5.56 aint weak- .308 just isnt a-

[kaferhaus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.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]

OK then, how about buffalos in glass enclosures?

 

[355sigfan]

.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

5.56 versus 7.62

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....

 

[Gewehr98]

That's easy.

OK then, how about buffalos in glass enclosures?

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

 

[jungle]

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]

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.