new guy with a new post with a heavy topic

[Beer Beast]

Hello all,
I am new to this site; and I'd like to start things off with a deep topic. I am former Military and although I never saw combat I'd like to hear from those on this site that did.
My question here is this, combat vets, if you you had your choice between two calibers to go back into combat with would it be the 5.56 or the 308/ 7.62x54?

 

[Al Thompson]

Welcome to THR!

If you'll do a search, there have been hundreds if not thousands of threads on this very topic.

 

[The_Pretender]

why is this such a typical response? People come and go. Times change. Philosophies change. Trends change. It's ok to open a new discourse. Are we hurting for space? I realize there is ample information available. But damn, let's not be anal. Keep it fresh.

 

[mljdeckard]

Depends on the mission and the times. I have no problem deploying to the current theaters with an M-16/M-4. If I were in the trenches in WWI, I would prefer something with more range.

 

[eight433]

why is this such a typical response? People come and go. Times change. Philosophies change. Trends change. It's ok to open a new discourse. Are we hurting for space? I realize there is ample information available. But damn, let's not be anal. Keep it fresh.

So did you answer the OP's question?

Not a combat vet. Not even a vet. But I would wager that men who fought with the .308 would choose the .308. Men who fought with the 5.56 would likely keep that. But just to add a little bit of excitement, could you imagine a 7.62x54 chambered AR 15 style weapon with a 3 or 5 round burst? THAT could be fun! (and devastating)

 

[RainDownmyBlues]

GAWD an auto 7.62-54? NO THANKS! My shoulder aches thinking about that!

But I saw quite a bit of action in Afghanistan, never saw Iraq. I was an Airborne Unit and carried an M4 for awhile, and a SDM M16A4, Semi only(I can explain if nessisary, but I did that earlier) Anyway, I had no problems with the 5.56. You're not likely to find anyone with armor over there, we found a few with flak jackets, but the 5.56 still tore right through them.

Now as I told a guy in another thread, it depends what you're doing. close-mid range combat 5.56. And yes the SDM rifle counts, I was issued match ammo for that and it hit damn hard at range. The M4 took care of it's business too. I prefered the SDM rifle, but not everyone gets the the chance to carry it.

I would pick the 5.56 over the 7.62x39 any day of the week for combat. And probably would over old Battle Rifle rounds too. Most of the people on here saying you need a 30-06 to kill a man, are arm chair commando's, and have never seen combat.

The 5.56 works, flys reasonably far, creates mortal wounds, and you can put a lot of lead down range very accuratly. Isn't that what we are looking for? There's a reason we're not issued farkin .50 cals.

 

[uwspmgc]

excellent thread, this should be interesting. IMHO, i would use an M4 in 5.56 as long as i could pick the cartridges, .223hp. if not, and the choice would be between 7.62Nato or 5.56Nato only, definitily 7.62. what would i carry? how about an m60!
_________
when guns are outlawed, then i will become an outlaw

 

[Hatterasguy]

I have never been in the military but here is a data point for you. My grandfather faught his way to Japan with the M1 carbine. He never mentioned that .30 carbine wasn't enough to get the job done.

 

[Broken11b]

I think the op missed one...

The .50 BMG

If I had to go back to Iraq, I'll take the M2 any day of the week. Never had any complaints about its stopping power or range, only the weight.

 

[Float Pilot]

5.56mm worked ok, particularly with the weight concerns. Not nuts about the short barrel performance at range.

 

[PH/CIB]

Spent a year in Nam, paratrooper grunt, M-16 full battle rifle with 20 inch barrel, mags loaded with 18 rounds, in combat you shoot a man until he quits moving, so with multiple rounds the 556 gets the job done. Todays M4 is a shorter lighter rifle and 556 rounds are lighter to carry than 308. Altho "Gun up Front" was the call in almost every firefight to get the M60 machine gun up front and going in 308.

However I like 308 better it is a heavier round and does more damage faster and better, if I was doing patrol from a vehicle or someone else was carrying my extra ammo and my ruck give me 308 anyday, 308 for sure for shooting longer ranges, both 556 and 308 have their pros and cons, shoot both and then decide for yourself. I am very impressed with the job our troopers are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, Thank God for all our Veterans Living and Dead.

 

[C-grunt]

I would stick with the 5.56. it worked very well for me.

I would carry my SDM M16 rifle, same kind that RainDownmyBlues used. It is a fantastic rifle and bridges the gap between precision rifle and CQB rifle pretty well.

But then again my unit had almost all A4 rifles, so everyone did CQB with a 20" rifle.

 

[CSestp]

5.56 has its issues with me, but when you go on a patrol and your carrying 8 mags of 5.56 plus your 35lbs flak, water, and whatever u store in your assault pack I would dread carrying the same with .308/ 7.62 x 51 which would be around double the weight of the 5.56.
Keep in mind most engagements are only about 200 yrds or closer.

 

[skoro]

Back in my military days, we had 5.56 in our M16s and 7.62 in our M60s. And it seemed to be the right mix. The 5.56 works well in a shoulder fired weapon. The 7.62 is a great machine gun round.

 

[CSestp]

thats why the M240 has been going through some revamps as of late.

 

[MachIVshooter]

My question here is this, combat vets, if you you had your choice between two calibers to go back into combat with would it be the 5.56 or the 308/ 7.62x54?

Just to clarify, since no one has pointed it out yet. I don't know if it was perhaps a typo, or if you meant to list two .30 cal. cartridges, but .308 win. is 7.62x51. The 7.62x54 is a completely different cartridge.

 

[Tirod]

"If I had my choice" means exactly that to me, and I wouldn't choose either. 5.56 offers a great light weight platform much easier to carry, 7.62 the better effectiveness, albeit with a cost in weight and recoil.

I'd choose a M16A4 in an upsized caliber, and I wouldn't go for Uncle Sam's paycheck. It's not the going rate.

 

[Al Diehl]

Beer Beast:
My question here is this, combat vets, if you you had your choice between two calibers to go back into combat with would it be the 5.56 or the 308/ 7.62x54?

MachIVshooter:
Just to clarify, since no one has pointed it out yet. I don't know if it was perhaps a typo, or if you meant to list two .30 cal. cartridges, but .308 win. is 7.62x51. The 7.62x54 is a completely different cartridge.

I thought that I was the only one that caught that. My question is the same as MachIVshooter's question.

 

[Al Diehl]

Doesn't matter, as a 21 year Veteran with the US Army I will answer with "M16A whatever/M4" 5.56mm. More than ample in the "personal weapon" role.

Be well friends.
Al

 

[PH/CIB]

The 556 versus 308 debate will rage on and on, and neither side is right and neither side is wrong, they are both fine weapon platforms and you will be well served with either. On rock and roll or a go go, the 556 is easier to control although both are hard to control and after the third or fourth round you are usually off target. I have never shot a rifle with a three round burst but it sounds like a good idea, I don't know why they don't slow full auto fire down to around three or four hundred rounds a minute, probably more controllable and that's all the ammo a combat soldier with a full rucksack of 60-80 pounds can carry anyway, Thank God for helicopter resupply.

So if you are not going solo what is the most devastating weapon forged in the fires of Hell a combat soldier can carry, the answer is easy,,,,the radio!

FIRE MISSION!

 

[eight433]

So if you are not going solo what is the most devastating weapon forged in the fires of Hell a combat soldier can carry, the answer is easy,,,,the radio!

That's what they say about police too. You can out run the cruiser, but you'll never out run the radio.

 

[NMGonzo]

Assuming that I am doing the humping of the said ammo, I have to go for the 5.56

Signed

I have humped 7.62 NATO enough to know better.

 

[1KPerDay]

Yep... I'm a .30 cal man. But if I'm really honest with myself and I REALLY had to carry all my ammo/mags, I'd go with the 5.56.

 

[Casefull]

I believe that more of you would opt for the 7.62 round if you had a chance to use it in the ar configuration. It is only about one pound heavier than a 5.56 ar and the recoil is very similar to the 5.56. We were shooting at 300 and 900 yds last week with both rifles and rapid follow shots were not noticeably slower with the larger round. The accuracy is better with the larger round in this instance also. If one or two rounds does the job versus 4 or 5 with the smaller rifle then you would not need as much ammo.

 

[C-grunt]

I believe that more of you would opt for the 7.62 round if you had a chance to use it in the ar configuration. It is only about one pound heavier than a 5.56 ar and the recoil is very similar to the 5.56. We were shooting at 300 and 900 yds last week with both rifles and rapid follow shots were not noticeably slower with the larger round. The accuracy is better with the larger round in this instance also. If one or two rounds does the job versus 4 or 5 with the smaller rifle then you would not need as much ammo.

The weight of the weapon, while a hinderance, is not the reason why people choose 5.56 over 7.62. Its the weight of the ammo. You can carry almost twice the amount of 5.56 vs 7.62 for a given weight.