5.56x45mm NATO
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Why so shitty?
>In 1977, NATO members signed an agreement to select a second, smaller caliber cartridge to replace the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge.[8] Of the cartridges tendered, the 5.56×45mm NATO was successful, but not the 55 gr M193 round used by the U.S. at that time. The wounds produced by the M193 round were so devastating that many[9] consider it to be inhumane.[10][11] Instead, the Belgian 62 gr SS109 round was chosen for standardization. The SS109 used a heavier bullet with a steel tip and had a lower muzzle velocity for better long-range performance, specifically to meet a requirement that the bullet be able to penetrate through one side of a steel helmet at 600 meters. This requirement made the SS109 (M855) round less capable of fragmentation than the M193 and was considered more humane.[12]
>Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing and fragmenting.
>This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases.
>Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable – with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag's papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11–28, Winter 2001) also describes this problem.
>>30165095
>55 gr M193 round is devastating
>5.56 is dumbed down because "inhumane"
I thought armies shot to kill and incapacitate.
What's the humane concern about?
Do hunters even use 5.56x45mm?
If we ever fight against an enemy that uses body Armour people wont be complaining.
I still wouldn't want a hole punching though any part of my body by any kind of round. If we didn't force ourselves to treat enemy wounded their casualty rates would be sky high as lack of medical care would kill thousands.
>>30165095
>>30165100
>memes
>citing wikipedia
SS109 was selected because it could penetrate Soviet helmets, not for any wounding abilities. Militaries of the world don't even take lethality into consideration when selecting calibers. The driving force behind selecting the SS109 was long range penetration and accuracy at distance.
>>30165095
Why so full of bullshit?
>>30165118
>The driving force behind selecting the SS109 was long range penetration and accuracy at distance.
>long range penetration
Which is exactly what Wikipedia quotes say it doesn't do.
Except for a following paragraph in which it is said in 2003 most problems are related to hits on limbs... things that can be countered by training.
>>30165122
I think military NATO calibres have been chosen just because US Army had shitty .223 remingron = 5.56x45 mm ammo and decided to make others comply rather than research something new.
Other thing is that this thing is not incapacitating when it hits limbs.
This allegedly makes it more humane.
Complaints about the 5.56 have been filed during all wars.
Basically it is a thing designed to deplete ammunitions more quickly so armies will spend a lot of cash for refills.
>>30165123
>Which is exactly what Wikipedia quotes say it doesn't do.
>The SS109 used a heavier bullet with a steel tip and had a lower muzzle velocity for better long-range performance, specifically to meet a requirement that the bullet be able to penetrate through one side of a steel helmet at 600 meters
>>30165132
Define incapacitating. You probably mean it'll knock a guy down and he'll be done fighting, right? I have news for your, there's no service rifle round in the world that will do that. Center mass hits are the only hits that count.
From a 16 inch barrel it lacks velocity to fragment, from a 20 inch barrel it lacks the ability to fragment after 200 yards.
5.56x45 is probably the worst cartridge designed, putting it into the worst rifle design just makes it painfully bad.
>>30165147
Which rifle design would that be? Remember it's a NATO caliber.
>>30165135
>a steel helmet at 600 meters
Yeah. When shot from a 20 inch gun.
But guess what? Most guns are less long than 20 inch, with mixed ballistic results.
So basically even if the original design was chosen because of the things you say, it has been put in new guns that do not guarantee such high standards are likely to be met.
>>30165147
>>30165139
>>30165168
Let's ask someone who has ACTUALLY used them.
No NEET fags. Let's see if some identifiable Milfag can answer our qualms.
>>30165147
This
>>30165147
No, it's fine. Bullet's issue
>>30165173
>Red Herring
The OP was that SS109 was selected because it is more humane than M193.
>>30165177
>implying
>>30165173
No, when shot from a Minimi, the weapon the round was designed for.
>>30165185
>>30165190
>If the 5.56 mm bullet is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a person is greatly reduced. There have been numerous attempts to create an intermediate cartridge that addresses the complaints of 5.56 NATO's lack of stopping power along with lack of controllability seen in rifles firing 7.62 NATO in full auto.
As soon as it got adopted, they had to come up with "alternative versions" because it was so shitty it did a bad job at less than 300 m.
And it did a bad job because:
>designed to be more humane
In other words:
>dumbed down
>>Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets.
Was he hit multiple times according to the guy shooting at him, or did they haul the shot guy in and start counting holes? Odds are there's a major difference.
>>30165207
Maybe it was just bad aim.
But remember:
>US army made tests using animals.
So if you shoot a fucking goat and it doesn't go down after multiple shots... then you have a problem.
>>30165195
Again, a red herring. The SS109 was not selected because of a lack of lethality. From your own source (which is shit btw, it's an NGO that met 13 years after SS109 was adopted).
>e. Using
Captain Crozier’s formula, governments concluded the additional range and increased
accuracy outweighed the marginal increase in injury to enemy combatants. Over the next
century, other than Sweden’s complaint about the M16 and its 5.56x45mm M193
projectile during and following the Viet Nam War, discussed infra, no government ever
protested the consequences of use of Spitzer-tip projectiles. This was because their
military value was acknowledged and their use was virtually universal.
OP here.
Only thing I know is the Soviets designed their own version to cause nastier wound, whereas NATO opted for the more humane thing.
>>30165195
Would having a hotter load potentially fix this issue?
>Early ballistics tests demonstrated a pronounced tumbling effect with high speed cameras.[5] Some Western authorities believed this bullet was designed to tumble in flesh to increase wounding potential. At the time, it was believed that yawing and cavitation of projectiles were primarily responsible for tissue damage. Martin Fackler conducted a study with an AK-74 assault rifle using live pigs and ballistic gelatin; "The result of our preset test indicate that the AK-74 bullet acts in the manner expected of a full-metal-cased military ammunition - it does not deform or fragment when striking soft tissues".[6] Most organs and tissue were too flexible to be severely damaged by the temporary cavity effect caused by yaw and cavitation of a projectile. With the 5.45 mm bullet, tumbling produced a temporary cavity twice, at depths of 100 mm (3.9 in) and 350 mm (13.8 in). This is similar to (but more rapid than) modern 7.62×39mm ammunition and to (non-fragmenting) 5.56 mm ammunition.
>Military 5.45×39mm rounds offer better penetration over (fragmenting) military 5.56×45mm NATO rounds.[7][8] However, unlike its 5.56mm counterpart, the 5.45mm round “does not deform or fragment when striking soft tissues.”[7][8] Nevertheless, during the Afghan war the Mujahedeen called the 5.45×39mm round the "Poison Bullet" due to the severe wounds it produced to extremities and the resulting need to amputate.[9][10][11]
Summary:
>7.62 goes straight. Temporary cavity is small. Neat entry and exit through soft tissues.
>5.45 tumbles around and fucks up, but does not fragment
>5.56 fragments inside
>However, it has been noticed that 5.56 limb hits are less lethal than 5.45 limb hits
>>30165195
Later on in the report
>During and immediately following the Viet Nam War, critics of U.S. involvement
in that conflict attacked many of the weapons employed, including the M16 rifle. As a
result of that criticism, a United Nations-sponsored Diplomatic Conference met in
Geneva between 1978 and 1980. Sweden proposed a protocol to update the 1899 Hague
Declaration. As noted in my opening comments, governments not only expressed
significantly less interest in the small caliber issue than others under consideration at the
conference, but at the end of the day saw no reason to support the Swedish proposal
calling for a small-caliber protocol. To the overwhelming majority, the wounding effect
of military small-caliber weapons and ammunition – particularly 22 caliber ammunition,
significantly smaller than the .30 caliber predecessors employed throughout the
Twentieth Century wars and still in use -- did not rise to the level of being an issue
worthy of serious consideration, much less new regulation
NATO gave zero fucks about how humane M193 was, they wanted penetration on Soviet helmets at 600 meters from the FN Minimi.
>>30165245
No. See above.
>>30165257
Not necessarily, because it might fuck up the ballistics.
If you get yourself a table of ballistic performance at different distances and compare bullets... you will see that au pair with wind and other variables, some have a lighter load, but guarantee a better angle when entering the target, and still retain terminal velocity.
You don't want to overload the shit out of them, otherwise they will be rolling like a thrown knife when hitting the target, but with little guarantee of penetration.
>>30165095
stop using the bullets with the blue band and start using the bullets with the red band.
>>30165258
>"Poison Bullet"
>implying Soviets didn't spray chemical shit on top of their bullets
>implying Afghans knew how to treat bullet wounds
>>30165195
Even further into the primary source for your claims from Wikipedia it's shown that France and the Netherlands were developing M193 rounds for the NATO trials, and the reason Sweden claimed the M193 was inhumane was because they had a 4.5mm round entered into the trials.
these threads drive me bonkers.
>7.62 = 20 round magazine
>5.56 = 30 round magazine
end of fucking story.
>>30165111
>Literally US Civil War battlefield casualty rates
The only reason we lose these wars in third world countries is that we have to treat them like people
>>30165286
>The only reason we lose these wars in third world countries is that we have to treat them like people
Because if you kill your enemies, they win.
>>30165290
>Juno Beach
>First World
kekekekekekekek
>>30165280
yawing causes devastating wounds. we saw the same thing in vietnam due to slow barrel twist rates and slightly heavier bullets
>>30165309
Lighter you mean. M193 uses 55gr bullets. M855 uses 62gr.
>>30165316
back then it was a 55 gr projectile in a 1 in 14 twist. to prevent yawing youd want a slightly lighter projectile.
>>30165316
i meant heavier in comparison to what the twist rate could handle, not heavier in comparison to what is currently used.
It's not that bad. It's theoretically accurate out to 700ish yards from an M4, and a soldier can carry more rounds for the same weight they would carrying a full-power rifle cartridge i.e. 7.62 NATO.
What sucks is that it's pretty much the bare minimum you need to kill a human, so it doesn't get a lot of wiggle room when circumstances get less than ideal.
>but muh fragmentation
Terminal behavior is a luxury. You need your bullet to be accurate (stable in flight) and penetrate consistently first and foremost.
>>30165095
I think a large part of the issue is that NATO was worrying about how this round did under ideal/laboratory conditions and not about how it worked in reality. While it does have a weight advantage, the simple fact of the matter is that it's vastly underpowered. NATO thought this round provided all the force they'd need, and they were goddamn wrong. Needs to switch over to 7.62mm. That shit was battle-tested a very long time ago and proven to be a highly effective round. It may be a bit heavier, but you know what? It also actually kills and maims people the way it's supposed to.
>>30165147
AR15 platform/system/whatever the fuck you call it is fine, but yes, 5.56 is shit
Hurr
>>30165358
> Terminal behavior is a luxury. You need your bullet to be accurate (stable in flight) and penetrate consistently first and foremost.
This. Shot placement is king, penetration is queen, and the rest is angels on pins.
>>30165409
Logistics does not give a fuck about how much more lethal a 7.5mm hole is than a 5.5mm hole. They want you to have a ton of ammo to fix some poor sod in placr until he gets lit up by the 40mm.
>>30165409
You realize 7.62 NATO is only 10 years older than 5.56 NATO right? They both have the same length of service for practical purposes, yet the 5.56 is still the preferred round for rifleman.
>>30168117
>5.56 NATO
Meant 5.56x45mm in general.
