how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

General discussions regarding topics that aren't covered in one of the other sub-forums. NO DISCUSSION OF POLITICS!

Moderators: ZS Global Moderators, ZS Postal Match Officers

User avatar
crypto
ZS Donor
ZS Donor
Posts: 16637
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: City of Saint Louis

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by crypto » Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:24 pm

mr.trooper wrote:
Assuming that YOU know what we are thinking and why is whats ignorant.

We know all of that. We just don't like France, so we make light of it.

how many times do we hear Frenchman talk about "stupid ignorant Americans" all day long?. In the US you have to have a college education just to get a mindless dead-end job as the manager of a fast-food joint. We are not stupid.

Is that more or less ignorant than assuming you speak for all Americans? I don't have a problem with France, or Frenchmen in general. You don't speak for me, please dont presume to.

I don't hear Frenchmen talking about stupid ignorant americans very often. Do you get a lot of Frenchmen in Indiana? Or are you just repeating stereotypes?

Seriously, dude. No politics. This thread is neck-deep in fail already. You should knock it off.
MF'N TEAM LEADER

"Some people think that the best way to stop the leopard is to cut the horns off the gazelle. This, my friends, is insane."

Image
Image

User avatar
Brash
* * * * *
Posts: 6058
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: NOTLD, Dawn of the Dead (Original), Shaun of the Dead, Wild Zero, Special Dead.
Location: Cardiff, Wales, UK

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by Brash » Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:48 pm

I agree with Crypto. This thread is indeed full of fail. I'm not going to lock it though. If you guys still wish to discuss the ballistic shortcomings of a round that is in use by an awful lot of armed forces around the world then go ahead. However, if there is anymore bashing then I will lock it down and hand out warnings.
Image

User avatar
Dumptruck
* * *
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 10:36 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Dead series (Romero), 28 Days Later
Location: WV

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by Dumptruck » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:22 pm

donjulio wrote:If I remember my history correctly (and I do), an alliance with France helped to defeat the British during the American Revolution thus allowing us to be the free nation that we are. If you want to go back in history and find a reason to dislike a people or a country you will find one if you want to. But you will also find just as many reasons to thank the same people.
That should put it in the bag. Those who would take jabs (everyone jokes about nationality stereotypes; if it happened in Ireland everyone would say the shooter was drunk) and sincerely mean them are lame as far as the whole "France is inept" nonsense goes.

I can find zero reason to hate on a whole group of people over some fact finding for only bad tidbits. Like you said, any country can be made to look like shit if a person tries hard enough.

MJS8725
* * * * *
Posts: 1597
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:37 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Shaun of the Dead.
Location: California

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by MJS8725 » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:26 pm

To get this tread back on topic.... I like the 5.56. I went to Cabela's a few days ago and checked out their "bullet finder". Just out of curiosity I checked on what was recommended for Antelpoe out of a .223. They reccomended a 60 grain soft point of some sort. I'm just sayin' It is all about shot placement. As has been stated ad nauseum.
Evil unchecked grows, evil tolerated poisons the entire system.- Jawaharlal Nehru

User avatar
donjulio
* * * * *
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 11:52 pm
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by donjulio » Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:01 pm

I would think that for hunting medium sized game, heavier would be better. I know that there are heavier .224 bullets. That being said, I shot a whitetail once with a 22-250 (same .224 bullet) and a 55 grain slug. The bullet hit the heart and she folded up on the ground, didn't even jump.
Image

User avatar
crypto
ZS Donor
ZS Donor
Posts: 16637
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: City of Saint Louis

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by crypto » Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:27 pm

If you hit a deer with 5.56 at any distance within it's fragmentation range ( <250m out of a 20" bbl ) Mister Whitetail will have a Cone Of Icky Death radiating backwards from the point of impact.

5.56 will certainly Fuck Shit Up, as anyone who's ever treated a 5.56 GSW will tell you.
MF'N TEAM LEADER

"Some people think that the best way to stop the leopard is to cut the horns off the gazelle. This, my friends, is insane."

Image
Image

User avatar
5.56 SS109
* *
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:40 pm

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by 5.56 SS109 » Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:04 pm

Let me shoot you in the torso with a 5.56 NATO round.

Then we'll discuss how fucking weak it is :D
I gave peace a chance. Then I chambered a round.


TOTSE.com

User avatar
S.R. Stryker
* * *
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 12:29 am
Location: Georgia

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by S.R. Stryker » Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:57 pm

5.56 SS109 wrote:Let me shoot you in the torso with a 5.56 NATO round.

Then we'll discuss how fucking weak it is :D

Moment of Zen.
Image
Shallow Grave Knives


And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”
So they said, “Nothing.”
Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
-Luke 22:36

GanaEMT
* * * *
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:54 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by GanaEMT » Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:59 am

Getting shot by any bullet sucks. Let's not get too much tunnel vision here; NO bullet is "weak" and every kind can kill. If I may, I'd like to add a medical perspective on this. It's one thing to argue the weakness of a round, but anyone who has real life experience with gunshot wounds knows that, either shooting someone or treating them, GSWs have some very odd, and conception-shattering aspects to it. If I have to say one thing about the GSW's I've dealt with (which are numerous, and will continue to be), it's that you can never assume anything about the person's condition just by where the hole is in their body.

As it's been said; shot placement is paramount with any type of ammo. Regardless of the size or type of the round being fired, it never replaces skill and placement.

That said, perfect shot placement does not assure a kill. The path a bullet takes when entering the body can, and often is, vastly askew from a simple straight line. Add in longer distance hits, where you're technically "dropping" the bullet onto the target, and what area of the body you hit vs. what internal damage is done does not always match up.

Shot placement is really about two things; maximum likelyhood of hitting the target (ie, center mass) matched with maximized destruction of potential vital organs before bullet path deviation (which will happen). As for the latter, this is where training for head shots comes into play... it's the greatest likelyhood of GSW mortality (read below). Medically speaking, the mozambique/failure/2+1 drill has the single best potential for mortality.

Someone mentioned the CNS and center mass as needed for kills. This is kinda right and wrong. CNS is a broad term, really. Getting shot in the spine offers a high degree of "kill factor", sure, but I'd say it offers a higher degree of life with spinal damage (paralysis, motor-sensory deficit, etc). If you're speaking of CNS as a kill shot, it should really be focused on brain tissue. I haven't seen many people survive a GSW to the head, especially when their brain matter is falling out in front of you (makes your gloves sticky, too). They may still have pulses and some system activity, but I'd have to say that, of those I've seen shot in the head, 100% have died. Either dead on scene, dead when they reach/start treatment at an ER, code & die in the OR, or actually make it to a neuro ICU and die up there hours or a day or two later. I HAVE seen a handful of people continuing on with their lives with spinal damage, having suffered a GSW to the CNS system. But, just because I say I've seen 100% die, doesn't mean everyone does. A simple google search will pull up one of these "incredible but true" stories of people surviving typically fatal wounds. A nurse I know treated a guy who was shot in the head, and the bullet travelled around his skull, under the skin and soft tissue, and exited out of his neck, with only that tissue damage done. The guy was sleeping when he was shot and didn't even realize it until his friend woke him up on the cough and said he was bleeding.

anyways.

Targeting center of mass has only a single primary purpose-- it's the best chance of actually hitting the target. It does not assure a kill or even stopping a threat, especially with chemical factors on board, either natural (adrenaline) or synthetic (PCP). This is well known. I've also seen people shot and drive/walk themselves to an ER. The variables with GSWs are numerous.

I don't have cold hard stats in front of me, but I'd argue that exsanguination ("bleeding out") probably accounts for most of the mortality associated with gunshot wounds. All you need to do is open up a major vessel, especially arterial, and your mortality factor has just jumped considerably, perhaps 100%. These vessels run through the entire body. Severing the ulnar or radial artery in the wrist can kill in about 10 minutes. Severing the central arteries, like the carotid, aorta, subclavian (shoulder area) or femoral (thigh) can kill you in 5 minutes or less. Hell, you don't even need bullet... a knife can do this, so why not a .22 and certainly why not a 5.56? It doesn't take much.

Here's another way to look at the "weak" debate...

Any thug on the street can kill someone with a lowly .22 through pure dumb luck just emptying the magazine at someone (seen it). It can also deflect of heavy clothing and bone.

A cop can double tap, maybe multiple times with a 9mm or a .40, hitting center of mass, and still have to deal with an aggressor on PCP coming at them, or fleeing (a Philly SWAT officer once told me of shooting a guy multiple times in the torso and having him run for blocks before finally collapsing. I've fought with people on PCP and can believe it... it's a scary fucking drug that completely lives up to the stories everyone's heard). Yet it can also shatter bone and kill very easily too.

A solider can hit a target with a 5.56 round at close range, and due to over penetration, miss vital organs, leaving the target just as hostile as before he was shot (a current popular argument against the 5.56. Both inside and out of military circles). One of the children who was shot during this hostage exercise was hit in the heart, almost certainly a center of mass hit, and didn't die. Despite this, the 5.56 has decades of proven combat effectiveness in neutralizing a hostile and removing them from the fight, either by making them a casulty or outright killing them.

So, what does this say about any round being "weak"?

The point here is this-- before actually questioning whether a bullet is "weak", remember what can happen with ANY penetrating trauma to the body, regardless of the size or strength of what's inflicting the insult.

Any bullet can kill, but the body can also survive perfect shot placement and center of mass through infinite variables.
"Four things greater than all things are,—
Women and Horses and Power and War."
-Rudyard Kipling

NREMT-Paramedic
Doc Simon wrote:Gana has reached immortal status. He is the greatest poster in the history of ZS. I bow before him, knowing still I am not worthy.
Read: I'm not your doctor

User avatar
CLEAR CUT
* * * * *
Posts: 6864
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:36 pm
Location: In a bunker with dick cheney

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by CLEAR CUT » Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:22 pm

That was extremely well said and very concise with an accurate description from a medical perspective. Nicely done!
The greatest mask of all is not wearing one.
You can't tarnish a rusted blade.
Image
Image
Zoltan wrote:Chimps are fucking dangerous
Don't ever forget your DBP's!

User avatar
TravisM.1
* * * * *
Posts: 5316
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:29 am
Location: Earth, home world of the pizza bagel

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by TravisM.1 » Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:07 pm

Image
I sold my soul to the devil for a .45, a black cowboy hat and a switchblade knife.......

User avatar
el Punisher
* *
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 10:43 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: R esident evil series, dawn of the dead george romero series, shaun of the dead, and 28 weeks later If I am Legend counts thats on the list as well
Location: San Clemente

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by el Punisher » Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:07 pm

killswitch1982 wrote:It's a good round but it isn't the best out there IMHO. I prefer the 7.62mm NATO, but I do own an XCR in 5.56mm simply because most of the police agencies in my area use something that takes 5.56mm/M16 mags and if the SHTF there will be plenty of mags and ammo for me.

I would rather the 6.5 Grendel be picked up as a primary cartridge. It does everything better than the 5.56mm and quite a few things better than even the 7.62mm NATO. That is simply my humble opinion.

Bottom line, if you do your part and stay within the 5.56mm's limitations, it will do it's part reliably.
the 6.8mm SPC is just as good and now that so many companies are making it, it should be getting cheaper
... The winchester!
Yoda wrote: If Unbreakable Umbrella and WASP injection knife your main hand-to-hand weapon is, strong is the mall ninja within you

User avatar
mr.trooper
* * * * *
Posts: 4357
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:33 pm

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by mr.trooper » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:11 am

TravisM.1 wrote:Image
llamas SUCK. Only CAMELS are battlefield proven. :lol:
Alcoholic Fudd

YouTube Channel

User avatar
AwPhuch
* * * * *
Posts: 4742
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:16 pm
Location: Texas

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by AwPhuch » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:41 am

I will say this

At normal combat ranges (0-300 meters) the 5.56 is lethal as hell! Nice thing is you have many follow-up shots to get the job done if the 1st one doesn't.
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms - Should be a convenience store, not a Governmental entity
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

siglite
* *
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 1:22 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Shaun of the Dead

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by siglite » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:46 pm

AwPhuch wrote:I will say this

At normal combat ranges (0-300 meters) the 5.56 is lethal as hell! Nice thing is you have many follow-up shots to get the job done if the 1st one doesn't.
Not always. Sometimes, shot people find cover. Or run like hell. Or do just about anything besides remain stationary and wait to be hit again.

I have no complaints with 5.56. But follow-up shots are not a guarantee on the battlefield. Which brings us back to the oft quoted "shot placement is king." Do your damage as best you can when you can.

As someone who had a combat MOS, I can tell you that humping 180-330 rounds of 5.56 beats the shit out of humping 180-330 rounds of 7.62x51. When you're humping the shit, you're glad you've got the little stuff. When you're actually using it, you wish for the bigger stuff.

It's really kind of a wash, and an age old flame war. But I hope the military switches to 7.62 TODAY. Because the market flood of 5.56 would do my zombie stash wonders. :D
VP - WVCDL http://www.wvcdl.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://wv2a.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matt E.
* * * * *
Posts: 1555
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by Matt E. » Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:25 am

D
Last edited by Matt E. on Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"...And you would probably wind up with one of those souvenir miniature bats, because that is the kind of thing that happens when untrained people pick out unfamiliar equipment based on what "feels" right."

gordon_freeman
* * * *
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:21 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Dawn of Dead
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by gordon_freeman » Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:26 pm

Let's be honest, the 5.56*45 NATO, more specifically, the M885 is not well suited for zombie fighting, or even civilian use.

The military needs good penetration against fixtures and personal armor... and has easy access to automatic weapons. A mediocre round works quite well when you shoot something/someone multiple times with it. Furthermore, hits and kills in the military are more dependent on luck, statistics, and probalities, rather than ballistics and terminal ballistics.

However, single rounds of 5.56 aren't as effective as single rounds of larger caliber weapons. I love my AR-15 to death, but I'm also well aware i'll probably need to pull the trigger more than once if dealing with a threat. Same thing for my 9mm Glock 19.

Personally, I'm a fan of the 5.56 because it's got a flat projectory, it's light has very good potential accuracy, and better bullets can be bought/loaded. However, saying that "it's worked for decades" or "we still use it" is lame defense for the round's obvious short comings.

Lastly, how do we know that the Seargeant in this article was shooting a FAMAS, and not a demonstration "bad guy" weapon like a Swedish K or something?

Matt E.
* * * * *
Posts: 1555
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by Matt E. » Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:27 pm

D
Last edited by Matt E. on Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Czechnology
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 9341
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 10:50 pm
Location: PDX-ish

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by Czechnology » Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:22 pm

Matt E. wrote:OK, I'll bite. How is my saying that it works translate into it being lame? Becaue I've seen the 5.56 make a man fall down as have many others, that is lame? Explain...
Give me a break dude. The DOD has done many things wrong. I know it all too well. However, one thing they don't do is let a non-performer continue to not perform. Remember what happend to the M-14. It went down in history with the 30-40 Krag as the shortest standard issue service life of any of our modern long guns. They forced 18 of them on me and my DMs used their M4s to do the vast majority of their dirty work.
I'm not saying that the 5.56 is the end all be all. I'm not saying that the 6.8 may not be better. I'm not saying that getting shot by a 7.62 wouldn't suck. It does. What I am saying, is that like the 9mm, it does the job. It's service record beats any long arm we have ever fielded. You don't have to like it. But there it is.
It has become popular to bash the 5.56 and the M4. I'm always amazed that the guys that complain the least about the combo are the ones that use it the most.
Nice to see there are some new people who aren't permanently staring @ their lower intestines. Thanks for posting, and I'll agree. In my experience, the people who complain about service weapons the most are often the ones who've never fired them @ anyone in anger.
Nothing is ever what it seems, but everything is exactly what it is.
Vicarious_Lee wrote:If Nutnfacny were an 8-ounce chicken fried steak, he'd come with 72 ounces of batter around it that you have to slash through to get to it.

User avatar
Haji
* * * * *
Posts: 3019
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:59 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Shaun of the Dead, Resident Evil 1,2, and 3, and the Samuel scene from Diary of the Dead. I'm working my way through the worst of them of late, too.
Location: A Fortified Location Near Ft. Campbell KY
Contact:

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by Haji » Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:39 pm

Arguing with Matt E. on the real world use of the 5.56 and the AR is really not the smart thing to do. His understanding and experience with the system is comprehensive. You can take what he posts to the bank.
I don't carry a gun in case I get in a gun fight. I carry a gun because I don't want to miss the opportunity to get in a gun fight. - Officer Timmy

http://www.atstacticalgear.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
DRoCk
* * *
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:43 am
Location: SE Minnesota

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by DRoCk » Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:26 am

I love my AR15...the 5.56 is a great round. Bear in mind that I have no military experience, but its a far more accurate platform, gun and ammo than I will ever be able to fully use. I am no expert by any means, but I wonder how much of the negative opinion of 5.56 is based on the slightly different .223 round? There is a difference but a lot of people use them (in name) interchangably. Most non-gun shop places use the term interchangably...which is dangerous by the way! Lets face it, I'm not going to stand in front of it hoping that its an inferior round!

GanaEMT
* * * *
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:54 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by GanaEMT » Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:55 am

However, single rounds of 5.56 aren't as effective as single rounds of larger caliber weapons
It doesn't really matter how large or small the caliber is, all that matters is what that round damages once it penetrates the body.

The human body doesn't have some kind of natural resistance to penetrating trauma. A .22 and .308 are equally as lethal if your brain, heart or major vessels receives the damage. At the same time, missing a vital organ with the 5.56 is going to yield about the same result as missing it with the 7.62.

Whether you're hit in the aorta with a 7.62 or 9mm, you're still gonna bleed out into your chest cavity and die in a few short minutes.
"Four things greater than all things are,—
Women and Horses and Power and War."
-Rudyard Kipling

NREMT-Paramedic
Doc Simon wrote:Gana has reached immortal status. He is the greatest poster in the history of ZS. I bow before him, knowing still I am not worthy.
Read: I'm not your doctor

JibbaJabba
BANNED
Posts: 2317
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:11 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Shaun of the Dead, 28 Days/Weeks Later
Location: Fort Hood, Texas

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by JibbaJabba » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:00 am

Matt E. wrote:Give me a break dude. The DOD has done many things wrong. I know it all too well. However, one thing they don't do is let a non-performer continue to not perform. Remember what happend to the M-14. It went down in history with the 30-40 Krag as the shortest standard issue service life of any of our modern long guns.
From (the admittably not-exactly-reliable Wikipedia):
Although the M14 was phased out as the standard-issue rifle in the sixties, M14 variants are still used by various branches of the US Military as well as other armed forces, especially as a sniper rifle and/or a designated marksman rifle, due to its excellent accuracy and effectiveness at long range.
Unless I misunderstand you, you just said the DoD is good at phasing out ineffective weapons platforms in a timely manner.. and then pointed to the M14 as a reference of an ineffective weapon. A weapon that is still widely used today by sharpshooters/designated marksmen. :)
PlE or GTFO! Image
bonanacrom wrote:I found that if your 6 feet tall and weigh 260 pounds and answer the door naked with a big shit eating grin on your face you get to control the conversation right from the beginning.

Matt E.
* * * * *
Posts: 1555
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: how weak is 5.56x45 Nato??

Post by Matt E. » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:42 pm

D
Last edited by Matt E. on Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Return to “General Firearms Discussion”