Have you shot somebody with 5.56

[bennwj]

I would like to know your experiences ONLY IF YOU HAVE EVER SHOT SOMEBODY WITH 5.56.

I know there are a lot of veterans and current active duty here and those (as well as LEO) who have been in combat.

The reason I am posting this is because I am getting really tired of reading about how the 5.56 is too weak to shoot people with and we NEED the 6.8 or another magic round to shoot scumbags with.

I always read something like, "there are numerious instances of bad guys taking multiple hits from 5.56 and they are still alive.".

I have personally heard people say this and personally looked at the bad guy and he has 5 holes in him. None in the chest. The poor bastard has been gut shot and hit in the extremities.

I have several Soldiers who have been shot with 7.62 (AK-47) and fortunately none were in vital areas. They lived.

I've also seen scumbags with multiple 7.62 in non-vital areas and they were alive as well.

In my experience shot placement is the key and at ranges under 200 yards the 5.56 performs extremely well. If you put one in the chest he is down for the count.

Let me know your experiences. Not what your uncle told you or your buddy or something you read. What YOU KNOW to be true because you SAW it.

Thanks.

[Sniperfox]

The round will do what it's supposed to do. No offense, but that is not a question to ask a vet. If you really need to know for yourself, join up and as the man said, "pick up a rifle and stand a post". Your profile says that you are from Ft. Bragg. Shouldn't you already know this stuff?
As I said before, no offense meant.

Nuff said.

[bennwj]

The round will do what it's supposed to do. No offense, but that is not a question to ask a vet. If you really need to know for yourself, join up and as the man said, "pick up a rifle and stand a post". Your profile says that you are from Ft. Bragg. Shouldn't you already know this stuff?
As I said before, no offense meant.

Nuff said.

I see your reading comprehension skills are not what they should be.

The reason behind the post is in another thread somebody said why get an AR when you can get a "real" gun in 7.62 (M-14). It's not a matter of what I know to be true, but what others THINK is true because they read it or heard somebody talking about it.

AND if you would have comprehended the question I posed in the post it was to get feedback from people (like me) who have been there and done that. All this silliness over the 6.8 and 7.62 vs 5.56 is mostly theoretical stuff written by people who have NO experience with the cartridge in the real world. Just like if you wanted to know about the G21SF would you like a review from me...a guy who has never fired one?

I did join up. 21 years ago and have been on multiple combat deployments. And I disagree when you say that is not a question to ask a vet. Only they know the answer. The mall ninja's a gun writers do not have a clue to what really works.

You may NOT have meant to be offensive, but I took it that way. Damn the bad luck.

[Smashy]

Have you shot somebody with 5.56



No, but I've shot a lot of people with a Canon.

[fnfalman]

I shot a couple of poodles with the 5.56 round before. The rounds just bounced right off the furs.

[zoyter2]

I once attempted to shoot someone with a 5.56, but they were carrying a .45acp and the little 5.56 just turned tail and ran when it got close enough to see that.

Seriously though, if someone posting "bs" in another thread makes you question 21 years of service with the 5.56, nothing I relate to you will mean very much.

As a 1Sgt, you have access to AARs of combat soldiers, and a wealth of combat veterans live around you at Bragg. Why ask an internet forum their opinion if it REALLY matters?

[Guyver]

And I disagree when you say that is not a question to ask a vet. Only they know the answer. The mall ninja's a gun writers do not have a clue to what really works.




You may be right, it may be a suitable question... But.. the only problem I see, is the Vets, that I know, and have shot/killed people in combat, really don't like to talk about it... Good luck in your search for answers.

[sandpiper]

I read once that the 5.56 explodes with a hydroststic shock on impact.
There was a show on tv that showed that the 7.62 has better penatation.

Hope this helps

[RMTactical]

I once attempted to shoot someone with a 5.56, but they were carrying a .45acp and the little 5.56 just turned tail and ran when it got close enough to see that.

Seriously though, if someone posting "bs" in another thread makes you question 21 years of service with the 5.56, nothing I relate to you will mean very much.

As a 1Sgt, you have access to AARs of combat soldiers, and a wealth of combat veterans live around you at Bragg. Why ask an internet forum their opinion if it REALLY matters?

He said he wasn't asking for himself. He already believes it is effective. He is asking because he wants others to see/hear for themselves from other veterans.

[TylerDurden]

I haven't, my dad did about 40 years ago.

Without getting into the details, he liked his rifle and he respects what it was/is capable of. I'm pretty sure he spent more time on the M2 though.

BTW - he had a CAR-15, so apparently is was fairly effective out of short barrels.

[brickboy240]

Dad was in Vietnam right about the time they were transisitioning the Marines from the M-14 to the then new M-16. He never had a good thing to say about the M-16. Most of Dad's gripes had to do with the unreliability of the new M-16 and we all know what caused this.

However, he DID say that he thought the old M-14/7.62 dropped them faster than the M-16. His words...not mine.

Take that for what its worth.

I would probably trust the M16 today, but in the beginng it certainly had its teething issues and to this day, Dad sees that rifle and his exact words are "son...that blasted thing will get you killed."

- brickboy240

[MrMurphy]

While not myself (yet, preferably ever) my father carried the 5.56 in an M16, then an A1, then an A2. He deployed to Vietnam with an M14.

He told me (when I brought the subject up once) that for long range overwatch the 7.62 was his choice (preferably, in something belt fed), but for close in action, he had absolutely no problems with the M16 doing it's job. As he saw extensive combat in Vietnam, I'll take his word for it. He actually preferred the original 16 to the A1 as he kept his clean and had few problems with it, but he used them all, and was ok with the round itself.

We're both .45 guys for that matter, but he does actually like the M9 (he's shot my 92FS) for the capacity, and he knows either pistol round, capacity and solid center hits are more what matter to him. I still prefer a .45 but either works.

[vafish]

The mall ninja's a gun writers do not have a clue to what really works.



And the problem is that any of the above could post here and make any sort of claims about the effectiveness or lack there of of the 5.56 and we really wouldn't know the difference would we.

[ThePainkiller]

And the problem is that any of the above could post here and make any sort of claims about the effectiveness or lack there of of the 5.56 and we really wouldn't know the difference would we.

Perhaps someone should PM Gecko_45...I hear he is experienced...ask him about .308 absorbtion

[3/325]

Not one single post in this thread has delivered what the OP clearly asked for; and a few have offered up what was specifically *not* asked for.

[ThePainkiller]

Not one single post in this thread has delivered what the OP clearly asked for; and a few have offered up what was specifically *not* asked for.

Then that would lend to the idea that none of us know what we're talking about...perhaps he should look to a military forum...from what Ive heard from veterens...the 556 is problematic. There have been occasions that a few 556 rounds were unable to stop someone...although thats usually due to the 556 hitting non vital areas.

[ithaca_deerslayer]

Let me know your experiences. Not what your uncle told you or your buddy or something you read. What YOU KNOW to be true because you SAW it.

Thanks.


I shot a woodchuck in the head with a .223. He died immediately. I like the .223 for woodchuck hunting. It is fairly flat shooting round, and my gun prints within an inch at 100 yards. And I can off-hand head shoot at that distance. So, all in all I give the .223 two thumbs up.

Sorry if this post was off-topic, because I know you were specifically talking about 5.56. I've shot that ammo through my rifle, too, but I can't remember if I ever shot anything other than targets with it. Usually I use the 55gr .223 soft points for hunting. :)

[hottnucks]

I like the .223 for woodchuck hunting.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[TylerDurden]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

I'm not sure, but I would only accept the woodchuck's first hand knowledge.

[lee2]

my uncle was in vietnam. he had related a story about shooting a vietcong several times at close range in the chest with his ar with little effect.
he stated that he had to club him with his rifle and broke its stock.
he was not happy about this.
hope this helps.

[chowchow]

I wouldnt want to be hit in either of em.

[Jim in MI]

For whatever reason hunters think it is perfectly acceptable to talk about caliber/bullet weight/bullet construction/shot placement to stop an elephant/buffalo/grizzly charge.

For whatever reasons military/LEO does not want to talk about stopping charging communists/islamofascists/crack dealers with non military/LEO.

A lot of people want to forget about it, they think of that time as when their friends were lost, they don't think of that time as an experiment in terminal ballistics. A lot of people have no idea what happened when they shot at somebody.

I was a Navy doc, and it has already been said a 1000 times, different people react differently to being shot, so comparisons are made null and void.

[orlando_5]

Switching to the 5.56 was one of the major advancement in Infantry warfare. The gains outweigh the negatives by miles.

[Smashy]

Not one single post in this thread has delivered what the OP clearly asked for


Including post #15.

[ThePainkiller]

Switching to the 5.56 was one of the major advancement in Infantry warfare. The gains outweigh the negatives by miles.

even though the round cant travel miles...:supergrin:

[DocwithGlock]

I have seen a single 22 kill a person, and I have seen people limp away from a shotgun blast at close range and live.

Larger, heavier and faster projectiles usually cause more damage than smaller ones (assuming shot placement is the same).

The type of round should depend on the mission. If you are fighting in trenches (I know it is not very common anymore), and your small, lightweight projectile will not easily penetrate an enemy's helmet, then you need a better round. If you are spraying and praying into the jungle at unarmored opponants, then more smaller caliber rounds should suffice.

A thorough review of the AARs to see how many enemy had been shot and continued to fight would be most helpful. Of course this would be anecdotal, but it would be the best way to make an official decision. Interviewing other vets is another good way to find out for yourself. Unfortunately some of the soldiers who might have been unsuccessful in stopping their opponants with .223s might not be around to answer themselves, or wish not to talk about it.

Good luck in your search.

[bennwj]

He said he wasn't asking for himself. He already believes it is effective. He is asking because he wants others to see/hear for themselves from other veterans.

There is a response from somebody who can read. I KNOW I do not have to ask a combat vet if the 5.56 works. We know it does. I wanted to get some people to realize that what they read does not equal the real world.

Hooah!

[bennwj]

For whatever reason hunters think it is perfectly acceptable to talk about caliber/bullet weight/bullet construction/shot placement to stop an elephant/buffalo/grizzly charge.

For whatever reasons military/LEO does not want to talk about stopping charging communists/islamofascists/crack dealers with non military/LEO.

A lot of people want to forget about it, they think of that time as when their friends were lost, they don't think of that time as an experiment in terminal ballistics. A lot of people have no idea what happened when they shot at somebody.

I was a Navy doc, and it has already been said a 1000 times, different people react differently to being shot, so comparisons are made null and void.


Good point, but I have never seen one person shot above the diaphragm with 5.56 that did anything except die.

My intent behind my original post was earlier in the day I saw somebody make the comment that the perfect patrol rifle was an M-14 because that was a "real gun' as opposed to the M-16 family of 5.56mm guns.

I was about 90% positive that that person had never shot anybody with 5.56.

[bennwj]

You may be right, it may be a suitable question... But.. the only problem I see, is the Vets, that I know, and have shot/killed people in combat, really don't like to talk about it... Good luck in your search for answers.

The vets you know are not likely to talk about it to non vets. When we get together in groups of fellow veterans we talk. Hell most of them talk weekly at PTSD group therapy sessions.

[bennwj]

While not myself (yet, preferably ever) my father carried the 5.56 in an M16, then an A1, then an A2. He deployed to Vietnam with an M14.

He told me (when I brought the subject up once) that for long range overwatch the 7.62 was his choice (preferably, in something belt fed), but for close in action, he had absolutely no problems with the M16 doing it's job. As he saw extensive combat in Vietnam, I'll take his word for it. He actually preferred the original 16 to the A1 as he kept his clean and had few problems with it, but he used them all, and was ok with the round itself.

We're both .45 guys for that matter, but he does actually like the M9 (he's shot my 92FS) for the capacity, and he knows either pistol round, capacity and solid center hits are more what matter to him. I still prefer a .45 but either works.

Your father was correct. The only thing better than a belt fed 7.62 is a belt fed .50. The old M-2 can really put the hurt on haji....

I have not seen anybody who only took one round of 7.62. Usually there are three or more holes so a comparison between that and 5.56 can't be made by me. I would GUESS that 7.62 would do a fantastic job though. .30-06 in the Garand and 7.62 in the M-14 served well.

I just think the 5.56 gets a bar rep as a combat rifle round by bunches of people who don't know squat about it.

[MrMurphy]

I've talked to several guys who carried SLR/StG58 (FALs) back in the day and 1 or 2 rounds well placed apparently did the job. Some stuck around for the big 5.56 switchover and didn't seem to mind.

Carried an M4 a lot, carried an M240 far too much. Never had to pull the trigger, doing base defense, hell if they get to us, someone screwed up. I have confidence if I do what i'm supposed to do the 5.56 will do the job.

[Fear Night]

I remember reading from somebody in the military, "I've never seen anybody hit with the 5.56 not act like they were shot."

9mm, on the other hand ... "Ow that kinda hurt, must be an ant in my shirt" :supergrin:

[isis07734]

Ii know this might be viewed as a friend/uncle fable, so take it if you want it...

A nurse I work with now left the DEA for nursing bc it bothered her when she killed a dude with an AR.

OP, thanks for your 21yrs of service...

Are people really questioning the lethality of the 5.56? Seems like a waste of thought.

[JohnJak]

I must confess, I shot Mr. Groundhog at 250 yards. Killed him dead and he never returned fire.

[Justin1584]

The 5.56x45mm was chosen after extensive testing that found the .22 caliber at high velocity to be a pretty fierce stopper, and extremely practical, light weight, accurate, and tame as far as recoil goes. That's why the Soviets switched to the 5.45x39mm from the 7.62x39mm AK round, they saw the superiority of the .22 caliber family in the battle rifle.

Correct me if I'm mistaken.

[AK_Stick]

I remember reading from somebody in the military, "I've never seen anybody hit with the 5.56 not act like they were shot."

9mm, on the other hand ... "Ow that kinda hurt, must be an ant in my shirt" :supergrin:



I've said for a long time I've seen more people survive hits from 7.62x39mm and x54mm than I've seen survive hits from 5.56.

[DriBak]

No, but I slept at a Holiday In once

[sns3guppy]

I see your reading comprehension skills are not what they should be.



You may NOT have meant to be offensive, but I took it that way. Damn the bad luck.


You get told to go pound sand a lot, don't you?

I'm not sure, but I would only accept the woodchuck's first hand knowledge.


:rofl:

[G31Steve]

The reason behind the post is in another thread somebody said why get an AR when you can get a "real" gun in 7.62 (M-14).

Wow that was me I think, in the patrol rifle thread right? I'm flattered I inspired you to make a post. I don't really care I just like the m14 and the advantages of the 7.62 round over that of the 5.56 and I don't blame a service member for having so much faith in what you were issued. Like you said its all shot placement. Have you not been on this site long enough to see that everyone has an opinion ? Why start a thread like this just to start a caliber war ?

Now for the sake of conversation you tell me all the things that the 5.6 is BETTER at then the 7.62 ? Everyone always talks about the 5.56 saying its just as good, I want to know what it does better ?

[GJ1981]

In my experience shot placement is the key and at ranges under 200 yards the 5.56 performs extremely well. If you put one in the chest he is down for the count.

You know it and I know it, this is the most important thing. My only experience relevant with this question was with a 249. In that situation it didn't matter since there was enough lead flying that nobody could have lived. Besides that I didn't have to worry to much about the 5.56 once I became a .50 gunner.

[deadday]

You may be right, it may be a suitable question... But.. the only problem I see, is the Vets, that I know, and have shot/killed people in combat, really don't like to talk about it... Good luck in your search for answers.

It's not so much a matter of not wanting to talk about it...It is the company in which the topic comes up....Annonymous people on a gun board are not the ideal audience for discussion of these experiences...

The round does what it needs to do. That is pretty much it. If you don't believe it, look at the body count from the Vietnam Era, from Iraq and A-stan...It does what it needs to do, and as I said the last time this topic comes up, the only people belittling the round and saying it is worthless are those that really have no ****ing clue. If you really want to know, talk to USAREC, sign on the dotting line, and find out, then deal with the consequences and try not to get pissed off when people ask stupid questions like this of complete strangers. When little kids ask questions like 'have you ever shot anyone' or 'have you ever killed anyone', it's a little more acceptable. They don't know any better, and chances are noone has ever explained it to them.





drew

[Boris Bush]

The problem here is the same country wide. Very few VERY FEW people have any respect for those thats job is to look for people that want to kill them, and you if they had a chance.

That goes for the snot nosed sniveling brats that came here and disrespected the OP.

Everyone reacts differently to combat. The hardest thing for me was seeing with my own eyes what happens when people had no means to defend their family or themselves. Talking to 12 year old kids that were forced to watch their family get beheaded and forced to tell the neighbor hood who was in charge. Most people worth their citizenship to the USA would have few problems finding and eliminating those responsible.

Show some GD respect kids.

5.56 worked fine for me 1SGT

Edit: For those that say the net is full of liars, for those that do lie, what would stop them from doing it to your face?

[TylerDurden]

The problem here is the same country wide. Very few VERY FEW people have any respect for those thats job is to look for people that want to kill them, and you if they had a chance.

That goes for the snot nosed sniveling brats that came here and disrespected the OP.

Everyone reacts differently to combat. The hardest thing for me was seeing with my own eyes what happens when people had no means to defend their family or themselves. Talking to 12 year old kids that were forced to watch their family get beheaded and forced to tell the neighbor hood who was in charge. Most people worth their citizenship to the USA would have few problems finding and eliminating those responsible.

Show some GD respect kids.

5.56 worked fine for me 1SGT

Edit: For those that say the net is full of liars, for those that do lie, what would stop them from doing it to your face?

Wow... you've got a lot of attitude for someone who's been here two weeks. I think you'll find that the average GT'er respects our Servicemen and women more than your average Joe.

[the iceman]

Lets just say 5.56 works fine...

(infantry, Iraq 2003)

[zoyter2]

The problem here is the same country wide. Very few VERY FEW people have any respect for those thats job is to look for people that want to kill them, and you if they had a chance.

That goes for the snot nosed sniveling brats that came here and disrespected the OP.

Everyone reacts differently to combat. The hardest thing for me was seeing with my own eyes what happens when people had no means to defend their family or themselves. Talking to 12 year old kids that were forced to watch their family get beheaded and forced to tell the neighbor hood who was in charge. Most people worth their citizenship to the USA would have few problems finding and eliminating those responsible.

Show some GD respect kids.

5.56 worked fine for me 1SGT

Edit: For those that say the net is full of liars, for those that do lie, what would stop them from doing it to your face?

The guy comes in with a thread on the internet where he poses a question that is generally unacceptable and improper, THEN professes experience and knowledge to answer the question he posed, THEN demonstrates that he in fact ALREADY knows the answer, THEN he proceeds to dump on the first guy who responds.

Sorry, no disrespect meant to his rank or service, for which I thank him. But in spite of his rank and service, he comes across as a f'ing tool.

I suspect that in moments, he will be proven NOT to be the only one.

[bleedingshrimp]

No, but I slept at a Holiday In once

As did I, and I am also on a steady diet of Mentos (the freshmaker) and Valtrex so I can also kickbox and kayak (ironically better than I could before I was taking Valtrex). And so I am qualified to dispense knowledge on the subject of the 5.56 round.

A close cousin of my lawyer's accountant shot 3 men with one 5.56 round and they all died.

/thread.

[panzer1]

I see your reading comprehension skills are not what they should be.

The reason behind the post is in another thread somebody said why get an AR when you can get a "real" gun in 7.62 (M-14). It's not a matter of what I know to be true, but what others THINK is true because they read it or heard somebody talking about it.

AND if you would have comprehended the question I posed in the post it was to get feedback from people (like me) who have been there and done that. All this silliness over the 6.8 and 7.62 vs 5.56 is mostly theoretical stuff written by people who have NO experience with the cartridge in the real world. Just like if you wanted to know about the G21SF would you like a review from me...a guy who has never fired one?

I did join up. 21 years ago and have been on multiple combat deployments. And I disagree when you say that is not a question to ask a vet. Only they know the answer. The mall ninja's a gun writers do not have a clue to what really works.

You may NOT have meant to be offensive, but I took it that way. Damn the bad luck.Not to be offensive but why then did the Military and remington make the 6.8 if the 5.56 was getting the job done?Why are the Military digging up all the m-14 (7.62x51) they can find if the(weak) 5.56
is the best thing sine sliced bread?I think IMO and from what I read is that the 5.56 is just not doing that good of job over there in the sand box.Now let's not even talk about that dumb ass Direct Gas impingement system on the m4's./m-16's.IMO our guys should have a piston upper 6.8 m4 type rife.They would be better off.

[Smashy]

Show some GD respect kids.

Lighten up before you hurt yourself. My initial reply wasn't disrespect, it was just a joke. I'm a vet myself and I've been a few places and done a few things, so perhaps you can find it in your heart to forgive me if I feel like cracking a joke instead of talking about shooting people.

Maybe after you've been here more than two weeks you'll grow a thicker skin (it's only the internet, after all, not worth getting worked up about) and learn not to jump to conclusions about a bunch of anonymous people you've never even met.

[panzer1]

The 5.56x45mm was chosen after extensive testing that found the .22 caliber at high velocity to be a pretty fierce stopper, and extremely practical, light weight, accurate, and tame as far as recoil goes. That's why the Soviets switched to the 5.45x39mm from the 7.62x39mm AK round, they saw the superiority of the .22 caliber family in the battle rifle.

Correct me if I'm mistaken.I think that the 5.45x39 is a better round then the 5.56 due to the hollow space at the front of the bullet.It tumbles violently after striking a target-creating a larger wound channel compared to a normal bullet.

[Solid]

You should of asked,

"Have YOU been shot with 5.56mm?"

Doubt we'd fine many that are still able to type.

[AK_Stick]

Not to be offensive but why then did the Military and remington make the 6.8 if the 5.56 was getting the job done?Why are the Military digging up all the m-14 (7.62x51) they can find if the(weak) 5.56
is the best thing sine sliced bread?I think IMO and from what I read is that the 5.56 is just not doing that good of job over there in the sand box.Now let's not even talk about that dumb ass Direct Gas impingement system on the m4's./m-16's.IMO our guys should have a piston upper 6.8 m4 type rife.They would be better off.



Well, the military is always looking for something that can do better than what they've got. Cue the F-22, the 6.8, and the Crusader artillery system.

The 6.8 is dieing, and the Army, isn't digging up any more M-14's. They originally did, because they thought they'd have a need for engaging targets past the effective range of the 5.56. However, the Marines, who issue Acogs, instead of M68 aimpoints, never issued them. Whys that? Because the scoped M-16's were hitting and killing people just fine, where as the non magnified sights, weren't making the longer shots.


The M-14 was fielded for a perceived need, instead of a real one. And its dieing a final time, as we speak. Its been replaced by a 7.62x51mm SASS (Semi Auto Sniper System) AR-10 for snipers, and a DMR accurized M-16 for the squad designated marksmen.


5.56 works just fine, if you make a good hit. Like everything else, shoot poorly, and you won't stop your target.

[tjpet]

Saw firsthand what the early M193 5.56 rounds could and did do. Pretty nasty against soft targets. Can't speak of the newer type rounds but they don't seem to be cutting the mustard some of the time - at least what I read from various sources.

From my limited experience the only conventional hand held weapon I witnessed that repeatedly stopped a body cold, regardless of how pumped up, was a 12 gauge w/00 buck.

[Thunderhawk88]

My intent behind my original post was earlier in the day I saw somebody make the comment that the perfect patrol rifle was an M-14 because that was a "real gun' as opposed to the M-16 family of 5.56mm guns.


Both weapons/calbers are great, depending on the mission. I loved the M-14. I thought it was the perfect weapon. Then the M-16 showed up, and we had to turn the 14s in.
The lighter 16 made a big difference in the jungle/wooded areas where ranges were short and the humps were tough. In a base camp or OP position the range of the 14 was a big plus (so long as you didn't have to hump it far).

[TacticalBling]

The 5.56x45mm was chosen after extensive testing that found the .22 caliber at high velocity to be a pretty fierce stopper, and extremely practical, light weight, accurate, and tame as far as recoil goes. That's why the Soviets switched to the 5.45x39mm from the 7.62x39mm AK round, they saw the superiority of the .22 caliber family in the battle rifle.

Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Unfortunately, they found later that people in that military study had falsified their tests/results in order to sell the 5.56 round to the DoD.

Not saying that it doesn't work well, just that it isn't the best choice for every situation...which I'm sure everyone here already knows. :wavey:

[bamarammin87]

I missed this one.

[Myke_Hart]

Here is some hard data. Niether is better, just different. Dead is dead.

You decide.

Read the whole story here.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16.htm

5.56 thru Level IIIA armor into clay.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/images/16-11.jpg
http://www.theboxotruth.com/images/16-12.jpg

7.62x39 thru Level IIIA armor into clay.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/images/16-22.jpg
http://www.theboxotruth.com/images/16-23.jpg

Sorry no data for 7.62x51 yet

[SW342]

I shot a couple of poodles with the 5.56 round before. The rounds just bounced right off the furs.

:wow:

[Stonewall308]

No, but I shot a 160 pound deer this weekend with a .3006. It knocked it off its feet, shattered the shoulder bone into jello, and destroyed most of the vital cavity.


The .223 was designed for the military. I've read that there was a study done that said the side that throws the highest number of bullets down range wins, so the Army went to a smaller bullet. That doesn't really hold true in a situation in which you aren't fighting in large groups. If I want a round thats cheap and doesn't kick, I'll shoot 9mm. If I am going to upgrade to a rifle, I want something with absolute stopping power.

[deadday]

No, but I shot a 160 pound deer this weekend with a .3006. It knocked it off its feet, shattered the shoulder bone into jello, and destroyed most of the vital cavity.


The .223 was designed for the military. I've read that there was a study done that said the side that throws the highest number of bullets down range wins, so the Army went to a smaller bullet. That doesn't really hold true in a situation in which you aren't fighting in large groups. If I want a round thats cheap and doesn't kick, I'll shoot 9mm. If I am going to upgrade to a rifle, I want something with absolute stopping power.



There is not such thing as absolute stopping power.




drew

[3/325]

Holy mackerel, the 5.56 beat the crap outta that clay!