The .223 military round

[Jim Hauff]

I'm with SANDMAN - ranges, reduced barrel length in the M4 (16") configuration (lowered muzzle velocities) and heavier projectiles (62 gr.) all limit the effective range. Close-up (CQB) the M4 is a champ and knocks the stuffings out of the teddy bear. At ranges beyond 200 meters - the round becomes less effective. Hence the inclusion of the "designated marksman" with each Infantry squad, equipped with modified M14 he has the range advantage.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by Jim K

That is, pardon the expression, a crock of crud. No nation ever adopted a military cartridge designed to wound the enemy or (another common myth) ordered its troops to shoot to wound.

I think most of that silliness came out of WWI, when the battle sights of the U.S. Springfield rifle were set to 550 yards. Troops were told to aim low at attacking soldiers so the bullet would strike in the torso. (If they aimed at center-mass, the bullet could go over the enemy soldier's head.)

So the story grew that doughboys were ordered to fire at the enemy's legs to wound him so "it would take two more to carry him off". Then came the second silliness, that military full jacket bullets were not intended to kill (like hunting bullets) but only to wound. All nonsense in 1918 with the .30-'06, and nonsense now with the 5.56mm.

Jim

That is partly true. The NVA booby traps were designed to wound and take three troops out of the fight instead of 1. It also would usually cause a chopper extraction and give them opportunity to ambush troops and shoot at a chopper. Could be B.S. but I saw a NVA general on the history channel say it.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by Sandman

That is my opinion as well. If the 7.62 is so much better, why are the countries that traditionally used it moving to a smaller round instead of the U.S. moving (back) to a 7.62?

Now there might be an argument about the 5.56's application in Afghanistan and Iraq, since the range can be a tad bit longer than the jungles of Vietnam.

They both have their place.

[BradleyCole09]

Fmj is more politically correct makes poititons seem caring just look back at all the effective rounds that were verry good at what they were Ment to do. Early .303 British was designed to un balance an make what would of been a wounding hit become an death sentince. The Russian 7.62 x54R sniper round had a steel rod with a small counter weight that on impact would tumble the bullet inside the target. Then they were disoawed from combat too crule to the enimy.Most people that arnt gun fokes don't like hearing that we aim to kill they want un to stop them without force. Just look at the current rules of engagement. Any and all cartages were designed to kill it's jut about how good ones aim is and if u have items that give u an advantage fmj are cheap to produce ya jhps are better bu they cost more and bullets designed to do there job wel usually cost more than fmjs

Sorry for long post just my 2 cents

[Albtraum]

Originally Posted by rcairflr

Surely a 62 grain piece of lead with a muzzle velocity of approx. 3200 fps couldn't possibly be designed to kill someone.

Exactly this. I've had enough about the whole; "The bullet is designed to tumble, flip, turn and yaw in the target." Regardless of what it does in the target, or the bullet shape, if it's FMJ, Hollow Point, soft lead nose, or has a plastic nose like Vmax, it is still a 62 grain projectile flying at three thousand feet per second with over 1000 ft/lbs of kinetic energy, and is quite lethal.