A longish discussion thread on this round disputes your characterization. http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge
As a varmint gun, they apparently cut the varmint in half:
Quote:
anybody who doubts the 5.56 needs to go shoot a grown dog with it and watch it rip the dog in two pieces,maybe more. no lie,iv done it.
But here's the author's couple of starting points before the comments begin:
Quote:
There are a lot of myths and misconceptions surrounding the current M16A1, M16A2, M4, M16A4NATO 5.56 round and its effectiveness on the battlefield. Now before you make a judgment as a soldier or as a firearm enthusiast (a more euphemistic way of saying “gun nut”), consider your sources. Who is it that is telling you the 5.56mm, or .223 if you prefer, is an ineffective round? Is this source an armchair general who has watched Blackhawk Down one too many times; or a Navy Corpsman who has been attached to a MEF fighting in Fallujah and has seen, treated and inflicted these wounds with his own M-4?
Quote:
Now the real debate begins… How truly deadly is the 5.56? Well, this past April when I was going through Combat Skills Training at Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin, one week was spent in Combat Life-Saving class (CLS). The medics who instructed us had slide show after slide show of combat injuries they have treated over their last three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. And let me tell you, these were not for the weak stomachs among us. If you are reading this article, I bet you are the same type of person as I to ask, “What calibers caused those wounds?” These men and women have seen the worst injuries of coalition forces and enemy combatants alike. The Geneva Conventions state that medics must provide medical care to all captured enemy personnel when able. Therefore, many Taliban and Jihadist fighters came across their operating rooms. After class one day I asked all of them, “Do any of you doubt the killing power of the 5.56 round?” They all answered with a resounding, “NO.”
Quote:
I’ve never been prviliged to serve in the armed forces, but I have talked with many – MANY – guys who have been in combat. I have studied the subject for many years and here’s a summary:
1) Special forces veteran from Vietnam with YEARS of combat experience: “Anyone who questions the .556 has never been in serious combat. The round causes horrific wounds. Of course, if they didn’t hit an enemy in the head or chest, it might not stop him right away, but the 7.62 wouldn’t likely do any better.”
2) Combat medics think the .556 is more incapacitating than the 7.62 X 39 AK round.
3) The 7.62 X 51 U.S. round does unquestionably have more “knockdown power; however, it fragments and yaws less effectively than the .556. It is debatable whether the 7.62 is more effective at close range. Over 350 yards, or through vegetation, the 7.62 is superior.
4) Officers writing after-action reports generally report favorably on the .556. Civilian gunwriters almost uniformly bemoan the “lack of stopping power” of the .556.
Quote:
As a 68W, a combat medic for you civies, I have seen more pictures of the best and worst of both rounds in training than most service men see in their tour. I have seen US boys with faces completely destroyed by a 7.62 still live and have it put back together and come out being able to fight. I have seen exit wounds from a 5.56 so large that you could stick your fist inside and not get it bloody. I can tell you right now, the 5.56 is more than capable in its role, mid range engagement.
Quote:
I do close qt combat have been in the service since 89 still in Spc forces and mainly do counter terriost now. Close qt nothing beats the 5.56 round it’s a nasty mean load dosent take me more than a dbl tap and it’s over. I Nvr shoot once it’s not taught nor a good idea
Quote:
The Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned (MCCLL) took a look at this issue during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in 2005. What MCCLL found was that the numerous “first hand” accounts of 5.56 deficiencies in combat were neither accurate nor “first hand.” After extensive interviews with actual shooters and witnesses, MCCLL determined that the 5.56 round utilized in the M16 family of weapon systems performed remarkably well in the combat environment, and that the numerous reports of failure had no basis in fact.
Quote:
I completely agree with u . I have read many articles about combat effectiveness of 556 in iraq and afghanistan and i had concluded that decrease in stopping power of 556 only occured when it is used from a m4 carbine or other carbines which is essential in urban cqb.
Quote:
The .556 was an excellent round in Iraq. It easily penetrated car windshields and exploded insurgent brain matter with enthusiasm. All that was missing was some classical music while our M16s went to work. Bottom Line- If you doubt the .556, you lack combat experience.
Quote:
I used both NATO 7.62 and 5.56mm firing weapons during my military career, and found both to be highly effective in the right situation. The South African Defence Forces R-1 (FN 7.62mm SLR) built under licence would go through an African termite ant hill, which will stop a car dead in it’s tracks, and kill the aggressor on the other side of it. The R-4 and the shorter barrelled R-5 (Israeli Gallil 5.56mm) were effective close quarter battle weapons, both reliable and accurate up to 500 metres and 300/350 metres respectively. For target shooting or the sheer pleasure of it the R-1′s 7.62 mm wins, but in combat the R-5′s 5.56 mm would be my weapon of choice.
