just curious,. how come the US military didn't use the .308 win?
- Thread starter noob_shooter
- Start date
- Status
I have carried both the M16 and M14 in combat. The M14 is by far the best combat rifle the US has ever had. Many have been reissued to our troops in the middle east as they needed a rifle with more firepower than the M16 will ever be capable of.
The M16 and .223/5.56 was crammed down the Armys throught by Bob Macnamara and the whizkids. Many a GI lost his life in The Peoples Republic of Vietnam due to faulty M16 rifles. Like one poster mentioned. We haven't really won a war since giving up on the 30 cals. Don't look like much has changed as of yet either. 223/5.56 is a groundhog round.
George S Patton said the M1 Garand was the greatest battle implement ever designed. We won that one.
The M16 and .223/5.56 was crammed down the Armys throught by Bob Macnamara and the whizkids. Many a GI lost his life in The Peoples Republic of Vietnam due to faulty M16 rifles. Like one poster mentioned. We haven't really won a war since giving up on the 30 cals. Don't look like much has changed as of yet either. 223/5.56 is a groundhog round.
George S Patton said the M1 Garand was the greatest battle implement ever designed. We won that one.
I don't think that had anything to do with it
The 7.62X51 is far away from going away anytime soon.
It is still a major machinegun caliber used on all sorts of heavy and light support vehicles, still in everyday use as an interdiction and sniper weapon in the hands of individual combat soldiers and still carried in vast quantities in storage facilities.
When you look at the military interest in weapon systems such as the FN SCAR that can be fielded in near identical packages for both 5.56 and 7.62 you will realize the military isn't ready to give the caliber up anytime soon either.
The weapon and caliber used in Vietnam was effective. The political leadership bending over backwards to spoiled Baby Boomer brats who were being manipulated by opposing interests had a lot to do with the lack of leadership and willingness to win.
In WWII, if it took carpet bombing inner city areas with napalm and wreaking massive destruction on the German people, it was done. Hanoi? Ohh, noo, we can't do that.
Was it a war or not?
Blaming the resulting loss on one weapon used in the field is myopic and ignores the other 90% of the battle that went on. Our troops did fine with the M16, our government, not so well with gaining important concessions or even approaching the situation with a informed view - as they have admitted.
And as said, the 7.62 wasn't removed from the battlefield, it was still being humped over the paddies and trails as an MG team with gunner and assistant gunner, set up in perimeter bunkers, and hung from pintle mounts on APC's, tanks, and helicopters. It was still there where it counted, given that it delivers when you can see past 500 meters and have an enemy exposed.
It does no better in thick bush that stops any bullet in a few hundred yards, and no one can see past 50. In abusive heat and humidity, carrying a 12 pound rifle and half the ammo isn't a major advantage - a light weight rifle and twice the ammo does exactly as the German General Staff predicted. It puts more rounds in the air, and gets more hits.
Those of us who have carried both over the years can understand, those who repeat an old familiar complaint with no knowledge seem rather uninformed about it all, but that's what the internet is about.
In WWII, if it took carpet bombing inner city areas with napalm and wreaking massive destruction on the German people, it was done. Hanoi? Ohh, noo, we can't do that.
Was it a war or not?
Blaming the resulting loss on one weapon used in the field is myopic and ignores the other 90% of the battle that went on. Our troops did fine with the M16, our government, not so well with gaining important concessions or even approaching the situation with a informed view - as they have admitted.
And as said, the 7.62 wasn't removed from the battlefield, it was still being humped over the paddies and trails as an MG team with gunner and assistant gunner, set up in perimeter bunkers, and hung from pintle mounts on APC's, tanks, and helicopters. It was still there where it counted, given that it delivers when you can see past 500 meters and have an enemy exposed.
It does no better in thick bush that stops any bullet in a few hundred yards, and no one can see past 50. In abusive heat and humidity, carrying a 12 pound rifle and half the ammo isn't a major advantage - a light weight rifle and twice the ammo does exactly as the German General Staff predicted. It puts more rounds in the air, and gets more hits.
Those of us who have carried both over the years can understand, those who repeat an old familiar complaint with no knowledge seem rather uninformed about it all, but that's what the internet is about.
noob_shooter
member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 348
and now.. hmmm.. well, how come the 7.62x39 was never used too? I'm sure it's not as costly and heavy as the x51 cartridge.
APIT50
Member
US SOCOM has already adopted the FN SCAR-H in 7.62
Ignition Override
Member
It seems ironic that our DOD forced our NATO and other allies to adopt the 7.62x51 cartridge, but years later we then switched to the 5.56, thereby more or less 'forcing' them to change again, did we not?
- Status
