What's your actual opinion on 5.56 x45?
I have no personal experience, as I'm more into fudd calibers, but people describe it generally as being the .22 of intermediate rifle cartridges.
>>30502465
>people describe it generally as being the .22 of intermediate rifle cartridges
It is literally a .22
>>30502465
5.56mm is a poodle-shooter and is only designed to wound.
>>30502483
Just slightly bigger, generally pointer, and much faster.
>>30502465
It is a good caliber and does it's job well. The M855 and M855A1 isn't the greatest compared to some other loads, but it still is quite effective.
The primary rifle caliber of every country that matter is 5.56mm or it's knockoff, 5.45mm, so take that as you will.
>>30502489
There it is. I'm sure this thread is gonna be great.
>>30502512
This guy nails it.
>>30502489
I remember hearing someone say that it was designed to be used by people who were around planes so that it wouldn't penetrate the aircraft.
That sounds like it might just be a meme though.
>>30502465
There's literally no reason why intermediate cartridges need to exist. We bitch slapped Canada and Britain on their shitty .280 cartridge for a reason. 7.62x51mm is the pinnacle of cartridge design.
What is the actual wounding potential of 5.56 in real life? Is it as deadly as the media claims?
>>30502540
hey now
intermediate cartridges are TONS of fun
>>30502540
What makes the 7.62x51mm so good? Real question.
>>30502512
China uses 5.8x42mm
>>30502525
At close range most aircraft fuselages can be penetrated by a pistol round, so I don't think that had anything to do with the USAFs interest in the M16.
>>30502557
Cause it's basically shortened .30-06.
>>30502555
shut ur mouth cuck
>>30502465
It's fine as so long as you shoot it through a barrel with a proper length.
>>30502525
It is a development of Project SALVO. After WW2, the military did a ton of research and it came to the conclusion that in a firefight, the side which lays down a higher volume of effective suppression wins, and that "effective suppression" was given by troops using what was deemed combat accuracy, which was opposed to the classic idea of taking a proper stance, which doesn't happen on real battlefields.
At normal combat ranges, the difference in wounds between full caliber and assault rifle type rounds was negligible, and troops were able to lay down a higher volume of effective fire with small rounds.
So, they experimented with getting higher volumes of fire. The military researched into flechettes really hard for a while, but they just couldn't get it to work. So they went with 5.56mm, a conventional round which fulfilled the same idea.
They did this research and adoption after, ironically declaring the .280 British round too wimpy and insisting on full power rounds. In bird culture, this is considered a dick move.
>>30502540
It is if your enemies never get closer than 300 meters. Inside of that, it's not worth the weight.
>>30502540
>7.62x51mm is the pinnacle of cartridge design.
Haha fucking whatever. 54r did it first, bitch.
>>30502593
>muh 400 meters is the majority of engagements meme
>>30502604
>implying slavboo's opinion matters
>>30502619
>>implying slavboo's opinion matters
>>30502483
Except it's the same size as pretty much all .22s
>>30502548
Out of 20" barrels most 5.56 rounds can do a ton of damage due to the tendency to tumble in soft targets. One shot to the trunk is very likely going to end in a kill, it just may not be instant.
>>30502483
First time I handled it I mentioned how small it was. The casings and bullet are no where near a .22lr. 22lr is the first bullet I ever handled, 5.56 doesn't resemble it in any way.
I wouldn't want to be hit by it at any distance, any one that thinks their a safe distance away from accurate fire is a fool.
>>30502465
From a long 20" barrel, it performs phenomenally.
From a 16" barrel it performs ok.
From a 14.5" barrel it's passable for closer quarters.
Ammunition matters a lot for this too, see the pitiful M855 loading (well, pitiful for an infantry rifle or carbine, anyway)
Anything shorter than that and the performance starts to suffer a lot, which is simply the nature of intermediate speed-based cartridges, 5.45x39mm will suffer much the same in short barrel lengths (hence why full length AK-74s have always been preferred)
From a fudd perspective, the .223/5.56x45mm is a great round for deer, coyote, etc, good for pest control and putting meat on the table, it's a fast bullet so it has a flat trajectory.
>>30502489
Hot bait bro.
>>30502512
>The primary rifle caliber of every country that matter is 5.56mm or it's knockoff, 5.45mm
Generally because the concept of a speed based intermediate cartridge makes great sense for a regular infantry rifle.
For shorter carbines though, there are better options, like .300BLK
>>30502489
>5.56mm is a poodle-shooter and is only designed to wound.
>>30502704
>a great round for deer
At what range, I wonder? I'm new to 5.56 so it seems like it wouldn't do shit.
However for 'yotes, that's part of why I'm building mine AR
GIVE ME THAT 55 GRAIN AND I'LL PUT IT THOUGH MY 20" 1:9 TWIST AND YOU'LL BE FUCKING DONE
>>30502465
standard 5.56 is great within 100 meters and complete shit outside of it
you can buy expensive 5.56 that will do any job you need it to do though.
>>30502619
>muh 400 meters is the majority of engagements meme
>facts are memes
>>30502753
lel ok kid
>>30502582
>in bird culture, this is considered a dick move
nice
VELOCITY
E
L
O
C
I
T
Y
>>30502619
>muh 400 meters is the majority of engagements meme
Except that's the reality of infantry combat.
Soldiers LITERALLY do not engage at battle rifle distances.
Debating calibers is kind of like pissing in the sea of piss, but I suppose I'll contribute my share or at least what I understand.
>5.56
It does more or less what it's designed to do. Tiny bullet goes fast, hits object, destabilizes and fragments using more of it's energy on the target mass and less on the scenery (assuming it hits). Smaller bullets=carry more=shoot more=more suppression=more winningest in the typical sub-100m rifle fight.
This was fought tooth and nail because it's not as romantic as the lone rifleman taking aim at great distance, which does happen, but statistically not very often.
So great, but then they took this route and half-assed it. They wanted both. Instead of sticking to 55gr they made it as heavy as they could in order to mimic 7.62 performance. Bad move, it's too stable. Penetrates light cover a little more, but now we're back to the problem of tiny clean entrance/exit holes in targets. It's not getting the desired tumbling effect. Furthermore, the M16 series keeps getting mashed into the target rifle role American battle rifles typically held. The A2 went back to complicated sights, a needlessly heavy barrel and even lost the fully-automatic fire for a 3-round burst mode. Still suppresses much better than say an M14, but the transition from A1 to A2 was idiotic since it minimized the advantages that 5.56 provided in the first instance.
Then there's all the carbines, 5.56 needs some real-estate to accelerate to the desired velocity it needs to fragment. 10.5" doesn't cut it unless you're shooting at very close range and yet the evolution of the AR-15 in US service is moving increasingly in that direction.
So it was a great idea, but it's current implementation is a heavier bullet that's less likely to tumble at all ranges, being fired out of short barrels that don't allow for the ideal peak velocity, thick M4 profile barrels that add needless weight and numerous "target" features that the rifle doesn't really need.
>>30502758
>MUH BATTLERAIFU
>>30502483
>>30502489
Like omg, IKR. And 30-06 is like, .30 caliber. obviously weaker than a .45.
>>30502836
this anon's commentary on short heavy barrels and target sights for the fucking win ... disagree on ammo
>>30502836
Now what I don't know is exactly how the newer 5.56 loads comp for decades of retarded doctrine being applied to what is really a very simple platform that shouldn't have been fucked with. I'm also not sure what good, bad or downright idiotic things the other NATO members did.
I'm speaking principally about the 5.56 round in US service with the M16, specifically with respect to the transition from 55gr to 62gr and from the M16A1 to the A2 and M4. Maybe the newer 77gr stuff really works, but it doesn't seem to be used in the quantity needed to make much difference.
>7.62 NATO
There was almost no effort behind the development of 7.62 NATO, it's basically a .30-06 shortened for Savage 99s then adapted in a half-assed way for military service. It is better than .30-06 because designing guns to use it is much easier, but in terms of how the bullet actually flies and what it does on the receiving end. Nothing spectacular. Ask any serious precision rifle shooter and they prefer the fancier stuff like .300 Win Mag, but even less powerful but more "balanced" cartridges like 6.5 Swedish have better ballistics overall. Why? I'm not really sure, maybe they put more effort into designing the cartridge, maybe they just lucked out and found a good balance of bullet diameter/weight/cartridge capacity and stuck with it but what's for sure is that absolutely NONE of this was examined when the US shoved .308/7.62x51mm down NATO's collective throats only to change horses for 5.56 later on and screw that up as well.
has a battle ever been decided on what side used what bullets? probably not
>>30502540
>bitch slapped
>had to get butthurt Germany and Belgium to sign on because everyone else had concluded that 5.56mm wasn't sufficient to replace the rounds they were using
5.56mm has been the single most hated round by any non-US soldier since adoption. France hates it. Britain hates it. Canada hates it. Germany hates it. Belgium wonders why the fuck they allowed it to be their new wonder round. US troops that are being fired upon from 300m or more fucking despise it unless they can call in CAS or artillery.
It's a fucking shitty round for anything but deer killing. Sure there are special snowflake loads that make it immensely useful, like all rounds, but the point of the intermediate cartridges was to replace ALL rounds and give squads a common ammunition between riflemen, LMGs, marksmen and everyone fucking else.
Instead we are back at square 1 where squads have to carry 5.56, 7.62 and whatever else their marksmen are using.
5.56 might be fine for jungle mowing actions or city fights but in open terrain? Against guys who actually aren't arabs? It's anemic.
The 6.x family should have been the NATO infantry round and everyone knows it to the point everyone is now looking at it wondering why the fuck they listened to the US and Germany.
>>30502918
7.62 nato, .308 winchester, .308 magnum.
How does 6.5 outshoot every 30.06 derivative in usage?
It's 5.56 vs 6.5 not 308 vs 6.5.
I've only used 308 in full auto I really doubt a 6.5 is going to tear up anything like a 308 would bullet for bullet.
>>30502988
I don't know about terminal ballistics, but 6.5 Swede is well known to have a very good ballistic coefficient for long-range precision. It has more "usable" accuracy.
>>30502465
it trades off barrier penetration for being a light, easy to handle cartridge. it's also very accurate, ignore shitheads that use poor rifles with milsurp ammo. buy good stuff and it's easy to get 1moa out of a 6.5lb rifle
Why did we choose the .22 over 30 carbine?
>>30503080
Read the thread.
Google up the M16.
Fucking stop being a faggot.
>>30502975
Well then, if 5.56mm was so shitty then why didn't we adopt .280 British? There must have been a good reason as to why we went with 7.62x51mm.
>>30503088
hitler dubs checked
>>30503103
politics, no joke
...
also yanks asserted projos smallers than 30 cal wouldnt function as tracers(?)
IN THIS FUCKING THREAD: PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER SHOT A FUCKING GUN AT SOMEONE
>>30503088
You better cool your fucking jets pretty boy, don't make me doxx you and find where you live and come and fuck you and your girl. Would you like that? Would like me fucking your girl as she screams in ecstasy over my very large and succulent pee pee? Would you look at it just as admirably as she did? Well that makes you gay pretty boy. You big homosexual. just remember, don't ever argue with a master sniper who can snipe your blue balls from a different planet and live off the land for a century. Don't ever reply to me again please.
>>30503103
Noone wanted Germany or Belgiums round. France was buttflustered that Canada hadn't sided with their round.
The US had already been sucking off 5.56mm thanks to Vietnam.
Everyone else was practically in the pocket of the US.
It was purely political. Same as today as to why we still use 7.62 on vehicles when .338 MMGs exist and have similar ballistics in terms of range and accuracy to 12.7mm/.50 cal weapons.
Politicians don't give a shit about grunts being the best equipped. They are happy to spend millions on a single fucking attack run on 2 guys with RPKs behind a brick wall that would otherwise be an easy mark for a squad because they aren't at risk and aren't paying.
Its why politicians shouldnt get a say in military expenditure and it should be a constitutional amount of the economy.
>>30503080
.30 Carbine is a very good PDW round (I think a modern steel core loading of it, in a scaled down AR-15 style weapon, would beat the shit out of the MP7 and P90)
It's not a good infantry combat rifle round though, as it kind of maxes out at 150-200yds.
You want to be able to reach out to at least 400-500yds with an infantry rifle, and have even more penetration.
>>30503212
>my very large and succulent pee pee
my sides
>>30502465
I like it. It works better out of a longer barrel. 16-20" is the best.
>>30502564
You do realize that pistol rounds are better at penetrating most things until you get into the heavier 30 cal bullets.
Speed is the least reliable indicator of penetration. Shape and weight is where its at baby.
Its why SBR rifles are far safer for ubran usage than even SMGs.
>>30502561
>The primary rifle caliber of every country that matters
>>30502465
It replaced the .30 carbine in which the .308 could not. Having all of the advantages of .30 carbine without the lack of range or damage drop-off. Finally an automatic rifle, in which you can control.
>>30503608
I remember reading somewhere that a special ceramic handgun round was developed for use by Air Marshals specifically to prevent puncturing the fuselage of an aircraft.
I really hope you aren't suggesting that firing an M4 on an aircraft in flight is at all safe.
>>30509160
Are you thinking of "paper-wad rounds" or something like that?
>>30503608
You're completely retarded. A .45 penetrates much less than a 5.56. Why? Because the .45 is fuck huge and slow and doesn't carry the same penetration power. By your guess a 90mm AP round from WW2 penetrates less than a modern SABOT, but that's just not fucking true. 3/10 take your (You).
>>30502582
>in bird culture
Mah nigguh
>>30502465
It's a tiny needle that tears you up rather than "blows a hole" if you catch my meaning
Recoil light enough you can shoulder it against your eyebrow and be fine
5.56 is an excellent intermediate rifle cartridge.
M193 as a general purpose FMJ works against soft targets.
M855, through intermediate barriers, performs well. Against soft targets at extended ranges-- not so much
Mk262 mod 1 and other special purpose ammunition does very well at extended ranges, extending the reach of 5.56 without necessitating the use of different caliber rifles
And then considering environmental and situational factors that aren't necessarily based on the intrinsic properties of the cartridge itself (price, availability, prevalence of AR15's etc.) that come to play with the average end user like you or I, it's hard to beat.
>>30509294
Find me a 5.56 that'll penetrate 32" in 10% gel like .45 ball does you fucking idiot.
>>30502465
I'd prefer something a little bigger, but it does what's asked of it. I like to believe we'll switch to an "intermediate" intermediate cartridge that's somewhere in the 6-6.5 mm range in the nearish future, but it'll probably never happen.
>>30509781
What about Mk262 Mod 1 make it superior to M193?
Where can it be bought cheaply and in bulk?
I found some reasonably priced brass cased steel-free jacket 75 grain hollow point .223
I am thinking about picking it up for my 10.5" AR, but if Mk262 is better I would consider that.
>>30509821
From a price/lethality/accuracy/availability stance 55 grain m193 is the way to go.
>>30509853
>>30509781
Considering price and availability M193 is definitely the way to go if you've got a 16" barrel but my 10.5" stops reliably fragmenting M193 at like 50yds. I'm more than willing to pay up to 60cpr for ammo which the 10.5 can shoot out to 200yds.
Is this stuff the same as mk262 Mod 1?
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1339912049/black-hills-ammunition-556x45mm-nato-77-grain-sierra-matchking-hollow-point
Is mk262 hollow point?
Why are SBR'd ARs so popular if the ballistics are such shit out of short barrels? Just because they look cool?
>>30509853
Also I think M193 has better 'armor' defeating characteristics than does the heavier Mk262
I plan on stockpiling a good deal of M193, but I also want to get 1k rounds of something that the 10.5" can shoot with reliable terminal ballistics.
I've got a 16" and a 10.5" AR. I swear I should have built an 18" SPR, and then a 14.5+muzzle device carbine. Then I could work with just M193.
>>30509913
>Just because they look cool?
That is a bit of it. And not just new mk18 OPERATOR OPERATOR style, it goes back even to the xm177 era. Apparently all the cool kids in Nam wanted one partly because of that but mostly because it meant less shit to carry around.
Also SBRs are just much easier to use indoors/transitioning into or our of vehicles when compared with a 20". With m193 it won't fragment past ~35 yards or so, but you still are shooting 5.56 out of an SMG sized weapon.
A full a1/a2/a4 is awkward as fuck indoors (think hipfiring or putting the stock over your shoulder to get around some tight spots) . An m4 carbine is better but now try throwing a suppressor on the front.
>>30502704
>From a 14.5" barrel it's passable for closer quarters.
The M4 still has an effective point target range of 550m. Only 50m shorter than the M16.
And your ratings are only valid for M855, with is dependent on the higher velocities to tumble. M855A1 reliably performs component separation from all variants.
>>30502713
If you can get a good heart shot, as far as your scope and skill will get you. That said, larger, faster rounds like .308 are generally preferred because they give a much better chance at a one-hit kill.
>>30502975
>the point of the intermediate cartridges was to replace ALL rounds and give squads a common ammunition between riflemen, LMGs, marksmen and everyone fucking else.
>Instead we are back at square 1 where squads have to carry 5.56, 7.62 and whatever else their marksmen are using
Stop spewing bull shit. No one, at any time, even mentioned making intermediate cartridges the universal service round, in any military. Armies have always had intermediate rifle rounds with full size GPMG cartridges since the adoption of the intermediate concept.
![M855A1-6[1].jpg~original.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ap2Hy8U.jpg "M855A1-6[1].jpg~original.jpg")
>>30502836
M855A1 solves your problems. Better barrier pen than 7.62 ball, reliable component separation in the target, more accurate than M855.
>>30502512
Some countries use 7.62x51. Turkey and now Germany for example.
>>30502465
>What's your actual opinion on 5.56 x45?
It's the least exciting intermediate round to fire IMO, and too expensive for what it is if you aren't buying cheap steel case ammo. I'm not saying it's bad, just boring to me.
It's got no interesting terminal terminal ballistics IMO, which is the saving grace making the similar 545x39 really cool to me.
The worst, and maybe actually a good thing about 556 is that, within 100 yards at least, it literally melts through my steel plates that 54r won't even dent. Pretty annoying desu.
>>30502489
