Quote of the day
Seen at ar15.com, when someone says Convince me as to why 5.56 is “enough”:
The conclusion of almost every informed discussion on the matter is that 5.56mm fucks people up
2 Responses to “Quote of the day”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 24th, 2006 at 2:16 am
Well, my understanding of the 5.56 nato has to do with the fact that it is a very high velocity round, and it’s accuracy is remarkable, I once had the opportunity, (because I was bored, and volunteered) to work the buts during a competition shoot. and I believe that the competition shoots, often reach 1K meters, the target is large true, but even at 1K meters, when this “small weak” round hits a paper target, theres no shredding, it’s a perffect, .223 circle.
Also, the velocity and shape of the round, as I understand, alows for a greater development of hydrostatic shockforces in a short distance, which, as you said “fucks people up,” Granted larger calibrations can do more, but the 5.56 nato is a damage, not a stopping round, which is also important. And to say that larger calibrations can do more, is true, and false. You need high mass to be effective at long range, but you also need more propellant. Newtons laws, say that if you go to high calibrations with high velocity, you are gonna end up crippling your troops.
Which is the REAL reason behind the 5.56 nato. most military troops, Myself included, when I was in the military, and even more so now since I haven’t fired a round since, are inexperience shooters, and generaly unprepared for the damage that SHOOTING a weapon can do. The high velocity 5.56 meets a good middle ground. It is effective enough in accuracy, (better than any other military weapon prior, no matter what anyone says) high velocity enough to allow for expanded range, massive enough to do real damage, and it is small enough to reduce recoil into a very manageable situtation allowing people to pump thousands of rounds at once into a single area target.
Whenever I hear arguments against a load, I think of this. I ALWAYS think of it in terms of warfighting, and while the 5.56 Nato isn’t perfect in any single way, and there are arguments about jamming, and bore (whats the term? the collection of cordite and other materials within the bore?) . . . .ecclusions? can be answered with slight modifications in the weapon itself. The ROUND, is perfectly suited for mass production, mass fire, and mass training.
You Uncle, are a builder, and more experience, but tell me what I have said is wrong, so I might correct myself.
February 24th, 2006 at 2:32 am
I will agree totally with this assesment. Look at it from a logistical standpoint. Take cartridge size/weight, accuracy/range, and easy of manufacture and you get the 5.56. It does a lot of things ok but none great.
That being said, I was shot with a .22 as a young boy, and let me tell you it stopped me in my tracks. getting shot with anything hurts, ALOT.
We have all heard about the guy who did not go down after ten 9mm and the other guy who kept coming after four .223 shots. There wil always be instances of this but it is not the norm.
All of this being said, I have the most familiarity with the .223 and have shot very little 5.56. I have done some reloading of both, and I could never get the throat diameter in the 5.56 correct and had some pressure leak issues. Bad juju. I keep to the .223 these days.