Is the .223 FMJ worth anything in application? - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion > AR-15 Discussion > Is the .223 FMJ worth anything in application?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-11-2009, 10:53 PM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
IGETEVEN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tornado \"Just Blow Me\" Alley,Oklahoma U.S.A.
Posts: 8,424
Liked 27 Times on 21 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
IGETEVEN, are you aware that American long range snipers in, both, Afghanistan and Iraq have been using Hornady, 'A-Max' ballistic tip ammo?
Affirmative. Your point here?

Jack
__________________
Jack

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

"There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter." - Hemingway

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.”
IGETEVEN is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2009, 12:18 PM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IGETEVEN View Post
Affirmative. Your point here?

Jack
None!

(Within the context of the Second Hague Convention and it's, presumed, implications you brought the subject up.)
__________________
G21.45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2009, 12:38 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
My understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is the 5.56 FMJ was adopted by NATO because it was less lethal than a soft-tip or hollow-point. It was very good at injuring someone, which had the advantages of taking them out the fight, risking more enemies to pull and carry that person to safety, and consuming significant enemy medical resources to care for that person.
My understanding, and I'd also welcome being corrected if I'm wrong, is that the United States Military and, later on, NATO adopted 5.56 x 45mm because of a perceived necessity to: use a fully automatic infantry weapon, fire more shots while in combat, and (consequently) satisfy the need to easily carry more ammunition.

During the Vietnam era when this subject used to be frequently discussed in all the, 'gunzines' I do not remember anyone citing, 'increased wound capacity' as a viable reason for switching from 7.62 x 51mm to 5.56 x 45mm ammunition. Increased wounding seems to have been a consequence of this change - rather than a prerequisite to it.

By the way, the first time I heard about the idea of one wounded combatant tying up three or four others was during the Korean War. The idea might have been around for longer than this; but, I wasn't aware of it until then.

Refer:

M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M-16 RIFLE 5.56MM
__________________
G21.45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2009, 09:04 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
IGETEVEN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tornado \"Just Blow Me\" Alley,Oklahoma U.S.A.
Posts: 8,424
Liked 27 Times on 21 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
None!

(Within the context of the Second Hague Convention and it's, presumed, implications you brought the subject up.)
Then I take it that you do understand that a sniper's mission is different than those of regular combat troops and ground soldier's mission and weapon's issue. In that, a sniper's goal is a one-shot, one-kill mission, emphasize on the kill part, at all costs.

Jack
__________________
Jack

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

"There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter." - Hemingway

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.”
IGETEVEN is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2009, 04:44 PM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
Other than this, 'shooting to wound' is a really stupid idea.
Agreed, from a self defense standpoint. From a military standpoint, which is a source your were using to defend the FMJ round, shooting to wound is a great idea.
__________________
Megaton is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 12:49 AM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Gus556's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 426
Default

The concept of shoot to wound in combat is new to me!!!

I always wanted the guy shooting at me to be dead and because of that I would put as many rounds as I pssibly could into the same place as he was trying to occupy.
I watched people "finish him off" so I can not imagine the idea of wounding the enemy.

__________________

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...(T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, Freeman's Journal, 20 Feb 1778)

Gus556 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 02:52 AM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
RL357Mag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Albany,New York
Posts: 3,251
Liked 5 Times on 5 Posts

Default

BKT is correct in that the principle behind using FMJ's in battle was to wound instead of kill thereby removing several combatants from the fight as well as slowing advances by tying up resources. A dead soldier requires no attention.

__________________
Guns Have Only Two Enemies-Rust and Politicians
"The United States Constitution (c) 1791 - All Rights Reserved"
If Guns Kill, Do Pencils Mis-spell Words?
Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body - USMC
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum"
RL357Mag is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 03:17 AM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Stafford, Virginia,The state of insanity.
Posts: 14,043
Liked 36 Times on 30 Posts

Default

A-max and ballistic tip are two tottaly different bullets made by different companies.

HORNADY A-max bullets have a polymer tip as does NOSLERS BALLISTIC TIP, and SIERRA's blitz king.

THe Hornady A-max is NOT a ballistic tip bullet. For being so smart G21 you sure talk like your not all that smart.

__________________
cpttango30 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 11:12 AM   #29
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
My understanding, and I'd also welcome being corrected if I'm wrong, is that the United States Military and, later on, NATO adopted 5.56 x 45mm because of a perceived necessity to: use a fully automatic infantry weapon, fire more shots while in combat, and (consequently) satisfy the need to easily carry more ammunition.
Right, that makes sense -- lighter rounds means being able to carry more of them. But it doesn't address using FMJ versus something else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
During the Vietnam era when this subject used to be frequently discussed in all the, 'gunzines' I do not remember anyone citing, 'increased wound capacity' as a viable reason for switching from 7.62 x 51mm to 5.56 x 45mm ammunition. Increased wounding seems to have been a consequence of this change - rather than a prerequisite to it.
Yes, but we're not talking about 5.56 vs 7.62x51. It's about 5.56 FMJ versus 5.56 other-than-FMJ. And in THAT context, wounding rather than killing does seem to be the objective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
By the way, the first time I heard about the idea of one wounded combatant tying up three or four others was during the Korean War. The idea might have been around for longer than this; but, I wasn't aware of it until then.
That may be. But again, it doesn't address the different types of rounds.

Ballistics research seems to show that something other than a FMJ 5.56 is more lethal. If the objective is to kill the enemy, it seems counterintuitive that NATO et al would not issue the more lethal rounds to soldiers. On the other hand, if hampering the enemy with wounded does more damage overall than killing them outright, it does make sense.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 11:26 AM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 259
Default

If it were me buying an AR, I would just go ahead and get the one built for 5.56 instead of .223. From what I've been told, they are the same thing, but 5.56 is at higher pressure. On the question of application, yeah you could hunt with it, go out to the range and shoot with it, defend the home with it. There are plenty of uses for it.

I don't know a ton about it, but I would think FMJ would be more deadly, better penetration, better stopping power.

__________________

Last edited by hogger129; 09-14-2009 at 11:33 AM.
hogger129 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
iPhone Application Helps Snipers user4 The Club House 3 11-02-2011 04:59 AM
application of protective coatings on the lead hunter2222 Ammunition & Reloading 6 09-15-2009 01:44 AM
Application for first time buying a gun hindubandit Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 2 08-30-2009 02:51 AM
FFL Application & Hunting License cerpika NFA/Class 3 & FFL Discussion 4 04-30-2009 12:25 AM