You're kidding, right? Because the larger calibers do not have a 100% kill ratio you think the 5.56 is MORE effective?! I don't think anyone involved in the selection process of the 5.56 round as our main battle cartridge felt that at all. They recognized it was a compromise so that our troops could carry more ammo and a slightly lighter weapon. It was a bad compromise in my opinion. Since there are lots of people that you can also talk to that have survived a hit from a 5.56 does this mean we should only be issuing 22lr to our troops? That's the direction your argument is going. There is absolutely no statistical evidence or scientific information anywhere that says that the 5.56 is a better man stopper than the 7.62 NATO. Quite the opposite is true. For a more common comparison remember that what we are talking about is a .223 Remington (a varmint round) compared to a .308 Winchester (a very effective big game round).
If the 5.56 is such an effective round, why has there been so much effort and research done to find a better man stopper that will fit the AR15 platform? Remember that the 6.8 was the results of a demand by our special operators that got sick and tired of having to shoot the bad guy over and over before they went down. The 6.8 is just one of many experiments to try and do this. All of them have had questionable results because the AR 15 platform is just to damn small. Unfortunately, there are millions of them in service and we just can't afford to scrap them, but we should.
If you talk to these same men at the VFW and tell them the 5.56 is an effective and lethal battle round the only reason they wouldn't laugh in your face is to be polite. I'm sure ALL of them would have preferred to have been shot by the 5.56 than an 8mm or 7.62x54. Some of them missing limbs would probably just have a nice scar.
Last edited:
