<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: .223 vs 5.56: What&#8217;s the Problem?</title> <atom:link href="http://www.gundigest.com/ammunition-reviews-articles/223-vs-5-56/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.gundigest.com/ammunition-reviews-articles/223-vs-5-56</link> <description>Expert advice from the world&#039;s leading authorities on gun values, gun prices, gun history, gunsmithing, shooting and tactical gear</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 06:25:04 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator> <item><title>By: sbleve</title><link>http://www.gundigest.com/ammunition-reviews-articles/223-vs-5-56/comment-page-1#comment-25983</link> <dc:creator>sbleve</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:45:37 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.gundigest.com/?p=171181#comment-25983</guid> <description><![CDATA[I am no expert but have had past opportunity to touch up-close those early M16 rifles.  Between the M14 and the M16 the first noticeable difference is the very much reduced recoil/total weight of the M16/ammo.  The M14 after 200 rounds in less than 1 hour the temptation to hold the butt away from the shoulder was nearly impossible to avoid.  Today&#039;s CQB (close quarter battle)  tight-urban open-terrain evolution has several needs that one rifle just does not fit unless there is armored units alongside. ROE&#039;s can significantly reduce any weapon system combination. This is a sin of ignorance. The current M4 variant is in a good shooters hand effective at 400-600M soft target, but best at the 0-350m. CQB is in part a product of WW2 and Offense Assault needs.  Armored and Mechanized rapid assault requires somewhere along that line of operation infantry support at very close distances relative to the effective range of the armored-biggest gun.WW2 U.S. right-Flank Army  &#039;breakout&#039; occuring any number of times, a very popular weapon was the M-2 auto select carbines that the crew of M119(?) carried.IWS a derogatory term with the I-idiot and the S-stars knew very well, 1966, that units, some, assigned were not completing the mandatory repetitive weapon qualifications.  Oh, the paper work showed fine-and dandy good work.  One such solution was on a given day 6 shooters fire adequate rounds for each assign person/weapon and bag the empties and turn in to the IWS operatives &#039;see, we have done our duty&#039;. After 1000 Rd&#039;s 7.62x51/M14 in one shoot, no more shooting for a week, maybe a month, recoil injury. The M16, also shot at these events would only get hot, sometimes ruining a barrel. The guy with the bum shoulder ended up loading Mags M14/tripod/auto.The war fighting evolution continues today.  The German ARMP43 or variants began the Assault Rife evolution. A copy cat in the AK47 after WW2.  The original Garand M1 development model had a banana magazine(30rn?) but IWS (maybe a bureaucrat) altered that notion and via another competing New-rifle that used the metallic Clip now famous in-sound M1 when the last round ejected. The term - &#039;How many Clips you have left&#039;vs magazine of today. BAR&#039; gunners called the bullet holder?In my opinion, which may not be much, the M16 development came about because of NATO needs and what would be a defensive CQB-urban envirnment.  Protecting available defensive armor units from an invading offensive Warsaw PAC army equipped with the now famous AK47. Several of the then NATO allies had or were developing their own  assualt-rife to fire the 7.62. The AR10, rejected by AMC, variant saw action in a foreign army before the U.S. completed M14 production. The turning point has to do with 1960-63 Air-Mobil attack functions - logistical considerations. Any number of M1 trained soldiers hated the 5.56 for most all of the obvious reasons.  The most distractible complaint was that the M16 was worthless at dismounted drill.  Worthless, they said.WW2/Korean vets mostly occupied any place of importance of the Cold War in the US military 1956-66.  The last measurable front line offense vs defensive war was coming to an end. Gulf War 1991 was the ultimate test to this Defensive NATO vs Warsaw PAC capability in the Big D transitioning into the Offensive war that wins any war. Logistics win wars.  Tenacity wins battles. A vet of Panama 82nd/Regiment jumped with twice the normal ammo for their M16&#039;s.  This was not possible at weight restricting 7.62.  Thinking Logistics.  The USSR converted over to a lower recoiled/weight 22cal AK74. Today&#039;s soldier carrying an M4 is much better trained and skilled at most every thing war than in 1956.  NATO EU 1965 was a cannon fodder strategy first hours-days.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am no expert but have had past opportunity to touch up-close those early M16 rifles.  Between the M14 and the M16 the first noticeable difference is the very much reduced recoil/total weight of the M16/ammo.  The M14 after 200 rounds in less than 1 hour the temptation to hold the butt away from the shoulder was nearly impossible to avoid.  Today&#8217;s CQB (close quarter battle)  tight-urban open-terrain evolution has several needs that one rifle just does not fit unless there is armored units alongside. ROE&#8217;s can significantly reduce any weapon system combination. This is a sin of ignorance. The current M4 variant is in a good shooters hand effective at 400-600M soft target, but best at the 0-350m. CQB is in part a product of WW2 and Offense Assault needs.  Armored and Mechanized rapid assault requires somewhere along that line of operation infantry support at very close distances relative to the effective range of the armored-biggest gun.</p><p>WW2 U.S. right-Flank Army  &#8216;breakout&#8217; occuring any number of times, a very popular weapon was the M-2 auto select carbines that the crew of M119(?) carried.</p><p>IWS a derogatory term with the I-idiot and the S-stars knew very well, 1966, that units, some, assigned were not completing the mandatory repetitive weapon qualifications.  Oh, the paper work showed fine-and dandy good work.  One such solution was on a given day 6 shooters fire adequate rounds for each assign person/weapon and bag the empties and turn in to the IWS operatives &#8216;see, we have done our duty&#8217;. After 1000 Rd&#8217;s 7.62&#215;51/M14 in one shoot, no more shooting for a week, maybe a month, recoil injury. The M16, also shot at these events would only get hot, sometimes ruining a barrel. The guy with the bum shoulder ended up loading Mags M14/tripod/auto.</p><p>The war fighting evolution continues today.  The German ARMP43 or variants began the Assault Rife evolution. A copy cat in the AK47 after WW2.  The original Garand M1 development model had a banana magazine(30rn?) but IWS (maybe a bureaucrat) altered that notion and via another competing New-rifle that used the metallic Clip now famous in-sound M1 when the last round ejected. The term &#8211; &#8216;How many Clips you have left&#8217;vs magazine of today. BAR&#8217; gunners called the bullet holder?</p><p>In my opinion, which may not be much, the M16 development came about because of NATO needs and what would be a defensive CQB-urban envirnment.  Protecting available defensive armor units from an invading offensive Warsaw PAC army equipped with the now famous AK47. Several of the then NATO allies had or were developing their own  assualt-rife to fire the 7.62. The AR10, rejected by AMC, variant saw action in a foreign army before the U.S. completed M14 production. The turning point has to do with 1960-63 Air-Mobil attack functions &#8211; logistical considerations. Any number of M1 trained soldiers hated the 5.56 for most all of the obvious reasons.  The most distractible complaint was that the M16 was worthless at dismounted drill.  Worthless, they said.</p><p>WW2/Korean vets mostly occupied any place of importance of the Cold War in the US military 1956-66.  The last measurable front line offense vs defensive war was coming to an end. Gulf War 1991 was the ultimate test to this Defensive NATO vs Warsaw PAC capability in the Big D transitioning into the Offensive war that wins any war. Logistics win wars.  Tenacity wins battles. A vet of Panama 82nd/Regiment jumped with twice the normal ammo for their M16&#8242;s.  This was not possible at weight restricting 7.62.  Thinking Logistics.  The USSR converted over to a lower recoiled/weight 22cal AK74. Today&#8217;s soldier carrying an M4 is much better trained and skilled at most every thing war than in 1956.  NATO EU 1965 was a cannon fodder strategy first hours-days.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Chick</title><link>http://www.gundigest.com/ammunition-reviews-articles/223-vs-5-56/comment-page-1#comment-25959</link> <dc:creator>Chick</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2012 17:01:58 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.gundigest.com/?p=171181#comment-25959</guid> <description><![CDATA[Why did we end up with a commercial caliber different from the military caliber? Doesn&#039;t the longer throat in the 5.56 affect the accuracy, due to the longer jump to the rifleings?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why did we end up with a commercial caliber different from the military caliber? Doesn&#8217;t the longer throat in the 5.56 affect the accuracy, due to the longer jump to the rifleings?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: rb</title><link>http://www.gundigest.com/ammunition-reviews-articles/223-vs-5-56/comment-page-1#comment-20141</link> <dc:creator>rb</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 03:23:21 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.gundigest.com/?p=171181#comment-20141</guid> <description><![CDATA[It&#039;s funny, but I feel kinda stupid because it seems to me that what the military was looking for, and ended up with, was something very much like the carbine m-1. Light, maneuverable, moderate power cartridge, full-auto and hi-capacity magazines. Plus we had a s___load of them on hand. A little re-fitting and you never know......]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s funny, but I feel kinda stupid because it seems to me that what the military was looking for, and ended up with, was something very much like the carbine m-1. Light, maneuverable, moderate power cartridge, full-auto and hi-capacity magazines. Plus we had a s___load of them on hand. A little re-fitting and you never know&#8230;&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: biteme</title><link>http://www.gundigest.com/ammunition-reviews-articles/223-vs-5-56/comment-page-1#comment-19921</link> <dc:creator>biteme</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:12:01 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.gundigest.com/?p=171181#comment-19921</guid> <description><![CDATA[There is another element to all this. Back in the late 1960s I was working with weapons designers at Picatinny Arsenal. I remember having a fairly long lunch hour discussion with a man from Frankfort Arsenal. He described an outline of small arms development as follows. There was a desire to produce a weapon for &#039;foreign national&#039; that was smaller and lighter than those carried by the folks in Europe and North America. (Like those folks in south east asia perhaps. It needn&#039;t be said that the additional sales would be good for the arms industry.) There were other assumptions such as wounding the enemy was better than killing. In addition it was well known that long thin rounds become unstable when they pass into a new medium such as air to flesh and they are apt to tumble producing a nastier, but not necessarily a killing, wound. A ball for example just blasts on as far as it can. A piece of coat hanger wire will fly like an arrow and then will bend and tumble when it hits. The extreme military &#039;round&#039; in this regard was the flechette. There were even some experiments with flechette rockets that could be launched from within a soda straw or a cigarette, the filter protecting the person firing it from the back blast, but I digress. In any case the point was the &#039;new&#039; military round was designed to be a maiming and wounding round and as such I think it is a bad choice for the military in situations where there is no enemy that will tie up its forces caring for wounded.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is another element to all this. Back in the late 1960s I was working with weapons designers at Picatinny Arsenal. I remember having a fairly long lunch hour discussion with a man from Frankfort Arsenal. He described an outline of small arms development as follows. There was a desire to produce a weapon for &#8216;foreign national&#8217; that was smaller and lighter than those carried by the folks in Europe and North America. (Like those folks in south east asia perhaps. It needn&#8217;t be said that the additional sales would be good for the arms industry.) There were other assumptions such as wounding the enemy was better than killing. In addition it was well known that long thin rounds become unstable when they pass into a new medium such as air to flesh and they are apt to tumble producing a nastier, but not necessarily a killing, wound. A ball for example just blasts on as far as it can. A piece of coat hanger wire will fly like an arrow and then will bend and tumble when it hits. The extreme military &#8217;round&#8217; in this regard was the flechette. There were even some experiments with flechette rockets that could be launched from within a soda straw or a cigarette, the filter protecting the person firing it from the back blast, but I digress. In any case the point was the &#8216;new&#8217; military round was designed to be a maiming and wounding round and as such I think it is a bad choice for the military in situations where there is no enemy that will tie up its forces caring for wounded.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Object Caching 375/479 objects using apc
Content Delivery Network via Amazon Web Services: CloudFront: d3pvexk84ayvwf.cloudfront.net

 Served from: www.gundigest.com @ 2013-05-24 20:24:02 by W3 Total Cache -->