AR Sponsor
Posted: 6/19/2016 2:23:33 AM EDT
| My question is, and it might be sacreligous...Other than competitive shooting, why would you spend $300+ on a .223/5.56 barrel in whose rounds are designed for CQC? (Close quarter combat), and whose ballistics drop like a turd after....I think is like 200-300 yards. |
|
Quoted: My question is, and it might be sacreligous...Other than competitive shooting, why would you spend $300+ on a .223/5.56 barrel in whose rounds are designed for CQC? (Close quarter combat), and whose ballistics drop like a turd after....I think is like 200-300 yards. |
the butt hurt in this thread is strong! 
i think 5.56 is usable out to 500yrds or so with good ammo any more than that and i would be getting out my ugly stick, i mean my FNAR.  .
first i have ever heard of.223 being designed of CQC. i thought it was originally a hunting cartridge i guess we learn somthing every day. |
|
First off 5.56 was not developed as a CQB round. It is accurate to 3-400 yards for standard issue military ammo.
The Black Hills ammo is good out to 600 meters according to the Army. It is accurate beyond this range. Remember the military is not shooting for groups. Their targets shoot back. If aiming for center mass and the group opens up to 2" the target is still hit and the shots are effective. |
| When accuracy counts cheap wan't cut it. Considering the investment it takes to make an AR barrel 300 is still cheap in my book. And the 223 was not adapted as a CQC round. That idea didn't really exist in the late 50's early 60's. It was adapted for the jungles of Vietnam because a lighter weapon with more ammo was an advantage in the dark, hot, harsh terrain of that country were resupply was difficult or at least was until the vertical warfare of the air mobile army with helicopters was developed. The original 223 was a vermin round, for ground hogs, wood chucks, prairie dogs and the like. The 223 is also not the same as the 5.56 Nato as it's a more powerful cartridge for better penetration on larger targets,i.e. humans. |
|
Quoted: When accuracy counts cheap wan't cut it. Considering the investment it takes to make an AR barrel 300 is still cheap in my book. And the 223 was not adapted as a CQC round. That idea didn't really exist in the late 50's early 60's. It was adapted for the jungles of Vietnam because a lighter weapon with more ammo was an advantage in the dark, hot, harsh terrain of that country were resupply was difficult or at least was until the vertical warfare of the air mobile army with helicopters was developed. The original 223 was a vermin round, for ground hogs, wood chucks, prairie dogs and the like. The 223 is also not the same as the 5.56 Nato as it's a more powerful cartridge for better penetration on larger targets,i.e. humans. Ammo was American Eagle 50gr tipped varmint ($9/box) at 200 yards. Scope was a Vortex Viper PST 1-4 set at 4x. I'm not saying this is the rule but it appears some good barrels are coming along at a great price.  |
|
I think for competition where the difference between first place and second place is the fuzz on the paper, every advantage counts. So grouping must be as small as possible meaning everything have to be made exactly and perfectly.
For a general purpose service gun where you just need acceptable grouping at 100 yards, it's not as big of a deal. |
|
Quoted:
First off 5.56 was not developed as a CQB round. It is accurate to 3-400 yards for standard issue military ammo. The Black Hills ammo is good out to 600 meters according to the Army. It is accurate beyond this range. Remember the military is not shooting for groups. Their targets shoot back. If aiming for center mass and the group opens up to 2" the target is still hit and the shots are effective. Sure the round can make it out to 600 yards but amount of ft lbs of energy at that distance with the amount of drop is crap. In optimal "perfect world" ballistics at 500 yards the round is going 1600 ft/sec, but the energy has gone from 1200 at muzzle to about 300 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards with heaven know how many inches of drop. So yes the .223/5.56 nato is a cqc round and EFFECTIVE to maybe 300 yards. |
|
Quoted:
Sure the round can make it out to 600 yards but amount of ft lbs of energy at that distance with the amount of drop is crap. In optimal "perfect world" ballistics at 500 yards the round is going 1600 ft/sec, but the energy has gone from 1200 at muzzle to about 300 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards with heaven know how many inches of drop. So yes the .223/5.56 nato is a cqc round and EFFECTIVE to maybe 300 yards. Quoted:
Quoted:
First off 5.56 was not developed as a CQB round. It is accurate to 3-400 yards for standard issue military ammo. The Black Hills ammo is good out to 600 meters according to the Army. It is accurate beyond this range. Remember the military is not shooting for groups. Their targets shoot back. If aiming for center mass and the group opens up to 2" the target is still hit and the shots are effective. Sure the round can make it out to 600 yards but amount of ft lbs of energy at that distance with the amount of drop is crap. In optimal "perfect world" ballistics at 500 yards the round is going 1600 ft/sec, but the energy has gone from 1200 at muzzle to about 300 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards with heaven know how many inches of drop. So yes the .223/5.56 nato is a cqc round and EFFECTIVE to maybe 300 yards. I think several people have done a good job answering your question. I'm not sure why you restated your original post. By all means, don't buy an expensive barrel if tighter groups are not important to you. And someone who comes along with 9 posts telling me his opinion on barrels isn't going to stop me from buying another LaRue barrel. 
|
|
Quoted:
I think several people have done a good job answering your question. I'm not sure why you restated your original post. By all means, don't buy an expensive barrel if tighter groups are not important to you. And someone who comes along with 9 posts telling me his opinion on barrels isn't going to stop me from buying another LaRue barrel. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First off 5.56 was not developed as a CQB round. It is accurate to 3-400 yards for standard issue military ammo. The Black Hills ammo is good out to 600 meters according to the Army. It is accurate beyond this range. Remember the military is not shooting for groups. Their targets shoot back. If aiming for center mass and the group opens up to 2" the target is still hit and the shots are effective. Sure the round can make it out to 600 yards but amount of ft lbs of energy at that distance with the amount of drop is crap. In optimal "perfect world" ballistics at 500 yards the round is going 1600 ft/sec, but the energy has gone from 1200 at muzzle to about 300 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards with heaven know how many inches of drop. So yes the .223/5.56 nato is a cqc round and EFFECTIVE to maybe 300 yards. I think several people have done a good job answering your question. I'm not sure why you restated your original post. By all means, don't buy an expensive barrel if tighter groups are not important to you. And someone who comes along with 9 posts telling me his opinion on barrels isn't going to stop me from buying another LaRue barrel. I didnt restate my original post, the post that is quoted is from edgephoto. |
|
A rifle is a tool, and like any other tool, there's more than one application.
Effective range depends on application. Just because the original m193 round was spec'd for poking holes in people out to 300 meters, that's not the only application and the only round available. The AR platform is modular, allowing it to host calibers from .22LR to .50 Beowulf. The .223 Rem cartridge allows for bullets weighing 45-80 grains. Depending on bullet construction and bullet design, a bullet can be made to penetrate deeply or hit with explosive expansion. With a good barrel , knowledge of ballistics and performance ammo, you can punch holes in paper way past 300 meters. With a performance hunting round and a good barrel, you can dispatch coyotes, woodchucks, prairie dogs, and other pests from long distances. Another advantage of a quality barrel is confidence. If a rifle is known to do it's part, you can concentrate on doing your part. |
|
Quoted:
Why does it matter what some one else buys / spends their money on? I think some wish to understand other people's thought processes. I can see how a person with a $500 budget rifle would question the logic behind someone buying a $2500 rifle, and vice versa. Why do some happy with their rifle out of the box while others fell the urge to customize every component? |
|
When using FMJ the expansion of the bullet is NOT PART OF THE EQUATION. The intent of the 5.56 is to FRAGMENT, not expand, and as the continued development of the round shows, adding a steel core means part of the combat round's task list is to penetrate, ie poke a hole thru a hardened barrier first then hit the enemy behind it.
Vehicle doors, magazines in a chest pouch, sandbags, building exteriors, ie hard barrier. Penetration is needed to overcome them and still get the bullet thru. The military doesn't issue hollow points because "Geneva Convention," its because of hard barriers. Also known as "COVER." If you can defeat cover then you get a hit on the enemy. No, the 5.56 wasn't developed "for Vietnam." The round was considered and made the issue round for the M16 because of battle experiences in WWII and Korea - tacticians don't look forward to the next battle, they look back to solve the issues of the last one. Goes to generally showing up for a war with all the last generations answers and then finding out what doesn't work. Big heavy battle rifles in a hard kicking caliber with heavy recoil DONT WORK. You get half the ammo and shoot even less - look around on the range next time and see who's there blasting 3-500 rounds of .308, vs 5.56 or 7.62x39. Ha, not happening. We arrived in Vietnam with the M16 after it was already moving along and it got rushed into the field, ergo issue cropped up. They got solved. As for it's limited range of only 300m it goes to the boys with the Battle Rifles not hitting anything further out, even tho they could range to 800. Why can't they hit stuff? First, the enemy HIDES. For the most part you don't get a decent shot until they reach about 125 meters - which is what the combat researchers discovered was the optimum engagement range for a combat infantryman using IRON SIGHTS and trying to keep his head down with incoming fire. It's not a sunny Saturday afternoon on a mowed grass range, it's a brushy hill overlooking an overgrown valley with depressions where the enemy can sneak up close enough to throw hand grenades - if you could see them during the mortar or artillery prep demolishing your position. You don't NEED an 800 meter shooter because the enemy isn't stupid enough to stand around out there to hit. You need more AMMO because its about making hits - and those hits are with FMJ which just poke holes. They tumble and fragment, at best. Now, how many soldiers get hit? For every one you aim at, you also endanger the ones behind your targeting distance. Same as the rules on gun safety - Know your backstop - a bullet keeps on traveling until it's stopped by sufficient physical resistance. And guess what - in combat, a lot of troops behind the forward line of engagement get hit by fire never even directed at them. They WALK INTO IT never knowing it was coming. Same for us. Which is why we made the leap forward to having weapons that shot twice or three times as much FMJ non expanding ammo - to get more hits. More hits means the other guys have less combat power, ie, they can't shoot back as much, can't maneuver because they are treating wounded, can't secure their flanks as well, can't fight to the full intensity of the unit. More hits = less combat power = tactical disadvantage = they lose. You don't need larger bullets to do it, you need more smaller bullets and they don't need to blow up with surface wounds. You want penetration to break bones and perforate major organs and arterial flow, among other things. More hits = more powerful. Just a note in balancing what constitutes a "weapon of war" - The M16 still requires someone to shoot it in a certain direction and its only effective to about 500m, usually only hitting one other human and not that often. It's a low efficiency weapon - the better ones are crew served and when their munitions explode cover a 50 m radius killing anyone in it. Those aren't sold or traded on Gunbroker. Wonder why. So the flawed contentions of how 5.56 works are based on misunderstanding what was intended and how it's to be used. Bluntly, that's typical these days as only 1 in 100 have served in the Armed Forces, meaning 99 lack any training and have various degrees of cluelessness about it. In the 1960s growing up a young man could count on knowing at least one family member who'd likely served, with a high percentage in combat The ratio was 1 in 10 - T E N - meaning experienced service vets were ten times more plentiful and you didn't have to go far to get an intelligent answer. Bluntly, now it's uncommon knowledge and myth is taking over what really goes on - because the 99 only have one other person to ask and for the most part they shun them. Babykillers don't get much credibility or have someone who understands. There aren't others at the table on the holiday who can understand and nod agreement. What we have now are internet warriors at best spouting off what they didn't live thru and can't know. Combat is not a magazine writers field when he's selling the next Gun or Cartridge of the Month. It's all about precision and long distance power which is a rare event for a single marksman. |
|
Quoted:
[short essay] You forgot the use of suppressive fire at longer ranges. Suppressive fire is never intended to hit a point target, just to keep the enemy hiding behind cover so they can't see the assault element maneuvering into place. That's the major reason why longer range effectiveness is required. Higher rates of fire (automatic fire) also makes suppression by a fewer number of men in the support element possible. In WW2, doctrine dictated a two-to-one ratio, two thirds of the unit was used in suppressive fire in the support element, one third in the assault element, last time I read, the Army is calling for only half (or just the Bradley(s), if mechanized) |
| People like to buy expensive barrels for multiple reasons, I bought an 18 inch Noveske SPR for my 3 gun rifle, I plan on buying a 16 inch CHF barrel for them for one of my go bag rifles I'm finishing at Christmas. Yes companies like Faxon put out a a good barrel, and I have some faxon barrels for other builds. But but for me I know Noveske can put a consistent batch of barrels out. Some batches of barrels might be better than others so that's why some guys have awesome groups out of a no name barrel. |
|
Even at 100 yards the difference between a budget chrome lined barrel and a precision match barrel is very obvious.
Some people get a lot of gratification out of seeing their groups improve. A cheap barrel will limit this amount of fun. Some people, like me, take their guns hunting. Sure, a cheap barrel is accurate enough, but when it comes to my hunting rifles, I want to be the limitation in accuracy, not the gun. |
| All this talk about only being accurate up to 400 yards. I know about 200,000 people that are deadly accurate at at least 500 yards. There's a special camp all about teaching you how to shoot like that and everything. It's only 13 weeks long in Parris Island, SC and the 4 year service after that goes by quick. You also get all kinds of cool nicknames; Jarhead, Devil Dog, Leatherneck, etc. You guys should check it out lol. |
|
Quoted:
All this talk about only being accurate up to 400 yards. I know about 200,000 people that are deadly accurate at at least 500 yards. There's a special camp all about teaching you how to shoot like that and everything. It's only 13 weeks long in Parris Island, SC and the 4 year service after that goes by quick. You also get all kinds of cool nicknames; Jarhead, Devil Dog, Leatherneck, etc. You guys should check it out lol. Interesting first post. Retarded actually. |
|
Quoted:
My question is, and it might be sacreligous...Other than competitive shooting, why would you spend $300+ on a .223/5.56 barrel in whose rounds are designed for CQC? (Close quarter combat), and whose ballistics drop like a turd after....I think is like 200-300 yards. http://www.gmriflebarrel.com/ar-15-m16-m4-rifle-barrels/ |
AR Sponsor