Why the 5.56 rifle for home defense?

[rickyrick]

Well look what made the Memorial Day sale.

https://www.rainierarms.com/xm42-fla...ale+Starts+Now!

Now I’m done

[2damnold4this]

Ricky, I'm not sure that is Biden approved. : )

[davidsog]

Interestingly, the one 7.62mm round that received the full evaluation,
the M80 fired from the M14 rifle, performed in the same band of performance, which would indicate that for M80 ammunition at least there appears to be no benefit to the larger caliber at close quarters range.

Which is why nobody uses 7.62mm for CQB.....but it does work much better outside the house!

And the study plainly states that:

This study was an extremely detailed, indepth analysis of a specific
engagement (5.56mm at CQB range); we must be careful not to apply the lessons learned out of context. The study did not look at the effectiveness of ammunition at longer ranges, where differences in projectile mass, velocity, and composition may have greater effect. The target set for this analysis was an unarmored, frontal standing target; against targets in body armor, or crouching/prone targets, the results may be different. Of course, most targets on the modern battlefield can be expected to be engaged in some form of complex posture (moving, crouching, or behind cover) and future analysis will have to look at such targets, too. The study evaluated readily available commercial ammunition; this does not rule out the possibility that ammunition could be designed to perform significantly better in a CQB environment. Human damage models need further refinement to move beyond gelatin and more closely replicate the complex human anatomy.
While these caveats should not detract from the importance of the study’s findings, they should be considered as a starting point for continued analysis.

I'd say it isn't a very good study.

Your opinion and you are entitled to it!

It does not change the fact they are the premier source for small arms lethality studies and you are not.

[stonewall50]

Originally Posted by tobnpr

Compact, semi-auto 12 ga. with 00 buckshot.

People that aren't trained, are more than not likely to miss critical shot placement by a mile under stress.

Shotty is much more likely to end the the threat.



Size of the hole(s), does matter...

I don’t know if I agree. Not really. The size of the pattern in a shotgun load at short range? Really not much bigger than a rifle.



I would actually argue that a semi auto rifle like the AR is probably a lot easier to use than a shotgun. Especially when you factor in recoil management and point of aim consistency. I think lower recoil rifles are easier to learn how to use for newbies. I’d be interested to see how someone performs with a 20 gauge vs an AR Vs a 12. Just as an experiment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[2damnold4this]

Which is why nobody uses 7.62mm for CQB.....but it does work much better outside the house!

If 7.62x51 isn't any better than 5.56 and no 5.56 is better than any other 5.56, why are you complaining about using 5.56 M855? The study says in its closing paragraph that you are getting the best in weapons and ammunition: Soldiers and leaders everywhere should take heart from the fact that despite all the myth and superstition surrounding their rifles and ammunition, they are still being provided the best performing weapons and ammunition available while the armaments community works to develop something even better.

If it only takes one or two rounds on average from a 5.56 fired by an American LEO to be effective and it takes eight for one of your guys to get an effective stop, what explains the difference? Your study says it can't be the ammo and suggest shot placement and training as possible differences. It could be that LEOs are better trained in CQB and get better shot placement or it could be the difference is elsewhere.

[davidsog]

I don’t know if I agree. Not really. The size of the pattern in a shotgun load at short range? Really not much bigger than a rifle.

I agree it is not much bigger than a rifle. But it transfer a lot more energy and that energy generally means more stopping power.

In my combat experience, on average you could put down 3 bad guys completely out of the fight with one magazine of 5.56mm with good shot placement. I'll take the 8 shotgun rounds with full confidence I can do slightly better in a real fight.

The numbers are equally impressive for individual pellets. Each .33-caliber sphere possesses 172 ft.-lbs. of energy—meaning a single pellet strike hits harder than a .32 ACP handgun and not much softer than the popular .380 ACP (about 200 ft.-lbs.). That is awesome lethality, folks.

My point is that in a CQB range, the shotgun (loaded with heavy buckshot) is absolutely the most devastating firearm in the police inventory.

The biggest advantage of the shotgun is the ability to change loadout quickly and thereby changing the role of the weapon.

That is a huge advantage properly exploited and factored into my personal home defense plan. My kids are both on the rifle team at school, grew up around firearms, and know what to do if a gun goes off in the house.

If you don’t have rifles or if one is not available, have a shotgun officer reload with slugs to create a “patrol rifle” until the traditional rifle arrives.

https://www.policeone.com/police-pro...t-Intimidator/

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-...rget-shooting/

I keep slugs, OO buck, Frangible OO buck, breaching rounds, and a couple of #6 steel birdshot all organized between a bandelier and a vest with pouches.

That is assuming I get to the shotgun which isn't likely and considered in my personal home defense plan.

while the armaments community works to develop something even better.

That is the key phrase, LOL.

If it only takes one or two rounds on average from a 5.56 fired by an American LEO to be effective and it takes eight for one of your guys to get an effective stop, what explains the difference?

Fantasy? LEO Dreams???

Love to see this statistic and how it was gathered!!!

It could be that LEOs are better trained in CQB and get better shot placement or it could be the difference is elsewhere.

Could be unicorn fairies, you never know.

Of the few LEO organizations I have worked with (FBI, DEA, Fayetteville SWAT, and FAMS).....

HRU and FAMS are on par, FAMS especially. The rest of the Barney Fifes are really hit and miss...literally falling somewhere in between a Mess Kit Repair Battalion and a National Guard Infantry platoon on a sunday afternoon.

[rickyrick]

Now I’m not an AR home defense guy, I carry a pistol 24/7... so the ARS,the FAL, shotguns, the rugers and the rest are in a safe.


But This is the magazine I choose to have tucked between books on my bookshelf.

Now I’m done... lol




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marine6680]

So basically... The study states that 5.56 is equal to 7.62 in CQB.

So... That means bigger isn't better in CQB.

And if you can't do better than 5.56 out of a rifle with a reasonable caliber increase... And seeing as 5.56 is easy to use in an AR platform, and has less collateral damage potential than other options...

Sure seems like it's a dang good choice to me for civilian HD...


In the end, all you are doing is arguing what the study doesn't support, and discounting one group's self reported success rate, vs another group's self reported success rate.

There is no variable differences taken into account. Like the fact that the bad guys in combat zones know it's life or death, and bad guys stateside dealing with police know that if they stop doing the bad thing, the cop might stop putting holes in them and take them to an ER before they take them to jail. So... Not necessarily life and death...

This mindset plays a huge difference in how people will behave.

Not to mention the fact that our current enemies main goal it to kill as many as they can, so pulling the trigger until they can't any more, that's a thing.

There is a difference between military conflict and combat, and civilian and even police use of a firearm.

And then we have an antidotal account of the effectiveness of a shotgun... That basically boils down to... I shot a bad guy a whole bunch with my rifle, and then my buddy shot him one more time but used a shotgun and he died.

Who is to say that one more bullet from the rifle would have worked or not... Or that the shotgun would have worked the first shot.

It's not evidence, it's just crap happens.


Those of us not inclined to "wanna hate" have looked at all the same evidence as you, and done just as much research... But we come to a different conclusion... Along with a majority of police forces and other groups who find the caliber perfectly suitable for the task it is asked to do. And don't believe in some magic bullet to apear and save the day.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Nanuk

55 grain FMJ within the fragmentation threshold is pretty devastating. MK262 MOD 1 is pretty devastating. To say that they are not as effective as a 62 grain SP due to being yaw dependent shows a lack of understanding in the wound mechanisms of each.

Even within 2,700fps, 55gr M193 fails to yaw or yaws to late about 25% of the time. M855 has the same problem. We’ve known this for a lomg time; but only recently have we understood why. As the round flies through the air, the tip of the bullet is rotating in a tiny circle (around less than 2 degrees). In the first 50m of flight, the circle is bigger as the bullet “settles in.” If the bullet hits a target at 0 degrees, it penetrates a lot. If it hits at 2 degrees, it has almost no neck and starts to tumble almost immediately. What is more is you can take ammo from the same lot and two different rifles off the same line, and each one will have different “wobble.” So, if you have the Army’s ballistic resources available to you, you could predict what your rifle and ammo (for that lot) combination would do at each distance out to 50m until it settles down.

Let’s say for example, you hit 0 degrees at 2.7m and 2 degrees at 5.4m. You have a bad guy inside a house. If he is at 2.7m when you shoot and facing you in a t-shirt, you get an ice pick wound. If he is at 5.4m and facing you in a t-shirt, instant devastation. If he is wearing a chest rig with magazines instead of a t-shirt, now those results are reversed.

Even worse, because the variability is range dependent, you’ll continue to get the same result you just got if you just sit there and comtinue to pour in lead (at least until you hit something vital with that ice pick). Because of this, yaw dependent rounds (particularly M193 and M855) in real world conditions don’t give consistent performance and the problem is worst at under 50m.

They CAN perform really well. Outside of a laboratory, it is kind of hard to predict what you’ll get though. Which is why the military first went to rounds that were more consistent in flight (Mk262) and then rounds that were not yaw dependent at all (M855A1, Mk318).

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

Yep. No doubt out of a 20” barrel with a 1/12 twist, that bullet performs nicely. The problem is NOBODY shoots that long a barrel or that slow a twist anymore.

The Army’s Wound Ballistics Research lab has tested M193 in 20” 1:14, 1:12, 1:9, and 1:7 barrels. It has the same terminal performance regardless of twist in a 20”. They’ve also tested M855 in 20” 1:9 and 1:7 barrels and found no difference.

[davidsog]

marine6680 says:
So basically... The study states that 5.56 is equal to 7.62 in CQB.

For the specific round and weapon system (M14) under the specific test conditions.....YES.

marine6680 says:
So... That means bigger isn't better in CQB.

No, you cannot make this conclusion. That is why they continue to test with larger calibers as well as heavier grain weights of 5.56mm to find something more effective and without the issues of 5.56mm.

See Bartholomew Roberts post....

marine6680 says:
Those of us not inclined to "wanna hate"

You must be a millenial, LOL. There is no "wanna hate". The inability to accept factual criticism of your "favorite" is not a problem with the critic. It is the result of weak character that cannot stand scrutiny.

The fact so many of you are willing to discount the combat experience gained because some of it is derogatory to your "favorite" cool looking black rifle is telling.

Weapons are nothing more than tools and in the right circumstances with the right equipment, the AR series is a good choice for home defense and a potential tragedy in other circumstances. Be informed when making decisions that can mean your life or the ones you love.

Outside of a laboratory, it is kind of hard to predict what you’ll get though.

Absolutely. It has proven to be a very difficult engineering problem. Dismiss the largest scientific effort and lethality studies ever conducted at your own peril. There is no "wonder bullet" that has yet to surface solving the problems of 5.56mm.

[2damnold4this]

David, what are the problems you see with the 5.56 for cqb?

[rickyrick]

You must be a millenial, LOL. There is no "wanna hate". The inability to accept factual criticism of your "favorite" is not a problem with the critic. It is the result of weak character that cannot stand scrutiny.

The fact so many of you are willing to discount the combat experience gained because some of it is derogatory to your "favorite" cool looking black rifle is telling.

Most of this is irrelevant, somewhat insulting and definitely elitist in nature.
Everyone is saying that they understand the shortcomings of 5.56 military ammunition.
Most people also acknowledge that premium civilian ammunition is far superior to military ammunition. Heck, most of the people here manufacture their own ammunition, I don’t but a lot of puke civilians do. LOL

[marine6680]

Almost 40... So no not a millennial.

And Ricky gets it.

My biggest problem is generally your use of fallacies in your posts. Your tendency to avoid answering questions directly, and using data that doesn't relate to the topic at hand but is only tangential in relation.

And a flat out refusal to acknowledge the fact that any active duty military members, elite forces or not, have to follow certain rules when feilding ammo. And they have a very different need from their ammo than a guy with a rifle in his own house.

I like ARs, I like them a lot... But favorite rifle and caliber, eh depends on context.


Don't get started on scientific method and fallacies... I'm all about factual evidence based thought process and hypothesis.

Notice I did is the word "theory" because I refuse to contribute to the whole confusion that layman's use of the word creates when talking science.

Am I perfect and all knowledgeable, heck no... But I know the shortcomings of 5.56 and 223 fairly well. I may not know some specifics and underlying mechanisms as well as some, and maybe better than others.

But there is simply no currently fielded 5.56 ammo, that has the properties available that civilian ammo can have.

The new 855A1 is about the closest they have come to getting decent performance out of all the use cases the military has... The older rounds using match bullets are not ideal for terminal effectiveness, but better than 193 and 855, which have issues with consistency, as outlined above by Bart.

Does 223/5.56 have shortcomings... Yes...

As a civilian, can I select ammo for my very specific use case, as in... Close range home defense and only that single use case...

Yes I can... And it works very well for that single use case.


Can I select ammo that is barrier blind, has good hard barrier penetration, ability to get through light armor, and is terminally effective... All while being light weight, and low recoiling, in a light and handly rifle?

No... That is a whole different set of needs, and one very difficult to fill.

855A1 is about the best answer to that so far, and it's not perfect either.


And combat experience using crappy ammo ill suited for close quarters effectiveness... Means little in this context.

What that experience is good for... Explaining your reason to want to put down the round no matter the context, and refusal to acknowledge where it works.


And if you think there is a better alternative than 5.56/223...

What is it?

I will even allow a hypothetical non-existent yet to be made caliber.

[davidsog]

Everyone is saying that they understand the shortcomings of 5.56 military ammunition.

Not what I am seeing but OK.

This is the second thread where the assumption by a few has been that wonder bullets are in use that overcome the rounds problems and that somehow civilian organization with far few resources/experience somehow have insight over Tier 1 SOCOM.

And a flat out refusal to acknowledge the fact that any active duty military members, elite forces or not, have to follow certain rules when feilding ammo.

Never happened. There are different acquisition rules for different organizations and that story has never changed. You seem to think it is a multiple year process. It is for some organizations. Others organizations can purchase off a credit card whatever they need and process takes a few hours at worst. That is reality. They can also direct other MACOM's to test equipment streamlining a process from years to weeks. What they are not going to do is purchase wonder bullets that do not produce wonder.

Think about it. Do you think that 2006 report was tested in 2006, declassified, and released immediately? Of course not. It is a process and the 2006 report is an unclassified summary of the experience and testing efforts

No that was big Army jumping in on something SOCOM started investigating in 2002 to answer the question:

assess commercially available ammunition to determine if there was a “drop in” replacement for the standard issue 5.56mm M855 Ball rounds
that might provide improved performance in close quarters battle
(CQB).

What resulted grew into a lengthy, highly technical, and highly
detailed study of rifle and ammunition performance at close quarters ranges that involved technical agencies from within the Army, Navy, and Department of Homeland Security; medical doctors, wound ballisticians, physicists, engineers from both the government and private sector; and user representatives from the Army, US Marines Corps, and US Special Operations Command

That is why SOCOM used 77 grain in 2003 and on my next tour. Big Army or Marine Corp did not but we sure did.

This is from 2004 and details some of the efforts:

The simplest approach to improving the combat potential of 5.56mm weapons is to increase bullet weight. This has been done on a limited scale by special operations forces, which have used Mk262 competition ammo in the mountains of Afghanistan

Recently there was an effort by individuals at the Special Operations
Command, in collaboration with an ammunition producer, to create a more
potent special purpose cartridge (SPC) for close combat. The 6.8x43mm case has a larger volume than that of the 5.56x45mm, and holds enough propellant to give a 115-grain projectile a respectable velocity.

http://www.benning.army.mil/magazine..._4/06_pf01.pdf

[seeker_two]

Originally Posted by stonewall50

I don’t know if I agree. Not really. The size of the pattern in a shotgun load at short range? Really not much bigger than a rifle.

Correct me if I'm mistaken.....but that hole looks somewhat larger than .223"......



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[davidsog]

David, what are the problems you see with the 5.56 for cqb?

The problems we saw with 5.56mm is the lack of lethality at close ranges.

CQB is not home defense. In initiative based CQB, the end result as the points of domination are occupied is interlocking sectors of fire so that any target in the room is covered by multiple sectors. The limits of your sector are one meter off the other assaulters. Multiple targets are engaged almost simultaneously and a single target is engaged multiple times.

You do not have that in a home defense scenario and you could find yourself engaging multiple targets from a single sector of fire.

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.

Had I been in a home defense scenario with multiple targets and a single sector of fire there is a likely possibility of things going south as the other assailants have more opportunity to engage or a even a lethal wounded assailant fights back than with a more effective man stopper. Do not assume an attacker is going down simply because you put nicely placed rounds into him. My experience has been an average of 8 rounds well placed center mass shots of 5.56mm to remove the immediate threat potential...plan accordingly.

The next consideration is over penetration. Whether 5.56mm is a good home defense round for you depends on your home and its surroundings. Increasing the lethality tends to increase the penetration in 5.56mm depending on the bullet. I live in the suburbs of a city and we would have problems if your bullets came thru my walls and into my children.

[davidsog]

Correct me if I'm mistaken.....but that hole looks somewhat larger than .223"......

It is bigger and very similar to what you see with 8 well placed rounds of 5.56mm.....

[Sharkbite]

Increasing the lethality tends to increase the penetration in 5.56mm depending on the bullet.

DEPENDING ON THE BULLET....

A well chosen ballistic tip or soft point DECREASES penetration while INCREASING terminal effectivness.

Thats the part you keep missing. Proper ammo selection makes the 223 a VERY effective people round. That ammo is simply not avail to the military supply chain. You keep going on about Tier 1 this and that. The Mil in general needs ammo that PENETRATES. Body armor, chest rack full of mags, car bodies, whatever.

The civilian HD does not require that level of penetration. So, they can use bullets with increased soft tissue damage.

Very few (less then .1%) of Mil units can go out and buy what they want on a credit card. Your experience points that out. You (Green Beret?) still used ammo in the supply chain. No soft point. No TAP. Just 77gn OTM. That was a step in the right direction but not far enough to bring you into commericial SD loading.

Ive said it before. The ammo provided to our troops will never equal what is avail on the civilian market. Want another example?... what did you have loaded in your pistol? Golddot? HST? ANYTHING that would be considered a good SD pistol loading? Nope. FMJ im betting.

[rickyrick]

I went back, the post was correctly answered in post #2

[davidsog]

Thats the part you keep missing.

I think you missed page 3 of this thread!

The target set for this analysis was an unarmored, frontal standing target

The study didn't find a significant difference between 5.56 rounds in CQB lethality, whether they were COTS, M855, M193 or other.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...4&postcount=66

[Sharkbite]

And because the “study” does not state WHAT ammo it tested, we will never know.

Im betting it was Commercial off the shelf 556 and not a cross section of 223 selfdefense ammo

I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that M855 and Hornady TAP showed no difference in wounding. Just not possible.

[rickyrick]

I don’t think that US soldiers can use an American’s hunting ammunition in combat. I’m pretty sure it still has to not be intentionally designed to expand.

Even though the US never signed The Hague treaty, the US still abides by the rules of war.

A projectile that expands and expends all or most of its energy INSIDE of the body is the most desired performance.
I would never ever ever ever consider using military ammunition in a civilian defensive weapon. It is considered unethical by most to use military ammunition for hunting as it doesn’t kill predictably.

I’m not sure why this is so difficult. It’s a very easy question with a very easy answer. There’s a wealth of knowledge out there. Read it.

[davidsog]

spoke with a good friend with multiple combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. His experiences as both a Special Forces sniper team leader and assaulter offered a unique perspective on ammo performance.

, “It’s the best, most accurate round the Army has ever issued.” 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,

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/sp...#ixzz5GT7nw2rl

[rickyrick]

75gr TAP will give a 5.5” wound cavity and penetrate 10” out of a 16” barrel, which is the bulk of civilian ARs.

Out of an 10.5” SBR, it will penetrate 17” and have a 4.5” wound cavity.

Is the Army issued TAP?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

There was a shooting with an off-duty SWAT officer (also a competitive shooter - details are in a thread around here somewhere). He caught an armed robber coming put of a McDonald’s kitchen. He shot him 10 out of 11 times and locked the slide back on his Glock 26 before the robber went down.

As it turns out, the first round and the next nine, were all fatal. The robber never even got his gun pointed at the officer. Any single one of the rounds would have been “If you can’t teleport this guy to a Level I ER gurney NOW, he’s dead.” However, because he didn’t hit the upper central nervous system and because the good guy shot very rapidly and competently, he went to slide lock before his brain realized the threat was over.

Now, you can see that as either a hardware or a software problem; but if it is a hardware problem, what’s the hardware solution?

If your expectation is that one round in the lower A-zone drops a guy so fast and obviously that several trained guys will recognize it before they put multiple shots on him, I think you have an unrealistic expectation of performance.