Are we outgunned in iraq?

Which round would you want in Iraq?

  • .223

    Votes: 122 61.9%
  • 7.62x39

    Votes: 75 38.1%

  • Total voters
    197
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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:
 
I agree with bringing back the M-14. No need for full auto or three round bursts. One well placed .308 is all that’s 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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top