>>33740859
>When used properly however, it is truly devastating.
Do you think your Wu Tang sword can defeat me?

So after reading this post along with some searching around the interwebs, I want you guy's opinion.

Out of a 1:8 twist, 14.5 inch barrel (assuming barrier penetration isn't required) would Mk262 or equivalent be the best bet for a self defense AR?

>>33740859
it was being used on unarmored Vietnamese people
any caliber would have worked

I thought the 1st vietnam 5.56 rifles had sickening effects because the twist rate only marginally stabilised the round, thus on impact with anything it yaws instantly and violently

>>33746040

There are many jacketing techniques available to get a solid base.

The jacketing types and bullet design discussion is great, but the OTM jacket design was mostly an attempt to have an open meplat for dat bc. There are secondary benefits though.

I want to start to see rebated boattails be more popular

>>33740893
>>33741478
>>33741682
So what is the best projectile and respective twist rate?

>>33746263
This

I think the shorter range would be offset by 1-2 designated marksmen in a section with 7.62x51 rifles.
Would also consider the squad automatic weapons to be better suited to 7.62x51, but it's probably theatre dependent

>>33745288

Great if you have a Mk12 style build or looking for better groups in shit weather.

>>33746385
Compounded by shitty powder and lack of proper maintenance drill early in adoption.

>>33746935
You aren't bound by international law to use rounds that aren't designed to expand on impact.

Other than that i think common consensus is that unless you are actively trying to fuck up; any common variation of 5.56 rifle and ammo is devastating to the human body at indoor range.
Making the hits is where to focus, lights, optics and practice, lots and lots of practice.

However I'm just text on the internet summing up other texts/videos from the internet.

>>33745991
>>33746223
As a Swede who takes a great deal of interest in weapons, this is the first I've ever heard of it.

Anti personnel mines and napalm I know has been opposed.

How would m193 preform out of different barrel lengths. Like say 20", 16", 14.5", and 10.5"?

>>33747034
Short answer: 1:8 unless using very light bullets.
InRange TV just did a Q&A with Faxon on the subject:
https://www.full30.com/video/8d496b9e82eed3589a707c5d783b7cba

>>33747094
It performs best out of 20". And worst out of 10.5"

File: 1414481518612.jpg (96KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1280x720px

>>33740859
Most engagement distances in Vietnam were up to a mere maximum of 200 meters purely due to vegetation. The problem is we now have shorter barreled rifles with magnified optics pushing 500 meters in a higher altitude environment for nearly the past 10 years. We are only getting away with it at this time only because the enemy so far has almost 0% modern medical knowledge and treatment of gunshots.

As soon as we start to fight enemies with body armor, the 7.62x51 will get a comeback.

>>33747396
Depends what kind of armor. If it's comparable to NIJ Level IV then 7.62x51 AP isn't getting through either.

>>33747378
Yeah, but Afghanistan is the exception rather than the norm. Most analysts expect the majority of future engagements to be urban.

Just be glad some asshole at the pentagon hasn't discovered how many more .17 WSM you can stuff in a ammo can.

>>33747378
Also they haven't figured out what the sights are for

>>33740893
>>33740859
yessss

I love being mainstream.

20" barrel or different chambering.

>>33747378
M103 also keyholed like fuck which is what caused the grievous wounds. It was a trash cartridge being used inside of the range that tumbling would affect hits.

Mk262, Hornady TAP and other 77gr and up OTM/OHP cartridges show equivalent or better lethality and barrier penetration without being useless beyond 250m, and green tips go right through Level 3 armor.

>>33745301
M855's little hardened point on the end helps it penetrate thin sheet metal at like 800 meters, but hinders it's penetrative ability at shorter distances

velocity defeats armor, steel armor at least

>>33747396
5.56x45 is still higher velocity

>>33740859
>The 5.56x45mm cartridge has a reputation for being "inadequate" these days, but that was not the case in Vietnam.

It is inadequate it has a TKO of less than 5. It is shit. It is a varmint or paper round.

>>33747500
didn't read the rest of the post, nice

Do you think .44 mag is shitty too?

>>33746069

Literally retarded or b8. Probably both

>>33746610
It's actually 1400 meters.

>>33747507
>didn't read the rest of the post, niceDo you think .44 mag is shitty too?

.44 mag is a handgun round out of a handgun it surpasses 5.56x45 out of a rifle it is infinitely superior for killing. For hunting varmints or punching paper 5.56x45 is probably superior.

And yes I did read your post OP. There's no facts or figues or theory of lethality of knock out or formulae just some bullshit about things exploding dramatically.

>>33746910
Except when our military doctrine isn't solely big boom, but also a shit ton of little booms in rapid succession.

Yes, in sheer power .308 is better than .223. But in the aspect of amount of rounds you can put down range, .22lr is superior to .223, and .223 is superior to .308. Also armor piercing for some reason (tinier round at high velocity).

>>33746525
Shut the fuck up and go but a .270 and some brass tip bullets and fuck off with the small fast bullet meme. a 49 grain bullet is not going to do fuck all at 800M

>>33747556
.44 mag and 5.56 produce roughly the same amount of muzzle energy, except the 5.56, being a spitzer projectile, retains it at greater distances and has a tumbling/yaw effect.

>varmint cartridge
You're just parroting fuddlore here.

Here's the source: http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

CTRL+F "5.56"

you're welcome

>>33747580
tko 4.64 cal 5.45×39mm
tko 19.9 cal .44 Magnum

no comparison

Fuck off and go and actually kill something with your squirrel gun.

>>33744830
Onjectively infereior for knocking goatfuckers off of dunes from 2 mi away. In a urban enviroment (Which NATO warned the US before they adopted it that the intermediate cartridge was designed for) with closer engagements it does its job nicely.

>>33744112
>till
'til
tilling is digging up soil, 'til is short for until

>>33747596
Oh look, another pseudo-science bullshit method of measuring effectiveness. This one is even worse than Hatcher formula because it ranks .38 special above the 5.56

You've embarrassed yourself and all self-respecting firearms enthusiasts with this atrocious joke. Truly an insult to the world of ballistics

>>33747612
>Onjectively infereior for knocking goatfuckers off of dunes from 2 mi away. In a urban enviroment (Which NATO warned the US before they adopted it that the intermediate cartridge was designed for) with closer engagements it does its job nicely.


These small bullets retain enough energy to be useful out to 300M after that the ballistic curve drop off makes range estimation impossibly critical for hitting man size targets and energy loss makes it ineffectual if you do.

Fucking children and google are a curse to gun knowledge. Momentum matters, so does wind and range. There is absolutely no comparison between a 3006/270/208 etc and these fast 22s. None once you start going at distance you are pissing sand grains and all the tumbling and bullshit in the world does not change reality.5.45×39mm is a really light grain bullet. It is a varmint round at best.

>>33745022

If M193 is so much better than M855, why did they never realize their mistake and just switch back?

Why they stick with it for 35 years?

>>33745991
You are fake news.

>>33747632
>38 special above the 5.56

That's probably about right yeah. And?

File: IMG_1396.jpg (29KB, 576x536px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 576x536px

>>33746006
This is patently false.

>>33746187
This is wrong as well. You really should just never use M855.

>>33746288
It doesn't fit in AR15s

>>33746297
Doesn't really matter, it's just a demonstration of the raw penetration performance of those two rounds.

>>33746320
>>33746525
Literally everything about this post is wrong beyond what you got from Wikipedia.

M193 is still more accurate even out of a 1/7 twist barrel.

>>33746562
This is trolling.

You realize there are actually people ITT who are legitimately curious right? There's no reason to shit up a thread with blatant misinfo.

>>33746600
Hypothetically the faster bullet would penetrate more steel but the heavier bullet would penetrate more soft target.

This is a nonissue though as finding non M855 62g FMJ is rare

>>33746935
I would use a modern bonded "police" round because they offer consistent expansion and penetration and don't rely at all on fragmentation.

>>33746947
>>33747464
I actually used to think this too, but it's false apparently.

Even at a 1/14 twist rate M193 was only keyholing at Artic temperatures.

>>33747478
M855 doesn't have a pointed steel tip.

>>33747094
Fragmentation Threshold is 2700 FPS go look up the rest.

>>33747641
something about the M193 being inhumane. Plus the penetration thing

but the issues of M855 are acknowledged, this lead to the development of the M855A1

>>33747646
That's quite possibly the most insanely retarded post I've seen on /k/. I'm starting to think I fell for bait

>>33747647
M855 can penetrate a helmet at 1600 meters

So for a 14.5in 1:7 barrel, should i go 193, 855, or 262?

I care more for accuracy vs armor penetration since im not a soldier, just a regular guy. I can say that in my time in the woods and plains, that both 55gr and 62gr have penetrated heavy brush and branches without too much deviation. And that shooting 55gr 7ft away, through drywall, will not penetrate a second wall of drywall located 5ft past the first. 62gr will. I tested this out in a motel i was tearing down.

Obviously 855a1 would be preferable based off the data for 14.5in, but they seem to be military sold only, from a quick google glance.

I personally have stuck to 193 because the 55gr has been more consistant in accuracy for my rifle from 50 to 200yds vs 855 which actually did worse at closer ranges.

I used a 12x fixed power scope to test accuracy.

I have not tried any 77gr, but I have tried 75gr and it did not perform as well, accuracy wise for my testing variables.

File: IMG_1315.jpg (16KB, 281x406px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 281x406px

>>33747641
The US didn't originally want M855(SS109)

It was developed by the Belgians as a neat ammo to compliment their machine guns, and when time came around to select a NATO standard 5.56 bullet; the Europeans objected to using M193 on the basis that it was inhumane.

I THINK

That's the meme of the story at least; if anyone has the actual reason the military switched to it then let me know.

>>33747652

>>33747668
For self defense?

A bonded modern police round.

http://www.milehighshooting.com/hornady-8125n-5-56mm-62-gr-tap-barrier/

Or Mk262 Mod1 if you can't get any bonded stuff

>>33747500
>>33747596
>TKO
try GTFO

>>33747652
M855 can penetrate a helmet at 1780 meters

>>33747691
No for best accuracy off of mil rounds. Im talking smallest groups AND most consitency in different environments and weather.

I already know what works for my particular rifle, 193, but what does the data actually say?

Those charts above show me numbers, such as that 855 and 262 are better than 193. But accuracy wise, that has not been the case for me. I want as much accuracy as I can get out of a mil round. I have black hills 77gr on the way, which is similar to 262 i believe, and im gonna try that out. But is there any accuracy data for these rounds. In the above charts there were drop numbers but that doesnt tell me how well they group, or if those are just calculated numbers or a person actually shot those rounds out of those rifles and recorded that data.

>>33747702
>5.45×39mm


Energy of a .44 mag rifle Bullet
Energy:1,747 ft.lbs.

A 5.56x45mm is has just over 1300 ft.lbs

You are all dopes.

>>33740859
>The 5.56x45mm cartridge has a reputation for being "inadequate" these days, but that was not the case in Vietnam. The guns chambered in it were problematic, as were the maintenance practices, but there were never any complaints about its effectiveness during the war.

While the rifle had problems do to no cleaning kits, most of the problems of the M16 in vietnam can be attributed to the ammunition used.

Nice try, no guns.

>>33747672

I have never heard that it had anything to do with the M193 being "inhumane".

Only ever read that M855 was chosen because it was better at penetrating steel at 800 meters, and this simply overrode all other considerations at the time.

And they wanted ONE standard round for everything from carbines to light machine guns.

I think everything beyond this is urban legend.

>>33747040
Yeah except that most fighting takes place at 100m or less. The Soviets figured this shit out in WWII and started mass issuing submachine guns. The only reason the US insisted on using the .30 caliber round despite obvious data that is shouldn't was because of myopic fudds like yourself that insist on rejecting reality for their own mental jerkoff fantasies.

>>33747702
A 38 P will do 125 grains at about 1800+ fps

So it generates about 1300 ft.lbs about the same energy but more than double the impact area

I'm so sick of this small fast bullet faggoty,

So TKO and energy line up with 5.56x45mm being inferior to 38 and 44mag.

Tell me how we are defying the laws of physics today children or why the TKO is irrelevant?


Next?

>>33747727
I'm sorry but I really don't understand what you're talking about.

If you're concerned about close range lethality just go with M193 because it's going to do the same thing to person that any other 5.56 round would.

>>33747765
Early AR15s in Vietnam were problematic.

Stop talking out of your ass, yes there were also ammo issues but important improvements were made by the time the M16A1 came around.

>>33747769
Sounds about right.

That's a completely arbitrary need though, so it leads me to believe they were grasping straws in order to justify the adoption

>>33747765
>most of the problems of the M16 in vietnam can be attributed to the ammunition used.

yeah, because the type of powder that was used would foul the guns quicker, not because the cartridge itself was flawed

>>33746910
>you certainly cant say the 5.56 is a better round in the same way I couldnt say .22lr is a better round than 5.56.
God I love how stupid the arguments get.

>>33747790
I already gave you a source written by fucking Vincent DiMaio, all you have is one of many pseudo-science formulas made by amateurs

yeah but good luck shooting someone behind even a wimpy tree or bush

>>33747396
The case maybe, but it's gonna need sabots at the very least

>>33747790
>A 38 P will do 125 grains at about 1800+ fps

>So TKO and energy line up with 5.56x45mm being inferior to 38 and 44mag.

Kek big bullet fags are hilarious.

>>33747806
>I already gave you a source written by fucking Vincent DiMaio, all you have is one of many pseudo-science formulas made by amateurs


So you think grains and fps to calculate energy is bullshit?

It is one of the most basic ballistic calculations kid.


Go home your internet learning is wilting.

Maybe you can write to Vincent DiMaio and ask him to explain it to you.

>>33747819
The fact that you got a .38 spc doing 1800 fps is quite rich.

Then you talk about math. Kek.

>>33747500
>using TO
>ever
Did you feel like "stopping power" wasn't scientific enough for you and so stumbled upon this archaic unsubstantiated unit of measurement?

>>33747819
>So you think grains and fps to calculate energy is bullshit?

No, I don't. But you think diameter and weight
is everything; there's no other way to justify the claim that .38spl is better than a cartridge with 5 times the energy

you also seem to think actual gunshot wounds are bullshit, and that yaw, tumbling and fragmenting are all myths

>>33747640
So deer and humans need to be dropped from medium game to varmints just to comply with your idiocy. It's like youreading intentionally ignoring it's use here in reality

>>33747813
>>A 38 P will do 125 grains at about 1800+ fps>So TKO and energy line up with 5.56x45mm being inferior to 38 and 44mag.Kek big bullet fags are hilarious.


Yup from the same legth barrel the bigger bullets carry more energy and momentum

Not surprising.

In fact 44mag from a rifle dwarfs 5.56x45mm

But that's not all.

Go ask a sniper to dump his 7.62 x 51 and use 5.56x45mm instead. He'll tell you to fuck right off because you are talking absolute bullshit.

You see all this shitting on about ignoring energy or for example TKO (they guy knew more about killing with rifles than most ever will) is because you have what is called consumer bias. You think because you bought something it HAS to be the most super duper thing ever. Its not. It has not a patch on .308/270/3006 at distance and never will.

It has not a patch on delivering energy and you may feel you asshole sucking inwards at the fact a .44mag lever gun is by every measure delivering more lethality than a 5.56x45mm from a plastic gun but that's reality, it's delivering about the same as a 38 special from a lever gun but with a much smaller bullet.

>>33747835
>The fact that you got a .38 spc doing 1800 fps is quite rich.Then you talk about math. Kek.

Yeah no problem from a lever action.

What the fuck is your lack of knowedge?

You do know that 44 mag 357
, 38s etc can be fired from rifles, typically lever guns? You did know that right?

Because you are comparing bullets and energy right?

I mean you are not actually just a bullshit artist right?

Any 125 grain 38SP will make 1800 from a carbine unless there is something wrong with it.

>>33747863
Oh please, .38 from a long barrel is still less than 9mm +p

Do you have a legitimate mental handicap?
If you want to actually learn something, see: http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

>>33747034
Best projectile would be one of the about 4 monolithic copper hollowpoints on the market.
>good intermediate barrier penetration
>good ballistic coefficient for long-range shooting
>excellent threshold for expansion (between 1650 and 1800fps depending on which)
>excellent expanded diameter
>excellent depth of penetration in flesh (~15-18")
>good effect vs. body armor when compared to all other types of not-dedicated-AP bullet
Next best would be a ballistic-tipped bonded softpoint.

Best twist rate is 1:8, shoots the broadest variety of commercial ammo and handloads capable of being loaded to mag length (including M856 tracer) while being ideal for the relatively heavy OTM and softpoint loads that do the best at actually killing things.

>>33747871
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/38special.html

You are a fucking irredeemable moron

>>33747790
>faggoty
No it absolutely will not. A .357 magnum can hit 2000fps but any .38 special not fired from a rail gun is going to struggle to hit 1400fps in ideal circumstances

>>33747855
>So deer and humans need to be dropped from medium game to varmints just to comply with your idiocy. It's like youreading intentionally ignoring it's use here in reality


No. Light bullets are also shit with wind and have far greater energy drop off with distance than the likes of a 308 or 270

Sorry. Reality.

>>33747863
Throw a .38 spc though a 18 inch barrel it won't hit 1800 fps fuccboi.

Try again.

>>33746306
...or a .22cal rifle other than .223/5.56 to shoot it from. To deal with either or both the velocity and COAL concerns.

Like...say... maybe a .22-250 or .22PPC or .22BR. The calibers it was designed for.

>>33747863
here is an article for you. The tl;dr - any measure of "knock down" or "energy transfer" is entirely pointless and doesn't convey the actual permanent wound cavity that damages tissue
http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer.htm

>>33747885
>>faggotyNo it absolutely will not. A .357 magnum can hit 2000fps but any .38 special not fired from a rail gun is going to struggle to hit 1400fps in ideal circumstances


Well kid I've chromed that at a range so at this point I'll just tell you that a 38P+ at 125 grains will shoot stings over 1800. So does a 357

For fuck sake is the best you can do is scream liar when I'm teaching you something real? Is being in an echo chamber of bullshit that important to you?

>>33747914
>here is an article for you. The tl;dr - any measure of "knock down" or "energy transfer" is entirely pointless and doesn't convey the actual permanent wound cavity that damages tissuehttp://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer.htm

Qustion for you. Why do you think that snipers in Afghan are issued with 7.62x51 guns and 338s

Take your time now. Think hard.

>>33747917
>Well kid I've chromed that at a range

Then your chronometer is way off. No wonder you think the way you do, kiddo.

>>33747863
>In fact 44mag from a rifle dwarfs 5.56x45mm
For raw muzzle energy sure, but due to the nature of projectile weapons, they need to be able to go more than 200 yards and I say that as gun that hunts with a .44mag 1894.

>Go ask a sniper to dump his 7.62 x 51 and use 5.56x45mm instead
You mean the guy that's limited to 7.62x51 or .300wm due to standardization, because long range shooters outside of government work prefer 6-6.5mm cartridges that are more ballistic ally efficient

>You see all this shitting on about ignoring energy or for example TKO (they guy knew more about killing with rifles than most ever will) is because you have what is called consumer bias.
Did W.D.M Bell have consumer bias
People are ignoring you because you're basing this all on energy which means fuck all by itself.

>>33747931
>Why do you think that snipers in Afghan are issued with 7.62x51 guns and 338s.

Range.

>>33747914
Relative killing power at 100 yards, taken from the "Guns and Shooting Online Rifle Cartridge Killing Power Formula and List" (see the Tables, Charts and Lists page):
•.223 Remington, 60 grain @ 3000 fps - 6.3 killing relative power
•.30 Carbine, 110 grain @ 1990 fps - 7.4 relative killing power
•.357 Magnum, 158 grain @ 1830 fps - 12.7 relative killing power


http://www.chuckhawks.com/puma_92_carbine.htm

Oops . Your own source says you are an asshat.

"Although that killing power number is based on published Winchester factory load ballistics taken in a 20" test barrel, a reasonable extrapolation might be a 16.5 inch .357 Magnum carbine still coming close enough to be about a third more potent than either the .30 Carbine or .223 Remington at 100 yards."

>>33747888
>Light bullets are also shit with wind
An effect which is minimized by speed and better BCs.

>>33747955
different author, dumbass

>>33747955
"relative killing power"

Wew lad.

Whats next, ghost hunters EVPs about troops bitching about 5.56?

>>33747917
You may want to buy a new chronological or tell buffalo bore what magic combination you're using, because with your "knowledge" applied to that .357 would be equal to 7.62x39 without even trying.

What is happening here is you don't know shit but you firmly believe that you do despite having tangible real world results at your fingertips

>>33747917
Nigga you're loading +P and getting those velocities, that .357 tier loaded into a .38 case

>>33747965
>"Although that killing power number is based on published Winchester factory load ballistics taken in a 20" test barrel, a reasonable extrapolation might be a 16.5 inch .357 Magnum carbine still coming close enough to be about a third more potent than either the .30 Carbine or .223 Remington at 100 yards."
>>33747965

You're a fucking idiot. People like you spew out garbage 24/7 on gun boards without even knowing the basics of ballistics and having shit exactly nothing. But you can't sit and be a retard quietly. You have to try and grow the size of you tribe of knucklehead bullshit artists.

5.56x45mm is just another light small fast round. like bee, swift etc etc etc etc etc

They are not 'magic' they are not as lethal as 357/44mag/38SP at short range and due to wind drop off and energy loss at inadequate at distance which is why 308/270/338/3006 exist

I actually like small fast bullets like 243s (which is superior to 5.56x45 in all ways) but you retards are just fucking lost in your own bullshit.

Don't worry about temporal cavity with a 308 it just leave a big massive fuckoff hole.

>>33747991
>Nigga you're loading +P and getting those velocities, that .357 tier loaded into a .38 case

I said it was 125 grain. Lighter than a 357 equivalent to get the speed.

File: 002-scul.jpg (40KB, 341x454px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 341x454px

>>33747955
>relative killing power

>>33748008
medical fact and you call it spewing garbage. Have fun in the stone age.

File: tumblr_inline_nt0vfexkpK1spsojg_540.jpg (67KB, 540x534px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 540x534px

>>33747955
"relative killing power"

>>33748024
>>relative killing power

O lets ignore energy, mass, momentum real ballistics data showing energy drop off and drop, wind, the observations of anyone who was an expert in trying to ascertain the lethality of ammunition on game and just keep rocking back and forth shitting on about temporal cavities an muh tiny bullet.

Go buy a ,243 and shut the fuck up if you want a decent small fast round.

You don't need to worry much about temporal cavaties if you hit with a 44mag at 1700ft.lbs at 100 yards or if you hit with a 308 at 500meters.

Muh AR syndrome.

>>33747652
>.223
>penetrating steel at over 1.6km

there are reports a M855 could even penetrate the moon if you aim right at it with a 14.5inch barrel

>>33748011
You mean the like the 125gr .357mag load that's been the GO-TO load for LEO and civilian shooters for decades and which was so common that it was breaking guns prompting S&W to make a new frame size

Get the fuck out of here and don't come back until you have pictures of the shrap in your face and hands

>>33748036
>>33748035
>>33748024
>>33747969
>>33747965
Rifle Cartridge Killing Power List
By Chuck Hawks

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_killing_power_list.htm

.223 Remington (60 grain at 3000 fps) - 6.3
.223 WSSM (64 grain at 3600 fps) - 10.1
.243 Winchester (100 grain at 2960 fps) - 18.1
.270 Winchester (130 grain at 3150 fps) - 35.0
.270 Winchester (150 grain at 2850 fps) - 37.4
.308 Winchester (150 grain at 2820 fps) - 34.7
.308 Winchester (180 grain at 2620 fps) - 46.2

.30-06 Springfield (150 grain at 2920 fps) - 37.3
.30-06 Springfield (180 grain at 2700 fps) - 49.2

.357 Magnum (Rifle) (158 grain at 1830 fps) - 12.7

.44 Remington Magnum (Rifle) (240 grain at 1760 fps) - 26.4

You all should right in and tell him how expert you are. You seem full of shit to me.

"I will say that after I had initially calculated the results for a number of common rifle cartridges using the formula above, I was encouraged. The results seemed reasonable in light of my personal research and experience. I concluded that, although undoubtedly not perfect, these killing power scores generally have a positive correlation with reality. I would suggest that a 100 yard Killing Power Score of at least 12.5 is required for hunting Class 2 game (deer, pronghorn, sheep, goats, etc.)."

>>33748053
>You don't need to worry much about temporal cavaties if you hit with a 44mag at 1700ft.lbs at 100 yards or if you hit with a 308 at 500meters

Have you forgetten that this is a thread about a service caliber that needs to be carried in quantity and fired in volume at range with the ability to punch armor? Where does a rimmed straight wall cartridge come into that. As a service cartridge 5.56 and 5.45 are backed by 7.62 caliber weapons as needed it. The the Civ world all the shot you're crying about is addressed by proper bullet selection and the user being able to choose whatever the fuck they want to shoot. Are you retroactively trying to alter the timeline of NATO intermediate adoption by shitposting? Maybe you should save buddy holly while you're at it

This could've been a good thread. Anyway, noob question. Is the American eagle xm193 the same thing as the military ball ammo you guys are talking about? Is all 5.56 called "m193" across different brands the same?

>>33748124
So what your saying is you recognise that every single thing I have been saying is correct?

But muh military?

>>33748124
>>33748124
>ability to punch armor?

Every single round that delivers more energy will also preform better that 5.56 with an AP core. Reality strikes again, and most of them will do it at much greater range.

File: 1483425873655[1].jpg (38KB, 650x433px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 650x433px

It's important that we don't forget just how much of a weak fucking sister 5.56 out of a short barrel is. 5.56mm M855 ammunition is optimized for a 20" barrel with a 1:7 twist. It is not surprising that its greatest velocity of 2979 ft/sec is obtained in a 20" barrel. After all, Stoner designed the cartridge for the 20" barrel.

Decreased velocity with barrels much shorter than 14.5" (the M4 carbine barrel) have a number of unwanted effects. Lowered linear velocity produces lower rotational velocity, which will result in diminished gyroscopic stability of the bullet. It will also result in significantly decreased projectile kinetic energy, decreased ability to generate a significant would channel, and will reach a point of diminishing returns where lethality of the round definitely comes into question. Once you go below 11", muzzle velocity nose dives. M855 bullets traveling below 2500 fps when impacting a target will not produce a lethal wound channel. On the graph, anything below the red line is shit).

Secondly, with shorter barrels, tuning of the gas port for weapon cycling becomes more critical. Adding a suppressor, which does slightly increase bore pressure, will result in more erratic and forceful cycling of the weapon leading to earlier weapon failure. It is also apparent that the pressure near the barrel rises exponentially with less barrel length, which necessitates that suppressors on shorter barrel weapons be designed to handle much higher pressures. The M4 does use appropriate suppressors, but many casual gun owners may put themselves at risk by putting one of those on a 10.5 inch barrel AR.

In short, there has been a cultural shift from the 20-inch barrel length in AR-15/M16 weapon systems chambered for 5.56 to progressively shorter barrels for the purpose of producing an increasingly more compact assault weapon without resorting to a bullpup design. This causes problems with sound and lethality. If you don't want those problems, just use a bullpup.

>>33748151
Truth and in a lot of topologies range is king.

>>33740859
>, the results suggested that the new cartridge was just as effective as the larger .308,

Horseshit

>>33748151
How does 5.45 do out of shorter barrels in comparison?

>>33748104
OK well the 6.8spcII 90gr projectile at 2634fps has an Anon Butt-blast Factor (ABF for uninitiated) of 79,020 based on an equally useless metric that I just formulated after hunting on and off for half my life, so it's equally as valid.

Maybe I'll start dividing velocity by the weight of the animal , adding that to the estimates range squared and then dividing that again by the projectile weight and how scary the name sounds

>>33747616
I am truly amazed at how fast the English language is disintegrating among American speakers.

>>33748191
You can thank the large influx of Spanish speakers, among other foreign immigrants, plus the general quality of education in the most populous states.

>>33748151
All of this only applies to M855 kek

>>33748176
The AKS-74u has a shorter barrel than just about any assualt rifle on earth. I have no idea how effective it actually is with it's 5.45 round out of that barrel.

>>33748134
If that's what you take away from that then I could have said gorillas are better than 5.56 because they're heavier and can walk really far and it would be agreeing with your point.

At the cost of weight, recoil, logistical nightmares, loss of overall capacity and overall cost for what benefits? Shooting further and further outside of the shooters effective range?

File: IMG_1049.jpg (177KB, 608x845px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 608x845px

>>33748104
>killing power

Please keep going

>>33748147
lighter faster 556 has the advantage here

>>33748151
I wish Eugene Stoner had designed a bullpup.

>>33740859
>, which resulted in tremendous energy loss when it would hit a human body. Energy loss resulted in massive cavities

No you fucking retard, physics don't work like that. Put a bullet proof vest on the target and the energy loss will be even faster, but guess what, far less damage is done. There are lots of ways for the round to dump its energy, some do a lot of damage, some do little damage, and some do basically nothing whatsoever to harm the target. Unless you know where the energy goes, you can't say shit about how much damage is done just based on the energy loss. When around does a lot of damage, then that tells us a lot of energy was converted into useful, harmful mechanical work. Not the other way around.

>>33748151
>will not produce a lethal wound channel

Lethality is not a binary thing, and a deep puncture wound most definitely has a greater than zero chance of killing you.

>>33748151
It's interesting how 13 and 11 inch barrels offer the same velocity.

>>33748129

This is a whole other can of worms.

"M193" is a specification that covers more details than just being 55gr FMJ. It has minimum velocity and maximum group size and stuff like that.

It's a topic of debate how close the commercially sold stuff is to mil spec. It's not allowed (in the US anyway) to sell actual "surplus" ammo, so there is zero chance that the 5.56 you buy at the LGS is literal military ammo that was issued and went unused and then sold off, like the WWII ammo you still find. But it may have been made on the same assembly line as ammo that went to the military.

There is a lot of assumption that commercial 5.56 is "rejected" military ammo that failed testing, possibly even not safe to use. This is mostly lore.

There are some variations among manufactures and it's generally considered that IMI and PPU brand may be marginally more accurate than Federal but probably nothing you'd notice in real life.

There's threads on arf com where they test the shit out of a lot of brands.

>>33748225
>Shooting further and further outside of the shooters effective range?

Yeah. Optics are really rare these days and it's such un for someone to be getting shot at when they can't return effective fire with their weapon because 'muh temporal cavity mumble mumble'

In case you did not realise it shooting further with more lethality is a good thing.

>>33748232
>>killing powerPlease keep going

Sure. a 50MBG and a 22LR have no difference in killing power. A 308 and a 5.56 at 600 meters have no difference in killing power. Your mother shitting peas and a 338 have no difference in killing power. Clearly no such thing as killing power.

>>33740859
You ever hunted with a .223? I specifically use it when I don't want to bruise the meat.

>>33748233
>lighter faster 556 has the advantage here

No. No it won't. Not even slightly. Energy is what matters and a core that can penetrate such as black tip. 5.56 has exactly zero advantage as an AP round over anything else that is delivering more energy to the back of the penetrator core.

>>33748320
>You ever hunted with a .223? I specifically use it when I don't want to bruise the meat.

Shush. You have to be at exactly the right distance for the super magic OP effects to kick in. Contact him privately for details and bring a rangefinder. You are clearly not doing it right.

>>33746947
It wasn't marginal, but they put enough of a spin on it that it was stable, but not so much that it stayed stable in flesh.

>>33748346
Never in all my years has a .223 exploded a deer on me, OP is a lying liar who tells stupid lies to other stupid liars.

>>33740859
>tfw you will never be able to shoot bitchen cupro nickle GP90 out of my SP-2

How the fuck do I get some

>>33740893
I came here just to compliment your A1

>>33748310
Do you think optics are magic. They are very common these day, in 1:1 and 4x. That has fuck all bearing on the shooters ability and doesn't make a rack grade rifle more accurate because it's not a videogame. It'll help a competent shooter see his target better yes, but at some point guys are just shooting from cover to the general area of the guys shooting back from cover.

>>33747715
ALL WRONG
it can pen a helmet at atleast 2.4km if there isn't a head wind

>>33740859
I think 22 magnum is a pretty cool bullet. It goes fast and doesn't afraid of anything.

>>33748374
>I came here just to compliment your A1

It explodes stuff but no one is doing it right.

Here is an early trial of 5.56x45mm with the correct barrel, twist rate and ammunition. It was too dangerous to be tested in earths atmosphere. Or maybe not

>>33740893
>absolutely devastating wound channels.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g77WN6obk4

>>33748201
over half of /k/ is not american. they're trying to speak english the best they can.

>>33748330
velocity is the best way to increase "energy"

>>33748402
>Do you think optics are magic. They are very common these day, in 1:1 and 4x

O deary me.

They are extraordinarily common in higher mags that would once have been considered mil tech. We are extraordinarily close to the era of optics with integrated rangfinders and ballistic comps and you want to limit distance to naked eye movement detection range?


Not every war is sought in a jungle or FIBA with limited lines of sight.
Ever seen a thermal scope pick someone up at 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900 meters, because even the shit ones in use do it readily. But you have to wait and suck your thumb to shoot even after IDing with a 40x scope because some muppet gave you a shitty gun..

>People fighting over 5.56 vs 7.62 NATO

Guys stop, what if we adopt a 6.5-7mm cartridge instead? Like NATO was originally planning before with .280 British before the US Army slapped their dicks on the table and said ".30 cal or nothing"

>Lower ammunition weight allows soldiers to carry more ammo, unlike 7.62x51
>Heavier bullet suitable for general-purpose machineguns & DMRs, as well as giving individual soldiers more range, unlike 5.56x45
>Low-drag bullet optimum for snipers (but no replacement for .338 Lapua, of course)

>>33748472
yes

File: 65mpc.jpg (69KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x427px

>>33748472
I got an idea.

We reneck all 5.56 to 6.5 like pic related. Surprised it hasn't caught on, but it seems to be mostly wildcat round limited to a small manufacturer.

Round grains.
95 SSK Solid: 12″ 2600 FPS/20″2800 FPS 110 Sierra HP: 12″ 2480 FPS/20″ 2731 FPS 120 SMK: 12″ 2220 FPS/20″ 2400 FPS

>>33748596
Winchester .285 necked down to fire a 6.5mm
6.5-284 Norma

>>33740859
>Do you think the 5.56 is under estimated?
Yes

>Yeah it's as good as a .308
No. I see where you were going with ΔΚ and V_f because theoritically speaking the Work should be more. However nothing is certain with damage done to the body, even shot placement can not be reliable. People have been shot in the head, chest, neck and keep going. The .223 also has complaints of insurgents being hit 3 or 5 times and not going down.

The claim a certain caliber will impact/penetrate a certain way in the human body is never valid because there's too much inconsistency in the data.

>>33748596
It's not the same, and that's the problem I have with a lot of "5.56 alternatives", they're all constrained by the AR-15 magwell and/or 5.56 magazine.
If we had the cartridge first, then designed the rifle around the cartridge, we would have a winning combination.

We need to learn to bite the bullet (pun intended) and accept that we will have to deal with a new rifle & magazine.
Whenever we compromise by fitting a cartridge to AR-15 dimensions, we always end up with some that "isn't good enough" to justify a switch, and thus dropped.

File: spongebob absolute indifference.jpg (218KB, 792x792px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 792x792px

>>33748749
>Spend tens of millions researching a new cartridge to replace 5.56
>Has to fit existing STANAG magazines + just a barrel/bolt/buffer assembly switch for the M16/M4
>Performance is hamstrung, better than 5.56 but not a big enough improvement for the brass
>Projected cancelled
>Rinse & Repeat every 10-15 years

>>33748749
Did you forget about costs?

Nobody wants to pay for all that.

File: 6.5-284_Norma.jpg (91KB, 561x1200px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 561x1200px

>>33748713
Round seems kind of long for feeding, but looks great in terms of ballistic coefficient.

>>33748749
The thing is, the AR-15 is a tested design, and STANAG is the most common magazine we got. NATO doesn't feel like covering the costs.

>>33748910
>>33748960
That's my point, they keep wanting the impossible. They're too cheap to invest in a new cartridge & service rifle/carbine, but they want the full benefits that a new cartridge would give them.
Trying to jam a new cartridge into STANAG isn't going to get you anything but a multi-million dollar R&D bill and nothing to show for it.

>>33746935

Assuming an unarmored target, I would recommend a small, fast, high expansion round.

Hornady V-Max, Browning BVX Varmint, Federal Fusion or V-Shok, or Winchester PowerMax Bonded all come to mind.

There are a number of "self defense" rounds in .223/5.56 that will get the job done.

>>33749210
To shut up fragfags: do expansion based bullets work at lower impact speeds than fragmentation (probably), and if so what kind of speed?

File: 123213.png (127KB, 475x693px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 475x693px

>>33747647
>There's no reason to shit up a thread with blatant misinfo.
My bad, it is 1300 meters.

The 5.56 or its Russian counterpart does more damage than most people think. I saw a guy in Iraq get shot 7 times with a 7.62 NATO (from an M14) before he finally dropped, where as I've put a controlled pair of 5.56 (from an M4) into a guy and he dropped like a sack of bricks. The M855 ("green tip") fragments and send two large and several small pieces tumbling through the body of whatever (or whoever) it hits. Both ballistic gel tests as well as anecdotal evidence from the field indicate that the M855 or any equivalent is extremely effective.

>>33747089
The M-16 also was given its day in court in the 1978-1980 UNCCW. Medical, scientific, and legal experts met in a special small calibers working group. The working group recognized that a myriad of factors affect wounding, to include bullet weight, bullet mass, range velocity on impact, portion of the body struck, portions affected by the permanent wound cavity, entry angle into the body, distance traveled point-forward before yawing, degree of bullet yaw on impact, deformation of deflection of the bullet prior to the bullet's entry into the body, degree of bullet penetration, tissue disruption, the physical condition of the soldier, number of wounds inflicted, and delay prior to the treatment of the wound. In the end, suggestions that velocity and/or energy transfer are the key to wounds and wounding were rejected. The final sessions held in 1979 and throughout 1980 were attended by only five persons --three from the United States and two from Sweden. The UNCCW specifically declined to establish any criteria for the legality of small caliber weapons beyond the general law of war criteria in which the concepts of mi1itary necessity and unnecessary suffering are balanced.3 The M-16 rifle and the smaller caliber, high-velocity bullet had been vindicated. It has been vindicated further by the fact that virtually every nation in the world today has replaced its .30 caliber rifles with a smaller-caliber, high-velocity weapon.

But the fear of commercial competition remained for some. Continuing to suggest that the U.S.-designed M-193 bullet caused wounds that resulted in "superfluous wounding" in violation of the law of war, Swedish proponents forced a test within NATO to develop a "humanitarian" bullet. The test led to the adoption by NATO of the SS-109 bullet, which purportedly was the answer to the concerns of the humanitarians.

Bullets have only been getting smaller and smaller as time goes on. They'll keep getting smaller until kinetic weapons are obsolete

>>33740859
>The guns chambered in it were problematic
already completely wrong in your first paragraph. you're a complete fucking idiot and I would cum inside you and not feel anything.
the surplus autistic pistol WW2 gunpowder they decided to use for the ammo during Vietnam, which the og stoner rifles weren't ever designed for, fucked them up.

>>33750768
it was mostly the powder and the claim that it was self-cleaning, but to be fair they also lacked chrome-plated chambers

>I would cum inside you and not feel anything.

that's... a really strange thing to say to someone you're angry at, to say the least

>>33746910
I hate Fudds so fucking much.

There are a number of reasons why 5.56/5.45 beats the pants off any Big Dumb Cartridge like 7.62x51mm NSHE.

>The overwhelming majority of infantry casualties have been inflicted by artillery and air support since WWI
>Most infantry rifle fire is intended to suppress or provide cover for movement
>The purpose of the infantry soldier is to take and hold ground. Not rack up bodycounts.
>All an infantry rifle cartridges needs to do is be sufficiently deadly and accurate that the enemy will seek cover so you can huck grenades at them or flatten them with arty.
>The average soldier in a combat environment cannot reliably engage targets beyond ~300m without additional training and magnified optics. This is a fact that has been known to the Slavshits and Yuropoors since WWII but was ignored by US Ordnance because they were run by retarded fudds like you.
>As a result most combat takes place between 100 and 400 meters.
>If your troops aren't going to be engaging past 4-500 meters with their service rifles, then forcing them to lug a Big Dumb Cartridge is pointless, because the only real practical advantage that a BDC brings is accuracy at long range
>Even aimed shots miss the majority of the time. It's better to have more chances to hit than more power if you do hit.
>Soldiers do a lot more marching, patrolling, and shooting *at* people and things vs actually shooting people, and a lighter cartridge allows them to carry more ammunition farther and for longer without getting worn out.
>The reduction in recoil and flatter trajectory of a SCHV cartridge like 5.56x45mm significantly reduces training cost and time, which is one of the least discussed but most important aspects of the military
>A lighter cartridge also allows for a lighter and cheaper rifle
>A lighter and more compact cartridge allows more to be transported and stored for the same weight and volume

>>33750976
But when you need two shots of 555 instead of one shot of 308 the higher amount of ammunition you can carry becomes nonsense

>>33751223
Not when the lighter cartridge weighs less than half of the heavier cartridge. Say, for example, 5.56 M855 at 190gr for complete loaded round vs. 7.62x51 M80 at 392gr for complete loaded round.

Also, very very very very very rarely would somebody not stopped by 1 hit of 5.56 be stopped by either 1 hit of 7.62x51 or by 2 hits of 5.56.

>>33747616
My autocorrect changes words to whatever it wants.
>>33748191
Blame this retarded autocorrect, it changes things AFTER being posted.

>>33751574
Then turn it off.

>>33746562
like it really matters - no one's going to hit anything past 800 meters anyway

>>33747641
The m855 was not designed for rifles, it was designed for the m249 saw. The us wanted anot I termed I ate squad machine gun, and it to be ,a Ted with a new bullet that could Penetrateasily steEl helmets at 200 or so yards. Stop iv power doesn't matter when you have a whole fucking belt of 800 rpm. Subsequent,you the army switched to m4. It's lighter and you can carry more ammo for saw gunners then. But this only exacerbated the ammo problems. This eventually forced the US to recently develop the green tip ammo to emulate (poorly) what the Russians already figured out decades ago with 5.45x39mm out of the 12 to 16 inch barrels

>>33748104
I'm trying to give you a better source. Knowledge of gunshots wounds has advanced, 'stopping power' is an outdated measurement. Dr Fackler was one of the driving forces making the change from estimates like stopping power to empirical evidence like gel tests and disrupted tissue. Please just read it, I'm not trying to be a jackass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fackler

>>33748458
Why are you so incapable of following the context of this entire thread. We're going from a service cartridge, to AP .44Mags, to average dudes walking around with thermals and kestrals. Wtf is happening here

>>33748910
You're right, and instead they keep throwing money at marginal improvements that ultimately go fucking nowhere. Nobody wants to commit to actual improvement

Intermediate caliber rifle rounds are nasty under the right circumstances.

Some ammo, such as M855 will not fragment or tumble unless shot out of a 20' barrel under 150 yards. See the Mogadishu incident XM193 and M855 pokes tiny .22 caliber holes in people when shot out of a carbine.

Reports of phenomenal stopping power was reported from the M16 in Vietnam where engagement rangeres were often point blank. Reports came back like "shot in buttocks, exited collar bone-eviscerated" "shot in wrist, arm looks like popped sausage link to shoulder- bled to death" "shot in upper chest, exited lower spine"

>>33740859
It was called the poodle-shooter because of how wimpy the cartridge was.

>>33755121
By idiot fudds maybe.

>>33748307
>But it may have been made
But it may of been, FTFY

File: what the fuck.jpg (44KB, 468x895px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 468x895px

>>33754089

>>33744830

Tell me anon, if our only criteria for a riflemans weapon is its range and terminal ballistics, why don't we just give everyone a .338-378wby? Since power and range are all that win firefights.

>>33751223

Do you think combat is a video game with a damage bar?

Either you shoot someone in a place that matters or you don't. Both will destroy a limb if you hit bone, both will destroy vitals and exit the other side. Neither is a death ray if you get a peripheral hit on soft tissue.

>>33748320
>when I don't want to bruise the meat.

Confirmed for non hunter.

>>33755500
>both will destroy vitals and exit the other side
Not the one you replied to, but you're wrong. Death is caused by bleeding. The only part of your body you need to live is the brain stem. 5.56 can cause severe wounds at close range, but as the bullet slows down, it loses effectiveness fast.

File: 9a3.gif (194KB, 600x440px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 600x440px

>>33747955
>Relative killing power

>>33750976
>it's fine because it doesn't need to be very good at killing people

Not a great argument

File: 1493055599047.png (184KB, 351x367px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 351x367px

>>33755560
>The only part of your body you need to live is the brain stem.

Then you won't mind me taking your heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, pancreas, spleen, cerebrum, cerebellum, stomach, intestines, and various muscle/bone matter.

>>33745087
have you ever walked more than 100 yards with a combat load of .30-06 and a rifle?

>>33747378

What >>33747438 said. I'd like to see the average engagement distances for Iraq or what the US is experiencing now in Syria. You probably do have some fairly sizable ranges, much more than urban engagements, but the US is almost guaranteed to be doing far more urban engagements than mountainous hindu-kush shitshows.

I don't think it's a bad idea to take it into consideration but we should not be myopic and change everything to fit an isolated situation. I'd say they should look at the geography of likely future combat zones (iran, South-China Sea region, Pakistan, Korea, possibly Europe again with Russia, the standard Mid-East sandbox adventure).

The low urbanization of Afghanistan needs to also be considered. It's some paltry ass 26% to 33%. Iraq is 66%. Iran is 67%. Syria pre war was 57%. Pakistan more resembles Afghanistan with 30 something and the troublesome Hindu Kush and Baluchistan being Afghanistan but worse (more Pashtuns in Pakiland than Afghanistan never fails to make me laff).

Just spitballing but why not simply see to the caliber of the autorifle or DMR being more suitable for distances? Not like it's a big whoop to have everyone else stand around with their hands on their dicks, at those distances it'll probably be mortar'd or airstriked.

>>33755676
You can't live for very long without those, but you can live without them for little while. The only way to cause instant death is with a brainstem shot.

>>33755929
Please stop lol

>>33747378
I found it funny every time someone brings "Afghanistan is le long range country le problem meme". Because they could not answer simple question: how many casualties were inflicted in Afghanistan to NATO at 500+ meters ranges?

>>33755995
hes right. Who needs lungs anyway. I mean, look at fishes, they live very happily without lungs.

>>33755671
Wrong. It's perfectly adequate for killing people, while being better suited for the realities of modern infantry combat.

By your logic, taxis should be Ferraris because they'd be faster.

>>33756696
There's a world of difference between an infantry rifle fired from behind a Humvee and a 12.7 or 14.5mm machinegun set up in an ambush position with known ranges in advance.

>>33757017
That's cool

I'm not part of the infantry rn, so I'll take the full size rifle.

File: received_1743383255989475.gif (447KB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 245x245px

>>33744031

>when you're b8 is so shitty that no one reacts to it, even after 2 days

you're a failure. kill yourself.

>>33757564
>>when you're b8 is so shitty that no one reacts to it, even after 2 daysyou're a failure. kill yourself.

u ARE mean.

I have lurked here or several years but am shy and I bough the AR-15 as my irst gun because everyone here knows as they are expert that it and the 5.56mm ammunition is takes is the best gun that can be.

I do not hunt because I live in a rented apartment but know that my AR can kill everything and only old people who have no knowledge of special wars and commados like the experts disagree.

I can but many accessories for it and I have lasers and torches and a dot that is red and a handle that goes under the front. I have a bipod and am saving up for a glock.

I have fird it at a place for shooting and if anyone could hear how loud the bang is they would know that an AR-15 is one o the most powerful guns ever.

IT is very well known on all the internet that if an arm of leg is hit by it it will break off and police and soliders often have to search to find arms and legs on people that have been hit as evidence

I have applied to join the marines but have failed the test but know that I the marines who are the best use a gun as loud as the AR than our liberty is safe.

Stupid people who are cruel to deer and follow them around to scare them and then kill them are evil and these people should be hunted to see how they like it.

I have taken out my AR-15 and am holding it now and if anyone wants a bigger bullet they are stupid as the bullets for it are already very pointed and big and a bigger one would get stuck. Eugene stoner is as I learned here the best gun maker ever. Look at how many M16s he made. nO ONE ELSE COULD HAVE MADE THAT many. In Vietnam when they were given it they thought it came from space and if it did not work it is only because they were on drugs.

All this fps stuff and grains is boring. If you watch black hawk down or any good film you will see that the AR-15 type gun is the most powerful and can go a long way
Keith

If the AR-15 and 5.56 bullet is not so powerful then it would not be banned BECAUSE IT IS MILITARY and used in wars.

OP is expert in all this. People who use guns made of wood are the stupid people vecause wood goes with rot AND PLASTIC LASTS FOREVER. I recyle it so I know. The internet has MANY EXPERTS WHO WRE IN SPECIAL WARS and are ptds who DESERVE RESPECT AS MARINES. The 5.56 and AR-15 is the BEST AND MOST POWERFUL GUN THEY ALL AGREE

people are spoling the internet.

Keith

>>33747652
M855 can't even get to 1600 meters.

>>33748935
Which is pretty much the whole reason it never caught on outside of shit like F-Class and PRS. It requires a long-action rifle. Same reason .260rem isn't more popular--with the long high-BC bullets it won't fit in short-action AICS mags.

>>33750177
Yes, usually by close to 1000fps.

Depends on the bullet. Most will offer at least some expansion at 1800fps and 100% expansion at 2000fps. Some will give some expansion as low as 1500fps.

>>33757426
Unless you're shooting long range competition or big game, big dumb cartridges are useless to the civilian too.

But it's fine, if using an overkill rifle makes you feel better about your tiny dick then you go girl.

>>33756696
Oh, quite a fucking few.

Just not from rifle fire.

>>33746170
>not using Rheinmetall 120mm
It's like you want to be robbed by Jamal.

>>33758271
What is a clean kill in one shot.

>>33758274

Just one Royal Marine sniper has 173 kills on talibs in afghan.

Thousands of talibs have been killed by snipers in afghan.

>>33758271
>Unless you're shooting long range competition or big game, big dumb cartridges are useless to the civilian too. But it's fine, if using an overkill rifle makes you feel better about your tiny dick then you go girl.


Hello Keith!

Tell us more about yourself?

>>33750535
>the U.S.-designed M-193 bullet caused wounds that resulted in "superfluous wounding" in violation of the law of war, Swedish proponents forced a test within NATO to develop a "humanitarian" bullet. The test led to the adoption by NATO of the SS-109 bullet, which purportedly was the answer to the concerns of the humanitarians.

What the fuck?

>>33758936
>>the U.S.-designed M-193 bullet caused wounds that resulted in "superfluous wounding" in violation of the law of war, Swedish proponents forced a test within NATO to develop a "humanitarian" bullet. The test led to the adoption by NATO of the SS-109 bullet, which purportedly was the answer to the concerns of the humanitarians.What the fuck?


U see it is a very dangerous bullet and that is why people want to ban the AR-15 because it is a MILITARY gun and fires bullets for WARS which are the spectial ones. They will blow people up and all experts agree. They are so good a bullet for killing people that even they are TOO DANGEROUS FOR WARS.

Keith

>>33747955
>.357 magnum
>Superior to a rifle round

>>33758936
Its a meme
The only country that seriously complained about the effects of m193 was North Vietnam, by the point M855 was adopted nearly every NATO member had switched to m193 or a derivative of it

>>33748104
Does this list account for different bullet designs, ballistic coefficients, and material types?

>>33758800
Something that matters in hunting and nothing else.

File: f9FW2.gif (2MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x180px

>>33748104
Is this book the bible for fuddlore?
That's fucking retarded

>>33759503
>Is this book the bible for fuddlore?

"Unfortunately, the same goes for the 5.56 NATO round. I have yet to witness a single shot quick kill with this round. I even recorded a patient shot from less than three feet away, square in the back of the head, who lived. The round did not exit his body. Yes, he was immediately rendered unconscious and required (might I say exceptional) medical treatment. He was comatose for at least six months after that, but he lived.

But more importantly, in every experience, at ranges from zero (negligent discharges) to 35 yards (my closest, and worst-placed, shot on a person) to 400 yards (our average initial engagement distance in Afghanistan) individuals shot with a single 5.56 NATO round had time to fire, maneuver, or both. Did I see single shots that killed eventually? Yes. Does that matter in combat? Not one damn bit if you are the one they are still shooting at.

For those of you who say “just shoot them again,” I would tell you that is actually pretty difficult on a mobile target with cover at 400 meters who is shooting at you. Also, once they get shot they tend to be a little more wary. People are tricky that way. I will never forget the terror of shooting a man, watching the round strike his chest, and then see him lay over a short wall to steady his aim and continue firing at my teammates.

In my experience, the standard NATO combat round pokes 5.56mm holes in both bones and flesh, shattering nothing. It creates minimal bleeding. I know people say it tumbles and yaws, but that isn’t my experience at all. I saw it poke tiny holes in humans and rarely induced hemorrhaging sufficient to cause unconsciousness or uncompensated shock, which is the only result that matters.

On the flip side, having a patient who was shot by a 7.62X51 NATO or larger round was a rarity. Dead people aren’t patients, they are a supply issue."

>>33759503
>Is this book the bible for fuddlore?That's fucking retarded

""Few of my patients OCONUS have been American troops, and I am grateful for that. Because of my specific role, and because I was often the closest competent medical provider for an extremely large number of people (sometimes over 20,000), I have treated an inordinant amount of gun shot and blast injuries in places where surgical treatment was often well over an hour away. My average medevac time for an urgent or urgent surgical patient in southern Afghanistan was four hours. That’s a long time to bleed. During my first tour in Afghanistan, I averaged one patient death per day."

>>33759503
>2 MB GIF>>33748104 (You)Is this book the bible for fuddlore?That's fucking retarded

You're full of shit child. Sit down.

>>33759579
>anecdotal evidence from a known Fudd and 7.62 NATO still
Wew lad

>>33759649
>>anecdotal evidence from a known Fudd and 7.62 NATO stillWew lad

"A survey of more than 50 servicemen who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan concluded that the 5.56mm calibre rounds used by British soldiers 'tailed off' after 300 metres yet half of all Helmand firefights are fought between 300 and 900 metres."

"
The study, co-written by Nicholas Drummond, a strategy consultant and ex-Welsh Guards officer, described British soldiers' rifles as "not much more useful than a peashooter".


Taliban marksmen use powerful 7.62mm ammo for their AK47 machine guns, according to a report of the study in The Sun.


Mr Drummond told the newspaper that a British soldier couldn't attack the Taliban "with any certainty that if he hits the enemy he will kill or incapacitate him."
"

"The study claims the ammunition is easily stopped by car doors. It added that Javelin anti-tank missiles, costing £100,000 each, are often fired at lone gunmen. Only one in four British, US and German troops has been issued with guns using 7.62mm ammunition.

The report calls for guns that take larger ammunition to replace all standard-issue SA80 rifles, which many believe were exposed as inadequate in Iraq in 2003.

The Ministry of Defence told the newspaper the 5.56mm calibre rounds used by United States and other Nato allies are "proven to be both accurate and powerful."
"

>>33759579
>5.56 NATO
from less than three feet away, square in the back of the head
>who lived

yeah nah

>>33759579
>>33759603
>Anecdotal evidence from one medic, that neglects to mention that nearly all rounds fired in combat don't hit anybody, the pre-established fact that nobody disputes the superior power of 7.62, and the massive logistical and tactical benefits having a lighter, lower impulse round that can be carried in greater quantities

>Decades of scientific evidence from multiple countries and organizations as well as large amounts of anecdotal evidence from combat troops testifying to the performance of the round being adequate

Gee I wonder which to trust!
>>33759688
>5.56 is ineffective at long distance
No shit, everyone has known that since Vietnam, Afghanistan was an unusual situation
>Quotes the Sun as a source
>SA80 was exposed as inadequate in Iraq in 2003

Do you have a source that isn't some retard or a tabloid?

>>33759649
>>33759649
>Wew lad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias

"In cognitive science, choice-supportive bias or post-purchase rationalization is the tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to an option one has selected. It is a cognitive bias. For example, if a person chooses option A instead of option B, they are likely to ignore or downplay the faults of option A while amplifying those of option B. Conversely, they are also likely to notice and amplify the advantages of option A and not notice or de-emphasize those of option B."


You are fudd kid you don't listen to anyone who tells you different from renowned gun writers, to experienced combat medics, to soldiers who have used the round, to old guys who know their shit. You are exactly where bullshit spreads from. You've not shot a lot of killed much and you think the AR faggoty is real.

>>33759722
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/daniel-zimmerman/medics-advice-shoot-heaviest-rifle-round-shoot-can-hit-shoot/


"I was an EMT and a trauma tech working on a truck and in a trauma room for about 10 years and I was an army combat medic for eight years. Also — and this is important — when deployed I was almost always part of an “advisor” force. I was technically a “combat advisor” for two tours in Afghanistan, embedded with the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police force. I’ve done the same thing with host nation National Guard troops in Central America."

"But more importantly, in every experience, at ranges from zero (negligent discharges) to 35 yards (my closest, and worst-placed, shot on a person) to 400 yards (our average initial engagement distance in Afghanistan) individuals shot with a single 5.56 NATO round had time to fire, maneuver, or both. Did I see single shots that killed eventually? Yes. Does that matter in combat? Not one damn bit if you are the one they are still shooting at."

>>33759722
>>Quotes the Sun as a source>SA80 was exposed as inadequate in Iraq in 2003Do you have a source that isn't some retard or a tabloid?


Telegraph actually. Having said that I seriously doubt you have ever owned a gun or have ever seen a bullet wound.

>>33759780
>http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/daniel-zimmerman/medics-advice-shoot-heaviest-rifle-round-shoot-can-hit-shoot/

"So I had Underground Tactical built me an AR in 5.56 which I swore I would never own, and built rounds ranging from 64 to 75 grains with it. I’ve taken 11 deer with them, and the wound tracks are nothing like I saw with the NATO round. I’ve never had to look for an animal, and a little Underground 5.5lb AR in 5.56 is my go-to hill country deer gun now, which is just crazy."

>>33759803
Read what you copy pasted again, it quotes something said to the sun newspaper as a source, I've seen both

>>33759688
>sample size of 50
Into the trash it goes

>>33759740
>renowned gun writers
Any asshole can be a "renowned gun writer" as long as you say what people want to hear.

>soldiers who have used the round
Soldiers are not ballisticians or weapons experts. They often misinterpret what they see, and are generally superstitious and willing to believe myths and fuddlore.

>old guys who know their shit
Fudds are even less credible than soldiers.

>You are exactly where bullshit spreads from
Says the man shilling a technology that all modern powers have abandoned.

I trust the collective militaries of the civilized world more than I trust some random medic, grunt, Fudd or hack with a typewriter and a bachelor's in journalism. And the collective militaries of the civilized world have determined after decades of experimenting and testing, that intermediate cartridges are superior for service rifles, supported by full caliber DMRs and GPMGs.

>>33759810
" But 5.56 can’t complete with hunting cartridge bullets which can legally be expanding hollow point that are more lethal than tumbling and their lethality is based entirely on how powerful they are. 5.56 is only half as powerful as the 7.62 NATO (.308) hunting bullet."
Jim Sullivan designer of the AR platform

>>33759845
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/6451003/Bullets-used-by-British-soldiers-too-small-to-defeat-Taliban.html

>>33760037
>mainstream media reports sensationalized, clickbaity stories that probably aren't true but will get clicks anyway
Oh boyim, here we goyim.

>>33760006
On September 12, 2003, in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, elements of the 3rd
Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group engaged enemy forces in a firefight.
According to the Official U.S. Army After Action reports the action
resulted in the deaths of two experienced soldiers and the wounding of a number of others. They soldiers were not poor marksmen as some insist who are dedicated to supporting the dead horse of old doctrine. All ofthese men were highly trained Special Operations soldiers who were armed with the best equipment our country is willing to give them. The soldiers became victims in large part because that equipment is not the best equipment our country could give them with which to defend themselves.

In this action, several 5th Special Forces NCO's engaged in a firefight with a Muslim insurgent. Gunshot hits from the soldiers rifles were thought to have been scored on the enemy as they fought but during that exchange he wasn't stopped, remaining active and continuing his fighting and as he did so. It was then that the first soldier, Master Sgt. KevinN. Morehead, age 33, from Little Rock, Arkansas, fell mortally wounded by the enemy’s AK-47.

A close inspection of the enemy’s corpse after the cessation of the action revealed that he had been solidly struck by seven (7) well placed hits to his torso from the inadequate 5.56X45mm cartridge. The bullets from the ammo had passed cleanly through-and-through the enemy fighter and had failed to stop his attack.

>>33759803
>Telegraph
That's literally not any better.

>>33760096
You know that continuing to post cherrypicked anecdotes isn't actually refuting anything, right?

>>33760056
>>mainstream media reports sensationalized, clickbaity stories that probably aren't true but will get clicks anywayOh boyim, here we goyim.


I could tell you were from pol the minute you started ignoring reality and truth.

>>33760133
>You know that continuing to post cherrypicked anecdotes isn't actually refuting anything, right?


No. The laws of physics do that. This is just desert.

>>33760169
>le /pol/ boogeyman
Not even /pol/, I just think Yiddish sounds funny.

And nigga, you're the one ignoring the reality that every modern military has accepted in favor of anecdotes that confirm your bias.

I used to hate ARs. I used to be just like you. But then I did the research and looked into it. The AR is king for a reason.

>>33760177
The only thing the laws of physics prove is that one cartridge has more kinetic energy than the other. What everyone has been trying to explain to your retarded ass is that pure kinetic energy is not the most relevent factor for a service rifle cartridge.

>>33760006
>Says the man shilling a technology that all modern powers have abandoned


One of the main incentives for the AR and 5.56 was not lethality. No not at all.

It was to arm the ARVN who needed a gun that they could actually carry.

Of course it became a cluster fuck when the US left and insisted on NATO adoption.

It's fascinating to watch a generation of know nothings shilling for a meme created by a defence contractor to sell shit who think their first gun is the best thing evah, when in reality, it is a bit shit. Marginal for hunting (actually banned for deer in Colorado) and useless above 300 yards. Does not perform as intended with tumbling (intention to by pass geneva convention on HPs) primarily deigned fro a war that ended in failure in 1975, pushed onto allies to prop up the USAs investment in it and the bane of the western military for nearly 40 years.

Next you'll be telling me how 9x19 is great too.

Stupid faggots.

>>33760285
>The only thing the laws of physics prove is that one cartridge has more kinetic energy than the other. What everyone has been trying to explain to your retarded ass is that pure kinetic energy is not the most relevent factor for a service rifle cartridge.


But the laws of physics say that many other rounds carry more energy, have more momentum and are demonstrably better for making dead people.

Thinks you need to realise.

5.56 is dispite infinite effort a small round that drops off like a rock in energy and height after 300 meters

5.56 tumbling has never worked

ARs are built so they had a high profit margin for armalite and little Asian chaps could carry them.

No one, no one would pick up an AR in 5.56 by choice.

You want to know what's happening fan boys?

It is about to be dropped and the civilian market is being primed in the US for the last 5 years to absorb all the shit the government and its contractors have always known is a bit crap.

File: 1444541676085.png (5KB, 150x100px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 150x100px

>>33747955
>killing power
Oh god anons are so fucking stupid, lol.

>>33760410
>>killing powerOh god anons are so fucking stupid, lol.

what's the difference between a .22 and a 50 BMG?

What's the difference between No7 and a slug?

What's the difference between .25 and a 44Mag

I love how you all bought into faggots selling you shit for ARs based on 'don't fucking look at the results'.

Why are some cartridges legal for deer hunting and some not?

Bigger holes are more likely to kill.
Rounds that have more energy behind them are more likely to kill
Heavier things carry more momentum

A kid arguing a 5,56 is worth fuck all next to 308 is like a kid arguing his .22LR is just as good as a 5.56

Reading down the thread I don't see a single piece of ballistics from anyone defending the AR other than more utter shit about 'tumblin' and barrel lengths.

>>33747955


>In the five months I have had my Puma 92, I've fired about 300 rounds through it with no problems whatsoever

Oh my fucking god is this fuddlord serious

>I shot 300 rounds! Over 5 fucking months! That's a lot!
>My lever action never jammed in all of 300 rounds, must mean it's reliable!

I put 300-500 rounds through my AR every fucking week

File: nohope.png (98KB, 666x666px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 666x666px

>>33760479
So fucking stupid jesus christ.

>>33760387
>5.56 is dispite infinite effort a small round that drops off like a rock in energy and height after 300 meters

Why would an infantrymen shoot beyond 300 yards anyway? Average shooting engagement is like 300 feet, lmao.

>>33760298
I love Fudd rage. How's it feel to belong to a dying culture?

>One of the main incentives for the AR and 5.56 was not lethality. No not at all.
No shit Sherlock. But that's because it was recognized that there were more important things than pure lethality.

>It was to arm the ARVN who needed a gun that they could actually carry.
But that's not true you imbecile. Where did you get that piece of Fuddlore?

The M16 was introduced in 1964, because the M14 was a piece of shit and the SPIW program wasn't ready yet. It wasn't until 1965 that a formal request by the MACV commander was put in to have them issued to ARVN, a plan to which the Army was opposed. The rifles would not be given to ARVN until December of '66.

>Of course it became a cluster fuck when the US left and insisted on NATO adoption.
Because the US discovered in Vietnam that the M16 was incredibly effective once the powder issues and lack of chrome lined bores was resolved.

>It's fascinating to watch a generation of know nothings shilling for a meme created by a defence contractor to sell shit
And yet you can't seem to make a persuasive argument against it.

Really manipulates the mental musculature.

>Marginal for hunting
Good thing it's not a hunting rifle then.

>actually banned for deer in Colorado
Colorado bans standard capacity magazines too. Guess we don't need those either :^)

>and useless above 300 yards.
Not true, and even if it were, combat rarely takes place beyond 300 meters and if it does, that's what your designated marksman and GPMG team are for.

>Does not perform as intended with tumbling
Not with M855, no. If you'd like to argue that M855 was a mistake, you'll get no argument from me.

>primarily deigned fro a war that ended in failure in 1975,
Thanks to hippies and politicians, not the service rifles.

>Next you'll be telling me how 9x19 is great too.
It's better than Fuddy-five. I'd personally prefer 9x23 Winchester, but 9mm Para is more than adequate.

5.56 was a shiity decision made by the clusterfucks who failed in Vietnam because they wanted to make money selling guns to small Asian men to fight commies. The same rotten bastards pushed it onto NATO because they needed to fucking do something when that did not work out and it turned out Asian boys did not want to fight commies with plastic rifles.

Now they have primed the US civilian market to but this junk while they sidestep away from it.

But.... But.... it pierces steel.

So do bigger rounds with AP cores

But...but it tumbles.

Never fucking worked.

But...but MUH AR

Fuck your AR, they are mass produced to such an extend you asshats will be lucky to get 10 bucks back on them. They will never be anything other than junk drawer guns.

I just figured it out. Since half of you are children or child like men you naturally favour a weapon designed for tiny Asian men. Given that you choices are limited by that you need to live in a fantasy world where its bretty gud

It all makes sense.

I bet you all hate shotguns too right?

>>33760567
You're just as dead with a 22 in the head or a 50 bmg so why bother?

File: nothingoffhere.gif (536KB, 500x440px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 500x440px

>>33760567
>favour
Get the FUCK off of my board.

>>33760524
Look cunt. You being a fucking Brit teen who by law own no guns should just step out of the conversation. The only time you've seen the effect of a bullet hitting anything was when you watched saving private ryan

>>33760580
>>favourGet the FUCK off of my board.

So you are a tiny little man child who can't fire anything else and bought an AR because someone here who was also a tiny little child told you to.

How surprising.

>>33760577
>You're just as dead with a 22 in the head or a 50 bmg so why bother?

There we have it. The idiocy of half the people on this thread in one sentence.

>>33760387
>But the laws of physics say that many other rounds carry more energy, have more momentum and are demonstrably better for making dead people.
Go back and read the other posts again. Take it one syllable at a time and maybe you'll finally get it through your thick skull.

>Thinks you need to realise.
I don't think you can realize "thinks". Thoughts or things, maybe.

>5.56 is dispite infinite effort a small round
That's kinda the point, Elmer.

>that drops off like a rock in energy and height after 300
Depends on the bullet and load, but even assuming you're correct, it's not a problem because you aren't going to be shooting at point targets past 300 meters with a service rifle anyway .

>5.56 tumbling has never worked
Not true, and don't forget that it fragments too, which is even more devastating.

>ARs are built so they had a high profit margin for armalite
Your ignorance is astounding. Armalite had sold the design to Colt long before it was adopted.

>and little Asian chaps could carry them
I've already demonstrated why this is bullshit. But if you need another reason, consider that US military development of a .223 round started before the US was even involved in Vietnam.

>No one, no one would pick up an AR in 5.56 by choice.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Are fudds really this delusional?

>You want to know what's happening fan boys?
Says the fanboy of a concept that has been abandoned for decades.

>It is about to be dropped and the civilian market is being primed in the US for the last 5 years to absorb all the shit the government and its contractors have always known is a bit crap.
Citation needed.

>>33760542
>>33760567
Holy shit you are mad. Please don't stop posting, your ignorance and impotent rage are hilarious.

>>33760592
Perfect example. Nigga, you're the one spelling words like "realize" the britbong way, not me. I'm an American just like you. Well, not just like you. I'm a lot smarter aparently.

>>33760387
>It is about to be dropped and the civilian market is being primed in the US for the last 5 years to absorb all the shit the government and its contractors have always known is a bit crap.
This is one of the stupidest things I have read on /k/ in a while. You do know that the US government won't and can't sell military surplus rifles anymore, right? M16s can't be sold off to the public because they were manufactured as full autos, and even if that didn't violate the NFA, the politicians would never allow it. Are you actually retarded enough to believe that there's a conspiracy among dozens of private companies to prime the market for a rifle the US government isn't even allowed to sell?

Don't read this thread it's literally full of retards and trolls spouting MAYMAYs. Or so i hope.

If you have questions regarding the effectiveness of various 5.56 rounds then go here:

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

It even has an in depth explanation regarding fleet yaw n shit.

If you consider 5.56 with m193 to be a "poodle shooter" that's completely inferior to ball 30.06 or even JHP .357 mag(handgun) then you're literally retarded and should get back to cousin fuckin and deer spot lightin.

>>33744978
Your link is bad and you should feel bad. also, those pics are from a person shot with an expanding round that failed to do so, and are more or less what you can expect of non fragmenting 5.56.


>>33747955
>Chuck hawks
>laughing asians DOT JPG
Hey, you should check out these break through study this guy named marshall sannow did about one stop shot percentages, seems right up your alley.

In closing, yes m193 was an improvement over M80 for close quarters engagements in quite literally every way besides intermediate barrier penetration. if you don't think so, that's ok, you're just wrong.

>>33747819
>I don't know anything about how bullets work when they hit soft targets
>I have a very tenuous grasp of physics in general
>I'm using a formula that is entirely inconsistent with even the most fundamental knowledge of terminal ballistics
>Everyone who points out critical flaws and provides sources is a child and any research done on the internet is automatically incredulous for the sole fact it was found on the internet, nevermind the actual source

Can your whole generation please just die already, before you spend the last waning decades of life thinking of even more ways to fuck over everyone that comes after you?

>>33760976
>Can your whole generation please just die already, before you spend the last waning decades of life thinking of even more ways to fuck over everyone that comes after you?
Fucking honestly. Old fucks have been holding gun culture back and actively ruining it for years. If they'd hurry up and die, we'd actually have a chance to fight gun control.

File: dunningkrugergraph.png (26KB, 408x287px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 408x287px

>>33747917
You occupy Mt. Stupid.

>>33748104
>>33759613

You unironically use shit that's been disproven by every medical professional and by every modern metric and cling to it as fact.

Next you'll tell me constant velocity joints will break every time you change your oil, swimming after eating gives you cramps, that Sputnik is a WMD, that the Tiger and Panther were reliable and easy to maintain, and that seizures are a sign of God.

We used to think that leeches and lobotomies were viable medical treatments before we realized how absolutely fucking retarded and absurd they were.

Your source is in that tier, and you ignore everyone else because you can't accept forgetting what you knew for newer, better, more thoroughly documented and researched information.

You are being willfully ignorant for the sole reason that new information is upsetting to you. You are literally nigger-tier.

>>33761288
>You are literally nigger-tier.
Nah, he's whiskey-tango tier. Even worse.