5.56 aint weak- .308 just isnt a-


PDA






KriegHund
February 4, 2006, 02:45 AM
One stop shot.

I think people overestimate the power of the 7.62 calibres and this causes the weaker 5.56 calibres to look even more weak.
Mostly supported by the fact that many who bash the 5.56 claim the 7.62 will "Put em down in one".

Any comments on the validity (or lack thereof) of this statement?

If you enjoyed reading about "5.56 aint weak- .308 just isnt a-" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rockstar.esq
February 4, 2006, 03:11 AM
Well here's my take on the matter.

Physics has a lot to offer from the academic standpoint. It's been said that the .223 has more energy at 100yds than the .44 mag does at the muzzle. This is true. It's been said that a .22 hornet can be expected to kill a waterbuffalo in the hands of Steve Hornady. Now somewhere between the calculations and the expertise comes the average guy trying to apply a cartridge/rifle to a particular job.

To my way of thinking, the .223 Remington and the 9mm Luger are the result of an optimization problem. What combination will net the highest kinetic energy with the smallest overall package? To that end they are both excellent examples. However in practice, both rounds have spotty history's when compared to the older school of thought which favored larger bores and heavier projectiles. If you're comparing the .308 Winchester to the .223 Remington you'll likely find that the same folks who love the .308 Winchester are the ones thinking of 1000yd capability. Whereas the .223 fans are likely to be the same folks who obsess over the relative flatness of trajectory out to 500yds.

I sometimes wonder if anybody ever argued the virtues of the .30-06 vs the 45-70! I'm sure the 06 looked like a flyweight compared to the 45-70's average payload. But again it comes down to energy and what you want to do with it.

esldude
February 4, 2006, 03:19 AM
Depends on purposes. No doubt the 308 is more lethal. Is it more lethal than say two .223 rounds? Hard to say. For game you might not get two shots. For personal defense or close combat, you very well might be looking at being able to put two of the smaller rounds on target for each 308. Too many variables to issue blanket statements.

Results of the DC snipers show the .223 to be very lethal. At least on unsuspecting people. How much difference if those people had been alerted to danger and adrenaline was already in their veins? Quite a bit I would think. I dare say maybe half would have lived. Though this is really only wild conjecture on my part. However, I don't have much doubt that equally well placed 308's would have done the job whether the people were full of adrenaline or not.

Still all this is of course apples and oranges. The two rounds have seperate strengths that matter most in different conditions.

JohnKSa
February 4, 2006, 05:05 AM
WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.I think people overestimate the power of the 7.62 calibres and this causes the weaker 5.56 calibres to look even more weak.You're being FAR too kind.

There have been a lot of outright lies told on the subject by people who know better. Maybe they think that the end justifies the means and they can say anything they want as long as it leads to what they think is a better outcome.

Here's an example from a book by a man who claims to have been a sniper in Vietnam. This is supposed to be a non-fictional eyewitness account by the author of action in Vietnam.

"The heavy bullets from the M1-D and ... M-14 tore into the Viet Cong defender's trenchline, knocking one of the enemy riflemen into the air and flipping him onto his back..."

Here are some other lies quoted from the book.

"The .308 caliber bullets struck with such devastating force that the gunshot VC were out of commission even with slight wounds."

"The Viet Cong gunner never saw what (.308 bullet) cut his slender body almost in two. He was tossed violently backward into the rice paddy..."

So, soldiers go into battle with these kinds of images in their minds. Slight wounds putting combatants out of commission, a rifle round nearly cutting a person in two. It's no wonder that when they see the truth of what happens when a person is hit with small arms fire, they immediately conclude that their rifles must be ineffective--weak--useless.

BTW, here's another stupid and blatantly untrue quote from the same book.

"...their Mattel Toy M-16s, which at 450 meters were incapable of killing a ... dog, much less a man."

Now, not only is the reader convinced a hit from a .308 can knock a person into the air, they're also sure that their issue weapon can't even kill small animals.

It's no wonder that they come back with tales of ineffective weapons and ammunition. They've been lied to in the worst way.

beerslurpy
February 4, 2006, 05:12 AM
Wow John Woo directed Vietnam. Who knew?

223 is an attempt to make a lethal close range weapon that can also reach to longer ranges. At the very worst, it will wound adversaries that are too far away to fire back effectively. It has the same weight as the 9mm cartridge and I beleive the same recoil numbers as well. I think it succeeds at this, at least in the lead-core 20" version. As the projectiles become progressively less frangible and the barrels progressively shorter, 223 diminishes in effectiveness dramatically.

The 9mm itself is an unfortunate byproduct of NATO standardization. They had a decent SMG round in 9mm (ignoring the obvious candidate in 223), so they switched all the pistols to 9mm ball as well.

Throttle_monkey1
February 4, 2006, 05:20 AM
I know that book, It's 13 cent killers. A load of ???? in my eyes (even as a canuck)

"Death in the A Shau Valley" by Larry Chambers is a much better book in my opinion. Realistic examples of what happens to the enemy when hit by 5.56

"I fired a shot from my CAR-15 into his back as he ran away. When I found his body, there was a giant hole in the front of his chest where his heart used to be"

beerslurpy
February 4, 2006, 05:24 AM
I know that book, It's 13 cent killers. A load of ???? in my eyes (even as a canuck)

"Death in the A Shau Valley" by Larry Chambers is a much better book in my opinion. Realistic examples of what happens to the enemy when hit by 5.56

"I fired a shot from my CAR-15 into his back as he ran away. When I found his body, there was a giant hole in the front of his chest where his heart used to be"
Sounds like they are all full of it. Even when 2.23 fragments it doesnt go off like a grenade.

355sigfan
February 4, 2006, 05:43 AM
Wow John Woo directed Vietnam. Who knew?

223 is an attempt to make a lethal close range weapon that can also reach to longer ranges. At the very worst, it will wound adversaries that are too far away to fire back effectively. It has the same weight as the 9mm cartridge and I beleive the same recoil numbers as well. I think it succeeds at this, at least in the lead-core 20" version. As the projectiles become progressively less frangible and the barrels progressively shorter, 223 diminishes in effectiveness dramatically.

The 9mm itself is an unfortunate byproduct of NATO standardization. They had a decent SMG round in 9mm (ignoring the obvious candidate in 223), so they switched all the pistols to 9mm ball as well.

The 223 does fine to about 300 to 500 yards depending on the ammo your using. Barrel length matters but not near as much as some believe.
Pat

epijunkie67
February 4, 2006, 05:43 AM
I think the .223/.308 debate is only trumped by the 9mm/.45 acp debate. In my opinion they are essentially the same. Do you want smaller, lighter, and faster, or do you want bigger, heavier, and slower? In both cases the smaller rounds give you the ability to pack more ammo into a smaller space with less weight.

But, and this is a really important BUT, people make these arguments without pointing out they are discussing military issue rounds, i.e. FMJ. At least in the case of the rifle rounds anyway. And I think that's important. Getting hit with a fmj round from a .223 is bad but getting hit with a soft point hunting round from a .223 could be much worse depending on range and fragmentation effect. And a soft point hunting round from a 308 would have even more effect.

I don't think anyone would argue that a 308 creates more wounding than a 223. Heck, some states won't even let you hunt with 223. The question is do you NEED that extra wounding? And how much ammo and weight are you willing to give up to get that extra wounding?

Throttle_monkey1
February 4, 2006, 05:46 AM
Sounds like they are all full of it. Even when 2.23 fragments it doesnt go off like a grenade.


I know it doesn't go off like a grenade my friend, but I do know that fragmenting rounds can leave a horrible exit wound. That's what the quote meant. It didn't mean "A 5.56 is like a mini grenade, It F@#Ks people up"

mrmeval
February 4, 2006, 05:48 AM
http://www.olyarms.com/?page=223articles


One stop shot.

I think people overestimate the power of the 7.62 calibres and this causes the weaker 5.56 calibres to look even more weak.
Mostly supported by the fact that many who bash the 5.56 claim the 7.62 will "Put em down in one".

Any comments on the validity (or lack thereof) of this statement?

RON in PA
February 4, 2006, 06:03 AM
People keep forgetting the reason for the 5.56 round (also applies to the 7.62x39 and 7.92x33). Analysis of the WW 1&2 battlefields showed that 99% of rifle fire occurred in 300 yards and perhaps 90% in 100 yards. You just don't need the power of the classic rifle rounds like the 7.62x51, 30/06 and 7.92x57. All this analysis led to the "assault" rifle. Now for long range sniping the old rounds are fine.

Alex45ACP
February 4, 2006, 06:19 AM
Results of the DC snipers show the .223 to be very lethal.

Yeah I just got done watching a show about that. Almost everyone they shot died instantly or within a couple of minutes.

jeremywills
February 4, 2006, 09:39 AM
People keep forgetting the reason for the 5.56 round (also applies to the 7.62x39 and 7.92x33). Analysis of the WW 1&2 battlefields showed that 99% of rifle fire occurred in 300 yards and perhaps 90% in 100 yards. You just don't need the power of the classic rifle rounds like the 7.62x51, 30/06 and 7.92x57. All this analysis led to the "assault" rifle. Now for long range sniping the old rounds are fine.


+1

Thats exactly the whole point there sir, most of the combat these days is more urban, no use for employing weapons capable of 300 yards when most of the combat is being taken place from anywhere from face to face out to about a 100 yards at best, especially when your indoors a Garand as effective as it is just too much. IMHO YMMV, thus the need for intermediate cartridges like the 5.56 and 7.62x39 etc... shorter more portable weapons for inside and very close range outdoor encounters, In WW1 it was mostly trench warfare or out on open fields, in WW2 and on into today the combat was alot more in the city centers etc...

Also when you think of combat, just dont think militarily, the police and swat teams and DEA/FBI etc.... type of organizations do have some dedicated snipers with high powered long range sharpshooting equipment and personel trained to utilize it, the need does come up, but most of these guys are employing assualt rifles, m4 and mp5 type equipment etc.... most of todays encounters do unfortunately happen within populated areas and indoors, they must consider things like collateral damage etc... thus all the new modern day less lethal and speciality rounds available to these folks, why the need for everyone to carry a 300 plus yard capable rifle to go in and serve a high risk search warrant and arrest? As modern day times changed, so did the need for weaponry

It was mentioned earlier that Militaries almost always use FMJ Ball for everything. Other organizations have to be more careful. This whole this is better than that argument no matter what the 2 things being discussed about get annoying. You have to know each others capabilites and utilize the correct tools to get the job done. Look at the US Military, they use FMJ Ball so thus why alot of those guys are whining about thier pistols being effective or not. :) Im not going to mention the calibers and what not involved, thats for another post somewhere that can be searched for on these boards :D but Im sure most folks know what I reference. If they had the right JHPs they might think otherwise. For Military purposes, its just too much hassle, they need to utilize solidly feeding ammo, thus the importance of FMJ

Alex45ACP
February 4, 2006, 09:48 AM
I read somewhere (don't remember where, probably on this board) that the longest shot taken by a police "sniper" in the USA has been ~75 yards :rolleyes:

dmftoy1
February 4, 2006, 09:48 AM
I sometimes wonder if anybody ever argued the virtues of the .30-06 vs the 45-70!

Exactly!! Too bad the internet didn't exist when the switch from 45-70 to .30-06 was made. We could then go through the THR archives!! :) :) I would be willing to bet that when the .308 came out the guys who fought in WWII with the .30-06 probably thought it was a bad idea as well. I don't have anything to base it off of other than the fact that gun people really don't like things to change. The only anecdotal evidence that I have wrt to the .223 is that both of my nephews and my future son-in-law who are back from Iraq have bought AR's. (all 3 are infantry) If the crap you read on the internet is true I doubt if they would have done that. (just my .02)

Have a good one,
Dave

jungle
February 4, 2006, 09:56 AM
In all major battles since WWI, belt fed machine guns, mortars, artillery and air have done about 85% of the job. Rifles have done most of the rest and 90% of that at under 300 yards.
The 5.56 is effective, otherwise it would not be the free world standard. Are there more effective rounds? Of course, but we tend to think only in terms of ballistics.
The military is concerned with weight, cost, effective range, weapons platforms, logistics and quite a few other factors.
The fact is, all countries use or are moving to a 5.56 or similar round like 5.45 for the same reasons. It meets the need in the lightest package available.

The real effectiveness of our weapons has been increased greatly by the use of dot, optic, IR lasers and night/thermal sights. The troops can now engage targets they couldn't even see just a generation ago.

jeremywills
February 4, 2006, 09:56 AM
there ya go, he makes good points

they all kill my friends, maybe not as effectively for the almighty one shot kill but they do, I wish more people would practice thier skills and be proficient at putting the shots they fire dead on instead of hoping for a hit but military encounters dont have that luxury, sometimes covering fire and the like are nessescary etc.... you have to throw a lot of lead around and maybe hope a few go down with it, expending ammo like that costs and thus alot of his reasoning above makes total sense

kaferhaus
February 4, 2006, 09:59 AM
Sounds like they are all full of it. Even when 2.23 fragments it doesnt go off like a grenade.

Need to due a bit of study on hydrostatic shock.

At short ranges of under 200M I've personally seen huge gaping exit wounds from both calibers on dead VC.

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it though. I've stood over several guys shot at the same distance with the same weapon with hits within a inch or two of each other... one would have a exit wound you could nearly put your hand in and the other looked like the guy'd been stabbed with a pencil.


Both guys dead within a foot or two of each other and both shot within maybe half a second of the other.

jerkface11
February 4, 2006, 10:05 AM
Sorry if this jacks the thread. But you guys keep refering to a switch from .45-70 to .30-06. That didn't happen. .30-03 was before .30-06 and .30-40 krag was before that.

Roudy
February 4, 2006, 10:09 AM
Interesting thread! I like the thought about arguments concerning the 30-06 and 45-70, bet our great grand fathers really pooh-poohed the 30-06.

There is one thing that retail business has in common with the .223 and the .308.........."location, location, location"! It makes a whole lot of difference where the bullet hits.

Personally I prefer the .308 but if rapidly firing several .223's increases the likelyhood of hitting a vital area of an opponent and saving my life, then I'd use the .223.

When in a combat situation you are scared as he**, anyone who says differently is lying or has never been in that situation. Personally I'd rather be fishing than in combat.

Roudy
7th Marines
Da Nang, Vietnam
1968

bowfin
February 4, 2006, 10:21 AM
/*Is it (7.62) more lethal than say two .223 rounds? Hard to say. */

/*rapidly firing several .223's increases the likelyhood of hitting a vital area */

If it takes two or more 5.56 mm rounds to replace a single 7.62 mm round, then we can throw the "I can carry twice as much 5.56 ammo" argument right out the door.

If a 5.56mm was effective for 150+ pound living things, I imagine have replaced the .30-06, .270, and .30-30 in the deer woods decades ago. Millions of deer hunters shooting tens of millions deer would have made the switch if they thought the .223 Remington was the equal of a .308 Winchester.

No hunter wants to carry a heavier than necessary rifle when dragging that deer out of the woods a quarter mile. Heck, I would take a Ruger Bearcat if I thought a .22 Magnum would get me my deer in a reliable fashion.

However, for those of you who are satisfied with the 5.56mm for combat purposes, I would NEVER suggest you trade your rifles in for something bigger. If you have confidence in it, then that is the one you should have. I have seen people take and try to take deer with .22 centerfires, I was not impressed with the results, so I would take a cartridge I was confident in using.

Gun Geezer
February 4, 2006, 10:28 AM
Lucky for me, I have never had to shoot a man with either cailber. Deer on the other hand have not been so lucky:D

I have witnessed nephews pop deer in the heart/lung with .223. The 4 deer all ran off and piled up within 50 to 100 yards.

I have shot lots of deer in the heart/lung with .308. Not one of them ever made more than a few steps. They died right there.

In the end all the deer ended up in the freezer.

I think that in our society of non-shooters, the military has better luck training new troops to shoot the low recoil .223 accurately. Lots of people flinch with the .308. That alone would be reason enough to use a light yet mostly effective round like the .223.

jungle
February 4, 2006, 10:31 AM
The deer hunter argument.
Anyone who has spent time hunting will have witnessed Bambi and kin walk and run away after hits from everything from .22s to .300 magnums to Slugs.
The only reliable one shot stop is always to the CNS, regardless of caliber. Some cartridges make this a little easier, but marksmanship will drop more game than a few extra foot lbs every time.

bowfin
February 4, 2006, 10:31 AM
/*The 5.56 is effective, otherwise it would not be the free world standard.*/

Then using that logic then:

...the Chauchat machine gun was a world beater, otherwise the French and Americans wouldn't have used it during WWI when the BAR was on the sidelines.

...The Mark VI torpedo detonator we used in WWII was flawless (despite a better than 50% failure rate), else we wouldn't have used it.

...the Brewster Buffalo was equal to the Japanese Zero and Me-109, else four different countries wouldn't have bought it to fight them.

...Ham and Lima Bean C rations were a national favorite, else we wouldn't have made millions of cans of them.

kaferhaus
February 4, 2006, 10:34 AM
I harvest several white tails every year with the .223. I neck shoot them and they drop on the spot. 90% of the deer shot in this country are shot under 100yds. If you can't make a neck shot from that range, you have no business in the woods with a rifle to begin with.

Like the previous poster I've seen deer hit in the boiler room with 22 center fires run a short distance. I've also seen them hit with 300 win mags run off never to be found.

It's unusual to shoot any big game animal in the heart/lungs and have them drop like a rock. It usually takes a central nervous system hit to do that.

jungle
February 4, 2006, 10:35 AM
Bowfin, Great argument if you ignore time, but none of those things you mentioned survived very long. The 5.56 is going on 40 years.

kaferhaus
February 4, 2006, 10:40 AM
/*The 5.56 is effective, otherwise it would not be the free world standard.*/

Then using that logic then:

...the Chauchat machine gun was a world beater, otherwise the French and Americans wouldn't have used it during WWI when the BAR was on the sidelines.

...The Mark VI torpedo detonator we used in WWII was flawless (despite a better than 50% failure rate), else we wouldn't have used it.

...the Brewster Buffalo was equal to the Japanese Zero and Me-109, else four different countries wouldn't have bought it to fight them.

...Ham and Lima Bean C rations were a national favorite, else we wouldn't have made millions of cans of them.

I started to think you had a little sense until you made those statements above...

None of those weapons were used for decades... the French gun was an peice of crap to begin with, it was all they had in numbers in country.

The Buffalo was the same thing, it was what was available at the time.

Same with the torpedo...

Make a valid arguement or go back to your latte.

You sound like my wife.... if you have no valid point attack the arguement.

jungle
February 4, 2006, 10:51 AM
Bowfin, You seem up on your history. Perhaps you could tell us how long the 7.62x51 lasted as a first line issue rifle caliber in the US?

bowfin
February 4, 2006, 10:57 AM
/*Anyone who has spent time hunting will have witnessed Bambi and kin walk and run away after hits from everything from .22s to .300 magnums to Slugs*/

The "absolute" argument. If no cartridge has a perfect record, then they all must be equal.

bowfin
February 4, 2006, 11:05 AM
The M-14 (and by default, this would be the 7.62) was accepted by the Army in 1957, and production ceased in 1964, if I remember right that would be seven years with the U.S. Army as a main issue weapon.

jungle
February 4, 2006, 11:06 AM
Bowfin, As I stated earlier, there are many rounds that are superior to the 5.56, but the military looks at many other factors. I feel they have made a good selection. The service life of the 5.56 has been quite long when one considers that it has existed in an era of very rapid technical advancement.
There is no magic involved and every mechanical device made has compromises made to optimize performance in other areas.

MCgunner
February 4, 2006, 11:28 AM
One stop shot.

I think people overestimate the power of the 7.62 calibres and this causes the weaker 5.56 calibres to look even more weak.
Mostly supported by the fact that many who bash the 5.56 claim the 7.62 will "Put em down in one".

Any comments on the validity (or lack thereof) of this statement?

A) the 5.56 is not enough gun for deer, much less anything bigger

B) the .308 is plenty for ELK to 300 yards, let along deer, with proper bullet selection of course.

So, you tell me which is more powerful. :rolleyes: If the .308 can take a half ton of animal and the .223 is basically a gopher getter, I'd say the .308 is the stronger of the two. Now, I don't really care about the military arguments because I ain't in the military, I'm a hunter. I don't have a .223 in my collection. I figure I don't need one. It's too much for squirrels and too little for deer and I we don't have prairie dogs or woodchucks down here.

kaferhaus
February 4, 2006, 11:57 AM
and the 30-30 is no buffalo gun....yet they were nearly hunted to extinction with it.

But poor marksmen need all the gun they can get.

I'd never use a .223 on elk unless I was hungry. Even then a shot to the neck would drop one.

I love guys who think you need a cannon to kill something that's been harvested with bows and arrows for centuries.

Roudy
February 4, 2006, 12:12 PM
/...Ham and Lima Bean C rations were a national favorite, else we wouldn't have made millions of cans of them.

Now there's a blast from the past!:what: Ham and Lima bean C rations, ought to start another thread for favorite recipes for this succulent concoction that has nourished so many of Uncle Sam's nephews!!!:)

Roudy
February 4, 2006, 12:24 PM
and the 30-30 is no buffalo gun....yet they were nearly hunted to extinction with it..

I think the buffalo (bison) were pretty much gone by the time the 30-30 was developed.

From http://www.kidsplanet.org/factsheets/bison.html ...Shooting bison for their hides was a favorite frontier sport in the 19th century. Hunters practically eliminated the bison by 1890.

From http://members.1stconnect.com/anozira/SiteTops/weapons/3030faq.htm ...The oldest American smokeless powder cartridge is the venerable 30-30 Winchester. This cartridge was originally scheduled to be a black powder cartridge with a .30 caliber bullet, and 30 grains of black powder, but before production started, the new semi-smokeless powders invented in Europe became available, and Winchester used it as a sales ploy to enhance the new rifle. A gazillion of the Winchester Model 93 & 94 lever action rifles and the Marlin 336 lever action rifles have been sold in this country alone.

jungle
February 4, 2006, 12:30 PM
There seems to be an inverse relationship between cartridge power and skill. The worst offenders are fans of the Magnums for deer. Subsistence hunters take even the biggest game with puny cartridges. One of the greatest elephant hunters of all time used a 7mm Mauser. The best choice from a ballistics standard? No, but it is capable of doing the job when employed correctly.
When I hear of 500 yard shots in the game fields or the battlefields it is the very rare exception or the result of poor range estimation.

kaferhaus
February 4, 2006, 12:52 PM
There seems to be an inverse relationship between cartridge power and skill. The worst offenders are fans of the Magnums for deer. Subsistence hunters take even the biggest game with puny cartridges. One of the greatest elephant hunters of all time used a 7mm Mauser. The best choice from a ballistics standard? No, but it is capable of doing the job when employed correctly.
When I hear of 500 yard shots in the game fields or the battlefields it is the very rare exception or the result of poor range estimation.

Even here locally I've heard guys telling about the deer they shot at 300+ yds... then when I ask them where they were, I know the shot couldn't have been over 75yds!

As far as the magnums go.... how many times have you read an article by one the supposed experts in the gun rags talk about how the magnum "made up for" the slightly misplaced shot??

If your thing is shooting very large game at 400yds to prove your weenie is not as small as everyone thinks it is then fine.

I've hunted all over N. America and with few exceptions taking such shots is more for the ego than out of necessity. I've shot elk in open country from under 100M.... they're not very bright and tend to move into certain areas at different times of the day. You just need to be waiting on them. I did not use a .223 though.

Any guide will fill your evening with horror stories of the guys with th 300s and 338 mags that either missed or horribly wounded animals that required hours of tracking or were never recovered.

But by god they had enough gun!

jungle
February 4, 2006, 01:12 PM
In the hunting field we take the best shot, with the most suited round, under the best conditions to honor the animal and the hunter makes every effort to be as humane as possible.

When faced with multiple fleeting targets that shoot back, it is logical that conditions are much less than perfect and each target will require multiple rounds from the shooter and his team to hit. The shoot them once and drop them concept is ideal, but how many rounds get fired to drop a single target? Hint: The count has been going up regardless of the weapon used. Tactics? Training?

Last I checked nobody was using covering fire on an Elk to allow a flanking movement by the rest of the team.

colt.45
February 4, 2006, 01:18 PM
they did a couple of articles on military cartriges in shotgun news that might clear everything up. i agree 7.62x39 isnt that much more powerfull and it will lose whatever power it has pretty quick. .223 is even strong enough for 1000 yard shooting with a long barrel and some heavy bullets, but thats really pushing it.

Gewehr98
February 4, 2006, 01:51 PM
and the 30-30 is no buffalo gun....yet they were nearly hunted to extinction with it.

That's the second time you've posted that bovine excrement here on THR.

The American bison herd was so decimated by the white man that by 1889 there were only 541 of the animals alive in the entire country, and they were saved by an act of Congress.

Here's a photo from Wikipedia of bison skulls harvested in the 1870's, the heyday of the massacre:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Bison_skull_pile%2C_ca1870.png/300px-Bison_skull_pile%2C_ca1870.png

The Winchester Model 1894 lever action rifle, and its new cartridge, the .30 WCF, aka .30-30, were introduced in 1895.

You do the math. :scrutiny:

MCgunner
February 4, 2006, 02:04 PM
and the 30-30 is no buffalo gun....yet they were nearly hunted to extinction with it.

But poor marksmen need all the gun they can get.

I'd never use a .223 on elk unless I was hungry. Even then a shot to the neck would drop one.

I love guys who think you need a cannon to kill something that's been harvested with bows and arrows for centuries.


I don't have to neck shoot 'em at 300 yards with a .308, I can place it in the shoulder. I've been hunting over 40 years. I've never known anyone who thought a .223 was anything more'n a gopher gun.:rolleyes: In fact, in most states I know it'd be illegal to take big game with it. In Texas, it is legal for deer hunting. But, I know of no one who thinks it's the ultimate choice.

And, yeah, by 1894, buffalo hunting was a distant memory.

Jeez, you think I'M a cannon toter???????? Guys, if you own a .300 mag for elk hunting, don't tell this guy. You apparently can't hit the side of the Astrodome from 50 feet or you'd be hunting with a rimfire, in his opinion.

MCgunner
February 4, 2006, 02:10 PM
they did a couple of articles on military cartriges in shotgun news that might clear everything up. i agree 7.62x39 isnt that much more powerfull and it will lose whatever power it has pretty quick. .223 is even strong enough for 1000 yard shooting with a long barrel and some heavy bullets, but thats really pushing it.


It would seem to me that in the great military debate, in the deserts of the middle east, the 5.56 would have a definite advantage over the 7.62x39 in range effectiveness. It is also capable of a higher full auto rate of fire in close quarter jungle or house to house city fighting.

jungle
February 4, 2006, 03:08 PM
We now have to ask how long a buffalo herd would last against a modern rifle company with air and arty support. My guess is about 15 minutes if the buffalo don't dig in.
The most deadly thing on the battlefield is a guy with a radio that can call in support.

355sigfan
February 4, 2006, 03:12 PM
I read somewhere (don't remember where, probably on this board) that the longest shot taken by a police "sniper" in the USA has been ~75 yards :rolleyes:

Actually thats the average range for a police sniper situation. The longest range recorded was a bit over 400 yards taken by a NYPD SWAT sniper in central park against a sniper. Not sure of the dates.
Pat

atblis
February 4, 2006, 03:52 PM
30-06 > 7.62x51 > 5.56x45

The 5.56 is not a direct replacement for the 7.62. Performance wise it is inferior. It does recoil less, weigh less, cost less, and is easier to shoot (for those who aren't shooters). I am not saying it doesn't work.

Trends are funny. We seem to start at one extreme, head towards the other, and hopefully come back towards the middle (where the truth usually lies).

MechAg94
February 4, 2006, 04:24 PM
The .223 was developed for hunting two legged animals not elk, or buffalo, or deer. Why does everyone want to use hunting experience as a basis for what cartridge the military should use? They are not the same thing.

.223 was made to be effective with light weight and smaller size to increase the amount of ammo a person could carry and decrease the weight of that load. I am sure logistics and supply are part of that also. It was made for the average infantry man who will be integrated with other infantry weapons, crew served weapons, artillery support, and air support.

I am not saying it is the best cartridge out there, just that it seems to fit the role the military wants it for. I do think .308 and other calibers have their place on the battlefield as well. The military uses them, but in smaller numbers.

As far as wound effectiveness, I am sure other rounds cause more damage at the point of impact, but I think .223 causes more than enough damage to get the job done. Shot placement is king if you are going for anything resembling a one stop shop. With proper shot placement, even .22 LR can provide a one-shot-stop.

atblis
February 4, 2006, 04:43 PM
because the vast majority of us shoot animals (not people), and animals aren't that much different from people. The thing about this is; hunters want to kill animals on the spot. I am not sure the military is so concerned with one shot drops. They also don't really care about something being 100% effective (it would be nice but...). This is obvious by their choice of a varmint round for general issue.

5.56 is based on a civilian round isn't it?

MechAg94
February 4, 2006, 04:59 PM
I thought I heard it was deleveloped from the .222, but I thought it was developed for intended use by the military.

Personally, I think it is only a varmint round because hunting humans is not legal. :D Also, humans are not likely run real far or real fast after getting hit COM.

Seems to me that the closest thing the military does to hunting is sniping. In that specialist role, the military does typically use a 30 caliber anyway. So the military agrees that for hunting, 30 caliber out of an accurate rifle is often superior. Doesn't mean other stuff won't work just fine though.

MCgunner
February 4, 2006, 05:01 PM
because the vast majority of us shoot animals (not people), and animals aren't that much different from people. The thing about this is; hunters want to kill animals on the spot. I am not sure the military is so concerned with one shot drops. They also don't really care about something being 100% effective (it would be nice but...). This is obvious by their choice of a varmint round for general issue.

5.56 is based on a civilian round isn't it?

I THINK, but I'm not sure, that the .223 was an outgrowth of the adoption of the 5.56. I seem to remember reading the military was looking at the .222 Rem Mag round and designed the .223 off that round, at least the performance of it. But, I read that a long time ago and might easily have gotten it misconstrued.:D

As to the hunting vs military thing, I thought the title of the tread concerned people "over hyping" the power of the .308. I simply used the elk example as the fact that no, it's not over hyped, it is truly more powerful. As to whether it's a better military round, well, that all depends on the situation I reckon. I'll let those that care hash that one out. I do think the 5.56 is a better round than the 7.62x39 for battle rifles. It's got less kick and a flatter trajectory and enough power to take down opposing forces at long range whether they're killed instantly or not. I think, if I were a grunt, I'd rather be packin' MORE 5.56 than less 7.62. Never having been in the military, I'm not one to really know. What I know about rifle calibers is from my hunting experience.

kaferhaus
February 4, 2006, 05:04 PM
5.56 is based on a civilian round isn't it?

No, there's been much debate about it being a "shortened 222 magnum" The DOD did experiment with that round but axed it because the neck was too long to withstand the rigors the ammo would be put through in the field. They felt the 222 wasn't fast enough so they came up with the 5.56x45 which remington promptly copied and named the .223.

The most deadly thing on the battlefield is a guy with a radio that can call in support.

Truer words have never been spoken. Most of the civies on these boards think the rifle is the all important weapon on the battlefield. Yet 90% of all casualties since after the civil war have been inflicted by indirect fire and mines.

355sigfan
February 4, 2006, 05:06 PM
because the vast majority of us shoot animals (not people), and animals aren't that much different from people. The thing about this is; hunters want to kill animals on the spot. I am not sure the military is so concerned with one shot drops. They also don't really care about something being 100% effective (it would be nice but...). This is obvious by their choice of a varmint round for general issue.

5.56 is based on a civilian round isn't it?

Actually hunting is far far different from combat. With hunting we follow blood trails and wait for the animal to die. We don't want to ruin too much meat. With combat we want the enemy to stop now.
Pat

MechAg94
February 4, 2006, 05:11 PM
No disagreement there MCgunner. The 7.62X51 is more powerful, but whether it is a more ideal infantry cartridge is another question altogether. The 5.56 is very effective cartridge at the ranges it was meant for and seems to meet the militaries needs well enough.

thereisnospoon
February 4, 2006, 05:15 PM
This is a very interesting thread as I just sold my Polytech M14/S (7.62X51) MBR and I am considering replacing it with either a .308 AR10, an AK47 or a Bushmaster M17S...

Surely, I am never going to be in a combat situation where long 300+ yard shots are necessary, but I wonder if this debate takes into account the issue of urban combat.

Won't the 5.56 fragment on contact with brick and mortar? Would 7.62X51 (.308) have n advangtage then. I am not saying that .308 can penetrate brick walls, but it sure would be more effective if you needed to break someone's cover.

Just a thought...what do y'all think?

MechAg94
February 4, 2006, 05:16 PM
I have heard interviews saying the old BAR loaded with AP ammo only was good at breaking up cover. .308 would be better than .223 at that. I am not sure either is ideal.

355sigfan
February 4, 2006, 05:20 PM
This is a very interesting thread as I just sold my Polytech M14/S (7.62X51) MBR and I am considering replacing it with either a .308 AR10, an AK47 or a Bushmaster M17S...

Surely, I am never going to be in a combat situation where long 300+ yard shots are necessary, but I wonder if this debate takes into account the issue of urban combat.

Won't the 5.56 fragment on contact with brick and mortar? Would 7.62X51 (.308) have n advangtage then. I am not saying that .308 can penetrate brick walls, but it sure would be more effective if you needed to break someone's cover.

Just a thought...what do y'all think?

The .308 is far better at defeating cover thats both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing for the Military and a curse for Law Enforcement and civilian users. The .223 is so good because it has good stopping power yet very limited penetration in common household structures even when compared to handgun rounds.
Pat

jungle
February 4, 2006, 05:36 PM
Pat, With 55gr FMJ, that is true, but the 62gr green tip issue round comes pretty close to 7.62 ball in penetration and may even exceed it in certain materials.. The issue 5.56 will go through a NATO standard steel helmet at 1300 meters.

355sigfan
February 4, 2006, 05:43 PM
Pat, With 55gr FMJ, that is true, but the 62gr green tip issue round comes pretty close to 7.62 ball in penetration and may even exceed it in certain materials.. The issue 5.56 will go through a NATO standard steel helmet at 1300 meters.

That has not been my experience in simple junk yard testing with the .223 and 308. The 308 seems to work much better on vehicles than the .223 AP round. The .223 has the inital energy to piece objects like a standard steel helmet but it lacks momentium to carry though in denser barriers like brick and even plywood and studs.
Pat

jungle
February 4, 2006, 05:51 PM
That is true, but 24 inches of sand or dirt or a double course wall will stop either. That's what 7.62 SLAP rounds and .50 BMG are for, car doors and windows don't stop much. I think most common body armor is useless against all mentioned rounds without the benefit of extra plates.

355sigfan
February 4, 2006, 05:59 PM
That is true, but 24 inches of sand or dirt or a double course wall will stop either. That's what 7.62 SLAP rounds and .50 BMG are for, car doors and windows don't stop much. I think most common body armor is useless against all mentioned rounds without the benefit of extra plates.

Well let me give you a clear example of where the 308 works better windshield glass. Most 223 rounds will not penetrate more than a few inches after going though glass. .308 rounds have no problems. There are bonded .223 rounds that do well against glass but then they give up a lot of stopping power to get it.
Pat

Oleg Volk
February 4, 2006, 06:02 PM
.22 breaks up faster on hard cover than .30, in my experience. In fact, for self-defense uses, it would seem that puny .308 should take the back seat to .44 and .50 rifle rounds for extra penetration of cover and bad buys.

OTOH, considering the typical distances of defensive encounters, wouldn't a good bayonet work better and quieter than any rifle round?

jungle
February 4, 2006, 06:04 PM
OK then, how about buffalos in glass enclosures?

355sigfan
February 4, 2006, 06:11 PM
.22 breaks up faster on hard cover than .30, in my experience. In fact, for self-defense uses, it would seem that puny .308 should take the back seat to .44 and .50 rifle rounds for extra penetration of cover and bad buys.

OTOH, considering the typical distances of defensive encounters, wouldn't a good bayonet work better and quieter than any rifle round?

Not sure how quite it would be after you used the bayonet. Every stabbing victim I delt with was quite vocal. Unless you really knew what you were doing with that blade.
Pat

kaferhaus
February 4, 2006, 06:16 PM
Well let me give you a clear example of where the 308 works better windshield glass. Most 223 rounds will not penetrate more than a few inches after going though glass. .308 rounds have no problems. There are bonded .223 rounds that do well against glass but then they give up a lot of stopping power to get it.


If you go to ogrish.com and search the archives, you'll find that's not what's been happening in the field.

There's a couple hundred dead arabs that have been shot through the windshield while refusing to stop on approach to check points. Many times their brains end up on the seat next to them (and that's not an understatement) I've seen their heads blown open like a melon and the entire brain blown out...nearly whole.

These subjects were all shot by 5.56 rounds either out of a M4, M16 or SAW.

Many people keep confusing the commercial ammo and the M855 that we use.... totally different performance, especially on harder targets... it's exactly why the round was developed.

jungle
February 4, 2006, 06:18 PM
It is interesting to observe the pro and con of both rounds, but the fact remains that every major power is now using some variant of 5.56 or 5.45. There are better tools for specific jobs, but for the average troop on the average target there really isn't much debate among those who make and sell to the military around the world.

355sigfan
February 4, 2006, 06:23 PM
It is interesting to observe the pro and con of both rounds, but the fact remains that every major power is now using some variant of 5.56 or 5.45. There are better tools for specific jobs, but for the average troop on the average target there really isn't much debate among those who make and sell to the military around the world.

Yes and to gain that penetration you lose fragmentation in soft tissue and as a result stopping power.
Pat

jungle
February 4, 2006, 06:41 PM
That has been a trade off acceptable to organizations that know far more than either of us about what they desire in a rifle for infantry issue. Otherwise one has to assume the military minds are ignorant of what is required, and I would be hesitant to make that judgement.

Redbeard55
February 4, 2006, 07:59 PM
Some of the difference really depends upon the ammo - not just the caliber. If I ever needed to defend myself with a rifle, I'd go with a 30-06 with a 150 grain Ballistic Tip loaded with 52 grains of IMR 4064. Makes right at 2900 fps when loaded in a Federal case. As a deer hunter I can tell you that the hole left by a 30-06/308 Winchester with hunting ammunition is big enough to stick my fist through, and I have rather large hands. I never shot a deer with a 223 Remington, but I would doubt that the hole would be big enough to stick your first through. I'm talking at least 5 inches. 223 caliber varmint bullets simply won't make it through the chest of a deer/human. There are 223 Remington hunting bullets suitable for deer, but I can't testify as to the performance. Hunting style bullets are banned by the Geneva Convention for warfare. In theory military full metal jackets are designed to wound. It takes 5 people out of action when someone is wounded - the wounded person and probably 4 people to evacauate each wounded. Hit somebody in the chest with a 30-06 hunting bullet, and there is every chance they will give up the ghost in 10-15 seconds at most.

355sigfan
February 4, 2006, 10:04 PM
That has been a trade off acceptable to organizations that know far more than either of us about what they desire in a rifle for infantry issue. Otherwise one has to assume the military minds are ignorant of what is required, and I would be hesitant to make that judgement.


Well the military has made some ignorant decisions in the past with equipment selection. Personally for my uses as a leo and my departments a softpoint or heavy hollow point is a better choice. Stay safe over there.
Pat

jerkface11
February 4, 2006, 11:03 PM
7.62x51 was such a great cartridge that they got rid of it after 7 years. 5.56x45 is so horrible that they've kept it for over 40. And I thought the .45 .vs 9mm war was silly.

roscoe
February 4, 2006, 11:27 PM
And I thought the .45 .vs 9mm war was silly.
No kidding - we got two pointless threads on this topic simultaneously. People never get tired of it.

Wllm. Legrand
February 5, 2006, 12:18 AM
Gentlemen, really...

Too, TOO, many logical fallacies being used in this thread. Do NOT force me to open the books and point them out...though some of you have pointed out the more egregious...(kudos..you know who you are).

The idea that any country's military will make a policy decision strictly upon utilitarian ground is absurd. The .45 auto and its success was a statistical anomoly, thanks to the genius of Browning and his already existant credibility. The .223 adoption, when the 6.5mm round under consideration in pre-WWII was, and is, vastly superior by any quantifiable comparison, was pretty much a political affair after the AF accepted it (which is NO reason to accept any weapon wholesale for real hand-weapon usage). In fairness, the adoption of the M-14 and the .308 was strictly political, as some may recall.

Why the heck don't more of you carry .22lr for you sidearm? Most gunfights occur at stone-throwing distances, right? Or maybe, just MAYBE, it is better to hit with the strongest blow possible. As Machiavelli wrote, "Never deal your opponent a mild blow." In politics, nor force of arms.

The .223 fans seem to rationalize in reverse from a predetermined point of view.

But it's okay. Girly-men simply can't handle a REAL weapon....:evil:

Gewehr98
February 5, 2006, 12:28 AM
OK then, how about buffalos in glass enclosures?

Back to the .45-70 in an accurate rifle, 500 grains at a time... :D

http://mauser98.com/sharps1874bench.jpg

jungle
February 5, 2006, 12:42 AM
At least we learned something about buffalo hunting.

I expect the real experts will get a call from the Pentagon soon to find out why the military has been so wrong for forty years. They do rely heavily on those here for advice, lacking any sense of ballistic expertise of their own.

JohnKSa
February 5, 2006, 01:02 AM
WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.

First of all, by nearly any measure, I think that the 7.62 NATO probably has the potential to outperform the 5.56 NATO. In fact, the initial post on this thread took it as truth that the 5.56 NATO is weaker.

However, that is not really the topic of the thread.

The point was that the 7.62 has been over-hyped (as in the examples I gave). And as a result ANY small arms cartridge is going to appear weak, underpowered, and ineffective when compared to all the hype and lies surrounding the performance of the 7.62.

For example, if soldiers believe that a 7.62 can throw a person into the air and flip them, the real world performance of ANY small arms cartridge is going to be EXTREMELY disappointing.

IMO, Krieghund has nailed it. The stories about the 5.56 performing poorly have a LOT more to do with totally unrealistic expectations than they actually have to do with 5.56 performance.

Thain
February 5, 2006, 01:03 AM
Call me an anarcho-capitalist, but I like 9mm so I bought a 9mm. I like .30-06, so I'm going to buy a Garand not an AR-15.

Any bullet will drop a badguy, and none will do it in one shot 100% of the time. Shoot what you can, as much as you can, and as best as you can. Keep putting lead down range until the threat is gone.

MechAg94
February 5, 2006, 02:13 AM
Gentlemen, really...

Too, TOO, many logical fallacies being used in this thread. Do NOT force me to open the books and point them out...though some of you have pointed out the more egregious...(kudos..you know who you are).

The idea that any country's military will make a policy decision strictly upon utilitarian ground is absurd. The .45 auto and its success was a statistical anomoly, thanks to the genius of Browning and his already existant credibility. The .223 adoption, when the 6.5mm round under consideration in pre-WWII was, and is, vastly superior by any quantifiable comparison, was pretty much a political affair after the AF accepted it (which is NO reason to accept any weapon wholesale for real hand-weapon usage). In fairness, the adoption of the M-14 and the .308 was strictly political, as some may recall.

Why the heck don't more of you carry .22lr for you sidearm? Most gunfights occur at stone-throwing distances, right? Or maybe, just MAYBE, it is better to hit with the strongest blow possible. As Machiavelli wrote, "Never deal your opponent a mild blow." In politics, nor force of arms.

The .223 fans seem to rationalize in reverse from a predetermined point of view.

But it's okay. Girly-men simply can't handle a REAL weapon....:evil:
And Bigger is Always Better is not another logical fallacy? :D

It doesn't matter a great deal to me. I have 7.62X51, 5.56, 7.62X39, and 45/70 so I can take my pick. When the buffaloes inside bullet resistant glass carts come to town, I am prepared. :D

MechAg94
February 5, 2006, 02:41 AM
Call me an anarcho-capitalist, but I like 9mm so I bought a 9mm. I like .30-06, so I'm going to buy a Garand not an AR-15.

Any bullet will drop a badguy, and none will do it in one shot 100% of the time. Shoot what you can, as much as you can, and as best as you can. Keep putting lead down range until the threat is gone.
Stop trying to inject rational discussion into this thread. :D

Brother in Arms
February 5, 2006, 02:46 AM
Thanks, to those who cleared up the buffalo poo. Nothing wrong with people sharing there opinions or observations, but to spread untruths about history is just unessacary.

I have to coment on the thought that the US military only selects the best for our troops. That is just illogical (idealogical yes). First of all, what we think is best may not be what the military, thinks is. One of major concerns they have with soldiers is wieght. This was the main reason for switching from 7.62x51mm to 5.56x45mm. Soldiers could theoretically carry much more ammunition for the 5.56. Or they could carry slightly more than they did when they carried the 7.62x51mm and not be overly fatigued by the weight of carrying all of there other equipment.

Also the doctrine of fire changed greatly during from WW2 to Vietnam. For example in WW2 a Rifle sqaud was mostly made up of 10 soldiers carrying the M1 rifle ,1 carrying the BAR automatic rifle (he was called the Automatic rifleman) and one carrying a 1903 springfield with grenade launcher ,for firing rifle grenades for anti tank purposes. Most units did not have a radio to call in fire support, so the rifle was there basic form of defense and offense.

The Automatic rifleman was there to keep suppresive fire on firing positions like bunkers to cover the rifle man so that they could fire and move. The rifleman covered the automatic rifleman. The Soldier armed with the springfield was in case the rifle sqaud was attacked by light armored vehicles like half track, armored cars. Though this formation was effective, over time they found other combinations where more powerful by adding submachine gunners and more powerful anti tank soldiers (bazooka) and other weapon made the rifle sqaud more versatile.

Thier enemies where largely armed with bolt action rifles, submachine guns and machine guns. During ww2 the machine gun and submachine gun made its impact felt in close range combat, such as urban and heavily forested enviroments. This help to develope the assualt rifle, which went on to make an even greater impact on all of the sides that fought in the war.

So the concept that a rifleman should also be able to become an automatic rifleman if need was adopted. America toyed with the idea of making select fire M1's at the end of the war and this project developed into the M14. It was supposed to replace both the M1 and the BAR. It performed as well as the M1 as a Battle rifle. Though it was soon found out to be difficult to cotrol when fired in full auto and it had the same vices as the BAR, 20 round magazine capacity, and it overheated quickly. So it didn't effectively replace the BAR, which was considered obsolete at the time of ww2.

All the while the American Military was still enthralled with the idea of the Assualt rifle/ full-automatic doctrine of fire. Perhaps the Korean war had something to do with this. Though no true assualt rifle was developed during the Korean war, unless you consider the m2 carbine. Soliders liked the M1 alot better even if it had limited capacity. So they where going on what they knew when they developed the M14.
That and they where trying to reduce the varios varietys of weapons systems by Korea we had, the M1 rifle, M1 carbine,M2 carbine, M1 Thompson, M3 Greasegun, BAR, Browning 1919 machinegun, 1911 pistol.

Once Vietnam rolled around most of the previously mentioned arms where still in Inventories and where used in the early war. Then the M14 appeared on the scene, particulary used by the Marine corps. Who favored this firearm greatly due to the old docrine of every marine a rifleman. Though the M14 is an excellent rifle (particulary if used in semi-auto) it wasn't the best for jungle fighting mostly because of its wieght and length.

Even soldiers in the pacific during ww2 where looking for something handier than the M1 in the jungle and the M14 wasn't much different. All of these combined with new Invention by Eugene stoner for a new modern light weight rifles (6.5 lbs) vs. the 9.8lbs M14, not to mention the M16 sucess as an Fully automatic rifle. It filled a niche the M14 could not and overall it was supposed to make it easier for the soldiers to carry all of his ever increasing load through the jungle.

In this time Warfare became more mobile than it was, even in WW2 particulary with the use of the Helicopter. Also we where fighting against an army armed greatly with Semi-automatic and select fire rifles and submachine guns. Not to mentiond of course Politics had a hand to play in all of this and we ended up with the M16 as a combat rifle to the present.

Still today the M16 gets shorter for use in vehicles ( I.E. the M4) as our army again mobilizes inside of armored vehicles for mobility in different terrain, mobility which was impossible in a jungle. Its actually more like ww2, but there are more artillery, more aircraft, more gunships than ever before!

So it all boils down to what your army is doing. That doesn't make the M16 the most deadly rifle ever, or the most long range rifle ever, or the best rifle ever, . But it is relatively light, handy, relatively effective and it has low recoil which makes it easier to train new recruits and make rapid,burst or automatic fire more effective. In a way it harkens back the the original concept of the m1 carbine as a light and easy rifle for support units to use. Instead of having a battle rifle for frontline troops and a carbine for support troops they armed everyone with a carbine. part of this was combat ranges, being shorter, standardization ect.

However it can be noted that Machineguns, M60, M240 and hordes of others are still chambered for 7.62x51mm as they penetrate barriers and destroy harder targets than can the 5.56. Of course there is the SAW though it is trying the fill the role of a sqaud machinegun, the role the BAR could not fill in its day.

Snipers also continue to use the 7.62x51 and even larger calibers for there work. They are selecting individual targets at longer ranges and thus a largers caliber suits there needs better. Now designated marksmen are among the ranks of infantry units and are more like Rifleman of WW2. Or even more similiar to the Russians, which had at least one SVD in every moterized rifle company.

Basickly no one firearm is perfect for everything the U.S. Army selected the M16 because it pretty acurate, easy to use and carry. My opinion is if you are in a modern army with alot artillery, aircraft, armor, support, Machine guns grenade launchers ect. Its a decent weapon.

But if you have no support, such as if you where in a Militia. Or something like that, where you basicly have Rifleman for regular soldiers, and snipers(the best rifleman). Than it makes sense to have the more powerful battle rifle for your soldiers. You can hit target far away, 500+ where you enemy likely can't see (you though they can still kill you with there support) You won't be taking as many shots you would if you had machine guns or assualt rifles, you would want to engage and disapear. In other words you have less tools at your disposal, the rifle has to be more powerful and effective at longer ranges because its doing more of the work that is done by other weapons in a modern military with a more varied arsenal.

That being said,even though the 7.62x51mm only served our country as the standard rifle caliber for less than decade.It has served admirably as the Standard caliber for much of the rest of the world for decades and still serves in machine guns and sniper/Dm rifles and for that matter the m14 is still in active service with the US Navy.

That is why I think the US miltary arms it soldiers the way it does!
WOW that got long! Im sorry about that, I got carried away.

Brother in Arms

jungle
February 5, 2006, 12:58 PM
Brother, Not a bad version of history, just not exactly correct. Toward the end of WWII forward units were starting to see the close air support and arty call in by radio from FACs and forward observers.
The M14 and M16 were both products of a lengthy study done during the early '50s to examine the requirements of infantry small arms and their effectiveness. After reviewing over 3 million reports from actions during WWII they drew the conclusion that rifles of any type are seldom used beyond 300 yards due to difficulty of seeing and hitting a moving or partial target. What they found was that most contacts happened by surprise and involved fairly close range shooting.

The load of the soldier has gotten heavier over the years and any effort to lighten it is important. The number of rounds fired per casualty has gone up since the Zulu wars and more rounds are required to hit a trained soldier than an untrained one. Just because the round is bigger, doesn't mean you will by magic be able to get any more hits in a given scenario. In fact the opposite is true.

Barriers will always present problems to any rifle round, and the most common, a hole dug in the ground or a convenient depression in the terrain will stop any of them. Partisan actions tend to use whatever is available and without resupply you are well advised to use the enemies weapons and ammunition. So you will be stuck with another .22 when your favorite deer rifle runs low on ammo.

Skipper
February 5, 2006, 10:45 PM
I like the big bores. Having said that, while we internet commandos debate this well worn subject, the Good Guys keep killing the bad guys with that inferior little 5.56 just like they've been doing for over 40 years. Our service rifle and cartridge are doing a pretty good job.
JMHO

SKIP

bowfin
February 6, 2006, 02:27 PM
kaferhaus,

I think the point of my post might have been lost. I was challenging the idea that "Well, it must be good, otherwise we wouldn't be using it, would we?" is a valid argument or had any sort of logic attached to it in discussing ANY topic.

bowfin
February 6, 2006, 02:39 PM
/*Bowfin, Great argument if you ignore time, but none of those things you mentioned survived very long. The 5.56 is going on 40 years*/

Ted Kennedy has been serving in the Senate for 44 years. His longevity doesn't make him effective or desirable, at least for me.

I am bowing out of this debate. The number of minds I have ever seen changed over the internet on a forum of any kind could be counted on one hand, with fingers left over.

If the 5.56mm has satisfied you, then you would be a fool to abandon it until it gives you a reason.

Likewise any other cartridge.

Thanks for your time and your posts, I am eagerly looking forward to the cartridge that will replace the 9mm, the .45 ACP, the 7.62 and the 5.56 and the debates that follow from its introduction.

BevrFevr
February 6, 2006, 09:34 PM
It is the mighty 12 gauge. :)

seriously, for everything there is season...

I love all the common calibers. They all have some value and tend to have advantages over the others however slight.

I think people looking for the one size fits all round are looking for the pot of gold in the outhouse.

We should stop wasting money coming up with the perfect Ron Popeal gun. It slices, it dices, it chops, but that's not all, in knits socks.

I don't think the problem is different guns or different calibers. The are lots of both to choose from. The problem is identifying the need soon enough and getting your changes implemented before your enemy does.

We may find our inflexiblilty in our ability to change weapons systems as problematic as those who slowly realised the futility of fixed battlements. Hopefully we can adapt faster every year than more slowly than the year before.

-bevr

Headless Thompson Gunner
February 6, 2006, 11:43 PM
Cripes, folks. This horse died a long time ago, y'all can stop beating it any time now. Neither round is perfect, and neither is worthless. They each have their advantages and disadvantages, and we all know what they are. So why all the fuss?

If you're in the military, use whatever they issue you. If you're in the private sector, buy whatever you want.

Instead of arguing, mebbe we could all go to the range and practice shooting better.

Armor-clad buffalo?? What's up with that?

R.W.Dale
February 6, 2006, 11:53 PM
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/krochus/deadhorse.jpg

xmaster
February 7, 2006, 12:18 AM
I haven't been in any fire fights but I have done a good bit of hunting. I too have seen my sons shoot and kill deer with small claiber rifles .243 and 22-250). They have harvested nine so far and have not lost any. Basically because they have taken all the shots sitting in box blinds overlooking green fields. They have had a good rest and took good lung shots All were trailed 50 to 150 yards.

I shoot a 7 mag. The only ones I have to trail at all are the ones I take lung shots on because I don't want to waste any of the meat. I shot a trophy buck last year and dropped him in his tracks with a high shoulder shot. I definetly did't want that deer to run. He scored in the high 170's.:D

But the shot that proves that sometimes you need more and bigger is this example. Several years ago I was hunting in the Tensas swamp next to an area called the tornado patch. It was doe day and I was looking over a knarly patch of thicket waiting to catch a glimse of a nice buck but able to shoot anything because of it being doe day. Deer kept passing behind me. The woods were more open but the ground was covered in palmettos. I eventually tunrned and faced the area they were crossing. A short time later I heard a palmetto pop to my left. A few seconds later a deer appeared in a opening. I put the crosshairs on his chest and fired. I thought I was lining the vertical crosshair on his leg. It ended up being a pine tree about 4 inches in diameter. I centered the pine tree. A buddy I looked over the scene thinking the deer was long gone. We looked at the pine tree that was blown out the back. We found a palametto fan that had been cut in half. Then we found a little hair and blood. A little farther some more blood and bits of meat. We found the deer about 80 yards away dead. It had six holes in its side and numerous other little dings. One large frag went through both lungs. I seriously don't think that the .243 could have done that and I know the 22-250 would not have.

So it your target is hiding behind stuff go with more and bigger!;)


X

steelhead
February 7, 2006, 12:40 AM
In the book "Army at Dawn", by Rick Atkinson, there are comments from soldiers, in North Africa, during WWII. They made some of the following statements:

The M1 Garand would jam a lot if not taken care of and/or cleaned constantly.

They also were amazed at how difficult it was to kill a man and that they didn't just drop when hit.



1. I think you can never have enough terminal performance whether you are shooting a 5.56, .308, 30.06, 155MM, or a laser with an earth shattering boom - you will want more.

2. The good ole days usually weren't.


Sometime, off in the future, the conversation will be.... "Back in the good old days, my great great great grand pappy used a 5.56MM FMJ. And when that copper covered lead slug hit something you and the target new it. Nowadays, these lasers might burn through solid rock but they have no knock down power..... I want something that will put a man flat on his back - even if I hit him in the thumb ".

Mark Whiteman
February 7, 2006, 01:21 AM
I am not a professional rifle user, but between the politics and "experts" mucking things up, it seems like every time there is indeed a good reason to change the issue weapon, the result swings things too far the other direction. I didn't start shooting til I was in highschool (thanks, Boy Scouts, for a rifle range at summercamp). And my first personally purchased weapon was an M1A standard grade, with cleaning gear and spare parts. I've hunted big game with everything from a .30-30 to a .300 WM. In my relatively short (30 year) experience, I've learned there just isn't any one magic combination of ballistics that works in every situation. Which is what the beancounting bureaucrats seem to gravitate to. Seems like I recall that in the first Gulf War, it wasn't long after boot hit sand that Those Who Knew called to the rear to have M-14s brought up. Not because the 5.56 needed to be replaced, but because they'd found a situation in which the 5.56 was marginal. I wouldn't want to go back to six or seven different weapons and calibers, but maybe keeping your last reasonable weapon around as a backup is just enough redundancy. Which would be a good reason to tell those '***** in DC to quit melting all that Springfield steel down. First post, nuff said for now. Lucky enough to be able to lay hands on 5.56, '06, 7.62NATO, or 300WM as I see fit, and damned thankful for that. From My Cold Dead Hands.:cool:

If you enjoyed reading about "5.56 aint weak- .308 just isnt a-" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!