5.56 doesn't drop people

[a1madrid]

I have been hearing a lot of people claim that 5.56 is not as a reliable self defense round because it does not drop people that well. Obviously being hit with 5.56 is not going to do the same damage as a 30 caliber round, but in all honesty, out of a 16 inch barrel, how effective is a 55 grain FMJ 5.56 round? I've watched all the ballistic gel tests and what not, but why are people complaining about this round? It is a rifle round. I would think it would be very effective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Terrible Tim]

Shot placement & nothing more. A 55 grain bullet zipping around in the old noggin from 100 yards will certainly ruin your day, but then so will a single 22 long rifle 36 grain bullet. A 45 beats a 9mm, which is better than a 380. Hitting someone with a large caliber round in the wrong spot may not drop them immediately. "Dropping people" effectively from three stories up is the only certain way to make sure they drop and stay down (unless they are just lucky & happen to bounce).

[a1madrid]

You can hit someone in the head with a rock and kill them. I'm talking more generally like a shot to the center mass of someone's torso


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hank6046]

Quick someone tell the Military/Nato before they go to war with that round. There is a lot of info on the +/-'s of this topic on google

[C-grunt]

In my experience it works pretty well.

[BrigandTwoFour]

I have been hearing a lot of people claim that 5.56 is not as a reliable self defense round because it does not drop people that well. Obviously being hit with 5.56 is not going to do the same damage as a 30 caliber round, but in all honesty, out of a 16 inch barrel, how effective is a 55 grain FMJ 5.56 round? I've watched all the ballistic gel tests and what not, but why are people complaining about this round? It is a rifle round. I would think it would be very effective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most 5.56 rounds, especially the 55gr FMJ variety, are heavily velocity dependent for effect.

In January of 1930, Aberdeen Proving Ground's Robert H. Kent published "The Theory Of The Motion Of A Bullet About Its Center Of Gravity In Dense Media, With Applications To Bullet Design." It is shown that the size of a bullet's yaw in test medium is approximately independent of the striking velocity and the rifling twist. Giving examples for .30, .25, and .20 caliber projectiles, Kent notes that bullets with light noses are prone to early yaw, and suggests that lightweight, high velocity, small caliber bullets will cause more damage than heavier, slower, large caliber counterparts. There is a really good breakdown of this paper at WeaponsMan.com. Basically, a smaller projectile with a light nose and heavier base will yaw faster than a heavier bullet of the same shape. For instance, a .25 cal will yaw twice as fast (and in half the distance) of a .50 cal bullet of same shape and construction.

In 1952, the Army published a report by Norman Hitchman called Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon. The report is a compilation of his work on project ALCLAD two years earlier which determined how bullet wounds kill in war (and how to develop armor to protect it), as well as an analysis of battlefields and how rifles were used. Essentially, the most practical range for an infantry rifle is 300 yards and closer.

There are a lot more studies and tests after that leading up to the finalization of the 5.56 and M16. But the bottom line is that the round is more than capable of "dropping people" at reasonable ranges. Modern developments in projectile design and construction have dramatically improved upon the capability of the round.

People complain about the round because they either can't shoot, have inflated expectations, or were stuck with crappy ammo.

[a1madrid]

Are you saying that based on that theory that a 5.56 would do more damage than say a .308?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hank6046]

Each has their place in a defensive arsenal, a .308 or 7.62x51 is a wonderful round, but so is the right .223 / 5.56. Situation dictates. The question should be one of a tool, not one of power.

[BrigandTwoFour]

Are you saying that based on that theory that a 5.56 would do more damage than say a .308?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't say that. But a nearly 100 year old report suggested that a lighter bullet of sufficient velocity could cause as much damage as a larger bullet given sufficient velocity.

But that's theory. In practice, there are more variables. A .30 is probably more likely to consistently cause a given level of trauma, but at the expense of weight and recoil. Everything is a trade off. In any case, I'm not a ballistics expert. I just shoot and read a lot. I leave being an expert to the actual experts.

[tommys229]

Never failed me. I'll leave it at that