The .223 military round

Discussion in 'Technical Questions & Information' started by Palmetto, Nov 23, 2011.

  1. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,443
    Location:
    Indiana
    Just because it is printed doesn't make it true.
  2. redwing carson

    redwing carson Former Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    Messages:
    734
    Location:
    western wyoming
    They made the claims way back in 1898. The tiny .30 Krag was going to replace the 405 Grs. 45-70 no way. It seems the tiny .28 Cal. Spainish Mausers were too deadly in Cuba. The .277 was considered to replace the .30 Cal in WWII now it is back on the table. The failed civilan varmint round .222 Rem Magnum became the .223 Remington or 5.56 Nato. A new generation of American youth needed to be trained quickly. They also needed lighter ammuntion for airborne units. The .308 and the .45 Acp were replaced with light low recoil weapons such as the .223 and 9MM. The weapon choices are made by politicans and defense contractors it has little to do with picking the correct military weapon. Custer had Trapdoor Spflds. the NDNs had repeaters and some 8MM French Lebel Bolt actions. Only the NDNS were allowed to choose there battle field weapons.:rolleyes:
  3. ignats

    ignats Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    107
  4. American Leader

    American Leader Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,710
    Location:
    Iowa
    I shoot .223, .22-250, 7.62X39, .30-06, .303, and 7.55X55 and I'm lovin .223 more every day. That little round does kill, is accurate, and is very inexpensive to load. I would have no problem using it on a bunch of them jihadists!;)
  5. Sandman

    Sandman New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    559
    Location:
    Louisiana
    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.
  6. Jim Hauff

    Jim Hauff New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,976
    Location:
    Lehigh Valley, PA
    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.
  7. reynolds357

    reynolds357 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    707
    Location:
    Georgia
    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.
  8. reynolds357

    reynolds357 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    707
    Location:
    Georgia
    They both have their place.
  9. BradleyCole09

    BradleyCole09 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    55
    Location:
    So Ca
    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
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2012
  10. Albtraum

    Albtraum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    Messages:
    997
    Location:
    California
    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.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
Technical Questions & Information Military Stock Id Jun 28, 2014
Technical Questions & Information Hi Standard HD Military Problem Jan 26, 2014
Technical Questions & Information High Standard HD Military Problems Oct 22, 2012
Technical Questions & Information HIGH STANDARD HD MILITARY PROBLEM Jun 9, 2012
Technical Questions & Information hd military problem Feb 14, 2012

Share This Page