5.56 ammo

One of the persistant 'facts' you always hear about the 5.56 cartridge is that it was introduced to impliment the policy of wounding enemy soldiers rather than killing them, thereby playing havoc with his logistics. Also, the 5.56 is apparently not an effective 'stopping' round.

Now, I have been told (on a different forum, by a guy whose knowledge I respect) that this is bunk. That the 5.56 is a man-stopper, and that it was not introduced to deliberately wound rather than kill.

However, when at the Royal Armouries in Leeds, I saw some 5.56 rounds. They really are tiddley.
My friend, who is in the Territorial Army (British equivalent to the American National Guard) informed me that they are 'pretty rubbish', that they 'don't kill, but are designed to wound'.
I should point out that this was what he had been told by his instructors...

So what is true??

 

One question to ask is how many people died in WW2 after being hit by traditional rifle rounds? I suppose a lot depends upon the location of impact.

Besides, aren't you more likly to be injuried by artillery fragments than by direct fire?

I always thought they were introduced to save weight and thus increase efficiancy?

FNG

 

Extract from 'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition' - details on my website

"It is worth at the start dealing with one common myth; that military bullets are designed to wound but not kill, the theory being that a wounded man will also take out of the fight a couple of his comrades while they help him to safety. Apart from the fact that soldiers are generally instructed to leave the wounded to the medics and press on, this defies logic. It takes relatively little power to inflict a lethal wound – the weak .22 rimfire target cartridge has killed thousands – but a lot more to quickly disable an opponent, which is what the military is interested in. All of the current military rifle cartridges are more than powerful enough to kill; the argument is over how quickly they are able to disable opponents so that they can't fight back."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

From what I have been told and seen the 5.56 can kill (depends where you hit). However, it does not do the same damage to a human as the older 7.62 rounds. One of my friends (from the medical corps) was with an infanteer after being short, by accident, during live firing training said He had no chance of survival as his internal organs were shreaded.

If the 5.56 hits a boney area it is less likely to rip limbs off as the 7.62 would, and this is the type of injury the 5.56 is aimed at causing. By doing this it will kill just not as quick, unless it is a head shot or similar.

If yo kill an enemy soldier he is dead and the rest of the squad carry on, (pi**ed off maybe but carry on), if you wound and I am talking serious not a scratch. then you need streatcher bearers which takes a further 2 out of battle, and provides bigger targets. If you cant get to the wounded then the cries and moans of pain demoralise the enemy clouding their judgement, etc.

http://www.gunplot.net/armoury/armourytwo.html

Length - 44.5"
Weight - 9.5lb
Calibre - 7.62mm
Rifling - 4 Groove r/hand
Operation - Gas & Spring
Feed - 20 Round Box
Muz. Velocity 2800fps about 870 m/s
Sights - 600 yards



http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A653735

Designation: L85
Length: 785 mm (barrel 518 mm)
Weight: Rifle 2800 g, full magazine 480 g, optical sight 700 g
Rifling: 6 grooves, RH
Ammunition: NATO 5.56 x 45 mm
Muzzle velocity: 940 m/s
Rate of fire: 610-770 rounds per minute


So They are designed to kill, but the doctrine is to wound.

 

As I said before. I though that most injuries to infantry are caused by flying fragments and not bullets, hence the wearing of body armour which wouldn't actually stop a direct hit from a rifle round.

I also don't believe the statement that wounding is better than killing in a modern battle due to the fact that little of the time is spent under direct fire and as soon as it stops people are usually medivac'd out.

FNG

 

It is interesting that military personnel tend to know the 'it's there to wound rather than kill' and civilians tend to say 'no, that's not the reason'.

 

In the Dutch army it goes like this:

If a friendly soldier hets shot down and the area is safe enough to get him the hell out of there than they will get him the hell out of there, if they think that its to dangerous to get him the hell out of there they leave him behind, the enemy will probably take care of an injured soldier...

And we (Dutch army) are a professional army, I think when a terrorist's friend/fellow terrorist gets shot he will just run away leaving him behind...

So I think its BULL that these 5.56mm NATO rounds are designed to wound rather than to kill, its doesn't seem logic, because when you shoot 3 bullets at an enemy's chest he will probably die anyway, and what soldier will only shoot 1 bullet at an enemy when they are being shot at?
I will probably shoot the hell out of them and not ''try'' to wound them, because this way they are still able to shoot/kill you...

 

Killing is a matter of bullet placement rather than calibre. A hit in a vital area with a .22RF will kill: a hit in a non-vital area with a .50 BMG might not. Whether a particular bullet strike in a battle kills somebody is therefore down to luck as much as anything else.

TW

 

A .50 will probably shoot your leg off or something wen hit at this place, thats still a deadly injury

 

But then, a .45 bullet (for example) hitting anywhere will have more effect than a 5.56 hitting in the same spot...
So even a more 'peripheral' wound from a larger round will be more incapacitating than one from a 5.56. As you point out, accurate hitting can be down to luck in battle, so if you are after kills, surely a bigger caliber round is better? Or is my logic flawed?

This was why the US Army brought in the .45 handgun, after some scary experiences with Maoris who would not fall over when shot.

 

5.56 treminal effects

when the 5.56 was first introduced in the M-16 the rifling was not quite right for the round and barely stablized it. when the bullet hit flesh it tumbled and did a lot of damage. at the close ranges common in Viet Nam the round earned a rep as a killer. later with both ammo and rifling changes made to improve peneration and long range accuracy this tumbling effect was reduced and the short comings of the round showed up. it is still a very good round for short ranges [ >200yd] but at longer ranges it loses energy fairly quickly. this is agravated by short barreled weapons such as the M-4. the major reason it is so widely used is it is a lot lighter and smaller that rounds like the 7.62 NATO. this difference allows a grunt to carry a lot more ammo. it is also a lot more controllable in full auto fire. at present the marines and others are looking at other rounds that will fit in the M-16 with only small changes. reports are that some of them seem to be working out well but i suspect the 5.56 will be around a long time yet.

 

I agree with everything in the last three messages.

Bullet terminal effectiveness (AKA stopping power) is a matter of percentages. Nothing much short of a direct hit with an artillery shell is GUARANTEED to stop your opponent immediately; when sufficiently high on adrenaline people have been known to continue fighting for a short while even with appalling - and thereafter rapidly fatal - injuries.

I'm not and never have been a soldier, but I frequently correspond with those who were and some who still are and have been at the sharp end in Iraq. It is clear that the 5.56mm leaves a lot to be desired in the key criterion of rapid disablement. As one US Marine put it to me the other week: with the 5.56mm you often need to shoot each man several times before it works. And he was using an M16A4 with a full-length barrel, not a shorty carbine.

So I'm all in favour of the USA (and subsequently NATO) re-equipping with a more potent cartridge like the 6.8mm Rem SPC or 6.5mm Grendel. They are not guaranteed one-shot stoppers - nothing is - but according to the test data on the 6.8mm I've seen, the percentage of one-shot stops is likely to be significantly higher than with the 5.56mm.

Notice however, I'm talking about 'stopping' - which means virtually immediate immobilisation. That's the key criterion. Whether they live or die afterwards doesn't particularly matter just as long as they're in no state to shoot back. And a round which is powerful enough to achieve reasonably reliable stopping is very much more powerful than one which is needed to inflict a mortal injury. That's why I say that 'designing to wound' is nonsense. Even the 5.56mm bullet is designed to inflict the maximum possible injury, which with a solid body hit is likely to lead to death fairly quickly.

Remember those snipers around Washington DC taking pot-shots with a 5.56mm a year or so ago at anyone they fancied? As I recall they hit over a dozen people with one shot each and they all - or almost all - died. I don't see any lack of killing power there. It's the lack of stopping power in battle that's the problem.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

I'm a military reservist. We carry M-70B2 ( Yugoslav version of AK-47 ). We were firing a standard 7,62x39 round into a concrete brick. Impressive results. It punched trough the lenght of the brick ( i.e. brick fell apart). That means that even brick wall can be shot trough from 50~100m. I realy don't think that 5,56 or russian 5,54 can do that. Now we will be reequiped with weapons with puny 5,56mm. :angry:
:evil: BLJCAK :evil:
I case of the war i would rather carry old and trusted M-70 with it's 7,62 rounds.
Lately i've seen some pics of US solders in Iraq with AK-47's. I wonder why is that?

 

I once saw a inteview with the guy who made the M-16, Eugen Stoner, he said that the US army wanted a light weapon and to save weigth they introduced the 5,56 mm which is light then the old 7,62 mm.
The 5,56 mm is also cheaper to make then a 7,62 mm

So with the 5,56 mm you save weight, so the soldier can carry more and you save tax payers money too..

No matter what caliber, 5,56 or 7,62, you are shooting with, I dont want to be in the receving end of it, I used both in the danish army, the 5,56 mm for the Diemaco C7A1 and the 7,62 for the good old MG3, 7,62 is more powerful but is heavier and you feel that when you carry alot of them

 

The 5.56 is quite a bit lighter than the 7.62 that it replaced. The M-16 rifle is also lighter than the M-14 and more accurate as well. It can also be better controlled on full auto/burst mode.

The injury theory only works if you are facing an enemy who actually cares about their wounded. Armies like the Chinese, Arabs, Vietnamese, Soviets (to an extent) who just leave their wounded and push on are not affected by the wounded soldier idea. In that case, you need stopping power.

 

Take the section level If you have ten men and one is injured to the extent that he cannot fight then the section is down 10 percent. Most armies would fight through however, the noise made by your comrades would effect you, although I have not been in this situation I believe it would affect most (99%) soldiers.

 

I've been told by a serving British soldier that their doctrine is to leave the wounded to the medics and press on.

It's obviously true that having one of your mates wounded doesn't help, either in morale or in practical terms. Having one killed doesn't either.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

In the danish army the wounded soldier is also left behind, that is because you cant not stop up in the middle of a fight to take care of him/her, you have to secure the area first, 'stop the accident before giving first aid'.
If you concentrat about the wounded soldier and not the enemy, you might end up as a casualty you self and that is not helping the wounded soldier at all.

 

Yes that is true, however, there are limited amount of medics and supplies. If you have a dead soldier the medic doesn't attend and can go elsewhere. If you have swounded he must go.

The section take the objective then come back to patch up the wounded, each wounded man takes one or two (dependant on the injury) out of the battle. In war you do not just take one task, then rest you have several.

When dominating specific areas you go around as 2 or 3 sections, looking for the enemy, If they kill one of your men you leave him until later, if he is wounded then he has to be taken back to the harbour area. This is the point I am trying to make.

 

The usual doctrine is to forget about the wounded, somebody will take care of him while you shoot it out with the bad guys.
But if your best friend gets a bullet, many people will doubt between pushing on and stopping to help. I suppose it would depend on the circumstances.

I agree with not being hit with a 5'56 (or 5'45) bullet, low stopping power or not.