Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The truth about the 5.56mm round
TriggaFingaz    1/24/2004 1:51:19 PM
To all infantrymen and gunusers out there , tell me this: is the 5.56x45mm round an effective round or is it so weak that you need more than one shot to drop a man? Some books say that it is absolutely lethal, able to stop one's heart owing to sheer velocity. Other accounts claim that enemy soldiers hit with this round continue charging. Some books claim it will tumble and dig multiple wound channels in the body, detractors claim it drills straight though people but yet has poor anti-material penetration. Which is more accurate? Please specify whether you used M193 or M855 'green tips'.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
mcgredo    RE:5.56 stopping power example   6/13/2004 12:49:05 PM
they typically have one tracer round every four regular rounds. One of the tracers tagged the RPG guy in the torso, and I saw a couple more go by. So it was probably 10-15 rounds total, which matches the recommended 6-9 rounds per burst. He gets hit in at least the torso in the first burst, and in the second burst the head and the left arm. Looks like the RPG gets hit just before the tracer tags him, too. The other guys are out of the line of fire, unlike the bozo grandstanding for the cameras out in the middle of the street.
 
Quote    Reply

Tracer_Tong    RE:The truth about the 5.56mm round   6/14/2004 11:26:03 AM
Having shot both the 5.56 x 45mm and 7.62 x 39mm, each round has its advantages and disadvantages. The 7.62mm is indeed more powerful owing to a heavier round and greater impact trauma. The 5.56mm makes up for it in velocity, and the smaller rounds would allow a soldier to carry more ammunition for the weight. Unless you have a high rate of fire (like an M16 not restricted to 3 round bursts with a large drum magazine), the 7.62mm is better for brute stopping power. The 5.56mm's greater accuracy (depending largely on the weapon firing it at least) does have some advantages though. Out in the open where engagement ranges would be greater, the M16 would have a greater chance of hitting targets at longer ranges than an AK-47. Up close, the AK-47 (less accurate than an M16) would be the better choice.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:The truth about the 5.56mm round   6/14/2004 12:20:05 PM
>>Having shot both the 5.56 x 45mm and 7.62 x 39mm, each round has its advantages and disadvantages. The 7.62mm is indeed more powerful owing to a heavier round and greater impact trauma.<< 7.62x39mm is notable for poor wound ballistics, as the bullet is slow to tumble and does not fragment. Wound profiles typically resemble those of large caliber handgun rounds rather than a full-power 7.62mm round (x51 or 54mm), or even 5.56mm that fragments and tumbles. My understanding is that the clinical evidence tends to support the ballistic gelatin studies, with regards to 7.62x39mm. >>Up close, the AK-47 (less accurate than an M16) would be the better choice.<< Up close is all about shot placement with anything less powerful than a shotgun (and not a bad idea with that).
 
Quote    Reply

Advocate Of REason    RE:The truth about the 5.56mm round   6/15/2004 11:14:50 PM
well horsesoldier it depends on which 7.62 bullet you are using if you are using the NATO bullet then indeed does not create large wounds because it was designed as a long distance marksmanship round and therefore must be more balanced which in turn prevents it from tumbling well. However if it's the russian 7.62 then the bullet is off balance and tumbles really well creating massive amounts of internal damage, of cource this is also what limits the accuracy of the bullet making the ak assault rifle variants innaccurate beyond 400 meters.
 
Quote    Reply

ChdNorm    RE:The truth about the 5.56mm round   6/16/2004 1:58:44 AM
I think it's pretty obvious which 7.62 round Horsesoldier was reffering to. He specificly mentioned the 7.62X39, even comparing it to 7.62X51 in his post.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    Fackler on 7.62x39mm   6/16/2004 7:33:21 AM
Here's Fackler's comments on 7.62x39mm. I believe he is a rather solid authority on such things: "Soviet 7.62x39mm - The Soviet AK-47 Kalashnikov fires a full-metal-jacketed, boat-tail bullet that has a copper-plated steel jacket, a large steel core, and some lead between the two. In tissue, this bullet typically travels for about 26cm point-forward before beginning significant yaw. This author observed, on many occasions, the damage pattern shown in Fig. 2 while treating battle casualties in Da Nang, Vietnam (1968). The typical path through the abdomen caused minimal disruption; holes in organs were similar to those caused by a non-hollow-point handgun bullet. The average uncomplicated thigh wound was about what one would expect from a low-powered handgun: a small, punctuate entrance and exit wound with minimal intervening muscle disruption." The rest of the article is available at: http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html In all fairness, he does note elsewhere in the article that Yugoslavian 7.62x39mm ammunition performs differently, yawing much more rapidly and producing some minor fragmentation, though nothing comparable to 5.56mm or 5.45mm at high velocities.
 
Quote    Reply

Advocate Of REason    RE:Fackler on 7.62x39mm   6/17/2004 2:26:34 PM
hmmm. this seems pretty different than i was taught, I'll look into it farther and retract any coments that will turn out to be wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Fackler on 7.62x39mm   6/17/2004 3:39:45 PM
Check the article -- note the he differentiates between lead core Yugoslavian ammunition and mostly steel core Soviet/Chinese ammunition. If the ammunition you are familiar with is the lead-core variety, the article probably supports what you were taught about tumbling rapidly -- 9cm compares fairly well with 5.56mm and 5.45mm's performance.
 
Quote    Reply

VisigothCSA    RE:The truth about the 5.56mm round   6/17/2004 4:31:52 PM
Something to remember is that the 5.56 was adopted at a time when the U.S. had a conscript military. Since conscript armies aren't as good as volunteer armies, something had to give. So, rather than spend a lot of time making marksmen out of troops who would leave in a couple of years, they decided to go with volume of fire, or spray and pray. To do this you needed lots of ammo, which was a factor in adopting the 5.56. Though I'm not too familiar with all the details, there was also a lot of politics behind this decision as well. After all, it isn't the military that picks the weapons, its the politicians. Just look at the Crusader and F-22.
 
Quote    Reply

VisigothCSA    RE:Fackler on 7.62x39mm   6/17/2004 4:37:34 PM
If I remember correctly, the Yugo round also had a flat base rather than a boat tailed one. That also contribruted to its tumbling sooner.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics