I have not been in the service so this may be a lame question. Why is it when I see footage of our soldiers fighting in cities, towns, buildings, etc that are made of what appears to me to be thick concrete, brick, or masonry we are giving our force .223 weapons? I believe that the AK shoots 30 cal stuff.

Now I understand the argument made at the beginning of Vietnam that the soldier could carry twice the .223 ammunition with respect to the 30 cal stuff. I also understand that most, of not all of the fighting in Vietnam was in the Jungle where a .223 did not have penetration problems.

In foot+ thick concrete however, why do we not have each squad equipped with a .50 cal? Or a .68 cal? Or something with penetration power in those circumstances?

Those of you who have been there, or are in the know, could you please clue this old historian to whats up?

~S

quote:

Originally posted by jonsebastiani:
I have not been in the service so this may be a lame question. Why is it when I see footage of our soldiers fighting in cities, towns, buildings, etc that are made of what appears to me to be thick concrete, brick, or masonry we are giving our force .223 weapons? I believe that the AK shoots 30 cal stuff.

Now I understand the argument made at the beginning of Vietnam that the soldier could carry twice the .223 ammunition with respect to the 30 cal stuff. I also understand that most, of not all of the fighting in Vietnam was in the Jungle where a .223 did not have penetration problems.

In foot+ thick concrete however, why do we not have each squad equipped with a .50 cal? Or a .68 cal? Or something with penetration power in those circumstances?

Those of you who have been there, or are in the know, could you please clue this old historian to whats up?

~S

Special Forces is using the 6.8

50 Caliber is to cumbersone and bulky....adnd a 68 caliber? Musket? Well anyays it is not practical.

223 is having some problems stopping the enemy, and I have read in many magazines and internet articles that the 6.8 is widely used by SF as well as Delta in OIF / OEF.

223 penetrates more than you think, especially with "Concentrated Fire". I am to tired to go into effalades (SP?) and beaten zones. But when a squad or platoon fires on the same area/spot...More gets acomplished than you think. Especially when real machines guns ( 7.62 ) gets involved. Used properly the M-203 can do damage.

Overcoming obstacles against an enemy element takes teamwork. When a squad or platoon comes together, alot can be accomplished. And if it can't.... Their is always artillery, air strikes and engineers.

NC1911 !!!

Thank you for clearing that up. It just seems to a lay person such as myself, that if I were to see a concentration of force in one structure, I would do what I could to call in a tank or use on of those neet shoulder mounted missiles to "rocify" the structure.

I have not shot a .223 before. However, the M-14 that I shot quite a few times did *serious* damage to steel plate even at diatance. it seemed to make brick and cement pretty "brittle".

I want the sodiers in the US military to have the best. If that is what they have, then I will stop worriying.

I still like an overdone equilzer for them though..

Thanks again..
Best to all of you in uniform that are fighting in battles. Achieve the victory I know you can - and come home in one piece soon..

quote:

Originally posted by jonsebastiani:
Thank you for clearing that up. It just seems to a lay person such as myself, that if I were to see a concentration of force in one structure, I would do what I could to call in a tank or use on of those neet shoulder mounted missiles to "rocify" the structure.

I have not shot a .223 before. However, the M-14 that I shot quite a few times did *serious* damage to steel plate even at diatance. it seemed to make brick and cement pretty "brittle".

As with the 9 millimeter, the .223 is a "Stamdard" NATO round. Plus less weight and less bulky. The military has played around with different rounds and different barrel lengths to improve accuracy. The .308 /M-14 is a good rifle. As I understand, aand have read - now, it is being used as a sniper platform on the GWOT, and Navy SEALs use it extensively...especially in cold environments.

I want the sodiers in the US military to have the best. If that is what they have, then I will stop worriying.

Having reliable equipment also increases morale. A weapon that jams - Binocualrs that fog up constantly - night vision that will not hold up - radios that will not transmit because of dust or sand...affects morale of the troops. Relaible equipment increases Soldier / Marine safety.


I still like an overdone equilzer for them though..

The greatest thing on teh battle field is a Warriors brain. Having the ability to think, deduct, reason and solve problems is important. You can have a M-14, M-203, a flame thrower all wrapped into one. If you cannot think, equate problems and reason...All teh equipment and resources in the world is of no use to you. The ability to use cover and concealment, Move and fire, teamwork with others within your fire team, camoflage, light and noise discipline..then you are useless.
I actually heard of a officer in teh first Gulf war who used cutouts to make the Iraqi army think that there were more tanks than they actually had. Half lit moon night, and from a distance...the cutouts looked like real tanks. Creating an illusion. Making the enemy think you are weak when you are strong...and strong when you are weak. Drawing the enemy together so that they can more easily be engageded / ambushed.

Thanks again..
Best to all of you in uniform that are fighting in battles. Achieve the victory I know you can - and come home in one piece soon..

Yes. God bless and keep safe those who are fighting in the Middle East.


NiteCloak 1911 !!!

We switched to the .223 for the simple fact that it doesn't kill. It's not the most powerful weapon on earth but then again thats what your grenades, m240b, m2, mk19, m203, ...at4, Bradly's are for. I own and have extensively used both the m4 and AK47. Now I haven't ever been to Iraq in the sand but from my experiences here my M4 only jammed on me once because of a shitty magazine.

quote:

Originally posted by jonsebastiani:
In foot+ thick concrete however, why do we not have each squad equipped with a .50 cal? Or a .68 cal? Or something with penetration power in those circumstances?

The M2 Browning .50 Cal MG weighs 128 pounds when mounted on the Tripod. That's without a belt of ammo on it. Add about 20-25 pounds for a belt of 100 rounds. A little too heavy for dismounted Troops to carry around all the time.

An AT4 works very well as a substitute though.

quote:

Originally posted by MrQuin:
We switched to the .223 for the simple fact that it doesn't kill.

There are over a million dead bad guys who say otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by MrQuin:
We switched to the .223 for the simple fact that it doesn't kill. It's not the most powerful weapon on earth but then again thats what your grenades, m240b, m2, mk19, m203, ...at4, Bradly's are for. I own and have extensively used both the m4 and AK47. Now I haven't ever been to Iraq in the sand but from my experiences here my M4 only jammed on me once because of a shitty magazine.

Well, at least you got you got the crappy magazine part right...

The 5.56mm round...AT COMBAT DISTANCE...has as much "killing power" as more powerful/larger rounds. The bullet is designed to upset upon contact, resulting in a far larger wound than otherwise. Heavier and larger bullets tend to pass through bad guys with minimal upset prior to exiting them.

Yes, the 5.56mm was absolutely designed to kill. Ignore the ancient rumor of "wound one, takes two to remove from battlefield". Nobody leaves a battlefield until the battle is over anyway.

BTW, on this tour, I am working almost exclusively with 1st,2nd, and 7th groups....ain't seen a 6.8 yet.

.50 cal.?!?!?!?!?!?!?! who would want to have a .50 caliber assault rifle? i mean, it would be cool, but you have to think practical. i mean, shooting a fifty caliber in a gun like that would be insane, just think of the recoil!!!!!!
and 68 caliber? no chance.one it is way to big to even be halfway practical. and i dont think anyone would want to switch back to mini-balls and black powder.........

for a .50 cal weapon to be effective in a situation besides a sniper or support gunner(.50 cal machine guns are automatic, but not very portable, the weapon has to be automatic. If you had a full auto 50 cal carbine, that would be one heck of recoil. And imagine how much 10 magazines would weigh. that thought alone makes it a size for long ranges only.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: hecklerandkochrocks,

Just to clear some things up .223 is not i repeat is not the same as 5.56.....223 is slightly smaller, all military m4's,m16's and the saw are all chambered for 5.56. You can shoot a .223 from a 5.56 nato chambered weapon with minimal shift in accuracy, but i would strongly discourage anyone from shooting a 5.56 from a .223 chambered weapon such as most mini 14's are chambered in .223. Doing this could cause serious excess wear on the barrel, IE totally eroding the twist rate in the weapon making it about as accurate as an airsoft gun. Or even worse shooting a boat tailed 5.56 from a .223 chambered weapon could lead to the barrel exploding on the first round fired. Now to answer the op's question. 5.56 is used because
1. Able to carry more ammo with less weight
2. 5.56 gains more velocity over longer distances than 7.62.
3. After the round hits a target it tumbles in the soft tissue creating massive damage to internal organs. In comparison 7.62 penetrates straight through soft tissue doing less damage to internal organs.
4. 5.56 allows more suppression and cover fire due to more rounds can be carried per soldier therfore more ammo can be used to suppress the enemy while its being flanked/airstriked/mortored/HE rounded/203'd etc....
5. If you really need penetration power most units in Iraq are issued .50 cal machine guns as well as 240 bravos(which is 7.62) Also a 77 grain 5.56 has just about the same penetration power as a standard 7.62.

If you have any more questions feel free to send me a private message.

quote:

Originally posted by DIABLO_OPSGRP:
Just to clear some things up .223 is not i repeat is not the same as 5.56223 is slightly smaller,dimensionally identical...... all military m4's,m16's and the saw are all chambered for 5.56. You can shoot a .223 from a 5.56 nato chambered weapon with minimal shift in accuracy, but i would strongly discourage anyone from shooting a 5.56 from a .223 chambered weapon such as most mini 14's are chambered in .223.You are mostly correct here. The CHAMBERS are of different dimensions. 5.56 is a larger chamber to accomodate varience in NATO ammo, and dirt/rust/grime accumulation Doing this could cause serious excess wear on the barrel, IE totally eroding the twist rate in the weapon making it about as accurate as an airsoft gun.Has zero effect on barrel erosion. The bullet diameter is the same Or even worse shooting a boat tailed 5.56 from a .223 chambered weapon could lead to the barrel exploding on the first round fired.Wow, where did that come from? The boat-tail erosion myth just refuses to die. No, your barrel will NOT explode if you mix the ammo. Tens of thousands of varmint shooters will attest to the safety of boattails from .223/5.56 rifles Now to answer the op's question. 5.56 is used because
1. Able to carry more ammo with less weight
2. 5.56 gains more velocity over longer distances than 7.62.howdoes the bullet speed up during flight? 5.56 starts out faster, but loses velocity much more rapidly than a heavier 7.62
3. After the round hits a target it tumbles in the soft tissue creating massive damage to internal organs. In comparison 7.62 penetrates straight through soft tissue doing less damage to internal organs.7.62 will also "tumble" after enough velocity falls off
4. 5.56 allows more suppression and cover fire due to more rounds can be carried per soldier therfore more ammo can be used to suppress the enemy while its being flanked/airstriked/mortored/HE rounded/203'd etc....
5. If you really need penetration power most units in Iraq are issued .50 cal machine guns as well as 240 bravos(which is 7.62) Also a 77 grain 5.56 has just about the same penetration power as a standard 7.62.Currently, only SF are using non-standard 5.56

If you have any more questions feel free to send me a private message.

quote:

Originally posted by STARSnBARS:

quote:

Originally posted by DIABLO_OPSGRP:
Just to clear some things up .223 is not i repeat is not the same as 5.56223 is slightly smaller,dimensionally identical...... all military m4's,m16's and the saw are all chambered for 5.56. You can shoot a .223 from a 5.56 nato chambered weapon with minimal shift in accuracy, but i would strongly discourage anyone from shooting a 5.56 from a .223 chambered weapon such as most mini 14's are chambered in .223.You are mostly correct here. The CHAMBERS are of different dimensions. 5.56 is a larger chamber to accomodate varience in NATO ammo, and dirt/rust/grime accumulation Doing this could cause serious excess wear on the barrel, IE totally eroding the twist rate in the weapon making it about as accurate as an airsoft gun.Has zero effect on barrel erosion. The bullet diameter is the same Or even worse shooting a boat tailed 5.56 from a .223 chambered weapon could lead to the barrel exploding on the first round fired.Wow, where did that come from? The boat-tail erosion myth just refuses to die. No, your barrel will NOT explode if you mix the ammo. Tens of thousands of varmint shooters will attest to the safety of boattails from .223/5.56 rifles Now to answer the op's question. 5.56 is used because
1. Able to carry more ammo with less weight
2. 5.56 gains more velocity over longer distances than 7.62.howdoes the bullet speed up during flight? 5.56 starts out faster, but loses velocity much more rapidly than a heavier 7.62
3. After the round hits a target it tumbles in the soft tissue creating massive damage to internal organs. In comparison 7.62 penetrates straight through soft tissue doing less damage to internal organs.7.62 will also "tumble" after enough velocity falls off
4. 5.56 allows more suppression and cover fire due to more rounds can be carried per soldier therfore more ammo can be used to suppress the enemy while its being flanked/airstriked/mortored/HE rounded/203'd etc....
5. If you really need penetration power most units in Iraq are issued .50 cal machine guns as well as 240 bravos(which is 7.62) Also a 77 grain 5.56 has just about the same penetration power as a standard 7.62.Currently, only SF are using non-standard 5.56

If you have any more questions feel free to send me a private message.

Use google there are plenty of articles out there on how unsafe it is to use 5.56 in weapons chambered for .223. I am a true believer of all of these articles because i have seen what happens when you fire 5.56 thru a .223 chambered weapon. I was at a range in Ga 3 lanes down from an abnoxious redneck doing magdumps through an old mini 14 chambered in .223 he was firing 5.56 boattail ammunition and sure enough on the second mag POP BOOM! The barrel was severed mid length. This happens due to the shorter leade and higher chamber pressures from 5.56 rounds in .223 chambered weapons. Boattail ammunition sometimes fishtails due to this and becomes lodged in the barrel and the following round can cause loss of the barrel if your firing fast enough to pull the trigger one more time before you notice the lodged bullet. Almost all chambers today are chambered for 5.56 it has been that was since 1994 when the assault weapons ban came down. Since all weapons made then was for LE and military only they were all chambered in 5.56 and after the ban was lifted in 2004 the companies continued to make almost all chambers in 5.56 besides some bolt action weapons. Thats why you dont see many of these malfunctions nowadays. If you own a preban weapon be carefull.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban
http://www.fulton-armory.com/556-vs-223-Chambers.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington
here is a guy who tried to shoot 5.56 through .223 chambered weapon http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?showtopic=14028
You can find articles like this all over the internet.
Now as far as you saying special forces are the only ones using standard 5.56 ammo google is your friend. Complete bs
Also 5.56 starts to tumble when it comes into contact with soft tissue at 100 meters and maintains a higher velocity than 7.62 up to 300 meters. 7.62 tumbles when it comes into contact with soft tissue at 300 meters + Since most combat engagements occur 100-300 meters i would take 5.56 over 7.62. Also 5.56 does not tumble at 1-100 meters but if their that close a headshot should be fairly easy.

NON-standard 5.56 ammo. Please read thoroughly what I write.

5.56 will tumble at all ranges it was designed for...especially inside 100m where it tends to break apart into multiple fragments.

7.62, being heavier, begins it tumble farther into the target...but it will indeed tumble.

I already said 5.56 starts out much quicker, but loses it's velocity at a more rapid rate then the heavier 7.62...dead horse.

Headshots are never fairly easy when the guy you want to shoot, is busy trying to kill you.

Don't need Google, I use "I'm in Iraq-gle", and my own 30+ years of weapons work.

Yes i just got back from a 15 month deployment in Feb. So dont try to play that card and i know any arms room Sgt with 1AD could order heavier grain rounds if requested for mission not just "SF"

quote:

Originally posted by STARSnBARS:
NON-standard 5.56 ammo. Please read thoroughly what I write.

5.56 will tumble at all ranges it was designed for...especially inside 100m where it tends to break apart into multiple fragments.

7.62, being heavier, begins it tumble farther into the target...but it will indeed tumble.

I already said 5.56 starts out much quicker, but loses it's velocity at a more rapid rate then the heavier 7.62...dead horse.

Headshots are never fairly easy when the guy you want to shoot, is busy trying to kill you.

Don't need Google, I use "I'm in Iraq-gle", and my own 30+ years of weapons work.

SnB though I respect your words of wisdom you are not accurate with the 77 grain 5.56mm ammunition. I know as I had a ammo can worth of MK262 mod 0 ammunition that traveled with me on my vic and in my mags. Snipers and guys who were issued suppressors were issued it as well.

The .223 was developed for places that prohibited "military" caliber ammunition (I believe Austrailia is one of those places). But the .223 is not exactly the same as the 5.56mm. The same argument has been hashed over between the 7.62 NATO vs. .308 Win. The soviet M43 7.63x39 cartridge was/is designed to tumble once it hits soft tissue, the tip of the bullet deforms and with its heavier base than the tip causes the bullet to tumble and enlarge the wound track. The 5.56mm works on the same principle to create a larger wound channel also, and with its higher velocity it promotes fragmentation. But my vote gets the .30cal (7.62) of all types, larger bullet, more mass, better terminal velocity = bigger hole to leak from.

As far as bricks go, cinderblock is a lousy cover. Even the 5.56mm will penetrate after a few hits in the same place, and a .50BMG will make mincemeat out of it. Regular fired clay bricks are a little harder to penetrate but it still can be done.

Bullet weight and velocity also play a big part in accuracy, a heavy bullet at high velocity will punch through brush and foliage with much less deflection than a light bullet will, so carrying more "light" bullets may not be as viable a solution as it seems. Ammo that dosen't hit its mark is wasted.

One last point; on average most combat takes place at less than 100 yds/meters (usually less). Well placed shots from just about any caliber at short range will have devastating effects on its recipient. So it really comes down to good commanders with well trained troops and good tactics that will most always win the day.

quote:

Originally posted by PKMgunner:
The .223 was developed for places that prohibited "military" caliber ammunition (I believe Austrailia is one of those places). But the .223 is not exactly the same as the 5.56mm.

The .223 Rem caliber (which actually has a diameter of .224) was created due to the military request for a small caliber due to tests conducted from the World Wars and the Korean War. The differences between the .223 Rem and 5.56mm lays mainly in the casing specs.

Now if you take the .45 ACP vs. the .45 GAP that could be a valid argument. IIRC Glock created the round for the purpose of allowing persons in a country that did not allow them to own a weapon cambered in their Army's or LE caliber to have a round that duplicates the .45 ACP. Also to have a more compact weapon.

I have used the M16 series rifles for 20 years The A1, A2 and M4. All as we all know 5.56mm the effectiveness of the round was changed in subtile ways. The A1 had a rifling twist of 1 and 6 (One twist every 6 inches) the A2 had a 1 and 7 same as the M4, giving the round more stability in flight, the U.S. went from a 55 grain bullet traveling at over 3200 fps if I recall to a 63 grain bullet traveling a 3001 fps. A little heavier projectile traveling slower. I have found that the 5.56 does the job. Realizing that we train for shot placement and not pray and spray. Just my thoughts.