So I'm targeting another caliber that's in the midst of its own craze. My apologies in advance to the emotionally attached.
The platform that is specifically the focus of this thread is of course the AR15 and associated rifles in the same family. Even more specifically the 16" or less barreled rifles.
The general purported advantages:
1) The 5.56 with proper shot placement is an adequate stopper.
2) The 5.56 is cheap (compared to most larger calibers) and therefore a lot of practice can be had for less $.
3) The 5.56 is low recoil and easy to control for fast shooting.
4) The flat shooting 5.56 is very accurate even at range.
As with 9mm, the above are based in fact but also handily neglect the caveats:
1) Yes it is effective with proper shot placement *and* with the right ammo. Penetrator type ammo like M855 is going to shoot a tiny hole through a person and keep on going. Some other rounds like XM193 are going to fragment and cause massive tissue damage...as long as they are still moving at least 2700 ft/sec. Or with a 16" barrel, somewhere within about 100-125 yards. Note any barrier, to include concealment, will affect the terminal ballistics.
2) Basic range ammo can be had for pretty cheap. It isn't the best for actual duty use. Good ammo that can be trusted as a duty round is along the same price as other premium hunting/defense ammo in other calibers.
3) 5.56 is low recoil and can be fired quite quickly. That's good because it needs to be fired quickly to be effective. Consider the round was chosen for the AR15 because it originally was to be utilized like an AK47. Full auto, short range suppressive fire and expenditure of ammo in large amounts was the whole point. It excels in the role it was designed for on the battlefield. But by the 60s, the professional militaries of the world utilized infantry organic heavy supporting arms as the main weapons of land combat. The individual rifleman was not the focus or the main cause of casualties.
4) Yes the 5.56 is accurate. I can attest to this as I qualified with it several times, iron sights, at up to 500 yards. The problem here is that the round loses effectiveness quite rapidly due to its light bullet. It's primary advantage is light weight and high velocity which thereby affords a tumbling/fragmenting characteristic. But again this isn't a capability past close ranges, as velocity decreases very rapidly.
Additionally, the 16" 1:7 twist barrel so often found among ARs today gives 5.56 a bad combination of great stabilization and lesser velocity. The primary tissue damage advantage is lost with all but the best ammunition. While this barrel provides some medium range accuracy across the various common bullet weights, it means that the cheap ammo and/or the penetrator is not going to be very effective as far as putting down the target.
.30 caliber cartridges were invented to kill men. The .223 was invented to kill varmints... of course the 5.56 is a slightly higher pressure .223. It was adopted to fire full auto and afford the operator some control. Great for a rifleman supported by machineguns, mortars and artillery. Not the best for a defense oriented firearm unless specific ammo is used that conforms with the capabilities of specific barrel specs.
The platform that is specifically the focus of this thread is of course the AR15 and associated rifles in the same family. Even more specifically the 16" or less barreled rifles.
The general purported advantages:
1) The 5.56 with proper shot placement is an adequate stopper.
2) The 5.56 is cheap (compared to most larger calibers) and therefore a lot of practice can be had for less $.
3) The 5.56 is low recoil and easy to control for fast shooting.
4) The flat shooting 5.56 is very accurate even at range.
As with 9mm, the above are based in fact but also handily neglect the caveats:
1) Yes it is effective with proper shot placement *and* with the right ammo. Penetrator type ammo like M855 is going to shoot a tiny hole through a person and keep on going. Some other rounds like XM193 are going to fragment and cause massive tissue damage...as long as they are still moving at least 2700 ft/sec. Or with a 16" barrel, somewhere within about 100-125 yards. Note any barrier, to include concealment, will affect the terminal ballistics.
2) Basic range ammo can be had for pretty cheap. It isn't the best for actual duty use. Good ammo that can be trusted as a duty round is along the same price as other premium hunting/defense ammo in other calibers.
3) 5.56 is low recoil and can be fired quite quickly. That's good because it needs to be fired quickly to be effective. Consider the round was chosen for the AR15 because it originally was to be utilized like an AK47. Full auto, short range suppressive fire and expenditure of ammo in large amounts was the whole point. It excels in the role it was designed for on the battlefield. But by the 60s, the professional militaries of the world utilized infantry organic heavy supporting arms as the main weapons of land combat. The individual rifleman was not the focus or the main cause of casualties.
4) Yes the 5.56 is accurate. I can attest to this as I qualified with it several times, iron sights, at up to 500 yards. The problem here is that the round loses effectiveness quite rapidly due to its light bullet. It's primary advantage is light weight and high velocity which thereby affords a tumbling/fragmenting characteristic. But again this isn't a capability past close ranges, as velocity decreases very rapidly.
Additionally, the 16" 1:7 twist barrel so often found among ARs today gives 5.56 a bad combination of great stabilization and lesser velocity. The primary tissue damage advantage is lost with all but the best ammunition. While this barrel provides some medium range accuracy across the various common bullet weights, it means that the cheap ammo and/or the penetrator is not going to be very effective as far as putting down the target.
.30 caliber cartridges were invented to kill men. The .223 was invented to kill varmints... of course the 5.56 is a slightly higher pressure .223. It was adopted to fire full auto and afford the operator some control. Great for a rifleman supported by machineguns, mortars and artillery. Not the best for a defense oriented firearm unless specific ammo is used that conforms with the capabilities of specific barrel specs.
