just curious,. how come the US military didn't use the .308 win?

[Water-Man]

X-Rap...Your comment is typical of someone who never took a shot at a man past 500 yds. with an M4 and who just shoots at paper targets.

 

[X-Rap]

Nice cheap shot, you could have just answered the question. Do the bullets bounce off or is the rifle not capable of hitting the target?

 

[winchester '97]

They went away from .308 because .223 looked great on paper, and it was just about perfect for Vietnam. And it made alot of sense for a large scale war, basically world war 3 or mechanised warfare in Europe with the soviets. The other reasons were of course the ability to carry twice as much ammo, and the capability of controllable automatic fire. It is actually a fine round if you use it like it as intended, but in Afghanistan we are running into a big problem, it was never intended to be effective on anything bigger than a groundhog or coyote past 300 yards or so. Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that they care more about what the weapon can do than its weight, The m14 rifles going back into service are very popular and many troops have been seen carrying captured G3 rifles on patrol. I could see the military moving to a round like the 6.8mm or something similar in the future, provided the right defense industry bigwigs are the ones profiting from it. My real question is this: why didnt we just do like the Germans did and make a shortened version of the 30-06 to chamber an assault rifle in? Did that just make too much sense or what? Hell, we could even had just shortened the .308 when we decided to drop the m14!

 

[C-grunt]

My comments on marksmanship were certainly not intended as an insult. My intent was to point out that line units that are expected to find the enemy and if ordered to engage them should have more enhanced training than those in the rear.
I would suggest that combat troops should get additional ammo and time on the live range shooting at 600 - distances so they can understand the potential of their weapon and learn the discipline of slow accurate fire as a supplement to suppressive fire or close quarters combat shooting.
The rest of the army can use simulators and pass the ammo on to those who can really benefit from it.

When I was in, 02-06, this was indeed how it was done at Fort Benning. In Basic, we infantry guys shot a lot more than the non infantry guys. My company would shoot at 500 meters at least once a year. More would have been better but most of our budget went into the Bradleys.

I would say half of my platoon could peg you at 500 yards without much trouble if you were standing there. 3/4 could do it at 300. Thats not to say that the others wont hit you, but it might take them a few more shots.

Now if the enemy knows you are shooting at them and trying to avoid it. Anything past about 100 yards starts to get pretty tough no matter how good of a shot you are. People dont stay exposed for long and many times all you see is parts of them exposed.

Trying to hit a bad guy at 150 yards who exposes himself for a few seconds and your target is just a head, one shoulder and an AK47 is plain hard to do.

As far as to the lethality of the 5,56 at distance..... I garauntee you that if you took a M855 out of an M4 through the chest at 500 yards, you will die without immediate medical attention.

Ive seen several insurgents and Iraqi military (2003 invasion) personel that have been shot with the 5.56 at long range. Many of them didnt drop dead right where they stood, but they didnt just shrug it off. Many would fall over, then crawl to cover where they were found dead or then treated by our medics.

Disclaimer... most of these observations were made using M16s and SAWs. My unit didnt have a whole lot of M4s. But I never saw anyone survive a shot with an M4 that the M16 would have killed them. If the M4 shot a good COM shot, it worked.

 

[C-grunt]

To the OP. The .308/7.62 is still widely used in the military as a sniper and machinegun round. Bradleys and Abrams have M240C coaz machineguns, Blackhawk and Chinook door gunners use a M240 of some sort. Hell I saw some M60s in the reserve/guard chooper units.

My favorite gun for gunner duties on the humvee was the M240B. very accurate and is just a bullet hose. The M2 is awesome but jumps around to much for accurate long range sustained fire.

All of our FOB guard towers had M240Bs in them.

Pic of my platoon during the invasion of Iraq. im on the right with my MRE and SAW. You can see a M240 to the left of me.

 

[joed]

Having had the displeasure of serving in the military during the Viet Nam conflict I can attest to why the 5.56 replaced the 7.62. The M16 was a dream to carry around compared to the M14, especially when you added the weight of the ammo.

The M16 was always with me and went everywhere I did while I had one assigned to me.

The only problem that I do see is the 5.56 is not great at long ranges like the 7.62.

 

[Evil Monkey]

Wow, another 223 vs 308 thread. I'm pretty sure there have been at least 2-4 of these threads per month for as long as I've been here.

 

[X-Rap]

C-grunt my oldest son shoots a 240B and he does indeed like it. He would love to carry a M14 on dismount and was brought up to be able maximize its effectiveness. He also knows that the M4 will do as you say and fits into trucks and tight quarters better than a full sized battle rifle.
What ever replaces the M16/M4 will need to be hard hitting at extended range, compact for CQB, and light enough for the overloaded soldier to carry it and plenty of ammo. In the mean time while not perfect I suspect the M16/M4 will continue to serve well.
C, I appreciate you giving your hands on experience with the 5.56 and I'm glad you felt effectively armed with the M16.
Thank you for your service.

 

[Brother in Arms]

Not wanting to repeat anything previously mentioned I will just mention that the the last few years 2007-2009 US Army has adopted the M11O SASS (Semi Automatic Sniper System) Which is essentialy a Modern Version of the old AR-10 chambered in 7.62x51mm and is set to replace the M24 and presumably the M21 sniper rifles.

So 7.62x51mm still a favored for GPMG (general purpose machine gun) DMR (Designated Markman Rifle) and Sniping. Any were long range and or penetration is required.

Brother in Arms

 

[stuckinsocal]

So, I'm going to add my 2 cents...for what it's worth...

I'm going to say that the reason the military is using the 5.56 is mainly politics. The military simply doesn't want to change. The 5.56 has worked adequately, especially with powder/bullet devlopments, but so would a .22 mag.
There are plenty of ways to reduce the felt recoil of a .308 gun now...M1A SOCOM style rifles, Ar10, etc.
I've noticed that a lot of shooters are becoming spoiled and wimpy with the Ar15 and the 5.56 round. Granted, I've never had to haul a rifle and full load of ammo in a war, but it seems that any rifle that weighs more than about 6 lbs or carrying any of the larger rounds (7.62x39, .308, etc.) is too much of a lot of people.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

It seems we can agree that the 5.56 makes our troops more effective at closer quarters, and the 7.62 makes our troops more effective at longer ranges than the 5.56. Personally, I like keeping my enemies further away from me, and the 7.62 will do that better. Had I been given the choice while in the Army, I would have preferred the M14.

 

[41magsnub]

Personally, I like keeping my enemies further away from me, and the 7.62 will do that better

If only that was a choice you could make!

I'm not as sure about the recoil of a 5.56 vs 7.62 and troops not being able to handle it being a huge deal. In basic training we had a number of folks get recycled due to an inability to qualify with an M16, I assume this happens in every basic training class. In each case they just could not stop flinching. With folks like that I don't think it would have mattered what they were shooting.

 

[TexasPatriot.308]

I served in the early 70s, I would rather go into battle with a M14 (.308) than a puny M16.

 

[Zerodefect]

I want a CQB rifle on me. Its the " surprize CF!" guys that pop out of nowhere close up that I'm worried about. The far away guys we can plink at.

 

[Hammerhead6814]

Coming in 2014. The US Army adopts the Kel-Tec RFB. It's lightweight, small, kills everything.

 

[Zerodefect]

"Yah, that'll work." Do they still machine Keltecs with dull files with loose wooden handles?

 

[Nugilum]

OK, why couldn't we have AR-10's instead of AR-15's in 1963?

 

[HorseSoldier]

+1 on the whole "wow, another 7.62 vs 5.56 thread" with all the usual misinformation in it (though I don't think I noticed anyone dragging out the "5.56 is to wound, not kill" argument . . . yet).

The reality is that infantry small arms have been increasingly adapted to how 20th and 21st century battlefields work since World War One when the machine gun and indirect fire officially ended the Napoleonic-derived stupidity armies were still subscribing to in 1914.

Saying that guys on WW1 and WW2 battlefields were more accurate with their weapons is just false. These are the guys who could rarely acquire, much less effective engage, a target at 300 meters unless it was walking slowly towards them and skylined on the horizon. These are the same guys who gave rise to the truism that crew served weapons and artillery do the killing, not the individual guy with a rifle.

I have infinite respect for the guys who served in those days, with less than ideal weapons and shoddy training, but you can respect them without mythologizing them and acting like they were ten feet tall.

The problem -- ever since big armies learned they had to fight irregulars and guerillas, scurrying to and from cover and all that -- has been identifying and hitting the bad guy. Having 2-3 times the ammunition load on you with an assault rifle than you had with a battle rifle is a dramatic improvement, even if it makes caliber fetishists uncomfortable.

 

[Tirod]

Clinging to the Hague Convention doesn't include the hollow point issue any more. It's been approved by JAG, developed, fielded, and in use in Afghanistan since last summer. Not all units get it, but it's there. The latest ( overly long ) testing of solid copper bullets with hollow points shows the Army is definitely moving in that direction. Improvements are on the way.

The difficulty of discussing the 5.56 and 7.62 is putting it in terms of VS., when in reality, as most soldiers, know, especially those who command the assets, it's a matter of BOTH being used on the battlefield. One never completely superceded the other, BOTH are used, and often, and are just a part of the total number of weapons available.

Armchair commandos with no experience or knowledge of the actual firepower of an infantry platoon, or even more heavily equipped MP platoon, are the ones ignorantly continuing the debate.

In my MP squad, it wasn't a problem of choosing 5.56 OR 7.62, it was a simple decision of choosing which platform of 9mm, 5.56, 7.62, or 40mm matched the range to the target. You don't choose OR, you choose WHICH.

Being a student of history, delving into the why and wherefore of combat, plus actually training as a combat soldier and working as one, one gets the impact of the reasoning behind the move to a smaller caliber. Wear full battle gear and a basic ammo load for weeks at a time. Qualify on the range, train in MOUT and field ops, train in combined arms operations, learn to train others, work in logistics supporting them, and get a bigger picture.

There is a reason for the decisions experienced warfighters from the German General Staff of the '30's to today continue to use small calibers at the soldier level. The problem isn't the caiber, it's not understanding the big picture.

 

[mudriver]

It is true that artillery and machine guns have been the primary killers on the battlefield for at least 100 years or so. The basic infantry weapon is often used in the combined arms fight to support the larger weapon systems and not the primary killers (RPG's, machine guns, arty, etc.). It is difficult to understand how these weapon systems work together unless you've worked with a combined arms team - but the AR system works well in its niche.

 

[burk]

I've read a lot of reports that the effectiveness of the 5.56 has improved a lot since we started issuing combat optics. The soldiers can acquire their targets quicker and are scoring a lot more hits on center mass.

 

[X-Rap]

I think its simple and fair to say that if one knows the threat he will if given the chance pick the weapon that best fits the job. It is also fair to say that the option is not open for every soldier if for no other reason than lack of a particular weapon at the time. The needs of the unit also must be taken into account.
It all gets back to what I said early on, teach these men to shoot whatever thay have better than anybody else and no matter the caliber they will do well out past 500 yds.
I believe what Horse Soldier says about the soldiers of WWI & II and would add that they would likely be impressed with the equipment and capabilities of the weapons carried by todays soldiers.

As a side note, I think that the 5.56 with 60 gr bullet carries about the same energy at 4 or 5 hundred yds as a 32 or 380 does at the muzzle. I might be wrong and am sure I will be checked but if its true that is not something I want COM.

 

[guntech59]

When I was in, 02-06, this was indeed how it was done at Fort Benning. In Basic, we infantry guys shot a lot more than the non infantry guys. My company would shoot at 500 meters at least once a year. More would have been better but most of our budget went into the Bradleys.

I would say half of my platoon could peg you at 500 yards without much trouble if you were standing there. 3/4 could do it at 300. Thats not to say that the others wont hit you, but it might take them a few more shots.

Now if the enemy knows you are shooting at them and trying to avoid it. Anything past about 100 yards starts to get pretty tough no matter how good of a shot you are. People dont stay exposed for long and many times all you see is parts of them exposed.

Trying to hit a bad guy at 150 yards who exposes himself for a few seconds and your target is just a head, one shoulder and an AK47 is plain hard to do.

As far as to the lethality of the 5,56 at distance..... I garauntee you that if you took a M855 out of an M4 through the chest at 500 yards, you will die without immediate medical attention.

Ive seen several insurgents and Iraqi military (2003 invasion) personel that have been shot with the 5.56 at long range. Many of them didnt drop dead right where they stood, but they didnt just shrug it off. Many would fall over, then crawl to cover where they were found dead or then treated by our medics.

Disclaimer... most of these observations were made using M16s and SAWs. My unit didnt have a whole lot of M4s. But I never saw anyone survive a shot with an M4 that the M16 would have killed them. If the M4 shot a good COM shot, it worked.

Cgrunt,

Your post is absolutely the most common sense statement that I have ever heard on the 5.56 vs 7.62 debate.

If you don't hit anything, it doesn't matter WHAT round you are shooting. I know you have BTDT recently so, your opinion carries alot of weight.

Also, thank you for your service.

 

[Art Eatman]

Going back to the Vietnam era and the introduction of the .223: Think tactical doctrine. The deal was to control one's area to 200 meters or so while using the primary weapon: The radio, to call in air or artillery.

The .223 is plenty good for that.

SFAIK, clearing houses in city areas was much less of a concern at that time. Troops were expected to be in some sort of boonies, whether in Europe or in SE Asia. So, no real need for the .308. Re-supply was somewhat a lesser problem with the larger loadout available with the lighter ammo.

 

[-v-]

I would be curious to see what percent of enemy casualties in 'Stan are caused by personal weapons versus fixing the enemy with suppressive fire, and employing MGs, Mortars, Artillery, or Air-strike to neutralize the threat.

As a civilian, a lot of the reports that I've seen of actions in the 'Stan seem to revolve around fixing the enemy with personal weapons, and then mopping up with crew served weapons or air-support. Although the 20+ minute wait time that most air-assets seem to take to get on scene seem to limit their involvement.