Alright, GV...did some research on the stopping power / wound tracks on 5.56, and found a very interesting piece written by an Army surgeon who also happens (so he says) to be a bit of a gun nut. Long story short is he wasn't impressed by 5.56 wounds he saw in actual combat, until he ran into Chris Kyle, who told him "you don't hate the caliber, you hate the round", i.e. - NATO 55-62 grain rounds. Supposedly Kyle told him that 62 gr or heavier soft points were deadly at any range.
Still with me?
Great article, and it got me to thinking. If I ever have to use my AR, I need it to stop whatever the threat is, even if it means going through a barrier (wall, door, car door, etc.). So after reading that, and then consulting with some of our in-house firearms guys, I just ordered a case of Federal TRU Tactical 64 grain soft points. I ordered enough to allow me to make sure my zero is still good, and then be able to stuff (10) 30-round mags.
Yes, I know...Tackleberry...but I go out the door ready for a prolonged gunfight. If it ever comes, no way to go home and get more, right?
You have any info, experience, or thoughts on the topic?
Okay, you have to remember military rounds have to conform to the Hague Convention, i.e. no bullets that deform on impact. And basically, the M855 rounds, the "standard" so to speak, also were designed for Combloc body armor being issued when it was developed. And most rifles in that time were being issued with 20 inch barrels. Basically, the 5.56 military rounds tend to tumble or fragment, which greatly depends on speed. The slower they go, the less chance of fragmenting. It has less to do with grain weight and more to do with the design. Which is why, believe it or not, the older M193 produces a better wound track than the "newer" M855. It was designed to yaw and fragment rather than punch body armor.
As for the newest and greatest M855A1, I can't tell you. What I can tell you it operates way above the normal pressures of conventional rounds. Allegedly, it's a bit more lethal.
Now, the key factor in this for you is you are not limited by the Hague Convention and unless you have some departmental policy prohibiting it, there are plenty of rounds out there that do great in penetration and wound channels. DocGKR has done some pretty extensive testing on his own dime and came up with this:
5.56 mm Duty Loads
He also has followed in the footsteps of Dr Martin Fackler, pretty much the granddaddy of modern ballistics.
Now, sad to say where you went wrong but you went wrong by getting the .223 spec ammo instead of the 5.56 spec. It does make a different in velocity and penetration. I'm not saying the .223 won't work. But you have to remember, they are loaded "lighter" than 5.56 spec stuff. You have a 5.56 chamber, use it. The TRU stuff will work, but you also have accuracy issues that many have reported. Accuracy is certainly something an LEO needs to be concerned about when engaging a target.
If you were to go with a 5.56 pressure bonded soft point, like the Federal XM556FBIT3 or Winchester RA556B, you shouldn't have a care in the world. They have been extensively tested by the FBI and even more in the private sector. Provided, they are way too expensive to be popping off as training ammo, but by and large, your "go to" duty loads would not be lacking with say, seven mags of said ammo. If you need more than seven mags in any fight you are likely to encounter, you're not doing much aiming and just blasting off your ammo.
