Why is the 5.56 NATO /.223 rifle round considered an acceptable man-stopping round?

Question

Typically when I think of a self-defense or man-stopping round, I think of a wide diameter round, like a .45 for example. Everyone bashes the .22 long rifle as being an inadequate self defense round, yet the .223 rifle round is nearly the same diameter, and is widely used in the M4 by the military and other civilian rifles falsely labeled as "assault weapons". What makes the .223 / 5.56 round so effective? Is it the higher velocity and pressure?

Answer 1

Bound's hubby here:

The 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington round is very unlike the .22 Long Rifle. The 5.56 NATO round is a hyper velocity round, traveling at least twice the velocity of a .22LR, usually between 2800-3300 fps. When the round hits an obstruction, it will tumble, and the effect would be similar to hitting someone with either a chain saw or a circular saw. When the 5.56 NATO round hits a person, and if it hits bone (like the rib cage), the bullet will bounce arounce within the skeletal structure like a pinball machine, inflicting massive internal damage.

Answer 2

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Why is the 5.56 NATO /.223 rifle round considered an acceptable man-stopping round?
Typically when I think of a self-defense or man-stopping round, I think of a wide diameter round, like a .45 for example. Everyone bashes the .22 long rifle as being an inadequate self defense round, yet the .223 rifle round is nearly the same diameter, and is widely used in the M4 by the military...

Answer 3

First I want to correct the man who said the 5.56 NATO has more power than the .223. They are the same thing. I reload, and use military 5.56 brass and civilian .223 brass interchangeably. The 5.56 has about 3 times the velocity of a .22, but because the bullet is so small it lacks penetration and knockdown power.
Our military decided about 40 years ago that instead of trying to kill enemies like they should, they wanted to injure them so their friends would drag them away. That only works when fighting an enemy that has soldiers who care about each other. In the real world, and with the enemy we are now fighting, that attitude gets our guys killed. One of my cousins was a Marine Major in Iraq. He said when an enemy gets shot with a 5.56 the enemy often is able to return fire and kill our guys while he bleeds to death.
The 5.56 is a good hunting round for certain game, because animals don't shoot back. Our military should go back to the .308. The .308 has the power to do the job, and will penetrate cinder block walls and kill the terrorist scum inside. A 5.56 will not, unless our man wastes a whole clip load to do what a single .308 will do.

Answer 4

I agree that a larger diameter round is generally better for stopping a person but it is far from the only factor. The .357 magnum is considered one of the best man-stopping rounds ever, and it is clearly smaller, yet faster, than the .45 ACP.

When considering the power of a round you must take the bullet weight multiplied by the bullet speed. The .22 long rifle weighs 36 grains and travels at 1200 feet per second. The .223 weighs 55 grains and travels at 2800 to 3000 feet per second.

The real reason that the military uses the .223 is two-fold: One: the theory of warfare that it is better to wound an enemy than kill him. If you kill him you have taken one enemy out of commission. If you wound one, two of his comrades will be left to help him, taking three out of commission. This theory has proven faulty when fighting enemies such as terrorist in urban areas.
Two: when firing a light weapon such as the M-16 (8 lbs) on full auto the recoil becomes a huge factor. Even the little .223 becomes hard to keep on target on three round bursts. A larger bullet, such as the .308 (7.62X51 NATO) is clearly a competent man-stopper but is too difficult to control on full auto. Due to the weight of the ammo you cannot carry as much into combat either.

These factors lead the military to choose the .223. Since the military uses it, most people just accept that it is good enough. For true man-stopping ability I prefer a larger round but shot placement is everything, even with a .308, and a properly placed .223 will stop a moose, just not as fast as you might like.

Answer 5

Lots of pros and cons for this one. The 5.56 is OK, It kinda sucks to shoot through stuff, windshields and some walls and certain kinds of cover where a heavier round will punch right through. Its very accurate however so you have to take good with the bad. you don't get it both ways. Above all I prefer the M-14, That's a heck of a weapon there. As far as the comment about taking 5 or more shots in the chest with a .45 man that's a hard one to believe. And Yes the 5.56 does do some strange stuff when it enters a body but I have also seen what a 7.62 AK round will do and sometimes it does the same type of injury its pretty weird. 5.56 is more accurate though.

Answer 6

Surprising enough, people are more then willing to make claims without any idea what they are talking about. The 5.56 is a tremendous round and very effective. Those .308 rounds that people like so much sail through the target. This is also true of the 6.8mm and the 6.5 is just terrible for feeding thanks to the sharp shoulder angle. These "better" bullets remain stabilized as they pass through a target and a minimal wound channel is created. The 5.56 hits the target and tumbles leaving the bullet in the cavity. So, the larger bullets may have more energy but not all of it is transferred to the target. If the round stops in the targets body more energy is transferred. The wound needs to be debilitating. A person can go into shock and continue to fight. The better the wound channel the less likely the person is to continue.

Answer 7

Your question reminds me of two murders I helped investigate while in Vietnam with the Criminal Investigation Division.
The first involved a soldier drinking on guard duty. The Sargent of the Guard caught him. The drunk fired a single round from his M-16 at the Sargent. The 5.56 mm round struck the victim on the collar bone of his right shoulder. It shattered the bone and ricocheted downwards and to the left through the torso of the man's body, coming to rest just above his left hip. The bullet tumbled and fragmented as it went through the man's body, leaving a devastating wound that the sargent did not survive. A .308 round would have just punched through the collar bone and shoulder, leaving the sargent wounded but alive.
The second case involved a young MP working a traffic control point. He was holding traffic as a long convoy was passing through. A sargent in one of the stopped vehicles became angry at having to wait so long. According to numerous witnesses he approached the MP, shouting and cursing, demanding that the MP stop the convoy so he could get by. The MP told him to get back in his truck. Witnesses said that the sargent, a short, fat, 280 pound man, pushed the MP. The MP responded by pulling his .45 auto and again ordering the man back to his truck. The sargent cursed and said, "Gimme that f*****g gun" and reached for the weapon. Witnesses told me the MP fired two rounds into the sargent. The sargent, looked surprised, cursed again, took another step towards the MP, and the MP fired two more rounds. The man reached out with both arms took another step and the MP fired the remaining three rounds into him. Witnesses told me that sargent stood for a few more seconds and finally fell to the ground. I was assigned to witness the autopsy. All of the rounds were center of mass hits. Five of the rounds had hit the man just below the sternum, one of them poked a hole in the bottom of the heart. The other three were in the chest, two had punchered the left lung and one had gone through the esophagus. None of the rounds fully penetrated the body, all the bullets were recovered. None of them were mushroomed, but were deformed.

The .223 certainly is a man stopper. The bullet will do terrible damage to the body. The human body, on the other hand, can absorb an awful lot of punishment. If I had to chose which round to be hit by; I think my chances of surviving the hit would be better with the .45

Answer 8

Actually, it is not considered an acceptable stopper. Just ask most any of the guys in Iraq or Afghanistan right now. The 223 came about because the Air Force needed a weapon to arm their sentries with. The AF did not want to have to spend a lot of time teaching their people, who included women, how to shoot a high powered rifle round and not flinch, thus they, along with Mr Stoner, came up with the M16 and the 223 round. Later, the Army decided they liked the idea of not having to deal with flinching recruits either so they adopted it as their own. The one I carried actually said on the receiver that it was made by the Hydromatic Division of General Motors! Remember, all military gear is chosen not because it is the best for the job at hand, but because it was the lowest price per unit that could be pressed into service to somewhat fill the need.
Compared to the 45 you mentioned, it is a handgun round, and the 223 is a rifle round, so there is very little to actually compare between the two.

Answer 9

There are several good answers on here, and I think Bound said it the best. The idea of the little bullet that moves fast - is what it does when it hits the target. When I was in basic training, we were told the idea was the bullet could easily change directions in the human body and cause significant damage. Say you hit a man straight on in the chest, and the bullet ricochets downward off the breastplate and plows through his guts. You get multiple organs wounded and then the bullet lodges in his leg. So your target has a gut shot and a bum leg. He's done. And there are a thousand ways that bullet could go, but more than likely, unless its a through and through in all soft tissue, you've made an incapacitating shot, and thats when he's begging for his buddies to come get him so he doesn't bleed out.

Answer 10

Military needs are different. In war it is better to disable an enemy soldier than to kill him. One wounded soldier means two or more soldiers need to care for him. You've effectively disabled three enemy soldiers and you've incurred medical treatment costs to the enemy government. It is cheaper to bury a soldier than to pay for his recovery.

What makes the 5.56/.223 bullet so 'effective' is that it is good at wounding, maiming and disabling the enemy. It is accurate and fairly long range (at approx. 600 meters of max effective range). I prefer something bigger, like the 7.62x51 NATO or the good, old .30-06 but in combat you don't get a choice. You use what is issued you.

For home/personal defense I have the venerable 12 gauge pump, .357 Mag and .10mm Glock. If I should need more firepower I'm sure I can scrounge up a 7.62x51 or a .30-06 or even a .458 Win Mag If I have to.

Good luck.

H