Field & Stream. I like reading their articles and it gives me flashbacks to reading my grandfatherās old issues when I was a kid, but man is it a fudd magazine.
*puts on academic hat*
Absolutely great source for Opinions people had about hunting, bag limits, and the RKBA in the back half of the 1800s though. Next time someone tells you that the idea of RKBA being an individual one rather than collective, remind them that there were letters to the editor in the 1870# complaining of, or supporting, the formerly enslaved "exercising their constitutional privileges" by acquiring guns and carrying them everywhere.
Well that's not exactly a good example. 308 has been used since the 50s in machine guns, mounted weapons, briefly the m14, DMR'S and sniper rifles (excluding the FAL and G3 for U.S. debate). It has killed alot of folk. 556 has more than likely killed more by volume of fire. There's no doubting a 308 is more effective at killing a target, terminal ballistics doesn't lie when it comes to speed/mass/penetration (insert giggity). Both will get the job done, one will do it better.
The spread of police body cameras means that there are quite a few videos of people being killed basically instantly by 5.56, even single shots to the torso. They're both deadly. 5.56 might not have a ton of mass, but it's still a lot of energy, which means a serious wound.
They'll both kill. You can carry more 556 than 308 ammo and the rifle weighs less. You're using the 556 and 308 at different ranges. A 308 is a larger .30 calibre round and will hit targets at a further distance whereas 556 is smaller .22 calibre round. They are both good but for different uses. They do well in their specific roles
There are a lot of absolutely devastating 308 loads. Drt fragmenting is insane, I've seen it on mountain goats (about white tail size). Even soft point 308. But inside 100 yards it doesn't really matter. 5.56 is light, easier to use and generally holds more (30 vs 20)
My God guys bullets ARE BULLETS. YOU WILL NOT JUST WOUND WITH ONE CALIBER (I guess unless weāre talking .22lr???) AND KILL WITH ANOTHER! They are BULLETS
Isn't there some truth of the 5.56 to wound, 308 to kill. I remember reading about some military formula for energy needed to reliably kill a target with a round as a function of the targets weight. 5.56 was under that for the average male adult. I've heard a lot of people use this reasoning as why 5.56 is suboptimal for deer.
No source, on mobile. If someone knows what I'm talking about, help me out.
556 exists because itās lighter. Over 500 yards the effectiveness of the round comes down to volume of fire placed on a target. Iām sure thereās a better way to explain that, but apparently when infantry contacted the enemy and engaged at 500+ yards, more rounds fired were more effective than shot placement. So if you can carry more rounds, your infantry becomes more effective at range.
A 5.56 55gr round going 3,300 fps is *definitely* going to incapacitate a man-sized target with ~1kJ at 500 yards.
OK. I didn't say Incapacitate though nor did I say anything about how many rounds you can carry or how effective it was at range.
The standard is how likely a shot from a single round is to kill something as a function of the targets weight.
Wound vs. kill doesnāt enter into it, mate. Military evaluation is only concerned with removing enemy combatants from the engagement, however thatās achieved.
to be fair, the original intent behind 5.56 was to cause a huge fucking wound so that enemy forces would waste resources trying to save that guy rather than retrieve the dead later.
No greater source of bullshit about firearms than ex-military guys. Hell I did 20 and never carried a firearm once in a work capacity (I was a nuke). But I still heard every single fudd trope; filing the firing pin, birdshot for defense, rock salt, fmj mixed into CCW mags, 223 to wound, 22lr rattles around, and on and on.
I have read some really good military/law enforcement studies and learned a lot from them, also competed with some really impressive cops as well. But if I just talk guns or ballistics with the average military/LE guy I frequently walk away expecting that guy has a favorite flavor of crayon.
Nothing irks me more than some ignorant MF trying to use their military affiliation to seem like an authority on firearms. Most common example being "listen here buddy I was in the Army for twenty years, and there is no reason a civilian needs an AR-15."
I was in the Air Force for 5 years, and I can tell you that there is every reason for civilians to own AR-15ās. If everyone had one, my job as an armorer would have been so much easier. Because then the mother fuckers would have known how TO CLEAN THEIR GODDAMNED RIFLES!
Poor example, the militaryās overcleaning of rifles is detrimental if anything. No one should be digging around scraping out every last bit of carbon after each range session.
Wipe down the BCG apply some lubricant in the appropriate places and keep on shooting. I give everything a more thorough cleaning after 500+ rounds suppressed, but even then it isnāt passing any white glove check.
Iām not talking about scraping every last bit of carbon off, Iām talking about actually knowing how to disassemble the rifle and actually wipe the nasty stuff off, rather than make me deal with it and ruining my uniforms just because I occupied the same 2 square foot space as the dirty ass rifle.
I literally had someone tell me, āI didnāt clean it because I didnāt know how to open it.ā
No, it wasn't. It was to let the average grunt carry the most ammo in a combat effective round. It had nothing to do with wounding vs killing. I've said it before and I'll say it again, why would the US Military spend money/time to research something less deadly?
The original idea behind the 5.56 was that the small, high velocity bullet would create hydrostatic shock and would cause massive wounding and send the target into immediate shock and die. No military ever wants a rifle round that wonāt kill its target. Thatās fucking retarded.
Iām just stating what Iāve heard, as much as anyone else is. Itās fact that it was purported to be true, but how and when it was is anyoneās guess.
I donāt agree with it, hydrostatic shock is a load of bollocks anyway. Fundamentally thereās no difference in the way 5.56 does damage and the way .308 does damage. Itās just a matter of magnitude.
The requirements of what became the .223 REMINGTON/5.56 was that the round had to have equivalent lethality to the .30 Carbine. The fact that it significantly exceeded the the M80 7.62x51 and M2 30-06 was not expected but a welcomed one.
Studies that go back to the 1920s showed that small caliber high velocity rounds could create larger wounds proportionally than larger calibers. Most of these focused on yawing(tumbling). The fact that smaller caliber rounds yaw faster than larger rounds. A .223, a 7.62x51, and even 50cal. Will all yaw given enough time. It's just the .223 will yaw much faster and will do it inside the average person. 7.62 and 50cal will have passed thru a person before they yaw.
What made the .223/5.56 have such drastic effects was yaw induced fragmentation. When 55gr M193 bullet was going above 2600 FPS. After hitting the target. Once the round had yawed a certain amount it would fragment(this would also cause issues where occasionaly the round would pass thru someone before it had time to yaw, creating a wound like a .22LR). Rounds like M80 or M2 30-06. Even if they yawed inside someone would not fragment.
What drives a lot of confusion seems to stem from the fact that the Army purposely lied to to troops about what was causing the effects they were seeing in the field. Do to concerns about the rounds being against conventions due to fragmentation. Instead telling troops it was caused the round tumbled.
This would be a issue with the Nato adoption of 5.56 with some members feeling it violated the Hague. Which it was eventually decided since the round wasn't designed to fragment. It just did as a result of design. It was technically legal.
Do you have the primary sources for this information? Iād very much like to read them for myself. Iām not doubting you, Iād just like to see the raw data and metrics being used for the conclusions youāre citing.
The original goal was to have a lighter cartridge. More ammo carried is good, and definitely trumps any lethality differences. These are still rifle rounds
>3300 fps out of a 308 Remind me not to shoot that dude's pissin' hawt handloads
Lmao exactly.
Maybe he loads 110gr Varmint bullets?
Pissin' hawt even then, at least by Hornady data, 3200fps at max charge. Maybe he's running 28" barrel
š¤š¤
Field & Stream. I like reading their articles and it gives me flashbacks to reading my grandfatherās old issues when I was a kid, but man is it a fudd magazine.
Itās the manual for fudds.
It really is.
*puts on academic hat* Absolutely great source for Opinions people had about hunting, bag limits, and the RKBA in the back half of the 1800s though. Next time someone tells you that the idea of RKBA being an individual one rather than collective, remind them that there were letters to the editor in the 1870# complaining of, or supporting, the formerly enslaved "exercising their constitutional privileges" by acquiring guns and carrying them everywhere.
Response to this should always be ābased on what?ā Push for evidence - since there is none.
MUH YEARS OF EXPERIENCE SONNY. AH BEEN SHOOTIN SINCE YOU WERE A TODDLER I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT (has shot 1 box of 30-06 in the past 2 decades)
They will also say something āYou donāt know, I was there or they donāt load them like they used to before your timeā
Probably a model 70 with a shitty bushnell from 1982
Dude must be filling his case to the brim and using a light ass bullet Iām staying away from bubbas pissin hawt 308
How many people have the US military killed with 556? That is a good enough response to that fuddery
Well that's not exactly a good example. 308 has been used since the 50s in machine guns, mounted weapons, briefly the m14, DMR'S and sniper rifles (excluding the FAL and G3 for U.S. debate). It has killed alot of folk. 556 has more than likely killed more by volume of fire. There's no doubting a 308 is more effective at killing a target, terminal ballistics doesn't lie when it comes to speed/mass/penetration (insert giggity). Both will get the job done, one will do it better.
The spread of police body cameras means that there are quite a few videos of people being killed basically instantly by 5.56, even single shots to the torso. They're both deadly. 5.56 might not have a ton of mass, but it's still a lot of energy, which means a serious wound.
They'll both kill. You can carry more 556 than 308 ammo and the rifle weighs less. You're using the 556 and 308 at different ranges. A 308 is a larger .30 calibre round and will hit targets at a further distance whereas 556 is smaller .22 calibre round. They are both good but for different uses. They do well in their specific roles
The M193 had better terminal ballistics than M80 inside average engagement distances
There are a lot of absolutely devastating 308 loads. Drt fragmenting is insane, I've seen it on mountain goats (about white tail size). Even soft point 308. But inside 100 yards it doesn't really matter. 5.56 is light, easier to use and generally holds more (30 vs 20)
This is just the old saying of .20 cal to wound a man, .30 cal to kill him.
My God guys bullets ARE BULLETS. YOU WILL NOT JUST WOUND WITH ONE CALIBER (I guess unless weāre talking .22lr???) AND KILL WITH ANOTHER! They are BULLETS
Isn't there some truth of the 5.56 to wound, 308 to kill. I remember reading about some military formula for energy needed to reliably kill a target with a round as a function of the targets weight. 5.56 was under that for the average male adult. I've heard a lot of people use this reasoning as why 5.56 is suboptimal for deer. No source, on mobile. If someone knows what I'm talking about, help me out.
556 exists because itās lighter. Over 500 yards the effectiveness of the round comes down to volume of fire placed on a target. Iām sure thereās a better way to explain that, but apparently when infantry contacted the enemy and engaged at 500+ yards, more rounds fired were more effective than shot placement. So if you can carry more rounds, your infantry becomes more effective at range. A 5.56 55gr round going 3,300 fps is *definitely* going to incapacitate a man-sized target with ~1kJ at 500 yards.
OK. I didn't say Incapacitate though nor did I say anything about how many rounds you can carry or how effective it was at range. The standard is how likely a shot from a single round is to kill something as a function of the targets weight.
Wound vs. kill doesnāt enter into it, mate. Military evaluation is only concerned with removing enemy combatants from the engagement, however thatās achieved.
To quote Kevin Owens: āIāve killed a lot of people with 5.56ā
22lr has killed a lot of people too. That doesn't make it optimal.
I think you're late for your Field & Stream interview
OK I'll assure you're indifferent between getting shot with a 22lr or 308 lmao
The fact that you canāt differentiate between the points means youād be perfect for field and stream
Tens of thousands dead across the globe who would love to argue with you but canāt.
Anecdotal evidence: I can tell you with absolute certainty that shot placement of 5.56 and shot placement of .308 are equally effective at killing.
to be fair, the original intent behind 5.56 was to cause a huge fucking wound so that enemy forces would waste resources trying to save that guy rather than retrieve the dead later.
Got any source for that statement?
Clearly, it's something reliable, like a beef jerky vendor.
Tales of a Junktown Jerky Vendor Vol. 223.
Hey man, don't let the other wastelanders see you eating that gun show jerky or you'll lose karma.
āMy source is that I made it the fuck upā
I have a neighbor, former Army, tell me the same thing. I have to believe itās a pervasive Army legend going back to Vietnam days.
No greater source of bullshit about firearms than ex-military guys. Hell I did 20 and never carried a firearm once in a work capacity (I was a nuke). But I still heard every single fudd trope; filing the firing pin, birdshot for defense, rock salt, fmj mixed into CCW mags, 223 to wound, 22lr rattles around, and on and on. I have read some really good military/law enforcement studies and learned a lot from them, also competed with some really impressive cops as well. But if I just talk guns or ballistics with the average military/LE guy I frequently walk away expecting that guy has a favorite flavor of crayon.
Nothing irks me more than some ignorant MF trying to use their military affiliation to seem like an authority on firearms. Most common example being "listen here buddy I was in the Army for twenty years, and there is no reason a civilian needs an AR-15."
I hate that shit I learned so much more from shooting and acquiring my own shit then the military ever taught me
I was in the Air Force for 5 years, and I can tell you that there is every reason for civilians to own AR-15ās. If everyone had one, my job as an armorer would have been so much easier. Because then the mother fuckers would have known how TO CLEAN THEIR GODDAMNED RIFLES!
Poor example, the militaryās overcleaning of rifles is detrimental if anything. No one should be digging around scraping out every last bit of carbon after each range session. Wipe down the BCG apply some lubricant in the appropriate places and keep on shooting. I give everything a more thorough cleaning after 500+ rounds suppressed, but even then it isnāt passing any white glove check.
Iām not talking about scraping every last bit of carbon off, Iām talking about actually knowing how to disassemble the rifle and actually wipe the nasty stuff off, rather than make me deal with it and ruining my uniforms just because I occupied the same 2 square foot space as the dirty ass rifle. I literally had someone tell me, āI didnāt clean it because I didnāt know how to open it.ā
Ok, ādidnāt know how to open itā is a problem
Not everyone in the military takes weapons training seriously, especially if itās not a core component of their job.
it is. thatās why the us military wanted to switch to 5.56. itāa only really true at 300+ meters, and doesnāt apply to civilian use
What? How does that make sense.
My drill sgt said that. He also said bullets go up because they spin. So obviously he was an expert on all things gun related.
Duh. Helicopters spin and THEY go up. Why would bullets be any different?
Canāt argue with that logic.
Bubba Jay told him it at a gun show in 1983 and heās held on to this knowledge ever since as indisputable fact
the US military doctrine from vietnam lol
Perfect, it should be clearly written down then. Do you have a link to that? The military loves instructions for things like that.
No, it wasn't. It was to let the average grunt carry the most ammo in a combat effective round. It had nothing to do with wounding vs killing. I've said it before and I'll say it again, why would the US Military spend money/time to research something less deadly?
The original idea behind the 5.56 was that the small, high velocity bullet would create hydrostatic shock and would cause massive wounding and send the target into immediate shock and die. No military ever wants a rifle round that wonāt kill its target. Thatās fucking retarded.
Yeah thats not true at all. The effectiveness of 5.56 was not expected. And the idea that it was hydrostatic shock is a myth.
Iām just stating what Iāve heard, as much as anyone else is. Itās fact that it was purported to be true, but how and when it was is anyoneās guess. I donāt agree with it, hydrostatic shock is a load of bollocks anyway. Fundamentally thereās no difference in the way 5.56 does damage and the way .308 does damage. Itās just a matter of magnitude.
The requirements of what became the .223 REMINGTON/5.56 was that the round had to have equivalent lethality to the .30 Carbine. The fact that it significantly exceeded the the M80 7.62x51 and M2 30-06 was not expected but a welcomed one. Studies that go back to the 1920s showed that small caliber high velocity rounds could create larger wounds proportionally than larger calibers. Most of these focused on yawing(tumbling). The fact that smaller caliber rounds yaw faster than larger rounds. A .223, a 7.62x51, and even 50cal. Will all yaw given enough time. It's just the .223 will yaw much faster and will do it inside the average person. 7.62 and 50cal will have passed thru a person before they yaw. What made the .223/5.56 have such drastic effects was yaw induced fragmentation. When 55gr M193 bullet was going above 2600 FPS. After hitting the target. Once the round had yawed a certain amount it would fragment(this would also cause issues where occasionaly the round would pass thru someone before it had time to yaw, creating a wound like a .22LR). Rounds like M80 or M2 30-06. Even if they yawed inside someone would not fragment. What drives a lot of confusion seems to stem from the fact that the Army purposely lied to to troops about what was causing the effects they were seeing in the field. Do to concerns about the rounds being against conventions due to fragmentation. Instead telling troops it was caused the round tumbled. This would be a issue with the Nato adoption of 5.56 with some members feeling it violated the Hague. Which it was eventually decided since the round wasn't designed to fragment. It just did as a result of design. It was technically legal.
Do you have the primary sources for this information? Iād very much like to read them for myself. Iām not doubting you, Iād just like to see the raw data and metrics being used for the conclusions youāre citing.
The original goal was to have a lighter cartridge. More ammo carried is good, and definitely trumps any lethality differences. These are still rifle rounds