So saying "its good enough for the army, its good enough for me!", shows a lack of understanding of how the military employs and fields weapons. They are not stand alone.
A guy carrying an M16/M4 is going to be covered by an M249 or M240 and perhaps a Mk19 and/or M2.
As far as the AR, it's a complete non-issue now.
6.8 SPC
.300 BLK
.50 Beowulf
Will each provide all the performance you want. It doesn't have to be 5.56 vs 7.62x39 anymore.
They won't be covered by machine guns or indirect fire in a building, which is the use most relevant to civilians.This argument is often had equating civilian use and military use. Yes our military uses a small high velocity bullet as do the Russians now.
They do not use these in a vacuum folks! In the military, these rifles are supplemented with automatic weapons and heavy weapons.
So saying "its good enough for the army, its good enough for me!", shows a lack of understanding of how the military employs and fields weapons. They are not stand alone.
A guy carrying an M16/M4 is going to be covered by an M249 or M240 and perhaps a Mk19 and/or M2.
How 'bout the AR10 in .308?
Police...operating in teams, with armored vehicles and on.The police are using 5.56 as well, and they are not being backed up by medium or heavy machine guns, mortars or artillery.
Not only that, the Russians actually decided to move away from the 7.62x39 to a smaller caliber round.
Yeah, 15 " groups at 500yds with 55 grain fmj is horrible groups. Now, not much energy, but can we stick to facts. BTW, I am not a fan of 5.56.The original M16 had a 1:13 rifling rate. This resulted in an unstabilized bullet, one that tumbled immediately upon contact. The result was the terrible wounds that many reported. Yes, at shotgun distances, they were also terribly effective rifles.
Problems occurred when it was realized that distances of 100 yards, or more, the bullets were wandering all over the place. Penetration of concealment, much less cover, was also miserable. It couldn't penetrate a NATO helmet at 100 yards, a requirement WE pushed. It was also found that the rifling caused problems in cold weather with function and performance.
When the rifling rate was reduced to 1:9. accuracy and penetration improved markedly. However, a stable bullet didn't produce the effective wounding of the older design.
Originally posted by: Zerodefect
.300BLK is the round you want to look into next. AR reliability and accuracy, 7.62x39 punching power.
The original M16 had a 1:13 rifling rate. This resulted in an unstabilized bullet, one that tumbled immediately upon contact. The result was the terrible wounds that many reported. Yes, at shotgun distances, they were also terribly effective rifles.
Problems occurred when it was realized that distances of 100 yards, or more, the bullets were wandering all over the place. Penetration of concealment, much less cover, was also miserable. It couldn't penetrate a NATO helmet at 100 yards, a requirement WE pushed. It was also found that the rifling caused problems in cold weather with function and performance.
When the rifling rate was reduced to 1:9. accuracy and penetration improved markedly. However, a stable bullet didn't produce the effective wounding of the older design.
I'd venture a guess that the 7.62 x 39 round has killed more humans than any other round in history but I couldn't swear on that.
Will y'all please quit repeating that flasehood about why 5.56 NATO was adopted?A dead man results in one person out of the fight. A wounded man takes three people out of the fight.
Assuming FMJ, 5.56 NATO. Here are links to illustrations by Dr. Marin L Fackler that show the typical wound profiles of 5.56 M193 ball, 5.56 M855 ball, 7.62x39 120 gr ball, and 5.45x39 53 gr ball:What round do you think would be more effective against human targets from the 25 to 75 yard range?...the 5.56 or the 7.62 x 39? Assume the use of FMJ ammo. What round will stop the threat more effectively? Quicker?
Which is why 5.56 NATO / .223 Remington with JSP or polymer tip ammo is an excellent choice since it minimizes over penetration after passing through barriers, even drywall, while still providing excellent terminal ballistics on assailants before encountering barriers.Civilian applications are completely different from military.
Will y'all please quit repeating that flasehood about why 5.56 NATO was adopted?
Going back to the OP:
Assuming FMJ, 5.56 NATO. Here are links to illustrations by Dr. Marin L Fackler that show the typical wound profiles of 5.56 M193 ball, 5.56 M855 ball, 7.62x39 120 gr ball, and 5.45x39 53 gr ball:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/M193.jpg
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/M855.jpg
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/AK-47 762x39mm.jpg
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/AK-74 545x39.jpg
Which is why 5.56 NATO / .223 Remington with JSP or polymer tip ammo is an excellent choice since it minimizes over penetration after passing through barriers, even drywall, while still providing excellent terminal ballistics on assailants before encountering barriers.
http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/ammunition.html
Do you think M193 at max velocity at that range won't fragment? Or are you implying something else? Help out the rest of us who aren't mind readers.OP says 25-75 yards...