Are we outgunned in iraq?

[GotGlock]

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?

 

[Prince Yamato]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Both good rounds, concern yourself more with platform than anything.

 

[lionking]

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]

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]

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]

"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)

 

[bowfin]

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...

 

[lionking]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

outgunned?

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 ,but if I was in charge all our m4's,m16's would have uppers in 7mm mag installed .

 

[Outlaws]

....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]

hmmm,using a .22lr rifle might lead to some problems but here is the pic I think you are talking about.

 

[dispatch55126]

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]

Is that Isreali soldiers Lionking? Dont they use silenced 10/22's for sniping?