5.56 is too small and lacks stopping power, particularly at long distances.
What we need is an intermediate cartridge of around 6.5mm shooting about a 100 grain bullet at around 2800 fps.
Secondly, I have always questioned the use of hardball ammo for combat. I know the rationale is that one bullet might go through several bad guys but I'd rather be sure to clobber the guy I'm aiming at (HP or SP).
I believe the term is "center MASS." That gaffe alone should discredit this reporter.
That aside, are we really going to have to fight this 5.56 vs. 7.62 battle again? It's been going on since the 1960's, and the M16 has proven itself on a variety of battlefields in a gamut of conditions. Is 5.56 the perfect military caliber? Probably not. But that's only because no such thing exists.
Bet you could put your eye out with it.
No, a 7.62 won't necessarily drop a man with one shot- or even several. I once worked with a soldier who took 3 rounds in the chest (miraculously going through-and-through without hitting a major artery of the heart), who went back to full duty as an Infantryman after his wounds healed.
It's not the size of the projectile (unless you are using something REALLY BIG, like a .50 cal), but the amount of force that is transferred to the target, as well as the shot placement. One of the worst wounds I ever saw was inflicted during a domestic dispute with a single .22 Short round- but perfect shot placement, as well as some ricocheting around in the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. The amount of damage was incredible (fatal, in fact).
By the way, the article goes on to say that soldiers are trained to shoot "Center of mast". That must be the Navy he's talking about- in the Army we shoot "Center of MASS"! LOL! (You have to suppose the intrepid reporter got this quote by telephone, and knowing nothing about the subject, wrote what he thought he heard...)
-----------------
He's right, particularly at any distance.
McGeorge Bundy's early-1960s choice of the Armalite AR-15 that was later developed into the M16 was the wrong path to follow. Eugene Stoner's M62/M63-A1 would have been a lot better selection with it's ability to change from a service rifle to a squad automatic weapon without the need for tools. The Stoner M62/M63-A1 was the rifle that Eugene Stoner was pushing, even though he was chief engineer on the Armalite AR-15.
If the US military had the refined Stoner today, we could choose different ammo selections for hard and soft targets before going into the field by switching out the barrels. The M4's problem seems to be it's shorty CAR-sized barrel that isn't getting SS109 projectiles to the velocities it needs to be lethal. The M4 doesn't appear to be any more lethal or reliable than the WWII-vintage M1 carbine, even though it's ballistics may look better on paper.
Maybe 6.5 Remington is the middle ground between 7.62 NATO and 5.56 NATO, but simply rebarrelling our inventory of M16-A2/M4s for the 6.5mm round isn't going to cut it. We'd still need a whole new rifle.
There's very few 5.56 NATO rifles out there that have quick-change barrels, but the best one out there comes from a company currently in financial limbo that could be bought for peanuts -- Steyr AUG. It's just my opinion, but I believe that the Steyr AUG is worlds better than every other NATO 5.56 rifle, even including the Swiss Stg. 90PE (SIG-550).
Australia has had great results with it in East Timor.
Duncan Long already did.
Is the .308 Winchester (AKA 7.62mm NATO) better than the .223 Remington (AKA 5.56mm NATO) for self defense?
I don't pretend to know everything about this argument and also must say up front that if you disagree, don't send me hate letters unless you've been working with the Army for ten years and have secret data you want to share with me. 'Cause I've heard all the arguments and from now on just want to hear about the actual tests and facts - not the "stuff" that is dredged up regularly in such debates.
Recently I managed to spark another debate on the listserver group, despite the best of intentions not to do so.
A guy sent a letter asking which cartridge I preferred and I managed to send my answer to the listserve group address rather than reply to him (so if you're the "him" please accept my apologies).
OK. Which do I think is better? That depends on what you're doing with the gun. For some purposes, the .308 is undoubtedly a better round. It's more powerful, bucks crosswinds well, and can do some things the .223 can't. And in some places you don't have the option for using the .223. For example some states have laws preventing using the .223 on deer or the like (even though those I've talked to who have hunted with the .223 claim it is highly effective on deer).
And the .308 does have a lot more energy than the .223. But there's more to effectiveness than kinetic energy. In terms of fight-stopping power, the .223 is usually equal or (with FMJ bullets) better.
How can this be?
The edge the .223 bullet has occurs with the 1-in-7 twist; the .223 bullet is torqued so much that it shatters on impact. The "pig tests" done by the US military proved the .223 (5.56mm) projectile so superior to the 7.62 in this respect that most segments of the Army lost all interest in the .308 for anything but sniper rifles. Thus the switch to the .223 for the SAW and the Marines adoption of the H-BAR version of the Colt.
When a bullet shatters inside a human (or pig) target, it has greater wounding effect than a mushrooming bullet with each fragment creating a wound channel all its own. Sort of like a super-duper Glaser. The .223 fired from a modern (1-in-7 twist) rifle will make a tiny entry wound, but inside you have a mess that is greater than a .308 will produce (with human beings).
While the early .223 was inferior beyond 300 yards (and arguably is still inferior at extreme ranges), most combat is within 150 yards. And within that range, any number of actual shooting have shown that one hit to head or thorax (and most likely to legs or arms) with a modern .223 bullet from a 1-in-7 twist is going to constantly bring and end to the fighting (often killing an opponent and definitely taking him out of the fray).
There are several mechanisms that create the effectiveness of the round. One is that even with the 1-in-12 twist, the .223 bullet tends to break apart at the cannelure. The exposed lead also often fragments into very small particles at this point. As Dr. Martin Fackler noted in the JOURNAL OF TRAUMA (Vol 24, No. 1, 1984), fragments moving at the speed of a .223 coupled with the temporary cavity cause tissue to be cut and pulled away, creating a very large loss of tissue and a massive wound. As Fackler also noted in this article, any collision with bone by these fragments is apt to create more secondary fragments that create secondary wound channels and tissue severing.
The 1-in-7 twist was ironically created to lower the amount of wounding caused by the .223 (based on a quaint European idea that less effective weapons on the battlefield make fighting more humane -- even if you have to fill an enemy with six or seven hits instead of one to bring him down).
When designing the original AR-15, Eugene Stoner designed the .223 bullet to be unstable, understanding that this would give it a bigger yaw as it traveled and cause the bullet to travel sideways in the target, creating larger wounds. Until Fackler and others noted the tendency of the round to break apart, it was assumed that the unstable bullet was the main cause behind the effectiveness of the .223. (And the fragmenting bullet also explains why the 1-in-12 twist was nearly as effective in combat as the 1-in-14 twist Stoner originally used and which was found in guns first field in Vietnam.)
So Europeans wanting to make war more fun for those involved decided that a faster twist would lower the yaw, causing the bullet to create a smaller wound channel. Later it was theorized that this would also decrease the possibility for fragmentation since less pressure would be placed on the projectile due to its smaller profile on target due to lessened yaw.
Those were the theories.
The catch is that the centrifugal force (OK, there's no such thing but the concept gives the short-hand to following this) on the jacket of the bullet becomes so great, that it becomes the equivalent of a very fragile shell, ready to tear apart when it has any extra stress placed on it.
Which is just what happens when it hits flesh and blood. At that point, it most certainly will break into two major fragments at the cannelure and these in turn will usually break into more fragments.
Additionally, since the spin of the bullet drops at a much slower rate than its velocity, this effect doesn't fall off very fast. (I know the Army has probably determined how far out this occurs, but I've not seen the results anywhere in public.)
Of course the same might be done with the .308 bullet. A deeper cannelure, or perhaps even two rather than one, coupled with a thinner jacket and softer core would do the trick. Of course this isn't necessary for civilian or police users because a very effective projectile has already been created - the hollow-point bullet.
Of course being larger the .308 cartridge could do some "tricks" the .223 could not. For example triplex (three projectiles instead of one bullet) or biplex (2 bullets per cartridge) could be created for the .308. This would give the equivalent of a three- or two-round burst with each shot fired from a semiauto rifle (boy, would the anti-gunners lose it there!). And if those projectiles were soft point bullets, you'd have something that definitely would outshine the .223 in terms of massive combat capability.
Until such rounds become available (and that's doubtful in the current anti-gun, anti-self defense environment we see in Washington, DC), the .223 is king of the heap. The effectiveness of the round, coupled with the lighter weight of rifle and cartridge, lower recoil (for easier follow-up shots or control in burst mode), and the fact that virtually all combat takes place within the useful (and now extended with new cartridges) .223 effective range, is why I generally recommend the .223 rifle over one in .308 for defensive purposes.
What about deflection? Does the .308 do better in brush? Well, the .223 bullet does tend to get deflected by objects that are placed between the gun and target -- as do all bullets. Old-timers (a group I'm in these days) used to think that heavy bullets were "bush busters" and the light bullets got deflected, etc., etc. Someone (NRA staffers, I think) finally put it to the test a few years back with special boxes with dowels rods in them with a target beyond.
They discovered that virtually all bullets, regardless of weight, are deflected off target when they hit even a small piece of wood.
That said, the amount of deflection might be less with a slower spinning bullet. For example, I suspect (not know but would bet on it) that a slow-turning .45 ACP might not be deflected as a fast torqued .45 ACP. And that would probably be true of rifle bullets to an even greater extent. If so, then the fast 1-in-7 twist of new .223 rifles might make them less accurate when a barrier of some sort is between the shooter and target.
But there's a but to all this. The "but" is that most of the deflection in the tests was so great that unless the target was very close to the twig or whatever being hit, you'd most likely miss it with any modern cartridge. (I suppose some wiseacre will point out that the .223 bullet might shatter -- which is probably right. This will enable the pro-.223 group to argue that by shattering a fragment might hit the target while with the .308, you'd have a complete miss. And the pro-.308 guys can argue that even if you hit the target, the fragment will create such a minor wound that it is unlikely to do much good.)
What about bad guys in vehicles? Would the .223 reach out and touch them?
I've seen tests of sorts conducted with targets inside old junk-yard vehicles fired upon by various rounds. With the .223, the targets are often hit by fragments rather than complete bullets. Many testers assume that these would create minor injuries rather than major -- I'm not so inclined to think this but am not certain, either, lacking the government funding to test things out. But let's put it this way. If I sat in a car while someone fired .223 bullets that "wouldn't hurt the occupants", I would be fully expecting to wake up in a hospital -- or morgue.
According to material I've seen, the new SS-109 (NATO version of the .223) WILL go through more material, out-penetrates standard FMJ .308 bullets, and (I suspect) would penetrate the side of a car -- and its occupant -- no problem. But I haven't seen any actual tests of this (any gun magazine writers out there may have an article to write here!).
When it's all said and done, a guy in a car is pretty hard to hit -- and not likely to do you much harm if you stay out of the path his headlights are headed. To fire at you, he's going to have to expose himself.
Most "kills" are achieved when your opponent exposes himself. You can get him by stitching a wall or car door -- but that becomes very iffy at best regardless of the penetration the round you're firing may have.
Additionally, for most of us citizen city dwellers as well as police officers, over penetration, not under penetration, is a concern -- and another reason I've gone with the .223. Because I often am in an area where there is a high population density, I WANT a round that isn't going to go through a bunch of stuff and still be lethal.
The fact that the .223 in the 1-in-7 twist has less penetration in building materials than most 9mm HPs is a PLUS where I am and in most of the situations I may find myself in. That's also why many SWAT teams in the US have traded in their 9mm submachine guns for .223 rifles; the rounds penetrate less material and therefore present less of a hazard to innocent bystanders.
Back in the mid-1970s when I was teaching, a kid brought in a book that was in the school library. The book was published by the recruitment wing of the US Army. The book told all about Army life in glowing terms. What caught my attention was the description of the M16 rifle.
It seems, according to the copy writer, that the round this magical gun fired could go through the front bumper of a truck, through the engine block, hit your enemy, and still go out the back of the vehicle to go clear through the rear bumper.
Talk about penetration (or might it be they were exaggerating?).
Finally I don't want anyone to believe I think the .308 is worthless; it is highly effective given an expanding bullet. Ditto for the 7.62x39mm. (With FMJ, the .223 wins hands down over both these rounds, however.) They are all good rounds and there are many fine rifles chambered for all three rounds.
Which would I rather be shot with? C: None of the above, of course Because all three are effective with the proper bullet types and a good aim.
But which would I pick as my (not necessarily anyone else's) first choice. A rifle chambered for the .223 -- at least until we get our hands on the railguns as per the movie Eraser.
Before closing, I should note that the history behind the adoption of the .223 cartridge by the US and NATO forces is about as confusing as stories about its effectiveness in combat.
Dating back to before WWII, there were factions within the US Military that wanted to go to a much smaller, less powerful cartridge rather than the .30-06. After the second world war, these people felt that a step up in cartridge power from the M1 Carbine would be just the ticket for combat. (And this new cartridge might have been used in a modified M1 Carbine design, in which what the US soldiers carry today would probably be much different from the AR-15).
Despite the fact that such a cartridge would be a good combat round as documented by several large studies done following WWII, the factions wanting a long-reaching, very powerful rifle cartridge for the infantry won out in the US military. So the 7.62 NATO/.308 Winchester got the go-ahead just in time for the Vietnam War.
This was as NATO was getting anxious to stop the "Red Menace" in Europe. Most of the countries in NATO (especially Britain) wanted a smaller cartridge but the US browbeat them into adopting the 7.62 NATO. What really muffed the NATO allies was when the US did an about face and adopted the M16/5.56mm cartridge for use in Vietnam and then proposed it as the second standard after everyone had invested in rifles and ammunition of the 7.62 NATO variety.
I'll buy off on the ammo issue, for sure - I hate humping lead all over the landscape. I'll leave it up to the pros to decide, but if it were my free choice and I had to settle on only one of them for general use it'd probably be the M14. I liked the M16 and qualified with it, but if it were my own sweet butt on the line...
When you want to reach out and touch someone:
454 ... 308 in a pinch for me.
But , but the media said the D.C. shooter was using the .223 "sniper" rifle!
--Boris