Jump to content

Talk:5.56×45mm NATO/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

GP90 origins?

I had heard from several sources, some years back, that the Swiss GP90 5.56mm projectile was actually originally created with the intent of maximum efficiency and performance vs. modern aramid fiber soft body armor, which the Soviets were rumored to be gearing up to produce back in the 1980s. Thus the non-deforming projectile has a relatively hard, tough alloy bullet jacket.

With the abrupt and unexpected end of the Protracted Struggle a spurious, ad-hoc justification for the rather expensive ammunition (due to the complex construction of the projectile, costing significantly more than a simple copy of US M193 Ball) was created: it was non-deforming in soft tissue and therefore humane and in accordance with the Hague Convention.

I can find no current documentation of this, however it is a persistent Internet rumor I have been hearing online for many years. Is there any official documentation of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.23.114 (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Plain "vanilla" 5.56mm ball --- the US M193 round, for example, with a simple lead core and a relatively thin cannelured jacket --- will zip right through more soft body armor than anyone can wear. GP90 was designed with a heavy jacket to reduce its potential to fragment while yawing in soft tissue. Various European governments have considered the yaw-and-fragment performance of the M193 and M855 projectiles to be "inhumane" and intentionally adopted thick-jacketed 5.56mm projectiles for their military ammunition. A search for "gp90 failure" will turn up a first-hand account of its poor performance in a human target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.134.227 (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

reliable sources

3 references to the same ar15.com article http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html. Is ar15.com considered a reliable source? Who is this "Dr. Roberts" that the external article refers to? Not to mention the quote attached to reference 14 has no byline in this wiki article (and is presumably the so-called "Dr. Roberts" of the external reference). Cowbert (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

While we do not normally consider forums reliable sources, there are many subject matter experts posting on certain forums related to this. I think we should consider citations to forums on a case-by-case basis and treat them as self-published sources with the source being the poster, not the site itself. So it would depend on whether we should treat that particular poster as a subject matter expert or not. If we can't establish that due to anonymity or other reasons, then the source can't be considered reliable for anything controversial. Gigs (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"Dr Roberts" would be Doctor Gary Roberts. He's a fairly well-known subject matter expert on terminal ballistics, who posts on several gun-related forums.
To cite the biographical blurb at one site: "Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center where he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. As a U.S. Navy Reserve officer from 1986 to 2008, he served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he has been a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.134.227 (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

5.56mm

Which part of the bullet is measured 5.56mm? There is no mention of why it's called "5.56mm."--95.12.116.99 (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Not the bullet, but the lands diameter in the barrel is 5.56 mm. Lots of ammunition has a diameter in its nomenclature that does not fit any bullet of barrel dimension exactly.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bullet damage

Why is everybody complained with the fact that 5.56 is not very damaging cartridge? It's fired from an automatic weapon. Not a heavy-caliber sniper rifle. It is not really required to devastate targets with 2-3 shots when you have 700 RPM and a good accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.103.29 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Terminal ballistics

Extended content

Terminal ballistics

The 5.56×45mm cartridge had several advantages over the 7.62×51mm NATO round used in the M14 rifle. It enabled each soldier to carry more ammunition and was easier to control during automatic or burst fire.[1] The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge can also produce massive wounding effects when the bullet impacts at high speed and yaws ("tumbles") in tissue leading to fragmentation and rapid transfer of energy.[2][3][4]

Rifle Caliber Cartridge Penetration
Ballistic gelatin
@ 10 meters 		Sandbags
@ 100 meters 		3/4" pine boards
@ 100 meters 		Concrete building block
(one center rib) 		Steel helmet 1.9mm steel
(14 gauge)
@ 100 meters 		4mm steel
(8 gauge)
+ layers of
Kevlar-29
M16 5.56×45mm M193 ≈14 in (36 cm)
(bullet fragments
into smaller pieces)
[5][6] 		4 in (10 cm)
(complete bullet
disintegration)
[7]

8 boards
(bullet tumbled)
[7] 		one side to 200 m
[7] 		both sides to 300 m
one side to 500 m
[7] 		2 layers
[7] 		31 layers of Kevlar
[8]
Wound profiles in ballistic gelatin
Note: images are not to same scale
M16 5.56×45mm wound ballistics
M16 M193 5.56×45mm
M16A2 M855 5.56×45mm wound ballistics
M16A2 SS109/M855 5.56×45mm NATO

The original ammunition for the M16 was the 55-grain M193 cartridge. When fired from a 20" barrel at ranges of up to 100 meters, the thin-jacketed lead-cored round traveled fast enough (above 2900 ft/s) that the force of striking a human body would cause the round to yaw (or tumble) and fragment into about a dozen pieces of various sizes thus created wounds that were out of proportion to its caliber.[5][6] These wounds were so devastating that many considered the M16 to be an inhumane weapon.[9][10][11] As the 5.56mm round's velocity decreases, so does the number of fragments that it produces.[12] The 5.56mm round does not normally fragment at distances beyond 200 meters or at velocities below 2500 ft/s, and its lethality becomes largely dependent on shot placement.[12][6]

With the development of the M16A2, the new 62-grain M855 cartridge was adopted in 1983. The heavier bullet had more energy, and was made with a steel core to penetrate Soviet body armor. However, this caused less fragmentation on impact and reduced effects against targets without armor, both of which lessened kinetic energy transfer and wounding ability.[13] Some soldiers and Marines coped with this through training, with requirements to shoot vital areas three times to guarantee killing the target.[14]

However, there have been repeated and consistent reports of the M855's inability to wound effectively (i.e. fragment) when fired from the short barreled M4 carbine (even at close ranges).[12] The M4's 14.5" barrel length reduces muzzle velocity to about 2900 ft/s.[15] This reduced wounding ability is one reason that, despite the Army's transition to short-barrel M4s, the Marine Corps has decided to continue using the M16A4 with its 20″ barrel as the 5.56×45mm M855 is largely dependent upon high velocity in order to wound effectively.[12]

In 2003, the U.S. Army contended that the lack of lethality of the 5.56×45mm was more a matter of perception than fact.[16][17] With good shot placement to the head and chest, the target was usually defeated without issue.[16][18] The majority of failures were the result of hitting the target in non-vital areas such as extremities.[16] However, a minority of failures occurred in spite of multiple hits to the chest.[16] In 2006, a study found that 20% of soldiers using the M4 Carbine wanted more lethality or stopping power.[19] In June 2010, the United States Army announced it began shipping its new 5.56mm, lead-free, M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round to active combat zones.[20] This upgrade is designed to maximize performance of the 5.56×45mm round, to extend range, improve accuracy, increase penetration and to consistently fragment in soft-tissue when fired from not only standard length M16s, but also the short-barreled M4 carbines.[21][20][22] The U.S. Army has been so impressed with the new M855A1 EPR round that it is now developing a 7.62 NATO variant.[23][24]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Crawford2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Rose, Alexander (2009) American Rifle: A Biography, pp. 375-376.
  3. ^ McNab, Chris (2002) The SAS Training Manual, pp. 108–109
  4. ^ "Scientific Evidence for 'Hydrostatic Shock'", Michael Courtney and Amy Courtney, (2008)
  5. ^ a b The Effects Of Small Arms On The Human Body, By Martin L. Fackler, Md. (PDF). Retrieved on 2011-09-27.
  6. ^ a b c "Patterns Of Military Rifle Bullets". Ciar.org. Retrieved 2012-08-23.
  7. ^ a b c d e Rifle Evaluation Study. US Army. Infantry Combat Developments Agency. 17 February 1978
  8. ^ L. I. Slepyan and M. V. Ayzenberg-Stepanenko PENETRATION OF METAL-FABRICS COMPOSITES BY SMALL PROJECTILES. Personal Armour Systems. British Crown Copyright/MOD, 1998. The Institute for Industrial Mathematics
  9. ^ W. Hays Parks International Legal Initiatives to Restrict Military Small Arms Ammunition (2010) International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) pp. 1–18: Those who consider the M16 inhumane include; the International Committee of the Red Cross, Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Romania, Samoa, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.
  10. ^ Ian V. Hogg; John S. Weeks (2000). Military Small Arms of the 20th Century. Krause Publications. ISBN 978-0-87341-824-9. Retrieved 27 September 2011.
  11. ^ The Swiss draft Protocol on Small-Calibre Weapon Systems 31-08-1995 Article, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 307, by Eric Prokosch. Icrc.org. Retrieved on 2015-11-20.
  12. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference ReferenceA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference Reliable was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ The M-16 Argument Heats Up, Again - NYtimes.com, 3 November 2009
  15. ^ M4 5.56mm Carbine. colt.com. Retrieved on 2011-10-08.
  16. ^ a b c d Project manager soldier weapons soldier weapons assessment team report 6-03. (PDF) . Retrieved on 2011-10-08.
  17. ^ Dean, Glenn; LaFontaine, David. "Small Caliber Lethality: 5.56 Performance in Close Quarters Battle" (PDF). WSTIAC Quarterly. 8 (1): 3.
  18. ^ ''Small Arms Defense Journal''. Is there a Problem with the Lethality of the 5.56 NATO Caliber? by Per Arvidsson on 6 January 2012. Sadefensejournal.com (2012-01-06). Retrieved on 2015-11-20.
  19. ^ Rose, Alexander (2009). American Rifle: A Biography. Delta. pp. 403–405. ISBN 978-0-553-38438-3.
  20. ^ a b Evolution of the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round | Article | The United States Army. Army.mil. Retrieved on 2011-11-19.
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference pica.army.mil was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ S. HRG. 111–868, THE CURRENT READINESS OF THE U.S. FORCES, HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE, ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION, 14 April 2010, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON
  23. ^ Slowik, Max (2012-09-06). New M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round smashing expectations (VIDEO). "One of the first units to be issued the M855A1 is the 1st Brigade 101st Airborne Division. Chief Warrant Officer (CW2) Daigle of the 101st ABN had the following comments to say about the new cartridge:
    • After being issued the round, testing it on ranges and finally taking it into combat, not a single negative review has followed
    • Soldiers rave about it—its "stopping power" is amazing say most soldiers
    • I have spoken to TF Bastogne snipers that say they have killed enemy combatants at 700m with this new round
    • I have personally hit targets on known distance ranges at 600m
    • There is no question that this round has increased accuracy at greater distances and much improved through and through issues
    The M855A1 EPR may be green, and reports are still pretty thin, but it very well could be the ammo the Army was asking for all along. It is more effective all around, with improved penetration through Kevlar, mild steel, concrete, and vehicle components like doors and auto glass and even helicopters bodies, to name a few, and better accuracy, higher velocities, less wind sensitivity and more precision complementing its superior terminal results."
  24. ^ Slowik, Max (July 25, 2013) Army Speeding M855A1 EPR Adoption, 7.62 NATO Variant in the Works. "The U.S. Army is hastening their adoption of the new M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round, a new 5.56 NATO cartridge that's designed specifically for M4 carbines. The Army has been so impressed with the new round that they're now developing a 7.62 NATO variant. The cartridge is also both environmentally- and soldier-friendly."

This is material moved from the M16 article. It mostly duplicates what's already in this article, but I'm copying it here in case there's something worthwhile to add here. Felsic2 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There are many errors on this page!

The US did not develop 5.56 x 45 mm NATO. The US developed .223 Remington. These are NOT the same and they are NOT interchangeable in consideration of accuracy or safety as 5.56 NATO is much higher pressure and when designed by FN with a different throat dimension. I have created a graphic which also has the warning from PMC that 5.56mm (M855 us designation) is not to be used in any .223 Rem firearms. The US developed .223 Rem starting in 1957 and put it in service in Vietnam in 1964. NATO adopted the Belgium SS109 (cartridge case identical, heavier bullet with a steel penetrator) around 1977. Many US based shooting ranges do not allow 5.56 NATO because of it's steel penetrator. When NATO adopted 5.56mm, it could NOT be accurately fired in any US M-16 rifle. The USA took a couple of YEARS to change all the barrels so they could move to NATO 5.56mm. The M16 combat version used a 1:12 rifling and the 5.56 NATO uses 1:7.

Under History- 7.62 x 51mm NATO DID NOT REPLACE anything. It was the ORIGINAL NATO rifle cartridge which was foisted off on them by the US knowing it was an inaccurate and impractical cartridge. 7.62 x 51mm NATO was the FIRST NATO cartridge and was adopted in 1953. 7.62mm Nato was adopted in 1953. The US didn't start research on a new cartridge until 1957. The statements that the .223 Rem was 5.56 x45 NATO prior to 1972 is false. The Cartridge was NOT in the European standard or part of NATO until about 1972 when FN developed a new cartridge called the SS109 (a family actually). In 1964 the US started to issue the M16 in .223 Remington milspec M193 and used that until AFTER NATO developed their 2nd cartridge which was the SS109 around 1972. The description of the SPIW projectile is not accurate. A Sabot is a SHOE (literally). There is no reason to go off tangent and talk about a failed experimental program with the SPIW. The SPIW DID result in a very effective weapon, but it wasn't used in Rifles or small arms. The chart showing both the AKM and AK is really useless. The Soviets switched to the AK74 (in 74) in 5.45 x 39mm Soviet and that should be compared instead. Also the US used the .223 Rem, not the 5.56 x 45 at that point milspec M193. When the US adopted NATO 5.56mm it was milspec M855. The M16 uses 30 round magazines also. The distance spec for helmet penetration is also incorrect.

Many links are either invalid or dead. There are too many errors on this page for me to continue to list them all. 

Digitallymade (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem with History

The statement "7.62×51mm NATO was too powerful for lightweight modern service rifles" is false. The 7.62 has too much recoil to be controllable when fired rapidly, that includes both semi-automatic and full-automatic fire from inadequately designed rifles such as the M14 and FN FAL. This is due to design flaws of both rifles.

When fired from a suitable firearm, such as the M2010 bolt rifle or the AR10 7.62mm fares much better. The first AR15 was found to be 7 times more accurate than the M14 due to it's straight line recoil and the low recoil of the .223 Rem cartridge. If NATO had used the British 7mm round instead, we would have had a much better cartridge to use in Vietnam and it would probably have survived longer than 7.62mm, the replacement for which was being developed before the first rifles were issued. If you are familiar with the way the US military operated then, they were always hell bent on adopting a US based solution, no matter how poor it was, or even if it didn't work at all. The Bomarc missile system, never worked more than 1 time out of over 600 test firings, for example. The M2/3 is a masterful example of poor execution and massive cost overruns. The current M1A2 SEP is decades behind the Merkava and T14. That's the US way. In the 80s when the USA was destroying it's industrial base as fast as could be practically done, a new "two way street" policy was instituted. The US actually started buying systems developed overseas. Now all the small arms send their profits to Belgium. The M1 has a German gun (and should have german tracks too but they won't buy them due to cost). The Tankers Goggles are Israeli, the M9 was Italian (made in Maryland, and now Tennessee). The new P320 Sig Sauer sounds like it's a German Swiss design, but it's actually the product of USA based Sig Sauer, Inc, and will be made in New Hampshire and most of the PROFITS stay in the USA too. The M16, M4, M249, M240, and M2 are all owned by FN and their profits go to Belgium. Digitallymade (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The chart in history is out of date and incorrect

The chart which is designed to show that a 5.56mm cartridge rifle is lighter than a 7.62mm rifle is out of date and has incorrect data in it. The M16 has used 30 round magazines since the 1960s. I have some that came from Vietnam military service. There is no reason to have both the AK47 and the AKM (a wooden stocked AK47) both in the chart. The AKM should be replaced by the AK74 which uses 5.45mm Soviet (now Russian). Many nations have switched over to plastic magazines, instead of steel. Several have see through plastic magazines which are extremely light, so the chart is obsolete. Digitallymade (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

More errors

Before I changed the lead in section, the statement under history that says "in 1977, NATO members singed an agreement to select a second smaller caliber to replace 7.62mm NATO" contradicted what was in the first section. The helmet penetration requirement was for 800 meters of a US GI steel helmet (it won't penetrate an Israeli helmet at that range). I corrected that. The actual performance was penetration of both sides of the US steel helmet at 800 meters and penetration of one side at 1280 meters. This was the original M855 round.

Before I changed it the phrase that the 5.56mm inspred creation of the 5.45 Russian was contradicted in the same paragraph in that same paragraph since 5.56mm wasn't adopted until 1977 (from this same section) and the 5.45 Russian was in service in 1974. Digitallymade (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Poor layout under cartridge

If you are looking for the rifling of an M16, you won't find it easily here. The rifling is historically interesting and is part of the discussion on why .223 Rem (M193) is not 5.56mm NATO (M855, SS109). NO 5.56mm military rifle has ever been made with any rifling over than 1:7. The different rifle rates pertain to Civilian Sporting rifles ONLY. The VAST majority of Sporting Rifle users of AR type use .223 Rem ammunition, if for no other reason than it's cheaper. But rifle makers are moving to chambering for 5.56mm NATO and 1:7 although there are variations and there are options. The AR platform allows for easy barrel changes (where legal). Digitallymade (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Performance Section

This section has fallen into the trap of repeating jargon with no meaning. There are two sets of meanings for the term hydrostatic. The REAL use of that term refers to the actual damaged inflicted. This term is correctly used by Ammunition makers. But there is a branch of theorists that are claiming that the shock also has remote effect from hydrostatic shock, which is a highly controversial claim that very few people believe is significant. All bullet destruction of soft tissue is the result of hydrostatic shock. The term needs to be clarified and the remote effects discussion needs to be separated as it's causing confusion and is unproven. Bullet fragmentation is largely the result of using lightweight bullet construction. As an experienced handloader knows, bullets are made in different strength levels. 5.56mm NATO is BANNED in Switzerland because it has the same propensity to explode into a couple of dozen fragments making surgery to save a wounded person very much more difficulty. The SWISS use a stronger bullet that does not fragment. The wounding effect is little changed. That information was on the International Red Cross site at one time but I haven't seen it for a couple of decades now. The phraseology "proponents of hydrostatic shock" refers to the remote effects belief as Hydrostatic shock is the reason a bullet creates a wound as large and large than it's diameter. Few people believe in remote effects, I suggest this be removed and left for the discussion on the wildly inaccurate terminal ballistics page. I lump that belief right up there with people who have flown on UFOs. Digitallymade (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Bad References:

  • Reference No 1. Dead link
  • Reference No. 2 & 3 Does not support claim
  • Reference No. 4 Bad site (security error)
  • Reference No. 5 Dead Link
  • Reference No. 6 Old version 1972 , current version is 2016
  • Reference No. 7 Dead Link
  • Reference No. 8 Dead Link
  • Reference No. 9 Dead Link
  • Reference No. 10 Weight quoted on page is incorrect based on Reference. Correct is .82kg for both AK47 and AKM (the only difference in this guns is the stock, not the magazine)
  • Reference No. 11 is inaccessible, requires a subscription
  • Reference No. 12 bad page reference
  • Reference No. 13 Not found on website referenced
  • Reference No. 15 The name of the cartridge on the page is different from the reference
  • Reference No. 16 Points to a Wiki page which does not support the reference
  • Reference No. 17 "
  • Reference No. 21 Picture pointed to does not support the page claim
  • References No. 23,24 are books. The correct name is NOT hydrostatic shock, it is Remote effects of Hydrostatic shock and is a controversial and unproven theory.
  • Reference No. 25 the reference might be correct but the paragraph it refers to is incorrect as the actual topic is NOT hydrostatic shock but the theory of remote effects.
  • Reference No. 26 Dead Link
  • Reference No. 28 reference data was not found
  • Reference No. 29 Dead Link
  • Reference No. 31 "
  • Reference No. 32 "
  • Reference No. 33 is correct and a direct copy from the website - a probable copyright violation
  • Reference No. 34 the reference is correct but the text on the page is incomplete and incorrect
  • Reference No. 36 references does not support text
  • Reference No. 38 Cannot be verified
  • Reference No. 39 "
  • Reference No. 40 This is a Blog site from a commercial supplier of ammunition
  • Reference No. 41 The reference does not support the page text
  • Reference No. 42 I don't like the source, it's a "news aggregator."
  • Reference No. 43 Did not find support for the page at this reference
  • Reference No. 44 The page talks about MK318 but the reference refers to MK308, I don't like the referenced source.
  • Reference No. 46 Dubious reference. The ref sight incorrectly calls the STG44 the SG44. It also makes other claims that I don't feel are correct. There is NO similarity between the STG44 and the AK47 as claimed there. Too many errors in the reference, appears to be amateurish
  • Reference No. 47 Dead Link
  • Reference No. 48 Quotes an "unnamed source" on a commercial website... This is NOT authoritative. Why print rumor?
  • Reference No. 49 Dead Link
  • Reference No. 50 "

That's enough for one morning.Digitallymade (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 5.56×45mm NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Bullet tumbling

I removed the part about the bullet tumbling in flight. This is an old myth.

True, but I suspect that the author's original intent was to discuss bullet yaw and fragmentation after impact with soft tissue. --D.E. Watters 14:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


I agree, the bullet does not tumble in the air. But from my military training I thought I remembered that the bullet does tumble in the body, so I did a little reserch and this is what I discovered:

The bullet’s pointed shape makes it heavier at its base than its nose, producing a center of gravity that is located aft of its longitudinal center line. When the bullet hits the body and penetrates, the bullet attempts to rotate 180 degrees around its center of gravity to achieve a base forward orientation. This backwards orientation is the bullet’s stable position in tissue because it places the center of gravity forward.


At distances of 100 yards and under, when the bullet hits the body and yaws through 90 degrees, the stresses on the bullet cause the leading edge to flatten, extruding lead core out the open base, just before it breaks apart at the cannelure. The portion of the bullet forward of the cannelure, the nose, usually remains in one piece and retains about 60 percent of the bullet's original weight. The portion of the bullet aft of the cannelure, the base, violently disintegrates into multiple lead core and copper jacket fragments, which penetrate up to 3-inches radially outward from the wound track. The fragments perforate and weaken the surrounding tissues allowing the subsequent temporary cavity to forcibly stretch and rip open the multiple small wound tracks produced by the fragments. The resulting wound is similar to one produced by a commercial expanding bullet used for varmint hunting, however the maximum tissue damage produced by the military bullet is located at a greater penetration depth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth kevyn (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


Originally the international treaties were done to prevent the use of dumdum bullets. The modern military bullets were designed to circumvent the rules. The modern shells may be even worse than a dumdum shell. Anyway it shows that everyone likes to break the rules - even the good guys. 2601:181:8301:4510:6575:931F:CDCA:15D6 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Are dum dum bullets really banned?

Its widely acknowledged that the the 5,56 nato ball will fragment at close range, as well will comparable east block rounds. Medical experience from bullet wounds from this kind of ammunition shows that it yields terrible tissue damage. If you are hit in the torso by one of these rounds, its likely you loose some limbs, or maybe luckily you die. My point is that the ban against dum-dum bullets its effectively rendered obsolete by this kind of ammunition. If any so-called enemy countries choose to develop even more effective anti-infantry rounds, like mercury containing rounds, the western world can not claim any moral or legal issues against these rounds. If full anarchy is what the western world wants, it would also include other devices such as IED's and suicide bombers, as regular weapons of war.

Well, yes. Bullets have always been quite destructive of soft tissue. Muzzleloading rifled-muskets of about .60 caliber (15mm, if you prefer) used during the American Civil War and other conflicts during the middle of the 19th Century created horrific wounds, tearing off limbs or blowing men's viscera into the treetops, far worse than anything in widespread issue today. The first generation of black-powder, large-caliber military rifle cartridges were equivalent. The early smokeless powder service rifle calibers of 6.5mm to 8mm caliber varied; some, like the British .303 caliber Mk. VII bullet, were far more damaging and far more deadly than any 5.56mm, due to subtleties of projectile design (I believe that one had a bullet that was, beneath its copper jacket, half and half, aluminum in the pointed end, lead in the base, to make it base-heavy so that it would tumble in flesh). Others, like the .30-40 Krag, or the early 7.62x54mm Russian ammunition with its round-nose bullet, were rather less so. In any event I am not sure which "dum-dum bullets" you are talking about, nor am I sure what your point is. "You invented M16 rifle therefore we are morally entitled to take airliners full of hostages and ram them into skyscrapers in the name of Allah?" That would be laughable, except that I suspect you're serious and you genuinely don't see how ridiculous that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.120.26 (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The first metal coated bullets did little internal damage. The military didn't seem to like this so a workaround the Convention rules was created. I see no moral reason that ball bearings and nails in an bomb are worse than these bullets. 2601:181:8301:4510:6575:931F:CDCA:15D6 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 5.56×45mm NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 5.56×45mm NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Comparison to .223 Remington

In the section titled "5.56mm NATO versus .223 Remington," under the "Chamber" heading, the following statement is present:

"The casings and chambers .223 rem and 5.56x45mm are virtually the same dimensions, but due to the fact that .223rem are designed to handle much lower pressures than the 5.56x45 the rounds are not completely interchangeable. Firing a 5.56x45mm round out of a rifle chambered in .223 rem could be Injurious or fatal to the user as well as the gun, however .223 rem ammunition can be fired safely from almost any rifle chambered in 5.56x45 as the NATO spec rifles can handle much more chamber pressures than the .223 rem is capable of producing"

A "citation needed" tag has been added after this statement, not least because it directly contradicts the "Pressure" heading under the same section:

"C.I.P. defines the maximum service and proof test pressures of the .223 Remington cartridge equal to the 5.56mm NATO, at 430 MPa (62,366 psi)."

The former passage uses a large amount of qualitative language in addition to poor grammar

63.234.214.254 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This comparison section contains many contradictions. In the sub-section titled "Pressure," the following appears: "Because of these differences in methodology, the CIP pressure of 430 MPa (62,366 psi) is the same as a SAAMI pressure of 380 MPa (55,114 psi), which is reflected in US Military specifications for 5.56mm NATO, which call for a mean maximum pressure of 55,000 PSI (when measured using a protocol similar to SAAMI."

However, in the sub-section titled "cartridge" which comes next, the following appears (emphasis added): "The .223 Remington chambering, known as SAAMI chamber, is allowed to have a shorter leade, and is only required to be proof tested to the *lower* SAAMI chamber pressure....The casings and chambers .223 Remington and 5.56×45mm NATO are virtually the same dimensions, but due to the fact that .223 Remington is designed to handle *much lower* pressures than the 5.56×45mm NATO the rounds are not completely interchangeable."

So in the "pressure" section the article states that the pressures are the same, and that any difference in pressures is due to testing protocol, while in the next section the .223 is reported to have "lower" pressure and then (later) "much lower." As already noted, a reference for the supposed danger of interchanging the rounds due to pressure differences is missing, and where it does appear later in the article, (there is a link to a SAAMI site), this is now a dead link. 71.161.72.6 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Energy values incorrect?

The bottom four rows of the ballistic performance table are incorrect. Bullets at the stated weights and velocities do not generate the stated amount of energy. This problem persists through both the EE and metric values. The first row of the table is mathematically correct. Can someone verify the weights, velocities, and energies for those four loads? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.22.188.217 (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Short-leade?

I found "short-leade" in the section 5.56mm NATO versus .223 Remington. Previously in the paragraph we find "leade, i.e. the area where the rifling begins". Might that require a link to a definition? --BenTrem (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

US invention, rather than Belgian?

As a couple of IPs, now a logged-in account, have spent the last month pushing that this is a US invention, rather than Belgian, would anyone care to support that claim? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Swiss "Army" Photo of Ammunition

Hello,

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#/media/File:Cartouches-Fass90-p1000785.jpg

The photo which appears towards the bottom of the page, link above, should likely have its caption adjusted. It describes this as "Swiss Army Ammunition" which I do not believe to be correct.

The box (in German) quite clearly states that this ammunition is for citizens on non-active duty, which has to do with the Swiss militia system. It mentions guidelines for use (or for lack thereof unless in the event of a full mobilization) and even details the penalty / law involved for misusing said ammunition.

Though the ammunition itself may well have been produced or procured via the Swiss Army (I am no expert on this), I do not believe active service personnel (i.e. professional, full-time army personnel) would be issued these sorts of boxes with these sorts of exact warnings and details attached.

This is more akin to a ration package that a military or government might give out to citizens in the event of a disaster or emergency, which while similar to official supplies, are likely labelled differently for distribution to the populace unfamiliar with them.

Read Gun laws in Switzerland.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

-- Well, yes, my point exactly.

If you read that and the related page about the Swiss Militia, you'll see that in 2007 the idea of stockpiling ammunition as a private citizen was abolished, and they simply kept (and continue to keep) the weapons themselves. Logically anyone viewing the picture I mentioned would conclude it is at best outdated, and at worst, inaccurate. That is not "Swiss Army Ammunition", it is "Swiss Militia Ammunition Pre-2007", a big difference.

But I appreciate the complete lack of effort and a lazy link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.208.5 (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Bulleted lists

I have had a closer look at this. There is either a problem with the Wiki markup or with most browsers (or a combination thereof). When a bulleted list is next to an illustration at the left hand side of the text, the bullets overrun the illustration as shown in the following screen shot. The current article doesn't overrun to the same extent, but I have exaggerated the effect by putting more of the list next to the illustration.

It appears that the numbers for the references also overrun the illustration as well (I wasn't expecting that, but obviously a related problem). This appears to be a problem with all the browsers that I have at my disposal (on several platforms) with the single exception of Microsoft Edge (latest version) which does render the bullets correctly. Obviously: whether it is a problem or not on any individual page will be determined by the juxtaposition of the bulleted list to the illustration which is in turn determined by the width of the browser window; the screen resolution and any text magnification in effect (essential for modern very high resolution displays).

The layout of any article should be such as to render correctly on any and all browsers if at all possible. The avoidance of bulleted lists would obviously be one way to achieve this. I have not been able find if this issue is documented anywhere. -RFenergy (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I cannot replicate it in my browser, and had to remove chunks of text to even get the bullets next to the image in the first place at standard 1080.

Example of bullets next to image in Firefox Nightly on Windows 10

I think it is an issue with old browsers or possibly high-resolution. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Since I have a browser where it works (Edge), I can accept that you cannot replicate it on your browser. There are certainly a good many factors in play, but old browsers does not seem to be the issue. The latest versions of Safari (V14 on Mac, iPadOS 13.5 on iPad) exhibit the problem (the former is where the screenshot came from). However, a very old version of Opera (running on an ARM!)dating well into the last century rendered it correctly (eventually!). High resolution only seems to be an issue insofar as it changes the position of the text relative to the illustration (as does window width). As long as the bulleted text is next to the illustration, the effect shown in my screenshot occurs if the browser does not handle the page correctly. Exactly what is wrong with the 'non conforming' browsers - I have absolutely no idea.
I have no doubt that there are browsers, both old and new, that do render the screen correctly, but from what I have found, they appear to be in the minority. -RFenergy (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The problem here is that image that is forced to the left shouldn't be where it is. 1) it violates WP:SANDWICH and 2) it's running a list around it do it renders incorrectly. Can be resolved by just removing the Left parameter from the image rather than making the list itself harder to read. Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
If fact I've gone ahead and fixed it. The WP:SANDWICH violation was the actual problem here, not the list. Previous edits were addressing the symptoms not the cause. Canterbury Tail talk 14:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Good fix! One lives and one learns. RFenergy (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Section "Criticism", First Quote

This is very likely the worst "source" I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's an archived link to a Q&A from a no longer existing part of an "enthusiast web forum", quoting itself an otherwise completely anonymous "Dr. Roberts". I'd have to think hard to make the "source" any worse.

It's about firearms, so chances are high that someone owns this article and would revert any changes by an IP. That's why I won't touch it.

Fix your mess. --84.132.156.94 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

No one "owns" any articles here, it is a community project. Do you have a better source we can use? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
You must be new here. Of course someone owns it, and "defends" it against any change, esp. from IPs.
If there is no source, the information has to go. As it currently stand, the section is effectively unsourced. The question should be: Why is it even in the article? --84.132.146.35 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Considering that the cited source also provides a source for the information stated ("Luke Haag's papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11-28, Winter 2001) describe this problem."), I think it is safe to say that this quote is sourced, and should not be removed. - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
See? That's what I meant. You own this article, and defend its current state with every flimsy argument you can think of.
It's ridiculous of course. We don't know what Haag says. We can be very sure however that the multiple bounces the sourcing makes it simply unsuitable. Just imagine that I would add a new piece of information with a source chain as crappy as this one.
My work here is done. Your effort to weaken one of Wikipedia's foundational rules is noted, but as I said, I don't have the time to argue with an article's owner over this. Have a nice day! --84.132.146.35 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and of course it's a copyvio, but who gives a fuck about that? --84.132.146.35 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
You must be new here. I never claimed to own the article, I never weakened any of "Wikipedia's foundational rules", and I didn't use any flimsy arguments. I based my statements on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, but you appear to be here just to whine and complain, are not willing to have a discussion or come to a consensus about the issue, and are willing to ignore Wikipedia's guidelines and policies to get your way.
Also, it is not a copyvio if it is a direct quote in a quote template, please read MOS:QUOTE before you make a bigger fool of yourself making claims without knowing the assorted "foundational rules". Have a nice day, and happy editing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Just finding my Wiki password again after a PC crash; noticed this page's updates. I didn't see in the original article exactly the element that was being cited, but I was able to smash some of my old brain cells together: the likely reference to "Dr Roberts" is probably referring to Dr Gary Roberts, a dentist who ~20 years ago was pretty heavily involved with ballistic gelatin testing; both he and Martin Fackler supported the Army's ballistics investigations circa 2006. -hh (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

pronounced "five-five-six"

Why is this necessary? It's been removed and added back before, and has been changed between English and phonetics a couple times. No other cartridge article tells you how to pronounce a NUMBER in the first sentence. Ironmatic1 (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:5.56×45mm_NATO/Archive_2&oldid=1175582579"