Is the 5.56mm round combat ineffective?

Question

Is the 5.56mm round combat ineffective?

Answer 1

For long range-yes.

For urban warfare-No!

You have to hit the enemy in a vital organ or he can still fight back.

The 5.56 is too lite.

Answer 2

Worked just fine for me. Ever see one of those thing zip right through a Kevlar helmet? Just like butter.

Answer 3

The 5.56mm or .223 cal was designed with the idea in mind that a wounded soldier was more damaging than a dead one since it took 2 soldiers to care for 1 wounded.  This effectively removed 3 from the fight.  Similar to the ideas of winning by body count. (Vietnam era military logic for ya)  It also allowed rifles like the M16 and variants to carry more rounds of ammo in smaller packages, great for the foot soldier in the jungles of SE Asia.  The 5.56mm does have a good kill rate but not as good as the venerable 30 cal (7.62mm) variants.  The most popular US rounds being the .30-06 cal and the .308 cal.  

Why you ask?  Physics:  Force = mass X acceleration.  

5.56mm = small mass going very fast

7.62mm = larger mass going little slower

At longer ranges the heavier .30cal round would give a greater impact.

Shorter ranges not that much difference.  Accept when it comes to biomechanical disability.  A slower moving heavier bullet will do a lot more damage than the fast moving smaller bullet as it passes through flesh and bone.  (it is a function of energy inparted over time) Doubt it?  Try going hunting and shooting something with a 12 gauge shotgun slug vs. a .243cal round at around 75 yds.  The .243 will still kill but a slug round will drop'em like a sack of bricks.  

Answer 4

yes and no i have shot people in iraq with the M4 carbine. this guy was i guess out of ammo and here is trying to run after me to melee me so i put a few rounds into his torso and still ran toward me like nothing had hit him. but then i shot him in the temple region and that seemed to do the job but yeah it all depends on were you hit the guy i mean its more effective in the head than torso. and i did rip that guys shirt off to see if i did damage to him and the bullet went through him so i guess it will kill him in the long run if that were to happen again. again it depends on were it hits you know. oh yeah some of these guys dont know what there talking about because an iraqi shot me in the helmet with an AK-47 (7.62x39mm M43) thats a bigger round than the 5.56x45 nato round. that ak47 did not even go through my helmet if it did i would be dead right now!

Answer 5

Not for most combat situations, which occur at short ranges where the 5.56 mm round is deadly.  The FN 5.7 round is better in that it penetrates Kevlar more effectively and delivers kinetic energy to the target more efficiently.  (Civilians can't buy armor-piercing ammunition in either caliber.)  

If you watch the "Stargate SG-1" series, you'll notice they carry stubby little machine guns that have their trigger up around the muzzle of the barrel.  Those are FN P-90 assault weapons firing the 5.7.  Apparently killing aliens requires more power than the 5.56mm SS-109 NATO round can supply.  :-)  

But that illustrates a key point in the argument that we should lose 5.56mm weapons.  We could retrofit almost all of the M-16s and M-4s to fire any round we wish just by ordering the right size barrel, upper receiver and magazine, right in the unit armory.   But whether we do that or just buy entire new guns, the company and salesman who convince the government to do that and take the resulting order are suddenly millions of dollars richer.  So lethality isn't the only issue at stake in the 5.56 mm controversy - there are a few lobbyists and salesmen lurking around ready to become millionaires if they can get enough s--t to stick to the wall.

The problem is that DoD keeps misleading servicemen by training them to hit targets with the 5.56 mm round at ranges like 100 meters (about a football field length) where you could HIT the target but not necessarily KILL the target.  That's the job of a squad automatic rifleman, the holder of the M-249 "buzzsaw" light machine gun or a sniper who fires a heavier round than the 5.56 mm,  to engage and kill targets at ranges where 5.56 rounds from the M-16/M-4 family don't arrive fast or often enough to kill reliably.

Answer 6

I already know the best answer. That would be "M's". Especially the part about wounding and how many people it takes to deal with a wounded soldier. Excellent point

Answer 7

d**n things worked pretty good against the Mahdi Army in Diwaniyah, Iraq last year..... not as good at the M240 (7.62) or the M2 (.50cal). but still dropped them like rocks.  Still cant go wrong with the M203 (40mm grenade) they really hate those, but they are so much fun.

Answer 8

M is absolutely right.