The debate over the effectiveness of the 5.56 NATO cartridge has raged for decades, and the current war in Afghanistan hasn’t changed things. Critics of the 5.56 generally bemoan the lack of “stopping power” and poor long range performance as compared to other rounds like the 7.62×51 (aka .308 Win).
In a Marine Corps Times article (taken from the AP), the debate continues. The article highlights the superior performance of the 7.62 at long ranges in the Afghan mountains (300+ meters). In fact, the author talks about the Afghanis using .303 Enfields and old Mausers to whip the Soviets in the 80′s. I hope follow-up articles don’t suggest equipping out troops with Mosin-Nagant rifles to bridge the “surplus rifle gap.”
Martin Fackler is even quoted in the article condemning the weapon engineers who “…shortened the M16’s barrel to irrational lengths.” Fackler seems to suggest that the M16′s 20″ barrel (as opposed to a 14.5″ barrel on the M4) will give the troops the velocity they need to turn the 5.56 into a 7.62.
Frankly, I think both cartridges shine in certain applications, but neither is perfect in all. Clearing a building? Gimme the M4. Precision shooting at 500 yard, I’ll take the M14.
Other articles that will amaze you:
There is no magic bullet that can do everything. Perhaps the exchangeable caliber concept is a good answer to this problem.
Carry two guns, that’ll show ‘em! And tape them together like something out of the movie “Aliens”. Two is one, one is none. All jest aside you can’t please everyone all of the time.
This argument crosses over into the hunting world too. Many hunters get horse-eyed if someone mentions hunting deer with anything less than .30 caliber. I’ve talked with many fine, and ethical hunters who have bagged deer with .280, .270, .243 and YES, even .223 caliber rifles and ammunition. And I’ve also heard hunters using big bores that have scratched their heads wondering how the deer ran off after being hit by their larger ammunition (a known hit with blood trail).
Maybe the real debate is not bullet size but shot placement! (Unless you’re lucky enough to be sighting down the barrell of a .50 caliber Barrett!) A smaller caliber bullet traveling at wicked speeds and expanding out upon impact might do better than a larger caliber bullet traveling slower but punching straight through. Than again, a larger bullet might “separate flesh from the bone” whereas a small bullet might only leave “merely a flesh wound”.
Both are great rifles and definitely have their place – on the battlefield, for hunting, or for fun.
The problem with the M4 and other military firearms isn’t the 5.56 NATO is a poor round for combat; it’s that the bean counters and politicians got in the way almost from the start. Cutting cost and going to a smaller projectile weakened the effectiveness and killing potential of the round. To be effective as a combat round at range 5.56 needs a heavier projectile. Why do you suppose special forces and some SEAL teams have gone back to using a heavier projectile in their M4? The 5.56 was neutered by the need for a FMJ as well. There are ways around this. If you actually read the Geneva Convention’s (yes convention’S!) treaties and protocols you’ll see that we again have chosen the most stringent definition of required ammunition. The 5.56 NATO is and can be very effective with the right projectile. Thin skinned animals like deer and even thick skinned wild hogs have been taken repeatedly with .223 Winchester. With the right bullet and shot placement, you know like a real rifleman, you can take very large game with smallish calibers. Elephants for years were taken with the 7mm Mauser! Yeah they used 190+ grain projectiles but that is still small compared to a .416 or something like .500 Nitro. It was up to the hunter to place the shot in the brain or get trampled.
If I recall correctly there has been a push to go with a designated marksman sporting a rifle with a longer barrel (20″) and designed to use heavier (77ishgr) 5.56 projectiles. It’s also common knowledge that the M14 has seen a resurgence for use at longer ranges. Clearly a combination of CQB riflemen and designated Marksman is the band-aid to bridge the gap. There is no replacement for trained operators that know the effectiveness of their equipment. Although one rifle can’t fill all the requirements regardless of the caliber, a rifle, like a unit, is greater than the sum of it’s parts but only when correctly combined. When placed in the hands of a highly trained operator the lethality of any rifle becomes a mute point. A bigger, badder, larger caliber rifle isn’t the replacement for proper training.
I shot a doe last year with my 44 Mag Super Red Hawk loaded with 200gr Nosler hollow points traveling 1600fps at 45yards. Although she was the largest doe I’ve ever shot (126lbs field dressed) she ran 100 plus yard and in to another field. This all happened right at dusk. By the time I got down from the stand and determined that it was a good hit, it was dark. I hooked up with my hunting buddy and after we got back to the truck, asked the farmer if we could go on that land and actually got over there it was at least 45min. We blood tracked her for another 250-300 yards before we founder her still on her feet and I shot her 3 more times (.357 Sig 125hp) with my side arm before she went down. Go figure…People can be even more determined to live in the face of very poor odds.
Excuse me, Hague peace conventions held in the Netherlands in 1899 and 1907 not Geneva conventions. I got my conventions on how to fight a war mixed up.