Smyth Busters: Was the 5.56 / .223 Round Designed To Wound?

Any time gun geeks start talking about military rifle cartridges and the topic lands on the 5.56 NATO / .223 Remington round, somebody will insist it was specifically designed to wound. Brownells Gun Techs™ Caleb and Steve, aka "The Smyth Busters," weigh in on whether this is true. The theory is that wounding a soldier not only takes him out of the fight but also his comrades who have to tend to him. Hence, wounding is "better" than killing. But one of the original U.S. military requirements for the 5.56x45mm round was that it be able to penetrate a helmet at 500 meters. In fact, ANY bullet can kill, even a .22 Short. Early combat reports from Vietnam indicated the 5.56 bullet tended to tumble more readily than the old .30-06 from the M1 Garand or the M14's 7.62 / .308 bullet. A tumbling bullet will often cause a bigger wound, and this might be the source of the "designed to wound" theory. So the myth is BUSTED. The 5.56 NATO cartridge was not somehow specially designed to wound rather than kill. If you have found convincing evidence to the contrary, the guys are ready to revise their conclusion! Tell us about it in the comments below. As far as Steve is concerned, the M1 Garand is really the military rifle that "does it all" anyway. (Wait, is he being provocative?)

[@HumbleWarrior7]

Before the internet many people relied on the local gun shop for their firearms information, myself included. It’s amazing to see how many old tales and myths were simply passed on (or originated) from those shops and became the prevailing theories of the gun world.

[@jarink1]

Now old tales and myths are passed on via the internet.

[@nathancummins8728]

Had a local gun shop try and sell my friend (who’s 19) a mossberg shockwave which is classified as an “firearm” so you gotta be 21. They even let him fill out all the paperwork for it.

[@widehotep9257]

K N O C K D O W N P O W E R !

[@sawhill729]

@@widehotep9257 No such thing.

[@hanskurtmann6781]

Yes those days were phone calls and or gunshop visits and even then you had to wary of what was said. But with the web you really gotta be careful in fact I would never go with one person on the web you need to verify the same with at least half a dozen to be credible, but I would still read or ask from real life or actual industry experts like gun manufacturer family and friends that I have and or use but you learn from experience and research via books or classes. So you would not need to go on KZbin of all places to find out a problem with your firearm etc . Point is the web has some good like Brownells etc But many especially non industry types like the ton of guntubers most of which are very inaccurate or flat out wrong. No offense but in my 40yrs of shooting and 30yrs of collecting only a very few online know what they are talking about and bad info gets tossed around really fast on the web, so much so the web would be the last place to look for info.

[@WadeWallazy]

Watching Caleb trying to hold it together cracked me up. These Smyth Busters episodes are some of my favorite videos on KZbin

[@danjohnson6870]

Caleb isn’t exactly a very substantial looking guy. I’m 6’1” and 155 so I know the feeling.

[@drenk7]

I have learned most fire fights are a 100 M or less. As Steve said most infantry are just laying down a field of fire. The theory of 223/556 was more rounds can be carried for the same weight. Rounds are heavy!

[@yechezkelmendoza5698]

Well their information is common sense. Some of the best knowledge you can possibly get regarding any firearm is provided here. They are the experts, armorers, testers - more than most people I know. They definitely hold a lot more knowledge than what I can recall from learning in the basic characteristics of a firearm platform than what I learned in bootcamp with the M16A2 and when I got to the fleet and was issued a M16A4.

[@jaadow77]

Another aspect about the wounded soldier taking more soldiers out of the fight - that's projecting our attitude on the enemy, who may not have as much respect for the "leave no man behind" ethos.

[@oldsalt898]

Great point Mr. Doe

[@aaronorr5586]

Forcing an ambushing party into a full retreat there are times when the retreating party would try to get as many of their injured people out for Intelligence and Information denial to the successful party.

[@ShepherdOfTheSilkies]

@@aaronorr5586 not all the time and not with every enemy force

[@JW-gl6dd]

The VC was decent even to McCain. They shot him down and rescued him and still he had nothing but racist distain for the brave soldiers defending their homeland from the invaders.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

Noticed the Russians are quick to leave wounded behind.

[@dingo5208]

I've been in the Army a loooong time. I was taught the wounding/two men to treat, four to carry when I did my basic. However, Afghanistan put that myth to bed for me. I can guarantee that 5.56 does more than wound.

[@ulrikerudel6859]

in which range would you consider it so effective? Or could you give me a distance where you start losing confidence in that round?

[@BatCaveOz]

The muzzle energy of a 5.56/.223 is way higher than a .44 Magnum. I don't hear anyone say that the .44 Magnum was "designed to wound".

[@apathy1128]

“Muh forty five will put down a bear!” Also, “five five six with 3.5x the energy is a varmint round designed to wound”

[@Subtlenimbus]

Depends. The ar pistols that are all the rage right now are about equal to 44 mag. A 44 magnum is above 75% the energy of a 20” ar.

[@snowlothar45]

Even though I showed my wife this video after buying a Garand today, I am still on the couch tonight.

[@showtime2629]

They were designed to be light so you could carry much more of them, average rounds per kill were high so it made more sense to have more lighter rounds for suppressive fire. Also the are easier to shoot/ flatter trajectory.

[@BigJon410]

Yep, that is why the Russians also designed the AK 74 in 5.45x39.

[@kinzieconrad105]

Nope, the 5.56 was a work around to get buy the expanding bullet ban by the Geneva convention!

[@tjreed1419]

This was specifically mentioned by Eugene stoner himself in the tapes you can watch on KZbin one of the biggest reasons the military switched to the AR15/M16 platform was because it was lighter

[@kirkmooneyham]

@@kinzieconrad105, I'd love to see some documentation which states that.

[@BlindSpot1000]

@@kinzieconrad105 It's the Hague, not Geneva Conventions, and the US isn't a signatory though we (mostly) abide by it...until we don't. The 5.56 cartridge was adopted becuase it was light and a soldier could carry more, not because of the Hague Conventions.

[@Super-Kuper]

Next up: “.22lr is the most deadly cartridge because it just ‘bounces around’ inside”

[@woohoo2you966]

That is why my pawpaw used to hunt deer with a 22 short from 200 yards because it was more deadly than a 30-30 at point blank range.

[@frankbrowning328]

Great idea. We've heard this statement for decades, but we don't see any type of conclusive testing in flesh and bone to bear out this statement. Even Paul Harrels meat target doesn't show 22LR bullets bouncing all around the ribs, meat and oranges.

[@mikeb1956]

Actually the number of people killed with the 22 rivals that of the 38…

[@woohoo2you966]

@@mikeb1956 Water kills more people per year than a .50 BMG, 22LR, 9mm, 2.23 / 5.56, 7.62x39 & 51, and .38 combined yet I take a shower every morning and drink loads of dihydrogen monoxide (they even give it to kids...for free!). Almost like the volume of fatalities alone does not directly equate to "deadliness."

[@frankbrowning328]

@@mikeb1956 Yes, the 22LR has killed many, many times. It's a very popular round for many reasons. However, the question was about the bullet supposedly bouncing around the interior of a body.

[@deraxelturrelkeign]

Technically speaking most war/self defense cartridges are designed to neutralize enemy combatants/attackers by inflicting grievous life threatening wounds. Its just that attackers tend to be quite neutralized when they are dead.

[@linkbond08]

"The 30-06 does it all." Truer words were never spoken.

[@johngetty3839]

I love my AR15 and my M-1 equally

[@jasonlopez4855]

30-06 never failed for me and my dad My grandfather only had one rifle and it was a 30-06 on his Ranch.

[@linkbond08]

@@johngetty3839 I do also, but when I want to reach out and touch something, and I want that something to know it's been touched, I grab my 06. I don't yet have a M-1 tho :(

[@douglascatron9073]

And as a bonus,the 06 A/P round will cut through at least 3” of concrete like it is paper! Got to love it!!!

[@linkbond08]

@@douglascatron9073 they're so hard to get tho :(

[@brucekastel707]

The way I remember it was, as with any major change in weaponry, some folks doubted the smaller round's effectiveness, with the official response being that even if was a less effective killer taking care of wounded troops took more resources. It was never designed just to wound. All this was just arm chair warefare during the introduction and I never heard anyone wish for a 7.62 while in combat. I carried both and the big factor to me was weight and the size of ammo. You could carry a lot more firepower with the smaller 5.56. Both rounds do horrific damage.

[@cycleboy8028]

It was all about "meet minimum spec" and have the most "rounds per pound". That's it.

[@mylesharvey6488]

Yup M240 verus the SAW. Lighter means more bullets.

[@usmc24thmeu36]

Report after the 1st few M 16's were sent to Vietnam was that even wounds ended up killing the VC. The m16 produced devastating effects on the body.

[@mjcmustang]

A 20" barrel is what that cartridge was designed around. It performs well for its size out of a 18-20" barrel. When you start reducing barrel length and velocity, it looses a lot of performance. I've heard more negatives about the cartridge out of a 14.5" barrel but more good things about it from a 20". I feel a lighter weight, longer barrel is the best balance for the 5.56 factoring in weight and cartridge downrange performance. Not to mention the longer barreled rifles are pussy cats to shoot. Nice soft recoil impulse with little to no muzzle climb

[@aaronorr5586]

@@mjcmustang Modern projectile design along with gas system improvements mean you can have your cake 12.5" 1 in 7" twist barrel carbine and eat up the opposition too.

[@paulreid2223]

I can still remember the anti-US propaganda of the time , that the wounds from an Armalite round would bubble and froth for 10 minutes after impact ..

[@nk-dw2hm]

@@mjcmustang they were tested on a 22" barrel actually

[@LuvBorderCollies]

One of my uncles was a Huey left seater in the 229th Av Btl 1965-66 in the 1st Cav. He was in the debacle known as the Ia Drang Valley aka LZ X-RAY etc in November 1965. He was one of those who volunteered to fly in supplies and fly out wounded when the medevac stopped flying because it was too dangerous. When Tet exploded the Army sent him back for a 2nd tour which he wasn't happy about. He saw a lot of dead and wounded in those tours. When he described the "wounding" bullet of the 5.56mm he would physically shiver just describing the terrible wounds that little bullet caused. Etc: At Ia Drang he went through 3 Hueys in one afternoon and got wounded to boot. He initially was awarded the DFC but that was later recommended to Silver Star.

[@hitekscorp]

The overlooked factor was weight, Vietnam didn't have road networks so most of the supply and troop movement was by air, primarily helicopter, also most of the fighting was done in less than ideal conditions and relied more on volume of fire rather than concentration, with the .556 a soldier could carry more ammo and more could be transported by light aircraft.

[@bc30cal99]

Morning again from the mountains of southern BC gentlemen. I comment only to send a shout out for the standard coffee cups. By the way, we can legally hunt all big game in BC with a .223 except for bison. Bull moose or bull elk are legal however with a .223 but I'd say not commonly used for that purpose. All the best.

[@roygaisser9230]

Thank you! I have LITERALLY heard this from "knowledgeable" guys for 40-50 years! Never bought it, but yes, I did hear it.

[@lon242]

2:57 Caleb caught off guard by Steve's sarcasm, that was pretty savage alright 👌

[@Ratkill9000]

I mean good luck trying to design a bullet to wound only, at least in that regard. Still wouldn't want to be shot with any bullet regardless of what it was designed to do.

[@johnstoveken5901]

paint ball?!?!

[@BanjoZZZ]

@@johnstoveken5901 BULLET

[@Ratkill9000]

@@johnstoveken5901 BULLET not projectile. Or would have said something for less than lethal like rubber bullet, bean bag, etc.

[@meestahwill]

@@johnstoveken5901 You're the kind of guy that would remind the teacher that she forgot to assign our daily homework.

[@sillyshrapnel]

@@johnstoveken5901 paint bullet?

[@Me2Lancer]

Thanks for your post. In 1965 I was serving in the Navy and patrolling close offshore the coast of Vietnam. I remember stories about the 5.56 NATO round tumbling on contact. It didn't affect us. We still used the M1 Garand in 30-06 and 30 caliber machine guns and the ma deuce as well.

[@patrickwelch620]

Thanks. My Dad would say "Welcome Home".

[@j.nicolasphillips3167]

Thank you

[@mattfleming86]

You missed a great opportunity to shout out Arfcom Andrew and an example gel test! Out of a 20" barrel in reasonable engagement distances, absolutely not! M193 is a fantastic round up to medium ranges. I'd say that some of the lore came from hits beyond 200/300 y/m. 2500fps seems to be the borderline where the round yaws and tumbles instead of fragmenting depending on manufacturer. Inside the fragmentation window, it is devastating. Beyond that, the yaw is less impressive but still pretty effective. At long ranges you get those pencil through effects where "it looks like they got hit by a 22" because they pretty much did. When using 77gr OTM or a bonded bullet (fusion/gold dot) the velocity thrrshold is much much lower (and with 77gr you bleed velocity much slower) so you can add substantial range to above estimates. 200 yards and in good old m193 is still a force to be reckoned with.

[@donaldhollingsworth3875]

I believe that the 5.56/.223 was also designed so each solider or Marine could carry more ammunition since the 7.62mm round for the M14 weighed so much more than the 5.56/.223 round. You also have to consider that the M16A1 was designed to put as many rounds down range as quickly as possible on full auto mode which was a waste of ammunition. If I remember this correctly (& anyone please correct me if I am wrong) I read an article that examined the amount of rounds fired from rifles & not machine guns per kill from WWII, Korea, & Vietnam. And it said that the estimated rounds fired per kill in WWII & Korea was 1 in 2,500 while in Vietnam it was 1 in 25,000 rounds. When I was in the Marine Corps & when we got into a fire fight, we had 1 or 2 Marines in our squad or company that all they did was to reload magazines so our unit could continue engaging the enemy. I had no idea of this concept since I was in artillery until I was on temporary duty with an infantry unit doing counter insurgent operations in Honduras & Nigeriana.

[@jstpsgthru]

M16s were unrestricted auto, when I served (70-71,) but I think they reconfigured them to fire 3 round bursts, because of the problem you mentioned.

[@whereswaldo6085]

I think you are correct. This is why I believe the Rare Breed Forced Reset Trigger (and others) is more of a novelty rather than a practical item. Not to mention magazine dumps with a FRT is gonna get expensive very quickly. Making shots count when you need to and conserving ammo seems to me to be the best way to go. I could be wrong but it is my opinion and mine alone.

[@kirkmooneyham]

@@whereswaldo6085, I read an account of the Battle of Mogadishu. Can't remember if the particular story was one of the Army Rangers or an Air Force Special Operator, but either way, the guy stated he used his rifle on semi-auto most of the time, putting a round through each window, doorway, or hole in a building to keep the enemy's heads down, and that he rarely used the burst mode on his rifle because of how much ammo it would have wasted.

[@jerroldkazynski5480]

In my Basic Training (early '71), I recall an Infantry Officer relating a large number of rounds and about 90 minutes on average from a first contact until regaining order. A patrol unit was fired upon, most dropped and rolled and fired away as those in your sight or hearing were doing. HS buddies who returned from military service in Vietnam had pretty intense stories of their actions in the late 60s there.

[@macriggland6526]

the 556 was designed as a work around to the geneva convention: to do as much damage as possible without breaking the technical laws about expanding bullets.

[@keayrhyasen1154]

1981... after basic at Lackland, i'm out at Camp Bullis doing my tech training and this topic was explained just as Caleb said... for every one you wound, it takes 1-2 others to take them off the battlefield thus, it's a Force Reducer. in the '80s, there were still stories floating around the M-16/5.56 was too light of a round to use in the jungle and the M-14 should have been used instead. bottom line it was weight reduction for the common soldier. one other aspect most people don't talk about is the psychological effect the 5.56mm round has on troop moral. i always told the guys on my fire teams that i would rather be shot by an AK-47 than another M-16. the hole going out the back would be WAY smaller ; )

[@01kilik10]

This is my favorite series on KZbin

[@ltgreen6626]

The same was said about the 30 M1 carbine, but Audie Murphy proved them wrong. If a man is a good shot and knows his weapon, that weapon, no matter what it is, it is a killing machine. If a man is a lousy shot, no matter what weapon he has, it is only good for wounding, or just wasting lead.

[@mjcmustang]

Just remember with the M1 Garand, he wanted it chambered in .276 Pederson. The only reason it was chambered in 30-06 was because the US military had enormous supplies of M2 Ball and it also made logistics easier when the MBR and LMGs used the same caliber. The military knew intermediate cartridges were a better choice but it made less logistical and financial sense at the time

[@loboheeler]

Audie Murphy was an experienced rifleman before going into the US Army. He was only 5'-5", so likely traded an issued M1 Rifle for an M1 Carbine for easier handling. You could easily swap out small arms in the field in WW2, and many opted for the Carbine. The Germans liked them too when some were captured.

[@jaredbickmore2474]

Getting into deep fudd lore I see

[@Gunthusiest]

"Bird shot is good for home defense cuz you don't gotta aim a shotgun"

[@MAGAMAN]

@@Gunthusiest Just shoot through the door.

[@robertdahle7216]

Hope you're kidding or your name says it all

[@jaredbickmore2474]

@@robertdahle7216 he's probably being sarcastic

[@Gunthusiest]

@@robertdahle7216 notice the quote marks? It's a common fudd myth. Yes, I'm kidding.

[@PhilWitDa_45]

Love 223/556... Heard stories of Water buffalo gettin dropped in Nam 55 grain FMJ 20 inch barrel... Now we have 68-77 grain OTM, 62 & 70 grain Tsx and good ol 55,62,64,75 grain Jacketed Soft Point

[@Monster11B]

Eugene Stoner commented on the reasons why the cartridge was selected in the recently released videos of his design commentary. I won't quote him directly. They are excellent and interesting to watch.

[@xiongfa2152]

fwiw, it's definitely in the 'folklore' out of Vietnam. My father served 2 years there and he is the one that told me it was 'designed to wound' and had other anecdotes about the round tumbling and 'crawling' up the inside of someone's leg after it entered. I'm not saying it's true or not...but that is what he believed as a veteran.

[@oneofthoseguys2019]

Just like a stereotype why bother mentioning if it's not at least somewhat true?

[@MAGAMAN]

@@oneofthoseguys2019 All stereotypes are based on Truth.

[@chad9166]

@@MAGAMAN this one is just fudd lore tho

[@algoneby]

My research says : One outing for shooting, I brought a zucchini to shoot as a target for fun. I backed it with a political yard sign. The yard sign was the I guess plastic kind of corrugated type thing. Two different people, with two different AR-15 rifles, completely different ammo, both shooting the zucchini. Didn't pay much mind to anything while out shooting. Upon inspection of the backing once I got home, each and every shot that went through the zucchini, and then passing through the backing, the holes were exactly side ways. All of them. Once the bullet went through the zucchini, they all turned sideways. Perfect hole of a sideways bullet each time. No variation.

[@user-oy9zy4ds9m]

Guy couple months ago shot a gel block with m855 at 500 yards and it still fragmented a little bit. Wound track roughly resembled that of a JHP from a traditional pistol caliber. Surprising it performed better than I thought it would tbh.

[@blackbird_actual]

The first report on the 5.56's effectiveness to come back from Vietnam was part of Project AGILE and was written using information gained by US military advisors who had used Colt AR-15 rifles in combat alongside the South Vietnamese. In the report, much was made of the round's ability to produce very large, effective wounds on enemy soldiers and its ability to immediately dispatch them. Here is an excerpt from the Project AGILE report on the AR-15: "(2.) (C) "On 9 June a Ranger Platoon from the 40th Inf Regt was given the mission of ambushing an estimated VC Company. The details are as follows: a. Number of VC killed: 5 b. Number of AR-15's employed: 5 c. Range of engagement: 30-100 meters d. Type wounds: 1. Back wound, which caused the thoracic cavity to explode. 2. Stomach wound, which caused the abdominal cavity to explode. 3. Buttock wound, which destroyed all tissue of both buttocks. 4. Chest wound from right to left, destroyed the thoracic cavity. 5. Heel wound, the projectile entered the bottom of the right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip. These deaths were inflicted by the AR-15 and all were instantaneous except the buttock wound. He lived approximately five minutes." Now, if the round was designed to wound, these would be most unsatisfactory results indeed, but obviously that was not the case - the round, like any other military cartridge, was designed to inflict the most damage to the target possible within the limitations of military projectile design. From the excerpt above, I would say that, at least in its tested configuration of a 55gr projectile fired from a 20" barrel at a velocity of ~3,200fps, it definitely doesn't fit the bill for a round designed only to wound...

[@macriggland6526]

like any other military cartridge? mmmmm.... not sure about that. the soviets didn't put the 5.45 into service because it is more accurate or something. they did it because nobody in the international community addressed the obvious: USA designed a bullet specifically to do as much damage as possible without technically being illegal. this was the intended result all along. somebody at the CIA had a good laugh when this report AGILE was made.

[@blackbird_actual]

@@macriggland6526 I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Any military cartridge design is the result of compromises. If you need a round that is light and compact while still remaining deadly, the 5.56 fits the bill pretty well. That was the whole point of the AR-15 - it was lightweight and relatively compact. The 7.62 NATO hits very hard and is just as likely to put someone down quickly, but its mechanism of wounding is different to that of the 5.56 because of its size and composition. Any military projectile is going to be designed "to do as much damage as possible", but the way that damage is inflicted can vary from round to round. A small diameter round won't punch big holes in someone, but it will fragment and tumble if you design it properly and propel it fast enough. Again, the 5.56's design is a compromise of factors, like any other round - it's terminal performance is the result of making due with a smaller, no expanding projectile by ramping the velocity way up.

[@macriggland6526]

@@blackbird_actual lmfao sure thing bro

[@blackbird_actual]

@@macriggland6526 Why did you delete your first comment lol

[@macriggland6526]

@@blackbird_actual I didn't.

[@kennethbailey2616]

I understand the reason for the .223 Wylde it might be a great discussion. I’m building an AR in .223 Wylde and love the idea of the chambering.

[@KenTenTen]

Waaaaayyy back in ROTC (1966) we had a comparative demonstration of rifle versus cabbage at 15 yards. The M-14 put a nice hole right through the cabbage. With the M-16, the cabbage exploded.

[@darthhodges]

I saw a discussion involving someone who served in Iraq or Afghanistan (I don't remember which) and he had a very interesting take on the debate between 5.56 or 7.62. When doing foot patrols in non-urban areas his unit would have one person in the squad carry a SCAR or other 7.62 rifle while everyone else had M4s. Nobody wanted to be stuck with the heavy gun and ammo. Except on the days they were engaged by someone more than 500 yards away. None of them trusted the 5.56 to be deadly at that range even if they could hit with a 14 inch barrel. But in any closer engagements the 5.56 was adequate to solve the problem.

[@strangleholdoutdoors]

A guy on public land wanted to fight me one time because he was so upset seeing me deer hunting with a 5.56

[@MFPWM2010]

Ha, I have shot several deer with a 5.56. With the right bullet it is very effective. I shot a buck at about 50 yards quartering away from me. Dropped him right in his tracks. Instantly dead. Shot a doe in the shoulder and she made it about 10 yards. Upon skinning her it looked like a bomb went off in her shoulder. You would have thought she was shot with a lot larger round.

[@bikerbernie821]

@@MFPWM2010 thanks for sharing... I am a novice and new to this and I am always looking for advice and because of my lack of armaments and my son-in-law wanting to go with me and my son and his son I was weighing whether I would bring my AR with me so I could use that... That is why I bought a 10-round magazine with a -5... and polymer tipped soft points in case I see things exactly as you posted and I've seen more and more of them... So thanks again

[@jalexanderevans]

You can do it, but why pass up an opportunity to buy an AR-308! Haha

[@MFPWM2010]

@@bikerbernie821 Use a bullet designed for hunting. I like the all copper projectiles. Soft points will work too but I have found them to be fairly inaccurate in semi auto rifles. At least mine anyway. Always worth a try in yours. Some people have good luck with them, and they are less expensive. That being said, I probably wouldn’t take a very long shot with the 5.56 just to be safe. Probably keep it under 200 yards. The deer I have shot have been within 50 yards.

[@mattfleming86]

@@bikerbernie821 Great gun, wrong bullet. You want a bonded bullet (Federal Fusion, Speer Gold Dot, Nosler Bonded Solid Base, Federal trophy bonded bear claw) or a copper solid (Barnes Tsx/TTSX or hornady GMX) Tipped varmint bullets are not suitable for normal hunting methods. They sometimes will not penetrate deep enough. Find some 62gr gold dots or 75gr if you have larger deer. 5.56/223 is PLENTY lethal and I've never had a deer go more than 15 yards- but your shot placement and bullet type matters.

[@chrissewell1608]

Yes, both rounds are lethal... But the military generally uses Full Metal Jacket rounds. Which punch holes (wounding) versus an expanding hollow point bullet, designed to do maximum tissue damage, and more lethal, upon impact! Yes, I have harvested deer with my .223 (Hollow Point)! But... its bullet design is for combat! {And thanks guys, for picking up our previous conversation, and running with it, here! 👍🏼😉}

[@onalert413]

From my reading, part of the idea with the cartridges that ultimately lead up to the 5.56 NATO was that the greater tendency of the round to tumble in the target allowed that smaller, lighter round to have similar or even greater wounding and therefore lethal potential than the larger .30 caliber rounds inside of the intended ranges thus allowing you to carry more ammo without reducing lethality. There was no notion of the round being designed to leave the target alive.

[@bryanschwertner3585]

This all brings me back to Law Enforcement changing from .38 to 9mm to .40S&W. The term they was “….one shot stop.”

[@oldschoolnewschool6270]

Some of us know that there is not one single pistol caliber that is a “one shot stop”. Must have been a lawyer or bean counter that came up with that.

[@bryanschwertner3585]

One shot stop was an FBI term. Tons of officer involved shootings provided the data. So I guess it was good. But I was present on one where the .40 did good, not great. Not sure a handgun round of any other caliber could have done better though.

[@benjimenfranklin7650]

As previous studies concluded, a truly lethal maximum effective range for an M885, 5.56 mm NATO projectile is about 200 to 250 meters (218- 273 yards). Therefore, because half of our firefights occur well beyond 300 meters, our weapons are marginally effective.Aug 31, 2012

[@ftdefiance1]

Recall however the rifle was fielded during Vietnam. Engagement distances in the Mekong Delta will differ from the Fulda Gap or the mountains of Afghanistan.

[@TheDiameter]

@@ftdefiance1 So it was marginally more effective in the environment it was originally fielded in?

[@ftdefiance1]

@@TheDiameter more than marginal don't forget the .55 grain round was noticably faster both because the round was lighter and the A1 rifle has a 20 inch barrel. As I recall engagement distances were on average fifty to 150 yard's rounds were faster and less stable. The cartridge is extremely lethal inside it's original envelope.

[@arch3088]

It was designed to be light weight, thus allowing the soldier to carry more rounds. It really is that simple.

[@arthurdsoto5751]

I saw a Solider that was in Special Operations, & he said " I gave a lot of the Enemy a Dirt Nap with the 5.56" I guess that would settle that question. Just Saying 🤔

[@onenikkione]

since they're napping, they're just wounded

[@dlogan3004]

The Irish/US SF guy that was on Garand Thumb? Yeah I caught that line too, and he was very serious about it lol

[@snoopandpoop1]

Thanks guys I look forward to these !

[@carlc1864]

‘82 Marine Corp boot camp a DI talked extensively about the wounding, tumbling, and ricochet characteristics of the round off bones and taking two people out of the fight from injury. While he mentioned intentional design, his discussion focused on the benefits of the round especially for non center of mass impacts and it’s ability to injure multiple body parts. While which came first is good academic discussion, understanding the characteristics is more important.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

One of my hunting buddies killed 2 muley does with one 30-06 shot. He only had a tag for one. In all his years of hunting he never had 2 deer line up side by side when the bullet came through.

[@oscarwilfredodiazcruz]

In the frontier, between Honduras and Nicaragua, many people use to say during the years of the war: "Show me one survivor of that diabolic tiny cartridge (.223 / 5.56)... No one survive! On the other hand, the Ak (7.62 x 39mm) is less evil, there are a lot of survivors. Yes, without some limbs or another damage, but alive..."

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

The AR15 arose due to the U.S. Army's "light automatic rifle" concept of the mid-late 1950s, whose originator was CONARC (= "Continental Army") CO General Willard Wyman. Wyman's request for proposal stipulated a high-velocity .22-caliber cartridge as part of the package. Said weapon and cartridge were to be lightweight, select-fire, capable of lethality equivalent or better than the M-1 Carbine, and optimized for use inside 300 yards. ArmaLite Corp. scaled down the AR10 - Eugene Stoner's service rifle in .308 - to match the requirement and chambered it in .224-cal. Ultimately, M193 Ball/FMJ was the result, which had a MV of about 3240 fps from a 20-inch 1:14 (later 1:12) barrel. The projectile was designed to fragment at high impact velocities, creating multiple wound tracks, thereby mimicking the terminal effects of hollow-point or expanding ammo. Below this threshold for shattering, the 5.56x45mm M193 was still lethal, but shot placement became more important to its performance. This design allowed the rifle and its ammunition to meet/exceed Wyman's criteria, but in a manner which remained technically within the bounds of the Geneva & Hague Conventions on land warfare. No combat infantryman wants to wound an adversary determined to kill him. That grunt wants to put the enemy down as hard and as permanently as possible when he gets center-mass hits.

[@Onepeg]

This content is relevant to my interests

[@homersimpson6969]

The wounding portion of the cartridge (tumbling) was an Unintended consequence of the design. It kills, it wounds... best of both worlds.

[@DaSeeAir]

You are right on about the 223-556. And you are absolutely right about the 30-06. No other cartridge has that wide of a range of bullet weights of loading ability. 30-06 ForAlwaysEver Here🎉

[@fudgepie1]

Original 5.56mm cartridge was a 55gr bullet fired from a 1:12" twist rate barrel which was sufficient to stabilise it in flight but not after impact. All spitzer shaped bullets will start to tumble on impact because the back is heavier and starts to overtake the lighter tip. At impact velocities greater than 2500ft/s catastrophic jacket failure occurs along the cannelure and the bullet fragments. This doesn't happen with a 1:9 or faster twist barrel which tend to overstabilise the bullet. This accounted for the reputation for lethality and severe wounding of 5.56mm bullets FMJ bullets during the Vietnam war. 55gr FMJ bullets fired from my mini14 tend to penetrate without tumbling and breaking up whereas when fired from Galils and R4s, they show the classic jacket failure at impact velocities above 25oo ft/s and start showing an oscillating keyhole wound channel below 2400ft/s. Definitely not designed to only wound.

[@maynardcarmer3148]

Yes, so while the cartridge may not have been designed to wound, the combination of bullet design and twist rate produced that effect.

[@ronniebaughman1666]

The deer that I killed with the the 223 didn't know that .

[@johngalt2506]

Yes but the theory is that if you wound the deer it takes 2 deer to take care of the wounded deer thus the wounded deer becomes a burden on the deer logistics system 😉

[@tylersmith8317]

I've seen KZbin tests and heard that the tumbling effect was specific to the original long barrel and the twist rate of the original A2 being less than most modern rifles, therefore the bullet was less stable upon penetration. Therefore the tumbling effect has infinitely less to do with the bullet than it does with the twist rate of the barrel. Also, the change to a faster twist barrel could account for less fatalities as reported by some servicemen, as it could accept for more clean pass-throughs. Also the shortened barrel could effect the lethality as a slower moving projectile is less likely to fragment like a faster moving projectile.

[@gunfisher4661]

I believe that is fact it was done with the twist.

[@widehotep9257]

Seeing what 5.56 did to the arm of Gaige Grosskreutz convinced me it is a deadly round.

[@BanjoZZZ]

Hahaa, poor little Gaige... He brought a hippie to a gunfight

[@lon242]

Mr. Spicy Bicep himself 💥💪

[@762x69]

V A P O R I Z E D

[@yechezkelmendoza5698]

@@BanjoZZZ It just shows how ignorant this statement is "Seeeing what 5.56 did to the arm of Gaige Grosskreutz convinced me it is a deadly round". The Point target on a pistol is significantly less than that of a .223 going through a 1/6 - 1/12 barrel after the hammer strikes the firing pin. A 9mm at close range can also penetrate a victim and the projectile can bounce around as well. Trying to compare the a 5.56 from a rifle to some dangerous round like pistols don't have this capability is just ignorance.

[@lizzardlife]

I remember them teaching me this in basic training. Yes it's a lethal round, but FMJ is less lethal compared to hollow points, a requirement of NATO in basic they were talking about talking the enemy out of the fight.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

At fragmentation velocities, 5.56 Is as bad if not worse than hollow points.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@Vintage Hardware Almost any rifle can? There's hollow points manufactured for nearly every caliber.

[@Game-The-System]

Think you mean "Hague convention."

[@Stoney_AKA_James]

I have NEVER heard of any military rifle and or pistol ammunition made specifically to wound, so whoever came up with that was either ill-informed or very naive!

[@Ratkill9000]

2 things can be true.

[@kinzieconrad105]

@@Ratkill9000 yeh it’s tumbles cause it is not allowed to expand cause of Geneva convention ban!

[@akaruchoose2693]

Ill-informed AND very naive? Now that's a dangerous caliber!

[@loumencken9644]

@@kinzieconrad105 Hague Convention. The Geneva Convention dealt with treatment of prisoners, Hague Convention dealt with weapons and ammo. The US never signed or ratified the Hague Convention article banning expanding bullets but observed it anyway, although I read somewhere the army is now using hollow points in their new Sigs.

[@fiveowaf454]

@@loumencken9644 I've always found that to be a curious concept regarding bullet type. In war we kill people by all means available and shoot to kill the enemy, why the use of a hollow point bullet is considered so abhorrent seems ludicrous in the scheme of things.

[@MacCready_]

"Designed to wound" is right up there with "over stabilized" when it comes to 5.56 misconceptions.

[@timothyvotaw7517]

The tumbling effect was a consideration, a factor in the behavior of an 55 gr. FMJ bullet. In Nam, many of our engagements in I Corps were in areas of vegetation, brush, jungle, in ambush situations. It didn't take much deflection from even a twig to get it to tumble, so often, the entry wound was actually larger than the AK or M-14 rounds going straight in. I rotated back to the states before we were finally ordered to surrender our M-14's for the Mattel toys - Marine grunts had heard the stories from Army infantrymen, hung onto the 7.62 to the bitter end.

[@dennisyoung4631]

The original bullet - M193, I think - would go in about 4 inches, get sideways, like spitzer bullets usually do - and then break in half at the cannelure, releasing a storm of small fragments as well as two large chunks.

[@jimr3179]

That coffee mug with the cats on it cracks me up!!

[@googlesbitch]

The concept of tumbling bullets has long been understood and the 5.56 with the m193 bullet does this very effectively. Tumbling bullets was first noticed during the Spanish American war when American soldiers died instantly when struck with the then new spitzer bullet while US army was using the conical shaped bullet. Spitzer shaped bullet has the majority of its mass at the rear and upon impact the nose of the bullet tends to yaw often. An additional feature with the m193 bullet was adding a cannelure to allow a firmer crimp but the side effect was a weaken jacket due to distortion and fragmentation was the result. The present m855 bullet has lost most of the effectiveness of its predecessor the m193 by changing the dimensions and internal structure of bullet and this resulted in less tumbling and fragmentation.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Another instance where that was noticed was the phasing out of Dum-Dum bullets from .303 cartridges. The ball round retained the round nose shape, and the performance was disappointing. A later cartridge development was the inteoduction of both spitzer shape, and also a light nose filler using aluminum while the rear was still lead.

[@jackmehoff2363]

Every time you see a fudd say this, ask them this one question, what part of the projectile makes it wound and not kill. Ask them physically how the hell shooting someone in the gut with it will only wound and not kill. This is the most mindless fuddlore ever. It's like they have no ability to think at all.

[@MrGray-dx8sw]

Regardless of the design to do 1 are the other I wouldn't want to get hit with that round. I'm willing to say folks that has been hit with it would agree they wouldn't want another one.

[@felsinferguson1125]

Just ask Kyle's "buddy", Mr. No-bicep, how willing he's going to be to step in front of one again... (Too bad it wasn't a head or chest shot... could have saved some time listening to a moron - Oh well... Mighty hard to blame Kyle for missing the kill-shot in a situation like that)

[@TerminalM193]

Good ol Kyle Rittenhouse made that one dudes arm practically evaporate.

[@herbderbler1585]

@@TerminalM193 I came here to make that same point. Kyle demonstrated the value of 5.56.

[@jimhanty8149]

I have heard that same story about the AK round…I tend to doubt either version of the same tale…

[@csmphotography]

All bullets are designed to stop the threat. It is up to the shooter to make that happen. If killing the threat is what must happen, then so be it.

[@woodrowcall3158]

Do one on the difference between reflective red dot sights (I.E. Aimpoint CompM4, Holosun’s sights, etc.) and holographic weapon sights (EOTech HWS, Vortex UH-1 “Huey”)

[@tonydeaton1967]

I saw Steve at the big Tulsa gun show this past weekend.

[@svaz2006]

That's been a myth since at least the 90's when I heard it in service. My SGT told me that by wounding, rather than killing, it would take two more soldiers off the battlefield to help their buddy get to the medics. I was like, "Sarge, you ever study the Russians in WW-II? They give a d*mn if their soldiers are wounded on the battlefield, they've got bodies to throw at us!" That was another 30 push-ups for yours' truly, but it was satisfying. :D

[@loquat44-40]

I can not speak to what the intentions were of the designers of the 5.56 cartridge. It was initially used in a barrel with as slow a twist that would still allow acceptable accuracy. The original .222 cartridge was modified to the 5.56 resulting a cartridge that can propel 55 grain FMJ bullets to about 3200 fps in a 20 inch barrel. The bullets tend to keyhole and fragment in flesh. At closer ranges this round makes a devastating wound on humans after it travels through sufficient tissue to destabilize. It is about as destructive in wounding capacity as a military FMJ bullet can be. Victims of mass shootings shot at close range in the torso have very serious and often fatal wounds from 5.56 projectiles. The recoil in a properly gassed 5.56 rifle is very light and this was one of the goals I am sure and also the rifle can be made lighter and ammo load out that be carried contains more rounds. Many gel tests on the internet show what it can do. For hunting I would choose a bolt action in a larger round. For combat I would strongly consider the 5.56 round as being very good. For hunting If I have nothing else, I would use it with the proper hunting bullets on game under 250 lbs. It was designed to kill people and so it works well on game that are about the size humans. Not for big bears, elk, moose, or bison.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

The Remington .222 and .222 Magnum gave years of insight into behavior of light .224 diameter bullets in live flesh. The nasty wounds and blown up prairie dogs gives a good idea what'll happen to your arms, legs or torso/innards if you get hit.

[@woohoo2you966]

The same fuds claiming they hunt deer with a 22LR are also the ones repeating the nonsense that a .223 / 5.56 was not designed to kill. P.S. Great video guys!

[@loquat44-40]

Besides small game, target shooting, and plinking, the .22 is a poachers weapon in the field and what a farmer used for slaughter of a winter calf. It is used for precise head shots. I have heard stories that poachers prefer .22 mag rim fire in that it is still quiet but does a good job on head shots. For military it is a stealth weapon and assassins often use it. Not what I would use for self defense if I had a choice.

[@bmponder1]

Especially with modern ammunition..223/5.56 is a beast even at distance.

[@americanpatriot2422]

Great Video.

[@russnielsen4231]

With the smaller faster bullet you get an hydraulic wound channel which is absolutely devastating

[@joebobgrizzler9963]

The benefit to the Infantryman is a larger combat load. (He can carry more bullets.) Automatic fire can increase the probability of a hit and suppress enemy fire at the expense of wasted ammunition. In the beginning.. there was no training or emphasis on short bursts of fire. The "three round burst" selection made it easier to re-acquire targets. The A2 had a heavier barrel and wouldn't climb off target like the A1 when you opened the zipper. It is my opinion that a .223 cartridge through a long barreled locked bolt is much different than a 5.56 mm gas operated with a buffer spring. I've never researched the ballistics. I just go by what my shoulder tells me, as well as the damage to the target. It wouldn't be my first choice. The Germans and the Israeli probably make the best small arms outside of all that NATO b.s.

[@PatrickJDoyle-bw3fu]

Some where I read that the early M-16's had a slow twist to make the bullet destabilize guicker after impact to increase the damage and when I retired, I bought an M1 from the CMP, now I know why my Dad liked it so much.

[@johnhammered3321]

It was replacing the M-1 which was to heavy and ammo also hard to carry. Smaller and lighter. But look how many rounds were expelled to kill the enemy in Vietnam. Statistics shows that over a ten year period 20,000 rds per enemy death! Rounds were flying everywhere!😲

[@bluetrue6062]

19,999 misses versus one hit.😁

[@christopherrobin8134]

The fudd lore just never ends

[@capntimber7982]

My Dad was in on the testing of the 5.56 rounds and the new platform. What Caleb stated about military thinking of wounding one and taking three off the battlefield is correct. However from what my Dad said more of the focus was on trying to train people too fire short burst cause the new platforms at the time would burn through a mag before ya knew it

[@pfrman4629]

All military cartridges are required to to be FMJ so they dont expand, by treaty, because they would create less repairable damage if a vital organ was missed see "The 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets". A side effect is they cause less death

[@johnknouse8846]

I really think this myth came from soldiers in Vietnam who witnessed how the cartridge had a tendency to tumble when it hit a body. My dad (half jokingly) would say, you could shoot them in the chest, and the bullet would come out their ass!

[@TerminalM193]

LMAO! I swear, my pap who served in Vietnam literature says the EXACT same thing!

[@LuvBorderCollies]

Bullets do strange things when they hit stuff. Sometimes its fairly predictable but never say never or always. One case I investigated the bullet spiraled around a tibia from knee to ankle. There's lots more weird unpredictable bullet stories but that's all for now.

[@dudebroski9460]

i recently read black hawk down, they were using the green tip ammo. the 55 grn m193 ammo actually rips at the cannular and fragments where the green tips where going strait thru with less than stelar results. at one point one of the d boys gets why another one carries the old heavy m14. it really matters what bullet under what circumstance you are talking about. was a light armor peircing round aimed at unarmored skinny solamis designed to wound? no, it was misused and that was the outcome.

[@danjohnson6870]

I’ve killed several deer with 223 and 22-250. None were ever just wounded

[@williamgaines9784]

"Laying down fire" as you say around 1:45 was also a good purpose. The ability to carry more rounds afield is very important in battle settings. The round 5.56×45 has proved its capability while also highlighting its limitations. Comparing the Garand to the M16/M4/AR : the same soldier could carry nearly 4 pounds more other gear(food, water) just from the weight difference in the firearms and twice the ammount of ammunition for the M16 as the M1. I have both, AR not M16, and Garand. Like them both, but would prefer the lighter if one was going to be my constant companion in the boonies. The logistical consideration that care of wounded uses more resources than disposing of the dead, assumes that the enemy has the same moral code you have. A grave(no pun intended) miscalculation in several conflicts the USA has entered.

[@slick99rooster]

It is not a myth, while I was in the army I read an article in what I remember was Army Times. The military needed a round that used a short action for faster cycle times, lighter ammunition so a soldier could carry more rounds and was accurate out to 500 meters. They chose the 223 because it met all three of these elements and it wounded more than it would kill. This was to what you mentioned that a wounded enemy took at least 2 other fighters off the battlefield. This was at a time during the Cold War when wars would have been fought w large scale armies not low intensity conflicts.

[@Peter-oh3hc]

In the late 70's an ex soldier who was 60 told me the wounded soldier story. I assume he was talking about an M1 and his point was about fmj bullets he felt were designed to go through the enemy

[@mac8080]

Love the videos guys!

[@roykiefer7713]

For the US military to have purposefully designed the M193/5.56x45 projectile’s terminal ballistics to wound horrifically, would violate several “laws of ground warfare.” And it was NOT so designed. That the M193 projectile often - but not always - did so, was simply a fortuitous accident.

[@kinzieconrad105]

Cause the real reason is more nefarious. It’s a ban work around!

[@roykiefer7713]

@@kinzieconrad105 Proof? Wild assertion with a fragment of substantiation.

[@chrismanning1171]

When my Drill Sergeant first took me to the shooting range he did not say shit about wounding the enemy.

[@rlmillercpa]

Caleb’s face at 2:56 makes me think a .30-06 Smyth Busters is in the near future.

[@bryangrote8781]

I shoot hogs with mostly .223/5.56 55g FMJ. Dropped every one like a stone so far, but never shot any at more than 100yds out. Most 55g FMJ don’t exit, which always surprises me even for such a small caliber, but internal damage is as bad as anything else I’ve seen. Read some old Dr. Fackler work on military calibers from the 70s and 80s. 10% and 20% gel was used as was recently slaughtered hog carcasses and even cadavers. Original 5.56 55g M193 round began tumbling ~5” in, then fragmented along cannelure groove. Wounds were devastating, which matches my experience. 7.62 NATO made longer, narrower wounds. Still pretty big but mostly just punched straight through. 7.62X39 similar to 7.62 NATO until ~9-12” then began tumbling with similar effect as 5.56 but too late to see this effect in direct frontal shots. 5.45X39 was nearly indistinguishable from 5.56 M193. Later heavier 5.56 such as M855 created much smaller wound cavities at least at closer ranges. ALL would likely be lethal in one center mass hit regardless however. Seems the difference is more about maximum effective range or barrier penetration than anything else with all these calibers rather than maximum potential terminal effect.

[@fredlardieri6879]

The velocity alone out a service rifle should be a tell tale sign that this cartridge has devastating effects! Plus very accurate in a ordinary rifle shooter's hands. It may not have the bush wacking abilities of the 30cal. But it will definitely kill you dead!

[@martinmccomb5462]

The way I heard it explained, there were two reasons for the switch to 5.56 from 7.62. 1, the 5.56 rounds were smaller and lighter so an individual soldier could carry more of them at a given weight limit, thus increasing available firepower at any given point in time in a given battlespace. 2, the m-16, which replaced the m-14, was both lighter in weight and produced less recoil, making it easier for an average soldier to use, meaning that soldier could fire his rifle more accurately and the military conducted studies that proved a fire team using m-16 rifles was more effective overall than similar teams equipped with m-14s. The new rifle/cartridge combo was simply deemed a "better mousetrap" and so was adopted by the armed forces of the U.S.

[@zandvoort8616]

I think for sure a larger round is more appropriate for hunting. It offers you longer range, power and a more effective kill shot for those individual strikes you will be taking against a range of animals. The 556 is a military round designed for intermediate range assault rifles. It just a different tool and didn’t really belong in the hunters inventory.

[@strugglebusbonsai]

The 5.56 was designed to wound - fatally! Nice to see Steve lighten up a little.

[@jakeoutdoors9600]

I have an M1 and modern 5.56 rifles. I believe that fmj bullets are less likely to kill as other designs out there, no matter the caliber. That is why we generally don't hunt 100 to 500 pound game with fmj bullets. That being said, I don't want to be hit with a 5.56 or a 30-06.

[@JohnJones-op8uf]

Thanks guys..

[@kixigvak]

Hunting in rural NW Alaska, primarily caribou and seal, the .223 caliber tends to be the favorite of the Vietnam generation. I'm not sure what's behind it but that's what I've noticed.

[@michaelshea5427]

This "Myth" got started due to M855 Green tip. .223 is not designed to wound but SS109 AKA M855 Green Tip was! So yes the .223 Rem cartridge was not designed to wound. However, certain rounds developed for a cartridge design can posses a desired effect. The characteristics of wounding were noticed early on in the testing phase of the SS109 round.

[@44hawk28]

Let me see if I can give you a full understanding of the concept behind the round. At no time was it designed to be less lethal. The earliest on this concept was an M1 carbine round that was necked down to 25 caliber with a relatively high velocity and an unstable projectile. They didn't end up using that because it was a little ahead of its time and the gun really wasn't catching on. What the 223/556 can do is it still lethal on any good solid hit. But with periphery hits, it's wounding capability is quite vociferous. The wounds in extremities are vicious. Which leads to less Effectiveness from wounded Personnel. Plus the fact that they do then have to be cared for, provided you have people who care about people they're fighting with at least as much as we do. Not all of our enemies have been that great with caring about the people they're fighting alongside. I hope this helps. My first instructor in army construction, had been in World War II Korea and Vietnam. And he was also well-versed in Weaponry Arts. He is the first person I've ever seen, and he was my Army instructor in high school. At our gun range that was in my high school he was the first one I ever saw who could fire six rounds out of a single action revolver and put all six rounds on the paper from the waist by Fanning the gun. When I was able to shoot well enough to impress him I knew I had accomplished something. The training I received from him was why I was able to qualify expert Marksman everytime I qualified with the five and a half pound first model AR-15 in the Airforce with no perceptible recoil and of course no forward assist. But then again I never fired one with the Winchester ball powder that was destructive to the AR-15s when some of that ammo got into Vietnam. Inside of 200 yards that 223/556 does wound quite well but that doesn't mean that it is not just as lethal if not sometimes more so. The problem it had was tactical barrier penetration. The bullet tended to fragment quite readily. If you want to know what I'm talking about look at the two or three frames of the shot that hit Kennedy in the head. He was shot in the head from an M16. If you read his autopsy report the hole in the back of his skull what's 6 mm in diameter and the only sub 6 mm firearm in Dealey Plaza that day was the M16 in the back of the Secret Service Car. And several witnesses and one photograph shows that that rifle was out while they were in Dealey Plaza. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[@jimlasswell4491]

Went to Parris Island in 1971. Qualified with the M14. Thereafter quals were always with the M16. In spite of the hype, never saw anything but neat little holes in the targets at 200, 300 and 500 yds. I never dropped a round out of the black at 500 yds. Down the road I fired for my squadron at Camp Perry in 1973 on the 1000 yd iron sight range with a tricked out M14. Certainly I heard in my travels the bit about a wounded man requires more manpower than a dead man but adhering to that philosophy was always the bailiwick of the enemy. They had more to gain from it, simply because they cared less for their wounded. Semper Fidelis meant nothing to them

[@timewave02012]

The helmet penetration criterion was specific to SS109 adoption as a standard NATO round. The American designation is M855. Neither M855 nor the M193 it replaced could be said to have been designed to not kill. My impression of what actually happened was the US determined individual soldiers could be more effective carrying a larger quantity of lighter ammo, or something else like machine gun ammo, as long as the individual rifle was still capable of taking enemies out of the fight. It's not like they didn't want to kill the enemy-more like they didn't need to overkill the enemy.

[@CT-Woods]

I mean... any round that is booking at 3200 fps is definitely not “designed” to wound.... on impact... it explodes my dudes.. or more accurately, it fragments.. . Look at the cavitation it causes. It, in my opinion, is deadlier than 30-06 when it slams flesh.

[@aaronorr5586]

There are a lot of people in the inner city that have been slabbed from a single 22 long rifle round. While that by no means makes it a great round for personal defense it just goes to show that bullets out of pistol are bullets and will act a certain way, just like bullets out of a long gun are bullets and will act another certain way.

[@marcusmaddenov2451]

223 out of the m16 was designed to tumble, thus acting like a much larger round while having the desirable characteristics of a smaller lighter flavor shooting round. This was more a function of the twist rate of the rifling in the original rifle, than the cartridge.