Are we outgunned in iraq?


PDA






GotGlock
November 7, 2006, 06:22 PM
Most insurgents are using 7.62x39, and were stuck with .223. Which round do you consider more effective in the close, urban battlefield we are currently facing?

If you enjoyed reading about "Are we outgunned in iraq?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Prince Yamato
November 7, 2006, 06:29 PM
Granted I've never been in the armed forces, but if I had to pick a round, I'd pick the 7.62 x 39. It just feels meatier when you shoot it. And technically, it wouldn't mean that we'd have to switch to AKs, AR-15s were chambered in 7.62x39 for a while, if I remember correctly.

High Planes Drifter
November 7, 2006, 06:37 PM
I dont have much doubt in the effectiveness of the 5.56 in URBAN WARFARE i.e. Baghdad, Fallujah. 50-100 Meters, it'll drop a man! I've spoken to enough guys back from the sand box and seen enough footage to where I would feel comfortable with it.

Evil Monkey
November 7, 2006, 06:39 PM
In urban fighting, they all work fine. All intermediates, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm Soviet, 5.45mm Soviet, 5.8 Chinese, they all should work fine.

bartsimpson123844
November 7, 2006, 06:42 PM
Meh...I've never liked the AR-15 variants they use nowadays. They should have never switched the M-14 out. :)
Bring back the M-14!

ugaarguy
November 7, 2006, 06:45 PM
GotGlock, both rounds have proven themselves effective on the battlefield over the last 50 or so years. It's not the round, but how you use it. I'm an Airman, but I have great confidence that my brothers and sisters in arms, both USAF personnel in frontline combat positions, and those from our fellow services are extremely well trained. Don't forget about things beyond the basic rifle. US forces have a plethora of light, medium and heavy machine guns, armored vehicles, artillery, air support, night vision equipment, inclement weather gear, body armor, etc. The current US serviceman or woman is equipped with very good gear, and is highly trained to employ it. It's not just what we fight the battle with, it's how we fight it.

KaceCoyote
November 7, 2006, 06:51 PM
Both good rounds, concern yourself more with platform than anything.

lionking
November 7, 2006, 06:51 PM
oh man,where is General Patton when we need him?(see eclancy's post)

our military kicks their butt,even if you gave our guys any weapon you desire,we are trained better.

Im beginning to understand though that like a world war,to win completely you need to pound them into utter defeat.That means winning over the entire middle east(by force) into submission then rebuilding on our terms like after WW2.Which isnt the way we are doing it.

Joe Demko
November 7, 2006, 06:51 PM
Meh...I've never liked the AR-15 variants they use nowadays. They should have never switched the M-14 out.
Bring back the M-14!

M-14 didn't use either of the rounds which the OP offered as choices in the poll.

kungfuhippie
November 7, 2006, 06:56 PM
I know there are back room deals and bribes but if the 7.62x39 was superior don't you think they would have kept it, i mean adopted it. I've seen enough .223 damage photos to know it works. my question is if the terrorist/insurgents/whatevers are using fmj or are they getting sp and hp from russia too. Remember the 7.62x39 shortage last winter? Wolf was filling a "massive government order"

bartsimpson123844
November 7, 2006, 06:58 PM
"M-14 didn't use either of the rounds which the OP offered as choices in the poll."

I didn't say it was. I was just offering my opinion. In case you didn't know, I am an Armalite hater.(yes, I know the M-14 fires the 7.62X51mm NATO) :D

bowfin
November 7, 2006, 07:05 PM
To me, the cartridge is probably the least important leg of the Man-Rifle-Cartridge tripod.

Granted, I would rather pick something a little bigger than a 5.56 cartridge, but I think our guys are outshooting their opponents quite handily. I would also pick something a lot better than a .36 round ball coming out of a Colt cap and ball, but I would still be hesitant to go up against Wild Bill Hickock if he was the one shooting it at me...:what:

lionking
November 7, 2006, 07:05 PM
take a pick on what you think is better but in the end America and its allies are not outgunned cause the enemy for the most part cant shoot straight.

sicario103
November 7, 2006, 07:16 PM
An insurgent using 7.62 IS NO MATCH against a well trained American soldier with 5.56 in a conventional warefare where enemy target are clearly identifiable.

In a war where road side bombs, where they use civilians as human shields and guerilla tactics employed is more of a strategy question not ammunition. Plus if all Allied forces used 7.62's would lead to a higher count on civilian casualties in a urban battlefield, so that would not look good.

dispatch55126
November 7, 2006, 07:23 PM
It has nothing to do with the round. You shoot someone in a vital area with a .22 mag and you'll kill them. What they found in Afganistan was the enemy bodies had several extra "ventilation holes" in them. We were hitting them but they kept coming. The reason was the ideology of the enemy. They (mostly) already believe they are dead (sound like the japanese in WWII?) and when they were hit they kept going until they were dead. Though I can't say this for sure, I heard while I was stationed in Germany there was a standing order with the special forces that if engaged, aim for the pelvis. A 5.56 will shatter the bone and even if it wouldn't kill them right away, it would drop them and keep them away from the peremeter.

Jackal
November 7, 2006, 07:31 PM
I personally belive the Armed Forces should be using .243 chambered rifles. Ballistically superior to .223 in every way, but much less recoil than .308.

Eightball
November 7, 2006, 08:13 PM
7.62x39 penetrates walls better; make it do the "tumble and explode" thing that .223 ammo does, and you'd have a nearabouts perfect round. Chamber it in an M14 w/lightweight stock, and you'd have one nifty weapon.

The issue isn't the platform, or the soldier--our soldiers would rock the insurgents if we were using a 10/22--it would just be mightily more difficult. Our soldiers are what kill the enemy.

Outlaws
November 7, 2006, 08:18 PM
I personally belive the Armed Forces should be using .243 chambered rifles. Ballistically superior to .223 in every way, but much less recoil than .308.

Ya know I was thinking that for a second once too while shooting my .243. :D :D :D It might kick a bit more than a 5.56 in full auto, but most of the armed forces don't even have full auto anymore on their M16's.

bartsimpson123844
November 7, 2006, 08:25 PM
Yeah, I agree, it doesn't matter what gun they are using, we won't be outgunned.

"The issue isn't the platform, or the soldier--our soldiers would rock the insurgents if we were using a 10/22--it would just be mightily more difficult. Our soldiers are what kill the enemy."

....I think I have seen a pic on the 'net of a British(?) guy in one of the eastern countries, and he was carrying a customized Ruger 10/22. Anybody know the story behind this?

RNB65
November 7, 2006, 08:26 PM
How can we be outgunned when guns kill/injure very few U.S. soldiers in Iraq?

Hidden IED's are doing all the killing and maiming. We are not outgunned, we are outbombed.

deerslayer79
November 7, 2006, 08:32 PM
well since they are using the heavier types of 223 rounds I'm goin to still say yeah but a baddie shooting a 50cal that couldn't hit a bull in the ass with a board still can't get the results of our find folks with 223's:D ,but if I was in charge all our m4's,m16's would have uppers in 7mm mag installed:evil: .

Outlaws
November 7, 2006, 08:38 PM
....I think I have seen a pic on the 'net of a British(?) guy in one of the eastern countries, and he was carrying a customized Ruger 10/22. Anybody know the story behind this?

Ruger made a fully auto 10/22. I think they sold a few to Israel.

lionking
November 7, 2006, 08:42 PM
hmmm,using a .22lr rifle might lead to some problems but here is the pic I think you are talking about.

dispatch55126
November 7, 2006, 08:46 PM
Short of sniping turbin wearing squirrels, I have no idea what they would be doing with a short barreled, silenced 10/22.

High Planes Drifter
November 7, 2006, 08:46 PM
Is that Isreali soldiers Lionking? Dont they use silenced 10/22's for sniping?

kungfuhippie
November 7, 2006, 08:50 PM
what:confused:

short range 10/22 sniper? is that a match grade barrel or a big supressor? Where can I get one for all those ground squirrels working for Bin Laden?

lionking
November 7, 2006, 08:51 PM
yes looks like Israeli soldiers to me but have no idea why they are using the .22 unless for maybe non lethal means,which makes no sense either.

cracked butt
November 7, 2006, 08:52 PM
Short of sniping turbin wearing squirrels, I have no idea what they would be doing with a short barreled, silenced 10/22.

Getting shot in the head from across the street with a .22 would surely ruin your day.

kungfuhippie
November 7, 2006, 08:59 PM
Didn't the brits have a supressed .22 pistol for special forces in WWII? Or am I mistaken?

Still that soldier is probably glad to have an m-16 on his sholder too.:D

dispatch55126
November 7, 2006, 09:00 PM
A silenced .22 would work very good for covert ops. I just don't see the reason in daylight and in the open.

carterbeauford
November 7, 2006, 09:00 PM
While we're fantasizing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Garand_clip.jpg/300px-Garand_clip.jpg

Hey it would put an end to this argument, wouldn't it?

MCgunner
November 7, 2006, 09:11 PM
Guns? When you have smart bombs, hell fires, 120mms, etc, etc, etc, why would you worry about what your M16 fires? For what it's used for over there, it's good as any and it has more range than a 7.62, shoots flatter across open desert. The AR is more accurate at extended ranges than the AK, too. I can carry more rounds and fire them at a higher rate accurately. I'll take the M16 and the cartridge it fires, thanks.

HorseSoldier
November 7, 2006, 09:21 PM
Though I can't say this for sure, I heard while I was stationed in Germany there was a standing order with the special forces that if engaged, aim for the pelvis. A 5.56 will shatter the bone and even if it wouldn't kill them right away, it would drop them and keep them away from the peremeter.


Pelvis or head is the standard failure/body armor drill taught by a lot of people inside and outside the military if COM controlled pairs fails to stop. SF or SOF were never ordered to go for the pelvis first, for the simple reason that center of mass hits tended to do the job. I work with and know a bunch of team guys who've done ODA time in Afghanistan or Iraq, and you hear very, very few of those guys complaining about 5.56mm for general purpose work.

I personally belive the Armed Forces should be using .243 chambered rifles. Ballistically superior to .223 in every way, but much less recoil than .308.

Except for the weight and cube of the ammo, meaning smaller basic loads. Bullet might have more thump, but when you've got 75% of a 5.56mm basic load, it had better do so. Same problem that presented itself with other options like 6.8mm or 6.5mm.

well since they are using the heavier types of 223 rounds I'm goin to still say yeah

Most guys, even in SOCOM, still use 62 grain green tip. Mk 262 Mod 0/1 is infinitely more common on the internet than downrange :)

While we're fantasizing:



Hey it would put an end to this argument, wouldn't it?

Would ensure we're solidly outgunned at the sharp end by guys with AKs. The M1 is a nice piece of work (I like mine), but it's not much less obsolete than a 45-70 carbine.

de
November 7, 2006, 09:32 PM
I carried an AR15 A2 for 20 years as a police officer. I carried them on the Ok/Tx border in the 70s & 80s working marijuana fields on the river. I carried one as a SWAT team leader for 5 years and as a Tactical K-9 Sgt. for 11. I have seen the effectiveness of a 223 on a man. My Son at age 22 is a Sgt. in the 82nd Air Borne and has carried one in Afganistan and most recently Iraq, seeing action in both countries. He too has no complaints. I carried an M14 for a while and even a Tompson (that was a mistake). Due to the magazine capacity and the light weight of both the weapon and ammo, I'll take the 223. Ever carried an M14 fully loaded with 6 to 8, 20 round magazines along with 2 canteens of water, in 100 degree weather with 70% humidity. The 223. After all, we are talking about hunting the thinnest skinned animal on earth. Man.;)

Dienekes
November 7, 2006, 09:38 PM
We are taking most of our casualties from IEDs there.

As Jeff Cooper so elegantly put it, the AK and its 7.62 x 39 are a slob's weapon--and the BG's aren't exactly taking us on in squaq sized actions because they lose big time that way. Warfare is now primarily an urban phenomenon and going to be even more so in future. the 5.56 works well there. Add to that better sighting systems and better training on our end and this is pretty much a nonissue.

As much as I like the .30 caliber gas guns (M1, M1A/M14) their principal advantage is to either penetrate cover or reach out past 300 yards.

What we *do* lack in this "Long War" is any understanding by half of the citizenry and 95% of the media of what the realities are--much less any willingness to be personally inconvenienced in any way.

Joe Demko
November 7, 2006, 09:48 PM
As Jeff Cooper so elegantly put it, the AK and its 7.62 x 39 are a slob's weapon

If he said this, then he was wrong.

GotGlock
November 7, 2006, 09:54 PM
I understand that our soldiers are highly trained and effective, i was not questioning that. But i was questioning, that on a level playing field, which round would you want, a .223 or 7.62x39. And DE, tell your son that im on my way, plan on enlisting 11B then airborne, so hopefully ill be seeing him.

SoCalShooter
November 7, 2006, 09:54 PM
5.56mm would prefer .308 but that was not an option. :)

carterbeauford
November 7, 2006, 09:55 PM
Would ensure we're solidly outgunned at the sharp end by guys with AKs. The M1 is a nice piece of work (I like mine), but it's not much less obsolete than a 45-70 carbine.

Totally agree, I was just thinkin' out loud. Picture them without the clip.

As Jeff Cooper so elegantly put it, the AK and its 7.62 x 39 are a slob's weapon

With all due respect to Col. Cooper, there are have been an awful lot of successful kills by those slobs. Slobs are responsible for the most widely used and recognized rifle of the 20th century. Not defending the people that wield AKs against our troops, but the AK is damn good at what it was designed to do and is not going away anytime soon.

plexreticle
November 7, 2006, 09:57 PM
I think 5.56 is better for putting bullets on bodies, imho.

EvisceratorSrB
November 7, 2006, 10:02 PM
I've seen countless videos, combat footage etc. where a tiny crack is heard just before someone is COMPLETELY incapacitated INSTANTLY with leg shots. I'm sure the .223 is PLENTY.

On a particular video, I wish I could post it here, Palestinians are running away from Israelis, and little cracks and pops can be heard, and each pop a Palestinian would go down, instantly, calling for his comrades to help carry him away. Tell me that is not an effective caliber. Torso shots would be much more effective than what I'm describing. It's plenty of power.

Spencer
November 7, 2006, 10:09 PM
Meh...I've never liked the AR-15 variants they use nowadays. They should have never switched the M-14 out.
Bring back the M-14!

Hell Yeh

Critter183
November 7, 2006, 10:24 PM
I have to go with .223 myself. I have rifles in both flavors, but I think I can do a much better job of putting lead into BGs with one of my ARs.

AndyC
November 7, 2006, 10:32 PM
I'm staying out of this one ;)

Wes Janson
November 8, 2006, 01:22 AM
Which is better for longer distance shooting, though? If you have to make a 300 or 400 yard shot, which would you prefer to have?

Prince Yamato
November 8, 2006, 01:36 AM
The silenced 10/22 is/was used by the Israelis as a non-lethal means of taking down Palestinian rioters (the IDF would shoot out the Palestinians' knee caps). It was determined though that shots to the chest- intended only to wound, proved lethal...:what:

12GA00buck
November 8, 2006, 01:45 AM
I agree with bringing back the M-14. No need for full auto or three round bursts. One well placed .308 is all thatís needed. From what I've read, designated marksman are using the M-14 in Iraq, someone else probably has more information than me. I think re-barreling the AR platform rifles for a 6.5mm cartridge would be just about perfect. Less recoil than a .308, lighter ammo, significantly more penetration and wound potential than a .223 round.

Bigfoot
November 8, 2006, 01:46 AM
300-400 yards? Too easy, I'd rather hit a guy with a non-fragmenting .223 sized bullet than not hit him at at all with a 7.63x39.

So the original question might also be stated as "Just why was it that the Soviets changed cartridges from 7.62x39 to 5.45x39?" Umm, maybe because a faster/smaller bullet does more damage on thin skinned critters than a larger/slower bullet? Good thing for us the Russions and Chinese apparently STILL don't understand fragmentation.

BTW .223 is the civilian SAMMI cartridge. Our military uses 5.56mm NATO, maybe a nitpic but WTH. But even then I'd still prefer the lower powered .223 with our military bullets to any military bullet in 7.62x39 or 5.8x42.

Also tactics and platform, I just saw a show about the Soviets in Afganistan spraying and praying with thier AK47s at a couple hundred yards. Our guys with better training and more accurate ARs would have dropped them cold.

Lionking, very interesting photo. What's with the guy in the camo chefs hat? Did someone order lunch? :D Someone has got to explain that 10-22. Anything a subsonic 22LR can do a subsonic 9mm, .40, or .45ACP can do much better. What, the Israelis couldn't find a suppressed UZI anywhere? I love those guys, some of the smartest best trained soldiers around, and they choose a Ruger 10-22? :D

Edit: Prince Yamato, OK, good answer, thank you. Now please explain the chef. :D

zinj
November 8, 2006, 01:55 AM
I personally belive the Armed Forces should be using .243 chambered rifles. Ballistically superior to .223 in every way, but much less recoil than .308.

In addition to what Horsesoldier said, the military also wants a certain service life before an overhaul, and the fairly hot .243 erodes barrels faster than either the 5.56 or 7.62. A more proportionate 6mm caliber would be nice though, although it is doubtful that there would be a significant performance advantage over the 5.56.

As Jeff Cooper so elegantly put it, the AK and its 7.62 x 39 are a slob's weapon

Dead is dead, asthetics are irrelevant. I respect Colonel Cooper as much as the next person, but there are definately elements of his own personal preferences and politics in his work.

Jeff White
November 8, 2006, 02:50 AM
America, the land where every male comes out of the womb knowing everything there is to know about guns, shooting, hand to hand combat, high performance driving and making love. :rolleyes:

I'm sure glad that polls on gunforums aren't used to pick the weapons and equippage for anyone going into harms way....:uhoh:

Jeff

Prince Yamato
November 8, 2006, 03:02 AM
Why couldn't we just chamber the ARs/M4s in 7.62x39?

Jeff White
November 8, 2006, 03:17 AM
We can and in fact you can buy 7.62x39 ARs. But the question remains, why?

Jeff

Eightball
November 8, 2006, 03:35 AM
Getting shot in the head from across the street with a .22 would surely ruin your day.Indeedy so. It is an IDF "non-lethal" sniper weapon, as has been previously stated.

America, the land where every male comes out of the womb knowing everything there is to know about guns, shooting, hand to hand combat, high performance driving and making love.Is that sarcastic? You DIDN'T come out knowing all those things?:eek: :p

Jeff White
November 8, 2006, 03:43 AM
Actually, I did grow up thinking I knew about those things. Fortunately I realized how much I didn't know and have been a student ever since.

Jeff

gaweidert
November 8, 2006, 07:41 AM
The 262 Mk1 77 grain round in the AR15 has been getting rave reviews. One 5 man SF team working deep in Iraqi territory looking for SCUD sights early in the Iraq war ran into a reinforced company of Iraqi infantry. After the battle the score was 167 to 0.

The AK in full auto mode is a real spray and pray weapon. After 300 meters, not much good at all. I know that there are really nicely made AK variants out there, but the ones on the battlefield we face are just not that accurate a weapon.

My son has served in Afghanistan and has shot just about every one of the 40 rifles and shotguns I own. (I collect milsurps). He still prefers the M4 over the AK, SKS or even GASP!!!!! my Garand. He was offered a chance to carry the M14 and turned it down.

He is also a huge fan of good old Ma Deuce and the Mark 19 too.

HorseSoldier
November 8, 2006, 07:52 AM
Lionking, very interesting photo. What's with the guy in the camo chefs hat? Did someone order lunch? Someone has got to explain that 10-22. Anything a subsonic 22LR can do a subsonic 9mm, .40, or .45ACP can do much better. What, the Israelis couldn't find a suppressed UZI anywhere? I love those guys, some of the smartest best trained soldiers around, and they choose a Ruger 10-22?

Edit: Prince Yamato, OK, good answer, thank you. Now please explain the chef.

The Israelis concluded that regular, rounded helmet profiles are relatively easy to pick out, even when the helmet has camouflage netting or paint on it. So they started issuing the floppy, mesh helmet covers that break up the helmet's profile.

Judging from this particular question, issue or use is not universal, but you can find a lot of IDF photos from the last few years showing the loose, floppy covers.

(I'd note that the loose cover might be a good idea, but it also suggests to me that Israel doesn't really have wait a minute vines and briars and such. Can't imagine trying to get through the woods at most CONUS military bases with that thing on a helmet.)

HorseSoldier
November 8, 2006, 08:13 AM
Why couldn't we just chamber the ARs/M4s in 7.62x39?

They've been available for civilian sales for years, as Jeff White noted.

Lots of problems feeding 7.62x39mm through a standard AR-15 lower, though. Google "SR-47" for the military issue attempt at a 7.62x39mm M4 type weapon.

Note that they never bought more than a handful of the things though -- it only makes sense if you're going in ultra-light on the logistics, or if you think 7.62x39mm brings some improvement in performance. Turned out that even the guys who took down the Taliban did okay, logistics-wise with standard M4s. Also turned out 7.62x39mm doesn't do much that 5.56mm does not do as well, in a lighter and more portable format.

Kaylee
November 8, 2006, 08:22 AM
If I recall correctly, one of the essays in one of Cooper's books talks about the use of a suppressed .22 for riot control. He suggested something along the lines of wounding the primary agitators from a concealed position to take the steam out of a building riot without starting a general brawl. This was before the current vogue of less-lethal tech came about I believe, and I hadn't heard it had actually been implemented. Hunh. Learn something new every day. :)

To the "outgunned" question. Feh. Absolutely not, and it has nothing to do with rifles. Rifles are one small part of a much larger system.

And there's a reason their "fighting" consists of setting bombs for our guys and kidnapping and torturing each other. If they were anywhere close to thinking they were even on the same playing field, to say nothing of "outgunning" us, we'd be seeing direct assaults.

JShirley
November 8, 2006, 10:45 AM
Kaylee, the Izzies were going to go that route w/ their suppressed .22. Didn't work well for nonlethal suppression.

What they found in Afganistan was the enemy bodies had several extra "ventilation holes" in them.

Dispatch, I'd love to see your source for this.

The M14 was a failure as a general-issue weapon. Get over it.
Logistics, logistics, logistics. That .243 is not appreciably less bulky than the .308, which means fewer rounds per soldier. As well, another problem with using these MBR-power cartridges in a modern FA weapon is
Controllability.

I'd love to see all you "real men" who want the M14 back in service loaded up with one with M-68 CCO, tactical white light, and PEQ laser. Plus 200 rounds or more of ammunition of course. Plus IBA, kevlar, NVG, gloves, eye pro, and water. You probably think you "need" a sidearm and a big honkin' knife, too. :barf:

If you ever get your wish, I hope you don't end up in my squad, 'cause I sure as hell don't want to have to carry you after you fall out.

John

Heavy Metal Hero
November 8, 2006, 11:10 AM
SCAR .308

Andrew
November 8, 2006, 11:57 AM
I've be back from IRAQ for a little over five months now and I can say with nodout in my mind, that we are not "Out Gunned"
I went over with Missouri National Guard 35th ENG HHD 35th ID under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for my first six months and all I carryed every day was M9 in the IZ Green-Zone and I felt more then safe.
For the last six months I was with A Co 164th ENG (MECH) North Dakota National Guard look for IEDs on the sides of the roads up north. I carryed my M9 and an M249 and the rest of the unit carryed M16A4s, M249s, and a few M4A1s for the 1LTs and the CO, we where MECH so we also use M2 50cals and MK19s.
We got in more then a few fire fights and we nevery felt out gunned. We where also right there next to the 4th ID (I got there combat patch) we where always hanging out and BS with boys from the 4th, we where in there OP so that covered are A@@ and we covered theres.
But the 4th had a mix of M16A2s, M16A4s, M14 DMRs, M249s and M240Bs, with few M4s as well. They always had all the fire power they needed to get out of whatever they got into.

JShirley
November 8, 2006, 12:00 PM
Thanks for your service, Andrew.

I'm with 1-180 INF in Kabul.

John

Lonestar
November 8, 2006, 12:53 PM
Real quick on the Israelis using Ruger 10/22; Right now they use them as "hush puppy" guns, Sorry dog lovers. Apparently the Palestinians like to use guard dogs for early warning of Israeli raids. A couple pops of suppressed .22 solves that. Back in the day The IDF used the Ruger .22 for crowd control and shot protesters in the legs, whoever it led to too many fatalities so that practice was stopped.

Back to .5.56 AR vs AK. The ARs the US military are ALOT more accurate than the AK the militants have. That is why they use mostly IEDs and snipers, if they have superior firepower they would ambush small clumps of US forces on foot patrol and get into firefights more. You just don't see that as much, because the US forces would kick their butts. We are better trained, better equipped and our guns are more accurate.

Gewehr98
November 8, 2006, 01:12 PM
It wasn't just the kneecaps. Nothing takes the fight out of a rock or Molotov-slinging Palestinian quite like a .22 rimfire slug in the testicles.

But the lowly .22 rimfire did indeed leave too many fatalities, so it was relegated to the hushpuppy role, and more less-than-lethal devices were employed for riot control.

As for being outgunned in Iraq, nope. We're outbombed. I came back from a tour of duty in the Green Zone last fall, and saw that firsthand.

Joe Demko
November 8, 2006, 01:18 PM
I'd love to see all you "real men" who want the M14 back in service loaded up with one with M-68 CCO, tactical white light, and PEQ laser. Plus 200 rounds or more of ammunition of course. Plus IBA, kevlar, NVG, gloves, eye pro, and water. You probably think you "need" a sidearm and a big honkin' knife, too.

You forgot the piano wire garrotte and spetznaz shovel.

C-grunt
November 8, 2006, 04:04 PM
I was a Designated Marksman with the 3rd ID in 05 and the modified M-16s using the M262 will out shoot the scoped M-14 all day long. Before I get jumped here, we shot them side by side. The DMRs had faster follow up shots and was plain more accurate. It was a sub MOA gun. My company had 10 of the DMRs and 2 of the M-14s. I posted some pics last year of my fellow marksman and I with our rifles.

And from personal experience, the 5.56 does not have that hard a problem penetrating buildings. Also from my 2 tours, NO ONE has ever failed to stop with a 5.56 to COM. Not everyone died, but they didnt keep doing what made us shoot them in the first place.

Lonestar
November 8, 2006, 05:35 PM
I was a Designated Marksman with the 3rd ID in 05 and the modified M-16s using the M262 will out shoot the scoped M-14 all day long. Before I get jumped here, we shot them side by side. The DMRs had faster follow up shots and was plain more accurate. It was a sub MOA gun. My company had 10 of the DMRs and 2 of the M-14s. I posted some pics last year of my fellow marksman and I with our rifles.

And from personal experience, the 5.56 does not have that hard a problem penetrating buildings. Also from my 2 tours, NO ONE has ever failed to stop with a 5.56 to COM. Not everyone died, but they didnt keep doing what made us shoot them in the first place.

First..Thanks for your service to the country..Second...thanks for giving your expert opinion, we can all speculate, but you know from experience

dasmi
November 8, 2006, 05:45 PM
So basically it comes down to the shooter and rifle, not the round. We already knew that, right? :)

MinScout
November 8, 2006, 05:45 PM
With the Dems in power, it does'nt really matter. Iraq is lost.

U.S.SFC_RET
November 8, 2006, 07:55 PM
Remember that it is the training behind the rifle and not the rifle to a very large extent. The 5.56 round does the job quite well.

Thin Black Line
November 8, 2006, 07:56 PM
I was in Iraq last year. We are not "outgunned" and the 5.56 is fine for
the work it is doing. Otherwise, we are using 50s and 240s mounted on
vehicles.

dispatch55126
November 8, 2006, 08:11 PM
The M-14 was never adopted because they tried to make one weapon that could do anything. McNamara's "Whiz Kids" had a great idea that if they replaced the BAR, Garand, and Carbine into one weapon, it would cost less and make everyone a one man squad. The problems were that a combat load was about 100 rounds, it kicked to much for the average soldier to use it in the auto fire and to long to be a carbine. The M-16 and now M-4 are fine rifles but due to their faulty beginnings, they will always get criticism.


Faulty beginnings, you ask? Again, it was the whiz kids. The turned down over 100 recommendations to improve the rifle such as chrome lining the breach, changing from ball to stick powder and not issuing cleaning kits.

...and if anyone asks, Yes, I did watch that episode on the History Channel.

lionking
November 8, 2006, 08:19 PM
interesting,I've come to realize from threads like these there will never be a definative truth.I see vets themselves will argue whats better.

One thing is for sure,American rifles(modern) have always been made with marksmanship in mind compared to weapons like the AK.Someone said on another thread they hope the enemy never learns to shoot those AKs better which I agree.

Spencer
November 8, 2006, 08:25 PM
The M14 was a failure as a general-issue weapon. Get over it.
Logistics, logistics, logistics. That .243 is not appreciably less bulky than the .308, which means fewer rounds per soldier. As well, another problem with using these MBR-power cartridges in a modern FA weapon is
Controllability.

I'd love to see all you "real men" who want the M14 back in service loaded up with one with M-68 CCO, tactical white light, and PEQ laser. Plus 200 rounds or more of ammunition of course. Plus IBA, kevlar, NVG, gloves, eye pro, and water. You probably think you "need" a sidearm and a big honkin' knife, too.

If you ever get your wish, I hope you don't end up in my squad, 'cause I sure as hell don't want to have to carry you after you fall out.

The M14 was only a failure because they tried it in fully automatic configuration.

Heavy Metal Hero
November 8, 2006, 08:37 PM
With the Dems in power, it does'nt really matter. Iraq is lost.


Hey don't worry we already "won" the war.

Jeff White
November 8, 2006, 08:48 PM
The M-14 was never adopted because they tried to make one weapon that could do anything. McNamara's "Whiz Kids" had a great idea that if they replaced the BAR, Garand, and Carbine into one weapon, it would cost less and make everyone a one man squad.

The M14 predates McNamara and his "Whiz Kids" by several years. The M14's father was Dr. Carten who was Chief of Ordnance at the time. The thing that doomed it was it was hard to produce in quantity. It doesn't kick any more then the M1. It's lack of controllability in full auto mode was a problem shared with all of the 7.62x51 rifles of the time.

Jeff

RNB65
November 8, 2006, 08:55 PM
I'd take an AK47 over an M14. And an M16 over either one.

:)

HorseSoldier
November 8, 2006, 09:27 PM
The M14 was only a failure because they tried it in fully automatic configuration.

Um, they converted most of them to semi-auto only and they were still a failure that were pretty much on their way out as a service rifle as soon as they fired their first shots in anger. They're getting a second wind as a squad DMR these days, but that's because we had a bunch of them laying around for free when it was decided we needed a DMR -- SR-25 or SPR-type ARs are better systems, but they cost $$$. M14s are already paid for. Pretty much the end of the story, and the M14s even in the DMR role will likely be gone within about five years.

rugbyer81
November 8, 2006, 09:52 PM
Personally I don't think it really matters what our soldiers are using, because one of our guys is worth many more insurgents in terms of training and skill with weapons and tactics. I voted .223 because it's already their hands and getting the job done.

10-Ring
November 8, 2006, 11:11 PM
In the urban setting, I like the .223 round

Froggy
November 8, 2006, 11:43 PM
Facts and figures, for those who care about that sort of thing:

55 grain 5.56 x 45mm FMJ (http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/cfrdetail.aspx?symbol=Q3131A&cart=NS41Nm1t) (nice flat trajectory)

123 grain 7.62 x 39mm FMJ (http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/cfrdetail.aspx?symbol=Q3174&cart=Ny42MngzOW1tIFJ1c3NpYW4=)

The Deer Hunter
November 9, 2006, 12:44 AM
A semi/full automatic 7.62 rifle would be perfect in the CQB such as iraquistani houses and what have you.

I could see where a fully auto .223 would be useful because of the low recoil but the m-16's are just 3rd bust and i dont think thats enough firepower

Zundfolge
November 9, 2006, 01:00 AM
I personally belive the Armed Forces should be using .243 chambered rifles. Ballistically superior to .223 in every way, but much less recoil than .308.
"Much less"? maybe "a little less" but not "much less" ... and the advantage of slightly less recoil is offset by the fact that the rounds are the same length and weigh about the same so there's really no advantage to the .243 over the .308.
:scrutiny:


That said, we're not "outgunned" even with our 5.56mm "poodle shooters". The Iraqi insurgents are armed with 7.62x39 but get the vast majority of their kills with IEDs by the roadside. The wonders of the Kalashnikov don't seem to be giving them an advantage (especially when they do that thing where they stand in the middle of the street with the AK over their head spraying back and forth ... yelling LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!)

The Deer Hunter
November 9, 2006, 01:20 AM
ya know what?

why just we dont give them fully automatic .50 BMG assault rifles?

lionking
November 9, 2006, 01:42 AM
quote;especially when they do that thing where they stand in the middle of the street with the AK over their head spraying back and forth ... yelling LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!)

lol!...I know its a serious matter but the vision I got from that was too funny....sorta like the vid with the guy with the rpg in the middle of the street.you could hear the la la la just before....rat tat tat.

swingset
November 9, 2006, 03:30 AM
Most insurgents are using 7.62x39, and were stuck with .223. Which round do you consider more effective in the close, urban battlefield we are currently facing?

5.56 NATO (we're not using .223), inside of 300 yards, is a better round than the 7.62x39 in most .mil loadings. Consult the ammo oracle and read up.

We're winning the gun battles, and bad guys are dying left and right. The end.

JShirley
November 9, 2006, 05:11 AM
the m-16's are just 3rd bust and i dont think thats enough firepower

What? Please understand that current doctrine is to use them in SEMI-AUTOMATIC mode for almost every purpose. Far from 3 rounds being "not enough firepower", we usually train to do the job with 2.

HorseSoldier
November 9, 2006, 08:07 AM
A semi/full automatic 7.62 rifle would be perfect in the CQB such as iraquistani houses and what have you.


I have to disagree, for reasons that I think have been elaborated to death on these boards.


Smaller basic load of ammunition. Even with 7.62mm ammunition you're going to be shooting controlled pairs at CQB range for the simple reason that all bullets, no matter how much thump, will fail to do their job from time to time. You can't afford that at spitting range, so it's still controlled pairs, meaning you've slashed your basic load of ammunition dramatically.
Higher recoil means the gun is slower handling. Simple physics means that however fast you are with a 7.62mm long gun or carbine, you're going to be faster with a 5.56mm model. The recoil differential is dramatic, and means the 5.56mm rifle will always be faster on follow up shots and faster in transition to new targets assuming shooters of equal skill.
7.62mm long guns weigh more, even without considering ammunition. Troops are already carrying pretty massive loads as it is.


The 7.62mm CQB gun only makes sense for general issue if 5.56mm is broken. But it is not -- it kills bad guys quite nicely, so why bother with a weapon that makes you slower on engagements, makes you less able to stay in the fight, and makes you slower when moving? There's probably something to be said for the basic fact that the entire free world pretty much followed the US lead and switched away from 7.62x51 (after we forced them to adopt it) and picked up 5.56mm. It just works better as a general service cartridge for how people really fight.

byf43
November 9, 2006, 05:41 PM
Quote:
The M14 was a failure as a general-issue weapon. Get over it.
Logistics, logistics, logistics. That .243 is not appreciably less bulky than the .308, which means fewer rounds per soldier. As well, another problem with using these MBR-power cartridges in a modern FA weapon is
Controllability.

I'd love to see all you "real men" who want the M14 back in service loaded up with one with M-68 CCO, tactical white light, and PEQ laser. Plus 200 rounds or more of ammunition of course. Plus IBA, kevlar, NVG, gloves, eye pro, and water. You probably think you "need" a sidearm and a big honkin' knife, too.

If you ever get your wish, I hope you don't end up in my squad, 'cause I sure as hell don't want to have to carry you after you fall out.

I MUST add. . . Blasphemy!!!!!!! :)


The M14 was only a failure because they tried it in fully automatic configuration.

While a BIG fan of the M14, I respectfully agree with this statement quoted directly above.



Moving on, in the theater that we are fighting in now, the 5.56x45 mm NATO round is a much better round than the 7.62x39 mm. The 7.62x39 mm is NOT the miracle round that everyone claims it to be. Beyond about 100 yds, the accuracy drops off so badly outta the AK.

Anything beyond 300 yds. to 600-700 yds. though, I'd look for the M14/M21 in the 7.62x51mm NATO just as the U.S. is doing with the Designated Marksman Rifle.

Beyond that. . . . only one option: .50 BMG!
When you absolutely, positively have to reach out and knock someone onto their butt.

skunkum
November 9, 2006, 06:03 PM
Here is the real answer, whether we want to believe it or not: $$$$$$$

Follow the dollars!

Nickodemus
November 9, 2006, 08:22 PM
OK to set-up the question properly we must ignore the fact that America has a huge technological advantage and presume our urban engagement is "mono Y mono" with only the small arms of an AR and an AK.

If I had a choice on the battlefield I would want a rifle with a full size .30 cal cartridge. The .223 (5.56x45) is only a marginal performer against a person, you have to be careful not to expect too much out of it. A 55 gr .223 will only produce a large wound cavity if the velocity is over 2800fps. That limit is about 150 yards for 20" barrels and 75 yards with 16" barrels. At a further range the bullet will not fragment and the lethality is significantly reduced. Since the projectile was designed to fragment without Geneva Convention prohibited hollow point construction, it is a poor penetrator. This can be good or bad depending on its intended use. About 300 yards is all the distance you could expect it to penetrate a car door. The 62 grain does perform more lethally then the 55 grain, but the 55 is cheaper to train with. The .223 has other practical advantages though, when you consider that one .308 bullet weighs more then a whole .223 round. The trade is you cannot rely on the .223 as you would a .308 when dealing with a barricaded target, instead you must rely on grenades, rockets, and crew served weapons.

The 7.62x39 has a bit more energy then the .223 out to 181 yards, but then the .223 catches up. The 7.62x39 quickly looses energy past 400 yards, but performs ok within its 300 yard intended use. It is a little heavier, a little slower, and has greater drag then the .223. The 7.62x39 does not stack as efficiently in a magazine since it is fatter.

All in all I would choose a .223 over a 7.62x39, since up close your target will not notice a difference but at a distance at least you stand a better chance of hitting with the flatter shooting .223. I do like the .223 more then a pistol round, and it would handle better in an automatic carbine but for rifle shooting I would want a .308.

earplug
November 9, 2006, 09:06 PM
I have read that our soldiers have used airguns to turn off street lights. I wonder if the Ruger 10/22 are being used for the same effect.

AndyC
November 9, 2006, 09:17 PM
Since the projectile was designed to fragment without Geneva Convention prohibited hollow point construction, it is a poor penetrator.
Hague Convention, not Geneva.

Cosmoline
November 9, 2006, 09:21 PM
Hague is the problem, not Stoner. I'd want SP's and HP's. The delivery system is not so important, as long as the round is cooking along at sufficient speed. With modern bullet construction any high powered rifle round can deliver horrific wounds. By continuing to shoot FMJ we're costing American lives for no good reason. It's a bullet type that hasn't been state of the art since WWI. The 5.56 NATO's tendency to fail on impact at close range is not a substitute for a proper SP. Esp. since it may or may not fail, and if it doesn't fail you've only made a .22" hole through the person. But that said the 7.62x39 ball is even worse. FMJ's are a fool's choice for defensive or offensive bullets. Unfortunately our government is run by some of the biggest fools on the planet. If anyone in the DOD had the guts to suggest switching over to hunting bullets, foggy bottom would probably stroke out. Not to mention our screaming "allies" in Europe. So we're stuck with it.

Geronimo45
November 9, 2006, 09:27 PM
I don't think that highly of any round south of .30-06... but the .223 is, IMO, a pretty good choice. If the M16A-Whatevers had a full-auto mode, they'd be even more useful, I think - the round apparently has a light enough recoil to use as an SMG, and it's got pretty decent range. Light recoil and light weight are a good combination.
Watch videos of FA AKs and compare them with FA M16s/AR15s. The ARs seem to have a lot less recoil, which theoretically allows for faster follow-up shots.
As an all-purpose rifle, I see the M16 as a choice slanted towards being more user friendly as opposed to a FAL or M14, with its rails, modularity, lighter recoil. I still think that we should replace it with SAWs... which I think are close to the M14 in weight, might be wrong. They should send the no-longer-needed M16s to the taxpayer for a cut rate - they could made an exception to the 86 bill to allow military-issue weapons to be sellable. They could charge two thousand bucks apiece for 'em, and probably make a major profit.

kbheiner7
November 9, 2006, 09:31 PM
I'd much rather have the bigger round. I've talked to a few guys that have come back from Iraq with some scary stories about their "high power" rifles.

That said, we're not having a tough time in Iraq because the enemy is shooting a bigger gun.

dispatch55126
November 9, 2006, 09:36 PM
The smaller rounds allows for more ammo per combat load and is univerally more user friendly throughout the armed forces. This allows for uniform training and expectations among the combat troops regardless of the shooters build or ability to handle the recoil.

kungfuhippie
November 9, 2006, 09:39 PM
It's not the size of your gun, it's how well you can shoot it.:neener:

I like what I heard/read the other day:

Lets take ya'll down to the wrong end of a shooting range and I'll fire a M-16 and an Ak-47 at you. Then tell me which one is better at making you soil yourself.:neener:

Here's what I get from it. Is Little and Fast better than Big and slow. Or is the AK better than the AR in design. A militia will always have inferior weapons to a real army. You can get a decent AK, even one with a better cartridge but it's 60 year old technology. It's a cheap gun made to shoot cheap ammo at short distances, that's why the insurgents <cough..terrorists..cough> want them. The military grade m-16 is not a supergun but it is faster and more accurate than an AK. And it will kill, it's been doing that for years. Yes, a smaller bullet/cartridge saves money. Money that can then be spent on other wartime needs, like more guns, tanks, grenades, more ammo, multi-million dollar jets with smart bombs...

So even if we were 10% out gunned (no way in hell) we'd be using our extra money for all the thing the insurgency can't get. And they kill people with IEDs, not bullets, because they lack training and have inferior weapons. That's how we won the American revolution, with strategy, not superior fire power.

chaplain john stepp
November 9, 2006, 10:53 PM
I served in Iraq with a unit that trained Iraqi's. Trust me. It's not the round as much as the training and the rifle. The AK-47 is good for one thing...ease of operation and cleaning, but it doesn't shoot straight and the insurgents don't shoot well either. I own an AK-47 and it doesn't shoot straight, but it is fun. However, for protection, I want my chaplain assistant carrying the must better and much more accurate M-4. By the way...the story of Taliban soldiers being hit and still coming has to do with the fact that the 5.56 passed right through them. We follow the rules of engagement, no hollow points, full metal jacket and very fast.

JShirley
November 10, 2006, 03:11 AM
Bah.

"AKs" can shoot fine, especially if they have decent sights (an easy and quick fix).

I'm done here. Some sense has been said by some. I know some of you will soil yourselves over this, but a lot of you need to stop believing absolute garbage that you read, and go out and shoot some stuff for yourself. Then do some other things that you usually only talk about.

THEN come back and have an opinion!

John, shot stuff, carried stuff, crawled in stuff

If you enjoyed reading about "Are we outgunned in iraq?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!