[slowryde45]

nevermind...enjoying the kodak moment here

[Benning Boy]

Anyone who has fired tracer can attest that a bullet, once fired, does some peculiar and inconsistent things. They bounce. They ricochet in unpredictable directions. They catch fields ablaze.

I was never comfortable with the power of the 5.56, and often made my own life miserable by opting to hump the hog.

The lovely thing about civilian life is that there are a variety of ammo options, use them to their fullest.

Hell, get a box of tracer.

[Benning Boy]

Originally Posted by slowryde45

nevermind...enjoying the kodak moment here

Aww, put it back, that was great!

[slowryde45]

Originally Posted by Benning Boy

Aww, put it back, that was great!

Huh? Wha? Put what back?

[sausn2002]

Originally Posted by bkt

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.

That's so true. I never thought of that. I always cursed NATO for adopting smaller rounds, but if you think about it, what you've explained here makes even better sense. You could really mangle the enemy's tactics and time up, but at the same time minimize human casualties. Of course, all and all, a gun is a gun, and it is deadly force.

[sausn2002]

Originally Posted by RL357Mag

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.

In saying that, doesn't the full metal jacket have more reassurance of hitting the target? A FMJ, I assume, would have a longer effective range, not to mention perhaps better grouping on the target area.

[stalkingbear]

There is no evidence that FMJ are more accurate than any other type of bullet.

[RL357Mag]

Originally Posted by sausn2002

In saying that, doesn't the full metal jacket have more reassurance of hitting the target? A FMJ, I assume, would have a longer effective range, not to mention perhaps better grouping on the target area.

Accuracy is more a function of bullet design (sectional density, boat tail or flat base, length) all of which contribute to the ballistic coefficient value. Jacket design has little to do with accuracy. Most bench rest shooters use hollow pointed, high ballistic coefficient bullets such as Sierra Matchking and Berger VLD Match bullets.

[CaseyChadwell]

I live in Kentucky and here the law says that you can use any center fire weapon for deer and I like that. I have killed numerous deer with a .223 cal out of a Savage bolt action and have only had one take a step.

I shot the first one with a Nosler Ballistic Silver Tip and thought I hit the neck because the deer dropped dead. He was about 100 yards away. When I got up there to drag the buck out, I had shoulder punched him and turned the insides to jello. I will be hunting with my AR this year because it is a tack driver and have no problems with putting meat in the freezer with it.

As for home defense, I prefer a handgun with frangible ammo in the snout because I don't want it going into my childrens room. I would use my AR for home defense if it weren't for that considering the U.S. Army trained me to be an effective Rifleman and I feel very comfortable with it.

As for ammo in .223, you name it, they make it. I am going to be trying a 65 grain soft point this year on deer. I will let everyone know how it works out for me.

[RAT1988]

There is many choices for .223 but for hunting and self defence you should use a soft point or hollow point 62 grain or heavier bullet. Imho