Charles S
Member
Gentleman,
Let me preface this thread with the fact that I have never been in battle and I hope never to be. This is not an effort to Troll, or start a flame war, I just want your honest opinions.
I am interested in purchasing a main battle rifle and I am interested in your input. I would appreciate your thoughts and recommendations. The purpose of this thread is to get other peoples opinion on ammo and caliber effectiveness.
The calibers I am considering are 5.45X39, 5.56X45 (5.56 NATO) 7.62X39, 7.62X51 (7.62 NATO) and 7.62X63 or 30-06.
5.45X39 and 5.56 are easy to shoot, easy to carry and relatively inexpensive to train with. The 5.56 is obviously much more available than the Soviet equivalent is.
The 7.62X39 is easy to shoot and you can still carry a lot of ammo. The ammo readily available and cheap.
The 7.62 NATO is heavier, bulkier, and more difficult to shoot. The ammo is more expensive, but is readily available. Gun in this caliber tend to be heavier and recoil more, there is a more steep learning curve with calibers of this type.
The venerable 30-06. The largest and most expensive caliber. This caliber is only available in the Garand. No problem there, it is a great rifle.
Here is the dilemma, I have run across several references like the following. This is an exert form Mark Bowden’s Black Hawk Down pg 208. These are the thoughts of Delta Sergeant First Class Paul Howe during the fire fight.
I realize that there is more effective ammo for the 5.56 than they were utilizing, but in general the soldiers in Mogadishu were not impressed with the performance of the 5.56.
I just wanted to get your thoughts of caliber selection in you MBR.
Specific rifle questions to follow after this thread.
Thanks for your thoughts and time,
Charles
Let me preface this thread with the fact that I have never been in battle and I hope never to be. This is not an effort to Troll, or start a flame war, I just want your honest opinions.
I am interested in purchasing a main battle rifle and I am interested in your input. I would appreciate your thoughts and recommendations. The purpose of this thread is to get other peoples opinion on ammo and caliber effectiveness.
The calibers I am considering are 5.45X39, 5.56X45 (5.56 NATO) 7.62X39, 7.62X51 (7.62 NATO) and 7.62X63 or 30-06.
5.45X39 and 5.56 are easy to shoot, easy to carry and relatively inexpensive to train with. The 5.56 is obviously much more available than the Soviet equivalent is.
The 7.62X39 is easy to shoot and you can still carry a lot of ammo. The ammo readily available and cheap.
The 7.62 NATO is heavier, bulkier, and more difficult to shoot. The ammo is more expensive, but is readily available. Gun in this caliber tend to be heavier and recoil more, there is a more steep learning curve with calibers of this type.
The venerable 30-06. The largest and most expensive caliber. This caliber is only available in the Garand. No problem there, it is a great rifle.
Here is the dilemma, I have run across several references like the following. This is an exert form Mark Bowden’s Black Hawk Down pg 208. These are the thoughts of Delta Sergeant First Class Paul Howe during the fire fight.
“ They used to kid Randy Shugart because he shunned the modern rifle and ammo and carried a Viet-Nam era M-14 which shot a 7.62 round without the penetrating qualities of the new green tip. It occurred to Howe as he saw those Sammies keep on running that Randy was the smartest soldier in the unit. His rifle may have been heavier and comparatively awkward and delivered a mean recoil, but it d*** sure knocked a man down with one bullet, and in combat, one shot was often all you got. You shoot a guy, you want to see him go down….â€
I realize that there is more effective ammo for the 5.56 than they were utilizing, but in general the soldiers in Mogadishu were not impressed with the performance of the 5.56.
I just wanted to get your thoughts of caliber selection in you MBR.
Specific rifle questions to follow after this thread.
Thanks for your thoughts and time,
Charles