PDA

View Full Version : MasterNemesis- The .223 A Very Deadly Bullet



txradioguy
07-21-2012, 05:42 PM
TheMastersNemesis (1,025 posts)

View profile

The .223 A Very Deadly Bullet
I know many people know how deadly the .223 round from an M-16 is or AR 15. For those people who do not know. Here is what I discovered my first days in Vietnam.

My first day in the field our squad leader shot two VC in a brief skirmish. They were left behind to harass our company when we were searching an enemy camp. I came up on the scene less than a minute after these two enemy were hit. There was not a mark on them except a couple of very small holes similar to a 22 caliber rifle. Yet they were done for because the bullet traveled all over their body. Even if you were hit in an extremity it could very well amputate that part of the body.

There was good reason why you never locked and loaded any M-16 unless you were ready for immediate action. It was simply too dangerous a weapon to be even shot by accident.

The .223 was designed to have only just enough rotation that when it strikes an object it acts like a dud and has the stopping action of a 50 caliber weapon. What makes it so bad is that the bullet is meant to travel throughout the target it hits and then fragment. The lethality of this kind of weapon is so severe that it should not be on the streets of this country.

There is no earthly reason to have such an assault weapon available to the general public. It is a murder and killing weapon.

And forget what you see in the movies. High velocity assault weapons will go through two car doors and still do damage. The only place safe in a firefight is behind the engine block.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002987715

Adam Wood
07-21-2012, 05:47 PM
TheMastersNemesis (1,025 posts)

View profile

The .223 A Very Deadly Bullet
I know many people know how deadly the .223 round from an M-16 is or AR 15. For those people who do not know. Here is what I discovered my first days in Vietnam.

My first day in the field our squad leader shot two VC in a brief skirmish. They were left behind to harass our company when we were searching an enemy camp. I came up on the scene less than a minute after these two enemy were hit. There was not a mark on them except a couple of very small holes similar to a 22 caliber rifle. Yet they were done for because the bullet traveled all over their body. Even if you were hit in an extremity it could very well amputate that part of the body.

There was good reason why you never locked and loaded any M-16 unless you were ready for immediate action. It was simply too dangerous a weapon to be even shot by accident.

The .223 was designed to have only just enough rotation that when it strikes an object it acts like a dud and has the stopping action of a 50 caliber weapon. What makes it so bad is that the bullet is meant to travel throughout the target it hits and then fragment. The lethality of this kind of weapon is so severe that it should not be on the streets of this country.

There is no earthly reason to have such an assault weapon available to the general public. It is a murder and killing weapon.

And forget what you see in the movies. High velocity assault weapons will go through two car doors and still do damage. The only place safe in a firefight is behind the engine block.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002987715So, you were wandering around Vietnam firing illegal ammunition?

Sounds like Masterwhatever needs to be frog-marched to the Hague. :biggrin-new:

txradioguy
07-21-2012, 05:48 PM
So, you were wandering around Vietnam firing illegal ammunition?

Sounds like Masterwhatever needs to be frog-marched to the Hague. :biggrin-new:

The Air Force was the original recipient of the AR-15/M-16 because the Army wasn't convinced of the effectiveness of the 5.56 round versus the 7.62 used in the M-14 IRRC. It took the Army a couple years to come around.

My Drill Sergeants also explained to us that with the smaller round...you could hump more ammo on patrol.

In addition they told us that in theory a round that wounds someone on the battlefield takes out not just the person shot...but 1-2 people needed to treat that person and/or carry them back to a medic so you take 3 people off the battle field with one shot...versus a bigger round simply killing said person and the other soldiers moving on in the fight.

True or not it seems to make sense.

It's certainly a lot more plausible than that bullshit that MasterAssClown came up with.

Adam Wood
07-21-2012, 05:52 PM
The Air Force was the original recipient of the AR-15/M-16 because the Army wasn't convinced of the effectiveness of the 5.56 round versus the 7.62 used in the M-14 IRRC. It took the Army a couple years to come around.

My Drill Sergeants also explained to us that with the smaller round...you could hump more ammo on patrol.

In addition they told us that in theory a round that wounds someone on the battlefield takes out not just the person shot...but 1-2 people needed to treat that person and/or carry them back to a medic so you take 3 people off the battle field with one shot...versus a bigger round simply killing said person and the other soldiers moving on in the fight.

True or not it seems to make sense.

It's certainly a lot more plausible than that bullshit that MasterAssClown came up with.Unless I'm mis-reading this:


What makes it so bad is that the bullet is meant to travel throughout the target it hits and then fragment.

it would seem that he's talking about frangible ammo, which, last I heard, was a big no-no on the battlefield.

txradioguy
07-21-2012, 05:59 PM
Unless I'm mis-reading this:

it would seem that he's talking about frangible ammo, which, last I heard, was a big no-no on the battlefield.

Nope not misreading. That's what this idiot is implying.

Never mind the fact that all military rounds are FMJ.

Madisonian
07-21-2012, 06:40 PM
I may not remember all my ballistics correctly, but in addition to being able to carry more rounds, the .223 in a boat tail configuration would not fragment once inside its target, but would tumble causing a far more traumatic wound than a 7.62 NATO that would go in and out.

There was also the fact that as Tx mentioned, a wounded enemy in many cases is better than a dead enemy. It is not only the evac of the wounded, it is the treatment required once they are off the battlefield that ties up more personnel and logistics support than a fatality.

Jim54
07-21-2012, 08:51 PM
I may not remember all my ballistics correctly, but in addition to being able to carry more rounds, the .223 in a boat tail configuration would not fragment once inside its target, but would tumble causing a far more traumatic wound than a 7.62 NATO that would go in and out.

There was also the fact that as Tx mentioned, a wounded enemy in many cases is better than a dead enemy. It is not only the evac of the wounded, it is the treatment required once they are off the battlefield that ties up more personnel and logistics support than a fatality.



Stoner's first M-16s had a 1 in 14" twist resulting in a less stable bullet (by design) that tended to tumble after entering the body. I believe they have a 1 in 12" now and are less prone to tumble.

Apache
07-21-2012, 09:16 PM
The 5.56 round is a wounding round. Can it kill, yes... it was meant for attrition(sp?)... taking manpower from the enemy during a fight. It is not a massive knock-your-ass -back-Matrix-concrete-busting WMD....It is, in fact, a small, cheap and more easily transported round to send down-range. The Man sending the message is the dangerous thing...something the DUmmies miss EVERYTIME!

Wibbins
07-22-2012, 12:33 PM
The 5.56 round is a wounding round. Can it kill, yes... it was meant for attrition(sp?)... taking manpower from the enemy during a fight. It is not a massive knock-your-ass -back-Matrix-concrete-busting WMD....It is, in fact, a small, cheap and more easily transported round to send down-range. The Man sending the message is the dangerous thing...something the DUmmies miss EVERYTIME!

Apparently, dummies think weapons fire themselves and the person holding the gun only does so because society has corrupted him; it's never the person firing the guy with these people.

Chuck58
07-22-2012, 03:02 PM
Was this guy really in Vietnam. Did he actually ever see a body?

What I remember of the 5.56mm is that it sometimes took a couple or more hits to stop a determined VC/NVA. I don't recollect it having the stopping power of a .50 cal. But, that was a long time ago. Maybe my dislike for the rifle and round has colored my thinking.

Bondai
07-24-2012, 01:25 PM
The OP was never in Vietnam, at least not in the capacity he states. The M-16 doesn't use .223 ammo it uses 5.56 NATO. The two rounds are not the same. His whole post is nothing more than BS and I can't force myself to comment on his stupidity any further.EOM

michaelsean
07-24-2012, 04:14 PM
How does a .223 know the difference between a human and a car because it seemingly tumbles when it hits a human, but just flies through both sides of a car?

Adam Wood
07-24-2012, 05:52 PM
How does a .223 know the difference between a human and a car because it seemingly tumbles when it hits a human, but just flies through both sides of a car?The same way that Army-issue FMJs turn into illegal frangible ammunition in the jungles of Vietnam: magic. You sprinkle some pixie dust on the rounds before you fire them, and they'll do whatever you want.

Chuck58
07-24-2012, 07:10 PM
The OP was never in Vietnam, at least not in the capacity he states. The M-16 doesn't use .223 ammo it uses 5.56 NATO. The two rounds are not the same. His whole post is nothing more than BS and I can't force myself to comment on his stupidity any further.EOM

True. You can fire .223 rounds in a miltary rifle, but 5.56mm in a sporting rifle can lead to dangerously high chamber pressures.

FDK
07-25-2012, 05:42 AM
There was good reason why you never locked and loaded any M-16 unless you were ready for immediate action. It was simply too dangerous a weapon to be even shot by accident.

I guess running around with a "locked and loaded" .22 is OK with this guy because it's not very dangerous.

michaelsean
07-25-2012, 09:29 AM
I guess running around with a "locked and loaded" .22 is OK with this guy because it's not very dangerous.

Yeah I thought that was funny. You don't go locked and loaded with super-duper dangerous weapons, but if there's a 50/50 chance you will survive being shot by an accidental discharge then it's cool.

michaelsean
07-25-2012, 09:31 AM
The same way that Army-issue FMJs turn into illegal frangible ammunition in the jungles of Vietnam: magic. You sprinkle some pixie dust on the rounds before you fire them, and they'll do whatever you want.

I'll have to go to Target World and get some of that. Finally I'll have ammo that hits the target where I tell it to.