The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Yesterday, 08:43 PM   #101
Bill DeShivs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2006
Posts: 9,410
Regardless of what bullet you use, or how many shots you fire, the .223/5.56 is too damned loud for home defense.
A pistol caliber carbine is ideal, and a pistol with standard pressure ammunition (like .38 Special) second best.
Now, if you live in a Taliban-infested area or have a drug cartel after you- you might need the shotgun or .223. But for most (probably won't happen) scenarios, something that won't blow your eardrums out is preferred.
Yeah, yeah- I know, your hearing is secondary to losing your life.....
__________________
Bill DeShivs, Master Cutler
www.billdeshivs.com
Bill DeShivs is offline  
Old Yesterday, 08:51 PM   #102
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
The study didn't find a significant difference between 5.56 rounds in CQB lethality, whether they were COTS, M855, M193 or other.

That is what the study said. In addition, the study found no significant difference with M80 ball from fired from an M14 and said warfighters are getting the best weapons and ammunition available. If there is no significant difference between any 5.56 ammo, why are you wasting taxpayer dollars by using 77 grain OTM instead of cheaper M855? : )


Quote:
The problems we saw with 5.56mm is the lack of lethality at close ranges.
That problem doesn't seem to be a factor for police in the US. Your study mentioned that some war fighters said they had good performance from 5.56 and others said they had through and through hits at close range. Your study said the variable was angle of attack or yaw on impact. COTS ammunition eliminates this variable.

Quote:
Increasing the lethality tends to increase the penetration in 5.56mm depending on the bullet.
Why would that be the case? The study you cite doesn't make that claim and I don't know anyone else that does.


Quote:
My first shooting in Afghanistan saw me place two rounds in the targets chest. The bullets entered his sternum about two fingers up from the xiphoid process. He then stood there looking at me attempting to raise his weapon up and engage. Six more bullets in a fist size area in his sternum before he went down.
I'm sorry that you had to shoot that fellow and had to shoot him so many times to stop him but I'm glad that you won the fight and are here to argue on the intertubes about ammo.

Quote:
It is bigger and very similar to what you see with 8 well placed rounds of 5.56mm.
You will get no argument from me about a shotgun with buckshot or slugs having a high potential for lethality at close range. The shotgun is my go to for home defense for several reasons, including close range lethality but also versatility. It's easy to load a slug for a feral hog or a #6 birdshot round for a rabid fox while buckshot stays in the tube.
Where we disagree is whether or not there are commercial off the shelf loads in 5.56 that are better than military loads as far as lethality at CQB distances. I think the answer is an obvious yes, despite what your study claims.


Quote:
It does not change the fact they are the premier source for small arms lethality studies and you are not.
It is true that I am not the premier source for small arms lethality studies but I'm not sure your folks are either. Do they regularly publish work in journals for peer review? What does the peer review have to say about their work? Can you point me to a journal where your study was published along with the peer reviews? I couldn't find an academic journal where your study was published but I did find a review: link

It's just common sense that a round that isn't dependent upon a random yaw/aoa for it's terminal effects at cqb is better than one that does depend on random yaw/aoa. There are many COTS rounds that offer consistent performance at CQB distances. Are these JAG approved? Do they work well at longer ranges? I don't know but it isn't relevant for home defense.

Police and FBI aren't complaining about 5.56 performance at CQB ranges but some warfighters are complaining about 5.56 terminal performance at CQB ranges. I don't think that police and FBI shooters are better trained or are better marksmen than our warfighters for shooting at CQB distances but for some mysterious reason, police and FBI aren't having problems with short range lethality.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:00 PM   #103
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,202
From your link, David:
Quote:
When carrying the shorter SBR, he ranked Hornady’s 75-grain TAP as the most lethal, followed by MK 318 and with MK 262 riding herd at third. Anything was better than M855 in a CQB environment.

“All 5.56 rounds suck out of SBRs, but MK 262 is way better than M855,” he said. “The only time M855 shines is when you are shooting through intermediate barriers like car doors.”



Read more: http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/sp...#ixzz5GTUnEF4T
If one didn't know better, it would seem there are at least two commercial rounds betters than military ball ammo with regards to terminal effects at CQB ranges.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:39 PM   #104
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,401
Mk318 is a military load, though it is basically a 62gr Trophy Bonded Bear Claw from Speer reengineered to be compliant with the Laws of Land Warfare as interpreted by the U.S. Army JAG, so you are technically correct.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:48 PM   #105
Eazyeach
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2014
Posts: 600
Five page pissing match. What is wrong with me? I’m annoyed by this thread but I keep checking up on it.
Eazyeach is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:55 PM   #106
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 125
Quote:
If one didn't know better, it would seem there are at least two commercial rounds betters than military ball ammo with regards to terminal effects at CQB ranges.
Key phrase being:

Quote:
“All 5.56 rounds suck out of SBRs,
Just like the engineers later confirmed....there are differences but they are so slight as to be statistically irrelevant.

Quote:
If there is no significant difference between any 5.56 ammo, why are you wasting taxpayer dollars by using 77 grain OTM instead of cheaper M855? : )
Hindsight is 20/20. Remember, this occurred early in the war and before any controlled testing. Basically after talking with engineers and manufacturers on the SAT Phone....

The ammo was flown in from Germany. It was about a 24 hour process from need identified to new bullets in the magazine.

The wonder bullet for 5.56mm has yet to materialize.

Last edited by davidsog; Yesterday at 10:03 PM.
davidsog is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:01 PM   #107
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 125
Quote:
Police and FBI aren't complaining about 5.56 performance at CQB ranges but some warfighters are complaining about 5.56 terminal performance at CQB ranges. I don't think that police and FBI shooters are better trained or are better marksmen than our warfighters for shooting at CQB distances but for some mysterious reason, police and FBI aren't having problems with short range lethality.
Police are not shooting enough human beings with 5.56mm at CQB ranges to be statistically relevant.

For example, One unit in one six month tour averaged just over 1200 enemy KIA. That is almost all produced by 5.56mm at CQB ranges.
davidsog is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:03 PM   #108
marine6680
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 4,352
Can the teir guys actually get commercial loads like TAP? That's the question... If they can, they wouldn't be complaining about performance. Though an SBR does reduce effectiveness of the heavier stuff.

TAP is very effective, especially out of a 16in barrel. Still not horrible out of an SBR, but not ideal.

Really depends on the velocity threshold, but lower velocity tends to delay any expansion or breakup. This is not ideal in most cases, as heavy bullets tend to be a bit more stable. I would argue that a little delay is good for the light varmint type ammo. It creates a very large wound, but fairly shallow at 8-10in. A slight delay of a couple inches from a SBR increases the cavity to about 12in in the test I seen, and it is almost as large as from a longer barrel.


Once again though, the mindset in a wartime combat zone is different than HD. The mindset is kill or be killed, and if you are going to die, take out as many as you can with you.

Your two shots were likely lethal, just not instant.

Likely, the next six rounds... You probably didn't need all of them to stop the threat, bit you pull trigger faster than you process the situation.


7.62x51 was no more effective at close range... And there is no magic sauce in a SCAR heavy that would make the bullets more effective from it than an m14, so... In effect, 7.62 is a waste of weight and resources when it comes to close range use. It's heavier, the rifles are heavier, it uses more material, it costs more, it has more recoil...

So just keep using 5.56, as there isn't anything else readily available that is better. If there is nothing better... Then it is the only and best choice.

And then as someone pointed out, if all 5.56 ammo was tested and equal... Why waste money on special ammo...

But actual civilian ammo tested was not mentioned, so... We have no idea if they test purpose built rounds or not. We have no idea what they tested at all. So we can not make a conclusion that ALL commercial ammo sucks. We don't even know the test parameters other than close range... Was there armor, equipment like loaded mags... What...


People go on about the shotgun, but they are harder to use, slower to use... And the capacity is low, and when you run dry, it takes a lot longer to reload than a rifle would.

Most trainers have moved away from the shotgun as a go to HD platform... It's basically all ARs when it comes to long guns.

I have an AR loaded up, to limit collateral effects... As pistols and shotguns have been shown to basically plow through many many walls.


You keep hammering statistical relevance...

The use of 5.56 by police is not insignificant, it is relevant. It's not 1000s, but it's not a couple dozen either.


And you still insit on ignoring all the variables and difference in wartime battle field and civilian and police use.

Your sources are only relevant in regards to combat, and military use... They ommit important information. (And you ignore the fact that the military has and will lie about equipment for troop moral reasons, and even parade around tests and studies... Not that has occurred in this case necessary, but it is a possibility, especially with the limited nature of the info given... Even if not, it's useless for making any solid conclusions.)

Last edited by marine6680; Yesterday at 10:13 PM.
marine6680 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:12 PM   #109
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,676
Quote:
For example, One unit in one six month tour averaged just over 1200 enemy KIA. That is almost all produced by 5.56mm at CQB ranges.
But we have ammunition available to civilians that soldiers CANNOT USE.
rickyrick is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:22 PM   #110
marine6680
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 4,352
At this point he is like a Homeopath, Flat Earther, Young Earth Creationist evolution denier, and climate change denier...

100% wrong
100% convinced they are right
100% too stubborn to be educated to the truth

And spouting what is at the core, the same fallacies and misapplied logic, thinking personal anecdotal experience explains everything, claiming evidence proves them right, ignoreing the flaws in the evidence (being simply flat out wrong, flawed in application, or limited in nature and/or from a biased source) and their flawed interpretation of it... And worse of all, completely blind to or simply dismissive of the vast amounts... Simply mounds and mounds... of counter evidence that shows they are wrong...
marine6680 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:22 PM   #111
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog
For example, One unit in one six month tour averaged just over 1200 enemy KIA. That is almost all produced by 5.56mm at CQB ranges.
That sentence makes no sense. What is being averaged if we are discussing a single unit and a single tour?

Quote:
Police are not shooting enough human beings with 5.56mm at CQB ranges to be statistically relevant
Well, they aren’t shooting as many people as military circa 2002-2008 for sure. On the other hand, every guy shot by police results in a forensic reconstruction of the entire shooting for legal purposes. Entry wound location, exit wound location, shot angles, body cam recordings, autopsies, medical records, etc. If you shoot a lot of people but don’t collect any data beyond what you observe with your own eyes, that’s not statistics, it is a series of anecdotes.

Quote:
The wonder bullet for 5.56 has yet to materialize
You keep saying this; but you don’t really discuss what a viable alternative is or even make very clear what you consider necessary in a “wonder bullet.” If your criteria is one shot instant incapacitation with an upper torso hit, then there isn’t a wonder bullet in any caliber.

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; Yesterday at 10:29 PM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:27 PM   #112
marine6680
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 4,352
^^^ This... I've asked too.

If 5.56 sucks so much... Then what is better?

Can you name an example of something currently available?

If not, can you provide an explanation of a potential round that could be developed to fill this role?


Thing is... There is no conceivable reasonably man portable, shoulder firable rifle round... That can cause instant incapacitation from a torso hit.

You can put a bullet straight into the heart, and completely destroy it... And the person still has 6-10 seconds of useful consciousness... You can do a lot in that time.

Definitely enough time to pull the trigger on your weapon several times... Even aim it first.

Last edited by marine6680; Yesterday at 10:44 PM.
marine6680 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:56 PM   #113
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,676
Well for a small package, it does hold its own. It’s not a 30.06 but I wouldn’t really care to shoot 30.06 out of a light weight carbine either. The bump fires would be \0/ Fabulous! \0/

There’s no magic bullet, no magic at all. As a matter of fact, it’s all about physics. Sure, caliber and weight matters, but so does our magic little friend: The Velocity Fairy!
rickyrick is offline  
Old Yesterday, 11:39 PM   #114
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 125
Quote:
What is being averaged if we are discussing a single unit and a single tour?
Multiple tours in the same unit.

Quote:
every guy shot by police results in a forensic reconstruction of the entire shooting for legal purposes.
As do many of the SOCOM shootings....biometrics, statements, autopsy...etc.

You would be surprised.

You think you just walk in and say, "Hey boss, we got 10 HVT's today...mark em off the list and send this one to GITMO while you are at it."

That is not really not the issue. The fact is Law Enforcement is just not killing enough human beings to be statistically significant. Nobody was killing human beings with SBR 5.56mm weapons on any statistically significant scale until post 9/11.

Quote:
If 5.56 sucks so much... Then what is better?
The search continues for a replacement or a wonder bullet. That does not mean 5.56mm is ideal.

I have answered your question twice in both threads as a matter of fact on what I thought was better. A good tactical shotgun is what I use as my primary home defense weapon.
davidsog is offline  
Old Yesterday, 11:52 PM   #115
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 125
Quote:
If your criteria is one shot instant incapacitation with an upper torso hit, then there isn’t a wonder bullet in any caliber.
Using the 8 bullet average....

You can take 8 shots with a 5.56mm or one shot of 12 guage OO buck. Which do you think takes longer to deliver lead on target?

What about engaging follow on targets....who is going to be faster putting 8 rounds into each target?
davidsog is offline  
Old Today, 12:07 AM   #116
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 125
Quote:
People go on about the shotgun, but they are harder to use, slower to use... And the capacity is low, and when you run dry, it takes a lot longer to reload than a rifle would.
When you consider each one of those shots is equivalent to putting 8 rounds on target from your 5.56mm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMqUDEMrwDw

Try this drill:

1. Two Targets

Put 8 rounds of 5.56mm into each target vs one round of OO buck into each.

Time it.

2. Tactical Reload

Time a tactical reload of your AR-15 vs tactical reload of two shells into the shotgun.

See which takes longer.
davidsog is offline  
Old Today, 06:34 AM   #117
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,401
Quote:
As do many of the SOCOM shootings....biometrics, statements, autopsy...etc.

You would be surprised.

You think you just walk in and say, "Hey boss, we got 10 HVT's today...mark em off the list and send this one to GITMO while you are at it."
I’m surprised you guys can secure a scene where 10 HVTs were just located well enough to bring in technicians to do an investigation.

Quote:
When you consider each one of those shots is equivalent to putting 8 rounds on target from your 5.56mm...
Ha. No. Not unless the world you live in is 2D. There is a pretty significant difference in damage between a .33 round ball @ 53gr and 1,325fps and a .223 bullet at 75gr and 2,500fps.

https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Se...mozTocId174866

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; Today at 06:50 AM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old Today, 07:12 AM   #118
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog
When you consider each one of those shots is equivalent to putting 8 rounds on target from your 5.56mm...
Do you honestly believe that a 00 buck load is equal to 8 shots from a 5.56/.223 rifle? If that’s the case, I’m thinking there’s really no point in anyone continuing to argue with you...
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08177 seconds with 9 queries