new guy with a new post with a heavy topic

[RainDownmyBlues]

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.

I agree completely. If you've been in the field, a hot combat zone, for a few days- let alone the 2 weeks I've encountered; there is no resupply. I've had my squad run to the last magazine of ammo, and it felt like impeding doom. My ammo was different than the standard ball, but after I ran out I had to load up a magazine from a corporal under me, because I had no other choice. It didn't shoot worth crap out of my rifle and it sucked. Heck, our guy on the M249 ran out of belts so he had to shoot on other peoples magazines too...

My point is, ammo is everything. I could carry a **** ton of 5.56, if I was counting on the 7.62 I would be worried, at least in the unit I was in. Mine was a bit different I guess, but still ammo count is everything. If you're fighting an un-armored enemy, a light 5.56 is going to kill them. Period. I've fought enough to know that. As I said before, you don't need a dang 30-06 to kill a man. My rifle and I know that isn't the case. Hit someone centermass, and they are a dead man.

 

[Al Diehl]

Originally Posted by RainDownmyBlues
I agree completely. If you've been in the field, a hot combat zone, for a few days- let alone the 2 weeks I've encountered; there is no resupply. I've had my squad run to the last magazine of ammo, and it felt like impeding doom. My ammo was different than the standard ball, but after I ran out I had to load up a magazine from a corporal under me, because I had no other choice. It didn't shoot worth crap out of my rifle and it sucked. Heck, our guy on the M249 ran out of belts so he had to shoot on other peoples magazines too...

My point is, ammo is everything. I could carry a **** ton of 5.56, if I was counting on the 7.62 I would be worried, at least in the unit I was in. Mine was a bit different I guess, but still ammo count is everything. If you're fighting an un-armored enemy, a light 5.56 is going to kill them. Period. I've fought enough to know that. As I said before, you don't need a dang 30-06 to kill a man. My rifle and I know that isn't the case. Hit someone centermass, and they are a dead man.

+1 an empty rifle is a club.

Al

 

[MCgunner]

Did no one say it? .308=7.62x51. 7.62x54R is a Russian round. We talkin' dragunov's here or is the OP confused?

 

[Water-Man]

I was in Nam and used an M14. If I had it to do over again I wouldn't change a thing. As far as I'm concerned, bigger is better when it comes to a bullet. That's why I carry a .45acp.

 

[Al Diehl]

Originally Posted by MCgunner

Did no one say it? .308=7.62x51. 7.62x54R is a Russian round. We talkin' dragunov's here or is the OP confused?

It was noted on the first page.

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.

 

[PH/CIB]

"+1 an empty rifle is a club!"

Roger That, Al! Nothing like the good old horizontal or vertical butt stroke!

A lot of rounds go downrange for every soldier wounded or killed, we are talking firefights here not precision sniper work. Also a lot of rounds are expended for "Recon by Fire!" and "Supressive Fire!"

In the old days, and I am a dinosaur, more folks lived on farms and in the country and grew up sighting in iron sights and scopes and using 22 rifles, 12 guage shotguns and high power rifles, and were used to recoil and going from hunting game to hunting men, many were Boy Scouts and were used to camping, compass work, and enjoying the outdoors. Today most folk are city folk, good soldiers just lacking experience, and even though I prefer 308, for a fresh green FNG to learn marksmanship and not develop a flinch due to recoil, the 556 is the better and more cost efficient round.

 

[Still 2 Many Choices!?]

I've never been on the "two way range", as combat is often called, but know from playing enough video games(I know Internet commando pro), that people don't just sit still and let you take potshots at them unless you are a sniper, and/or they can't see you firing at them. Maybe all the guys wanting .308/7.62X51 are just that good to not miss, but I would want more ammo, and a quicker follow up shot!!

Especially considering that the further out the enemy is, the harder it's going to be to hit them if they are a limited exposure target, behind cover, or just because of environmental affects like wind and gravity. That's not even considering being fired upon, adreniline dump, fatigue, and or other miscelaneous combat stresses I can't imagine in my comfy chair behind my computer screen!


Still 2 Many Choices!?

 

[RP88]

Not a vet or active - just a civvie who has his own opinion.

I'd gladly take 5.56 so long as I can use heavier bullets. I would still need proper training before I'd worry about that, though.

 

[Still 2 Many Choices!?]

Whoops!! Thank YOU to all combat Vets, and all who hav served!! If I ever see you about, first round on me. Drinks not ammo!!

 

[OhioChief]

It's why I own both. Got it covered.

 

[Bullnettles]

I'm not a vet and have never seen combat so I will not answer. I just wanted to thank each and every vet out there. I thank every one I see in public, no matter what rush I'm in or where I'm going. You guys are the reason I can do whatever I feel like doing and I thank you all from the bottom of my heart.

 

[AARguy]

7.62x51 (essentially 308) vs 5.56

The post that started this thread asked which round I'd prefer if going back into combat. With experience from the Viet Nam era through some Caribbean adventures and into Iraq, I can only say that "it depends". My last "dialogue" with bad guys was as a fifty-something old guy in Iraq carrying an AK-47 made in Bulgaria and it worked fine.

If you are a designated unit (not school trained) sniper, 308 is best, as signified by ongoing reissue of M-14's in that role. Someone mentioned 50 BMG. That's a great round for long range and targeting a specific critiacal asset or two, but withought a caravan of ammo carriers, is hard to justify for anything but very specific missions. If you're on a LRRP, it's definitely the lighter 5.56 that wins. (More-lighter is more-better for extended dismounted OPS). The military realized this when they committed to the SCAR (Special operations Combat Assault Rifle). The new weapon has lots of interchangeable parts so that the Warrior can reconfigure his weapon for the specific mission in many ways, including swapping out parts to use either 7.62 or 5.56 as the mission dictates.

5.56, while a great and proven round, has some limitations I don't like. The first, obviously, is range. The "official" max effective range (50% probability of producing a casualty) of the round is 660 meters. Our Warriors in OIF and OEF report a "tumbling" effect at max ranges which degrades stopping power. It should be noted that a lot of this has to do with the bullet launcher and not the bullet. Original M-16's had a max effective range of 440 meters. There is a new competition for 3 million new M-4's which include six major modifications to do even more improving. We'll see.

I am partial to 308. The official max effective range is 1100 meters, limited mainly by iron sights/eyeballs and tracer burn-out range. A scoped 308 rifle, even in the hands of a graying old guy like me can easily outrange a 5.56. My only "return to combat" would be some SHTF scenario. With that in mind I don't own any 5.56 rifles. I'll be defending, if it ever happens, not patrolling. With that in mind I have a "Loaded" M1A, with scope and bipod, for extended range. For a lightweight "walking around" backup I have a Saiga 308, essentially an AK chambered in 7.62x51. If those don't do the trick we have a Mossberg 930 SPX (semi-auto 12 ga) for a closer engagement with a Mossberg 500 (pump) backup, and sidearms for desperation. For any sort of future combat I might face, I chose those.

If you're in uniform, I agree with the FIRE MISSION guy. Small arms are small arms. Options like Field Artillery can produce casualties, rearrange terrain, and make cave dwelling the standard in the battle area like small arms never will. Overwatching Apaches, Kiowa Warriors and tanks are nice too. But I won't see that kind of combat ever again. For the type of combat I MIGHT actually see in the future, you've got my opinion.

So, like I said, the answer to your question is... "it depends".