# Army to look into ammo deficiency of 5.56?



## laterilus (Mar 18, 2006)

I checked that out, man that would be hot over there for the right situation, nice!!


----------



## eddiejohn4 (Dec 23, 2005)

Slug gun for cqc is all the knockdown needed.


----------



## bigsablemike (Apr 26, 2005)

Wetlandhunter said:


> [SIZE=+1]*Taiwan ships 1 billion bullets to United States: report*[/SIZE]
> 06 Nov 2007
> 
> Posted on *Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:54:06 AM*
> ...


 
the .223/5.56 is not a man stopper.no matter who produces it.


----------



## bigsablemike (Apr 26, 2005)

Sargeyork said:


> 5.56 does the job if you hit the target, if you miss or have peripheral hits with any caliber/round don't do the job. Trouble is people going into the army especially the infantry basic training is the first time they pick up a weapon and only so many training days are programmed for range time and your supposed to turn someone into a combat conditions marksman let alone an army qualification course which does not simulate combat stress, heat, dust, someone shooting back, explosions, radio chatter and alot of people all yelling and screaming. Most units qualify about twice a year unless you know theyre going to Iraq or Afghanistan and are at their Mobilization site training and gearing up just before departure. How many people have fired the AR round at realistic targets like cars, bricks, cement blocks, wood. I have and even at a semi auto rate of fire you better be behind something substantial or an AR round will go through steel plates and building wood and bricks in a few rounds, cars except for the engine and steel wheels are easily penetrated and concentrated fire causes alot of ricochets and parts of bullets to bounce around and into people hiding or seeking cover, destabilized bullets really cause alot of damage and you can carry alot of AR ammo and every shot doesn't throw you way off target like 308 or 30-06 and not everbody weighs 300 pounds and nobody can hold a m60 or 240 off of a mount and fire auto and hit anthing smaller than cobo hall at 100 yards.


the whole problem with 5.56 is that it lacks first hit stopping pwer.just like the 9mm.it will kill but if you have to be the first one thru the door,you want your first hit to stop that target.i think that a tactical 12 gauge for door duty would be the ultimate.or a good old tommy gun.the 5.56 is an under powered round.


----------



## bigsablemike (Apr 26, 2005)

Wetlandhunter said:


> Any good shooter can use a AK or SKS and hit its mark. Look at the Dragunov SVD it is a AK it can shoot 1000 yards. It is not the gun that kills it is the shooter with the skills.


b.s. the dragunov is a high performance AK.the basic AK will not perform like a dragunov,regardless of the shooter.and you mighty be able to pick up a reliable/accurate SKS but youll probaly have to sift thru 200 of em.like i said if i have to fight for my country with an AK then we are doomed....go back to russia.if you believe those commie bastards built a better weapon then us then go home to russia.


----------



## Huntsman27 (Sep 29, 2004)

bigsablemike said:


> b.s. the dragunov is a high performance AK.the basic AK will not perform like a dragunov,regardless of the shooter.and you mighty be able to pick up a reliable/accurate SKS but youll probaly have to sift thru 200 of em.like i said if i have to fight for my country with an AK then we are doomed....go back to russia.if you believe those commie bastards built a better weapon then us then go home to russia.


You must not grasp the concept of ballistics. The 762x 39 uses a bullet of .311 diameter and weight of 123-125 grains, where the 5.56 uses a 55 or 62 grain bullet of .224 diameter. However the 5.45x39 Soviet was developed to allow more rounds to be carried too like the 5.56.
What does this show? the wound channel of the .311 diameter bullet is going to be quite larger thus taking out more tissue and vital area. This why the soviets came up with this [after stealing the idea from the Germans WW2 8MM Kurz (short) round]. Accuracy and fiepower for close combat much like the use of the Soviet PPsh and German STG44 Brittish Sten and U.S. grease gun and so forth. 
Back to the point though, for urban combat and clearing would I prefer an AK to an AR for clearing buildings? sure its an excellent weapon and captured ones are usually turned back around on the bad guys. Doesnt mean anyones a Communist just they have a better concept of weapons usage than you might.


----------



## Wetlandhunter (Jun 7, 2005)

bigsablemike said:


> the .223/5.56 is not a man stopper.no matter who produces it.


Thanks for letting me know that!


----------



## Wetlandhunter (Jun 7, 2005)

bigsablemike said:


> b.s. the dragunov is a high performance AK.the basic AK will not perform like a dragunov,regardless of the shooter.and you mighty be able to pick up a reliable/accurate SKS but youll probaly have to sift thru 200 of em.like i said if i have to fight for my country with an AK then we are doomed....go back to russia.if you believe those commie bastards built a better weapon then us then go home to russia.


 Why don't you tell the some US troops, special ops and the goverment contractors that are using the AK that they are junk there must be some reason besides looking cool.:lol: The CIA undefolder is a very well like AK over there. How did it get that name CIA underfolder? 
From someone over sea!!!
Look where the some of the military items comer from any more they are not all made here anymore. 
It is ALL about placement I seen guys kill hogs with spears.
Good day!


----------



## Wetlandhunter (Jun 7, 2005)

Huntsman27 said:


> You must not grasp the concept of ballistics. The 762x 39 uses a bullet of .311 diameter and weight of 123-125 grains, where the 5.56 uses a 55 or 62 grain bullet of .224 diameter. However the 5.45x39 Soviet was developed to allow more rounds to be carried too like the 5.56.
> What does this show? the wound channel of the .311 diameter bullet is going to be quite larger thus taking out more tissue and vital area. This why the soviets came up with this [after stealing the idea from the Germans WW2 8MM Kurz (short) round]. Accuracy and fiepower for close combat much like the use of the Soviet PPsh and German STG44 Brittish Sten and U.S. grease gun and so forth.
> Back to the point though, for urban combat and clearing would I prefer an AK to an AR for clearing buildings? sure its an excellent weapon and captured ones are usually turned back around on the bad guys. Doesnt mean anyones a Communist just they have a better concept of weapons usage than you might.


Great post!!!!!!!!!


----------



## malainse (Sep 2, 2002)

I have the 6.8 SPC barrel for my contender pistol. I am very happy with this round and will be using it for North, deer hunting this fall... Military can retrofit AR's to shoot this round and I think would be an big improvement over 5.56/223.

But we all know how that works ???? Study/test something for 10-20 years and when it is implemented it is outdated...


----------



## BR549 (Feb 5, 2006)

bigsablemike said:


> theve already came up with a soulution caliber.the 6.8 spc developed by private companys at the request of some of the guys kickin in doors and checkin caves.the military fails to see the problem therefore no solution is needed.plus it wasnt developed by springfield armory.cant have that.the 6.8 has been out for a few years you can buy an ar-15 from more than one company thats chambered for it.
> 
> besides the .223 or 5.56 has never been known for its stellar knockdown power.kinda like a 9mm.its a tradeoff between alot of rounds or less but heavier harder hitting rounds.


Made by Remington and called the 6.8 Remington SPC. Remington offers it in 4 loads, each 115 gr and 2625 fps muzzle velocity. It's a necked down 30 cal round. Worked well in Iraq, but the brass didn't want the logistical headache of another caliber.


----------



## Huntsman27 (Sep 29, 2004)

6.8 is also nothing more than a light loaded .270 cal bullet. Again, a light for caliber bullet as the standards for .270 cal are 130 and 150 gr bullets.


----------



## Ninja (Feb 20, 2005)

A little food for thought....

There was an underlying reason for the conversion to the 5.56 during Vietnam.
Clearing buildings and CQB was not nearly as common during 'Nam as it is now in our present theaters of Afghanistan and Iraq.
There was a lot of consideration put towards this change-over by the Powers that be that the 5.56 would NOT be as effective as a man-stopper, but as a round that would wound and take the soldier out of the game, thus requiring field personnel, medical personnel, money and mass resources to care for the wounded.
More able-bodies caring for the wounded, more money and resources spent on caring for the wounded, equals less soldiers in the field.

Not saying it was right or wrong, just saying.......


----------



## BR549 (Feb 5, 2006)

The 5.56 Nato round was chosen to allow the carrying of more rounds of ammo by the infantryman in his rifle and on his person. Hold 20 rounds of .223 in one hand and 20 rounds of 7.62 or 45-70 gov (a previous military round) in the other, and you'll instantly get the idea. Some call it more "firepower". Among the rounds looked at included the .222 Remington and .250 Savage. The tactic of wounding a soldier to take others out of the battle to help him was used by the Vietcong with great success, not the U.S. The 6.8 may be a "light" .270, but it's not a .270 round designed for 4 legged animals. It's designed for 2 legged animals. Take the 30-06 and 308, which the military use very light bullets that we consider plinking bullets by weight. The 6.8 also required the replacement of the upper, using the same mags as the 5.56.


----------



## Huntsman27 (Sep 29, 2004)

the 7.62X39 for the SKS or AK with the intent of wounding soldiers and having support staff help....that Rumor is the U.S. .233/5.56 .. To get to the point the 5.56 was designed to yaw in a body and cause trauma. Reality was it didnt happen all the time and a through and through wound was the result.
While a soldier can carry more 5.56/223 ammo than a battle pack of same amount of 308 or 30-06, the downside is not getting the job done. You are wrong about the 30-06 ammo, the Military did NOT use light for caliber ammo, just the opposite, 150gr then the 174 for the 30-06. The military as I am aware NEVER used 125 or lighter ammo in the 06 or 308. The interesting fact is the amount of rounds -to kill in Vietnam for the 5.56 was thousands per 1 kill. Again, that was the spray and pray crowd, as most of the WW2 vets were using the semi auto M1 Garand [yes I know the 30 carb and 45 Grease gun were capable of full auto].
Finally, the 6.8 [glorified 270] is a light for caliber bullet. Most of the deer shot [4 legged variety] are under 150lbs on the hoof. Very close to a human. Using a 130 or 150. Some light weight 115 or so isnt acceptable to me. Much like the 30 carbine and its 110 gr wasnt acceptable at 1900 fps.


----------



## BR549 (Feb 5, 2006)

The .223 tumbles in the body in order to help it's terminal effect because it's a small round. It not getting the job done is exactly the point. The 6.8 is in Iraq right now and has positive improvement over the .223 by only changing the upper and barrel on existing weapons. Weather it's acceptable to you or not isn't an issue since it is acceptable to special forces, who found it a huge improvement over the .223 but were turned down on a request to standard issue the weapon due to the logistical problems of having a special caliber in the field.


----------



## Huntsman27 (Sep 29, 2004)

percentage of the time. That we can agree on. The 6.8 was and is a specail round. Your right, my opinion doesnt matter. Because on this we would disagree. Youd be wrong. This is why the Soviets used the 762X39 and didnt have all types of ammo to supply.
This is the basis of this thread, not to supply special weapons and ammo [the CIA and other forces have those]. What were talking about is service wide using a round which delivers terminal ballistics, not theoretical ballistics.


----------

