Compared to larger calibers, proponents of the 5.56×45mm NATO round contend that animal studies of the wounding effects of the 5.56×45mm NATO round versus the 7.62×39mm have found that the 5.56×45mm NATO round is more damaging, due to the post-impact behavior of the 5.56 mm projectile resulting in greater cavitation of soft tissues. The US Army contended in 2003 that the lack of close range lethality of the 5.56×45mm NATO was more a matter of perception than fact. With controlled pairs and good shot placement to the head and chest, the target was usually defeated without issue. The majority of failures were the result of hitting the target in non-vital areas such as extremities. However, a minority of failures occurred in spite of multiple hits to the chest.
Compared to larger calibers, proponents of the 5.56×45mm NATO round contend that animal studies of the wounding effects of the 5.56×45mm NATO round versus the 7.62×39mm have found that the 5.56×45mm NATO round is more damaging, due to the post-impact behavior of the 5.56 mm projectile resulting in greater cavitation of soft tissues. The US Army contended in 2003 that the lack of close range lethality of the 5.56×45mm NATO was more a matter of perception than fact With controlled pairs and good shot placement to the head and chest, the target was .usually defeated without issue. The majority of failures were the result of hitting the target in non-vital areas such as extremities However, a minority of failures occurred in spite of multiple hits to the chest.