5.56 M855 debate

[agalindo]

US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war - Yahoo! News

The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.

Dr. Martin Fackler, a former combat surgeon and a leading authority on bullet injuries, said the problem is the gun, not the bullet. The M4 rifle has a 14.5 inch barrel — too short to create the velocity needed for an M855 bullet to do maximum damage to the body.
"The faster a bullet hits the tissue, the more it's going to fragment," says Fackler. "Bullets that go faster cause more damage. It's that simple."

[trelane]

Ya Think!?
I had a conversation recently with a federal officer comparing the merits of his M4 and my SKS. I informed him that quite simply he was outgunned. "But my M4 is automatic, and a much newer design". I then described the shortcomings of the 5.56x45mm bullet in comparison to the much more powerful 7.62x39Soviet used by both the SKS and the AK-47. Lets say it was an eye-opening experience for him. He was however quite impressed with my XD in comparison with his Glock. Sadly he still gets all his ammo for free...

you can't win 'em all...

[Amkus]

All of the people I know personally that were/ are in the military (one of whom also been was in SWAT, another a scout sniper in the Marines) say that the "5.56 round is too weak" talk is BS.

I've never shot anybody, so I can't say.

[chupacabrachus]

Personally, if I was going for small and fast I'd chose a .204 Ruger, .22-250, .243 winchester, etc.

[EricCartmann]

This talk has been going on seems like for ages now.

People have been shot by a .308 and lived to tell about it, on the flip side there have been people who took one hit from a 22LR and are no longer with us.

[spamlovr]

5.56 works well at higher velocities. It breaks up and fragments in a soft target. The velocity has to be high enough to make the bullet fragment. Longer bullets work well, too.
There is a lot of research, explanations, links, and pictures here regarding defensive ammo:
Best Choices for Self Defense Ammo
Scroll down to Rifle Ammo section if you want, or read the whole thing.

[chupacabrachus]

Originally Posted by EricCartmann

This talk has been going on seems like for ages now.

People have been shot by a .308 and lived to tell about it, on the flip side there have been people who took one hit from a 22LR and are no longer with us.

Very true. I don't want to get shot by either. I've got a friend who says anytime a caliber debate comes up (typically 9mm v. .40 v. .45) he says something to the effect of, "stand ten yards away and let me shoot you in the leg with the tiny 9mm and we'll see if it's harmless."

[Ishpeck]

5.56NATO is an excellent round for warfare, which is what it's designed to do. But what we do in Iraq is not war, it's police work.

[GlockConvert]

There are two probems with the current 5.56 round. It is very velocity dependant and will not yaw and come apart at lower velocities. OUt of an M4 it falls below those velocities in as little as 80 yards. If the round does not yaw and come apart, you basically put 22 cal holes through somoene. Lethal yes, debilitating not so much.

The second issue is penetration. In an urban evinronment you want a rifle cartridge that will shoot through stuff. 5.56 does not do well against intermediate barriers. 7.62 x39 is far superior in that regard.

Put aside the "its ours, it must be better" and look at the ballistics, read the experts. As an LE round, the 5.56 may be pretty close to ideal, but as a military round, where penetration and medium range lethality are important, there are lots of better choices.

[Ishpeck]

Originally Posted by GlockConvert

As an LE round, the 5.56 may be pretty close to ideal, but as a military round, where penetration and medium range lethality are important, there are lots of better choices.

I understand that there's a logistical advantage to having not-so-lethal rounds. According to the FBI's Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness document, 90% of people in the world fall down voluntarily when shot -- regardless of caliber. This is a psychological rather than physiological effect -- and understandable. For reasons stated by previous posters, IT SUCKS TO GET SHOT!

In war, you don't meet crack-heads or enraged madmen, you meet military personnel. They're perfectly sane, rational people, just doing their job; serving their country. These people don't go "I AM TEH SHOTTED! IT IS TIME TO MAEK TEH DEATH HAPPEN! *Bloodlust gargle sound*" They start screaming for their mothers and crap like that -- which is distracting to their buddies who are trying to focus on not suffering the same fate. So they drag their buddy off and you have two or three guys removed from combat from one hit. Then the enemy spends all kinds of medical resources trying to help their wounded heal.

The 5.56 round is great for making normal military people scream for their mommies. But when you have insurgents who don't have backup, don't operate with many friends, and don't have an infirmary to retreat to, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to shoot them with a round designed specifically for those circumstances.

Sandboxies haven't got much to look forward to. They're desperate. They're going to take out as many Yankee Imperialists as they can before we run 'em over with tanks or whatever. So the need for immediate incapacitation is greater here than it is in actual warfare.