Dionysusigma
Member
7.62x45mm, updated from the Czech loading.
Pretend the 223 had never been invented... what caliber for our armed forces?
- Thread starter Dr_2_B
- Start date
- Status
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Something along the lines of the .260Rem or 7mm-08.
Can't believe so many would actually suggest using a communist cartridge.
Can't believe so many would actually suggest using a communist cartridge.
Due to the constraints of The Hague Convention, the .357Sig won't do any better on flesh than the 9mm in a military role.
Last edited:
jerkface11
Member
.250 Savage. Less recoil than .308 more power than .223
ljnowell
Member
Care to back up the claim about soldiers complaining? People say that a lot until you talk to actual soldiers and they claim that its not true.
There is no 1 shot kill gun.
^^^^no one shot kill gun. Really?
I"d like something like a .260 Rem. as far as right out the box.
side note. if the .308 is TO BIG. How on gods green earth did we ever win the 2nd WW with that way to long, way to heavy M1 firing a way to over powered round. Did no one ever have to carry it? Did they never have to clear buildings? Just wondering.
I"d like something like a .260 Rem. as far as right out the box.
side note. if the .308 is TO BIG. How on gods green earth did we ever win the 2nd WW with that way to long, way to heavy M1 firing a way to over powered round. Did no one ever have to carry it? Did they never have to clear buildings? Just wondering.
jerkface11
Member
If .308 was really that great for military use they would have kept it.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
.308 Winchester
Since 1950?? Not hardly...the 5.56mm didn't come into service for the US Army until much later then 1950.
In 1969 the Army was still using the M14 as well as the M16. My vote is to remain with the 5.56mm caliber.
For those though who feel the 5.56mm is anemic past 200 meters, consider it can pierce through both sides of a standard GI helmet at 300 meters!
unwise11
Member
They replaced it (.308) because of stoner and the "space age" platform being offered because during vietnam they needed a cheaper round because the waste of ammo with the draftee's and what not.
The Red Hot Rider
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 119
.270 winchester or 7.62x39
unwise11
Member
I really wish I could ask a BG how it felt to instantly be killed by .308
and then another how it felt to be injured by .223 and slowly bleeding to death behind cover the .223 cant get through...
remember, the injured one told the other BG's where the GG's are while the dead one just flopped.
and then another how it felt to be injured by .223 and slowly bleeding to death behind cover the .223 cant get through...
remember, the injured one told the other BG's where the GG's are while the dead one just flopped.
Al Mack 1
Member
The M1 Garand was what I was issued in the Corp. I trained with it for 12 weeks in Boot camp. We would fall out first thing in the morning. And go for a wake up run. Later in the day we had the privilege, to drill on the grinder for a while. That's the only time we walked any where.
If the only time you pick an M1 up is to go to the range, may be 9 pounds is to much for you. Of coarse we didn't sit at a computer all day,
The M4's when equipped with accessories, gets hefty too! But past 300 yards its not effective. That's being proved right now.
My vote is for one of 308s!
If the only time you pick an M1 up is to go to the range, may be 9 pounds is to much for you. Of coarse we didn't sit at a computer all day,
The M4's when equipped with accessories, gets hefty too! But past 300 yards its not effective. That's being proved right now.
My vote is for one of 308s!
Coal Dragger
member
Ugh.... this conversation (if it can even be called that) is turning into a gun shop commando/mall ninja competition urinating event. I find it mildly amusing that an individual who has never humped around a rifle and combat load for a living, much less had to use one for unpleasant purposes, has so many opinions about what is ideal for that purpose. I suppose next he will pontificate about what the best automobile to own is, despite having never driven a car.
It has now been a bit over six years since I had to hurt anyone, and I am really thankful for that. Of course before going out and actually being put into a position where you are going to hurt people in the line of duty a young Marine tends to be pretty gung-ho about the whole thing. That is until one has to actually go and do it, then it's not so great and even though you know you can and will do it again if needs be... you'd really rather not if you've got the option. It's easier for everyone that way, and usually better for their/your health too.
Now all that said I did not find the 5.56mm NATO to be an ideal balance of portability, power, and penetration. I feel we could use something with a bit larger diameter bullet that is a bit heavier for front line issue to infantry troops. A 7.62 NATO is not the answer, and wasn't even the answer when it was introduced either. It makes a pretty good GPMG round, and SDM round... but is pretty heavy to be lugging around 200 rounds of the stuff in magazines on top of all the body armor and other gear a grunt will carry. The 5.56mm will get the job done much of the time especially when pushed through a 20" bbl where it can attain full velocity. Where I found it lacking (and my fellow Marines did as well in some cases) was in penetration of light to moderate concealment/cover, and when used against vehicles especially auto glass. The contention that it needs to take out an engine block is pure garbage, since even a 7.62 NATO will not often completely and instantly disable an engine. That is what the .50 Browning excels at though.
So again 6-6.5mm 90-115grs, at around 2800-3000fps. A very useful bump up in power/penetration/lethality, but still should be portable enough to be practical.
It has now been a bit over six years since I had to hurt anyone, and I am really thankful for that. Of course before going out and actually being put into a position where you are going to hurt people in the line of duty a young Marine tends to be pretty gung-ho about the whole thing. That is until one has to actually go and do it, then it's not so great and even though you know you can and will do it again if needs be... you'd really rather not if you've got the option. It's easier for everyone that way, and usually better for their/your health too.
Now all that said I did not find the 5.56mm NATO to be an ideal balance of portability, power, and penetration. I feel we could use something with a bit larger diameter bullet that is a bit heavier for front line issue to infantry troops. A 7.62 NATO is not the answer, and wasn't even the answer when it was introduced either. It makes a pretty good GPMG round, and SDM round... but is pretty heavy to be lugging around 200 rounds of the stuff in magazines on top of all the body armor and other gear a grunt will carry. The 5.56mm will get the job done much of the time especially when pushed through a 20" bbl where it can attain full velocity. Where I found it lacking (and my fellow Marines did as well in some cases) was in penetration of light to moderate concealment/cover, and when used against vehicles especially auto glass. The contention that it needs to take out an engine block is pure garbage, since even a 7.62 NATO will not often completely and instantly disable an engine. That is what the .50 Browning excels at though.
So again 6-6.5mm 90-115grs, at around 2800-3000fps. A very useful bump up in power/penetration/lethality, but still should be portable enough to be practical.
earplug
Member
5.56 with twenty inches of barrel.
Really that all the infantry needs.
Really that all the infantry needs.
The military got exactly what they wanted when they accepted the 5.56x45, so I would imagine that if the 5.56 wasn't picked, the accepted round wouldn't be significantly different (performance wise) from the 5.56.
They wanted a light rifle that could be controlable in FA fire, would allow the soldier to carry more rounds for a given weight over the 30-06 or 7.62 and would kill within 300-600 yards. They got exactly what they wanted.
Personally I think the 6x45 would be a great upgrade for the soldiers. It would be the cheapest way to upgrade current arms (barrel swap). The other popular rounds 6.8, 6.5 and 7.62x39 (not gonna happen) need barrel, carrier and magazines to switch.
They wanted a light rifle that could be controlable in FA fire, would allow the soldier to carry more rounds for a given weight over the 30-06 or 7.62 and would kill within 300-600 yards. They got exactly what they wanted.
Personally I think the 6x45 would be a great upgrade for the soldiers. It would be the cheapest way to upgrade current arms (barrel swap). The other popular rounds 6.8, 6.5 and 7.62x39 (not gonna happen) need barrel, carrier and magazines to switch.
mljdeckard
Member
If it hadn't been the .223/5.56, they would have invented something very similar to it.
All you .308 worshippers need to tell me which rifle I can issue to my petite female soldiers, train them in about two days, and expect them to be able to use it effectively, that is chambered in .308. (And before you say if they are so petite, they shouldn't be in the army, I will tell you that they are the very best in the world at what they do, and all of the armed forces would suffer if they weren't here.) The .308 provides capability that the army is not willing to train for. It doesn't matter if it is an 800 meter cartridge if the military is only willing to train to shoot out to 300. (500 for Marines.) It doesn't matter if it hits harder if the rifle is so heavy, and recoil so severe, that soldiers can't hit anything with it.
Soldiers are already maxed out for the weight they carry. If you have been out for a while, you don't know this. I just got the new brown trauma plates, tested to withstand hits from AP ammo, significantly heavier than the last generation. Side plates, improved first aid kit, three-liter camelback, (MINIMUM,) pistol and ammo, knife, emergency seatbelt cutter, helmet with bracket for night vision, extra optics and lights on the rifle, protective mask, etc, just my kit weighs over 50 pounds. I have a little back pain, but I will survive. Now, imagine that on my female soldiers, weighing less than 115 lbs. And you think it's a good idea to take away their M-4s to give them a M-14, AR--10, FAL, G-3, or....whatever. What exactly do you think it is they will be able to do with this rifle when they can't even carry all this stuff a mile?
1-3 hits of 5.56 is better than 0 hits with a 7.62. The role of the individual's rifle is to support the machine gun. The things we still use 7.62 for are sniping, machine guns, and DMRs. NOT for individual soldiers' issue rifles. This is the reason that the M-16 family has been the issue rifle longer than any other rifle in U.S. history.
If soldiers complain about stopping power of the 5.56, they are under the illusion that any other round has 100% stopping power. It does not.
All you .308 worshippers need to tell me which rifle I can issue to my petite female soldiers, train them in about two days, and expect them to be able to use it effectively, that is chambered in .308. (And before you say if they are so petite, they shouldn't be in the army, I will tell you that they are the very best in the world at what they do, and all of the armed forces would suffer if they weren't here.) The .308 provides capability that the army is not willing to train for. It doesn't matter if it is an 800 meter cartridge if the military is only willing to train to shoot out to 300. (500 for Marines.) It doesn't matter if it hits harder if the rifle is so heavy, and recoil so severe, that soldiers can't hit anything with it.
Soldiers are already maxed out for the weight they carry. If you have been out for a while, you don't know this. I just got the new brown trauma plates, tested to withstand hits from AP ammo, significantly heavier than the last generation. Side plates, improved first aid kit, three-liter camelback, (MINIMUM,) pistol and ammo, knife, emergency seatbelt cutter, helmet with bracket for night vision, extra optics and lights on the rifle, protective mask, etc, just my kit weighs over 50 pounds. I have a little back pain, but I will survive. Now, imagine that on my female soldiers, weighing less than 115 lbs. And you think it's a good idea to take away their M-4s to give them a M-14, AR--10, FAL, G-3, or....whatever. What exactly do you think it is they will be able to do with this rifle when they can't even carry all this stuff a mile?
1-3 hits of 5.56 is better than 0 hits with a 7.62. The role of the individual's rifle is to support the machine gun. The things we still use 7.62 for are sniping, machine guns, and DMRs. NOT for individual soldiers' issue rifles. This is the reason that the M-16 family has been the issue rifle longer than any other rifle in U.S. history.
If soldiers complain about stopping power of the 5.56, they are under the illusion that any other round has 100% stopping power. It does not.
HorseSoldier
Member
They replaced 7.62x51 because it was an obsolete failure as a general service rifle cartridge, which became painfully obvious the first time it went head to head with the AK-47. The M14 and its cartridge were one of the best rifles of WW2 -- the obvious problem being that it was fielded in the late 50s, when small arms technology had made a whole other jump forward in optimizing the equipment to battlefield realities. (Don't believe me? Ring up the consulate of any major nation whose military still issues 7.62x51 battle rifles for general purpose use and ask them what's right with the idea . . .
)So, with or without 5.56x45, 7.62x51 was doomed to failure by about 1942 when the Germans started doing field tests on the StG-44. Dissatisfaction with it would have invariably resulted in something new because it just didn't get the job done, and the idea of the Small Caliber High Velocity intermediate round was around and would have resulted in something looking very much like 5.56x45 in some slightly altered format.
About the only way we might not have gone down that road was if the US Ordnance R&D community had been fortuitously and collectively killed in a lightning strike or something or they'd otherwise ushered out the head-in-the-sand idiots who thought 7.62x51 was a good idea. Perhaps then we'd have ended up with the British 280 intermediate round, which looks to have been a superb caliber and that might have hung around into the present and kept SCHV from every getting momentum.
Good luck with that. The first military I am aware of that adopted controlled pairs for all engagements at close range were the Rhodesian security forces, who were shooting scrawny Africans with FALs. Obvious conclusion: One round of 7.62x51 hitting a smaller framed human being is inadequate to produce a reliable one shot kill.
Or put another way, read up and see if any GIs ever survived being hit by a full power 7.92mm Mauser round (or two, or three) and not only lived, but stayed in the fight.
Ain't no silver bullets, though amateurs fixate on them endlessly. Professionals learn to put rounds center of mass.
The better question is how many more guys would have made it home if they'd been equipped with a weapon better suited to actual infantry combat and not the fantasies of some general about picking off bad guys at 1000 meters with aimed fire? Had we adopted the M1 Garand in 276 Pedersen, and put a 20 round magazine in it (even though -- gasp -- soldiers might waste ammo and might not shoot NRA highpower classic form prone on the range
) the individual infantryman would have had a superb 0-400 meter fighting rifle that would have made the paradigm-shifting of the StG-44 a lot more debatable. Obviously, that would have taken more sense and forward thinking than our leadership was capable of in the interwar years, but had we gone that route and gotten rid of 30-06 when the army wanted to, rather than putting it off two three decades, we might still be shooting 276 Pedersen chambered rifles (or probably a product improved version of the cartridge) today.
Anyway, I'll stop pointing out problematic facts and let the 308 He-Man Club resume thumping their hairy chests.
MTMilitiaman
Member
Something along the lines of the .280 British (7x43) suits my fancy. In something like the FAL or the M14, or in something newer today, like the SCAR or a good AR, awesome potential. Alternatively, something like the 6.5 Grendel. I'd be a big fan of an intermediate powered rifle cartridge with a caliber of .243 to .284 shooting a projectile of between 95 and 145 gr with a velocity of 2900 to 2400 fps, respectively. But the two aforementioned rounds I believe both have potential with the right loads to replace both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO rounds. I envision it having a FMJBT with a cannelure, and construction similar to the standard ball round for the Russian 5.45mm, so as to induce tumbling.
black_powder_Rob
Member
how about 5.6x50mm Magnum
man why do people love those big bullets so much?
man why do people love those big bullets so much?
Snowdog
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,608
Some form of 6.5mm, such as a modernized 6.5x50 Arisaka could have been adopted.
I'm guessing a 6.5mm a rear-weighted 130-140gr spitzer at 2500 would have made for a fairly effective combat cartridge. From a ballistic standpoint, such a cartridge might have resembled the 6.5 Grendel.
If the 6.5x50 Arisaka were reduced in length during this modernization process, it might resemble the 6.5 Grendel in appearance as well.
I'm guessing a 6.5mm a rear-weighted 130-140gr spitzer at 2500 would have made for a fairly effective combat cartridge. From a ballistic standpoint, such a cartridge might have resembled the 6.5 Grendel.
If the 6.5x50 Arisaka were reduced in length during this modernization process, it might resemble the 6.5 Grendel in appearance as well.
The 223 is perfect for 99% of what our troops use rifles for. The 308 is perfect for about 1% of our troops needs. I think they are doing the right thing by issuing 223's to the majority of the troops and using the 308 rifles where needed.
The 30-06 was used during WW-II simply because that is what we had and there was no sense changing in the middle of the war. Well before the war ended the military recognized that the Garand was a great rifle, but that we could do much better.
The M-14 is a great rifle as well, but still not really what you want to issue to every soldier on the battlefield. It is really only a slight improvement over the Garand.
The AR platform had some early issues but is just fine, as is the 223 round. If some of you guys had your way we would still be using single shot 45-70 Springfields.
The 30-06 was used during WW-II simply because that is what we had and there was no sense changing in the middle of the war. Well before the war ended the military recognized that the Garand was a great rifle, but that we could do much better.
The M-14 is a great rifle as well, but still not really what you want to issue to every soldier on the battlefield. It is really only a slight improvement over the Garand.
The AR platform had some early issues but is just fine, as is the 223 round. If some of you guys had your way we would still be using single shot 45-70 Springfields.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
