Could some of the CGN'er soldiers can help me out with this?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dave L.

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Well,

I've heard quite a lot from both sides of the ".223 vs. .308" argument from various people, but I guess it's time for me to step over here and ask the soldiers themselves.

Maybe you guys can help me out - what's your opinion on the rifles? If you could pick either a battle rifle or an assault rifle, which one would you take into combat conditions - and why?

Just curious, as usual.

- Dave.
 
Try looking online. Google is your friend. a great site is the Ammo oracle. In a nut shell. 223/5.56 provides better terminal ballistics than 308/7.62x51. The .30 cal rifles are better suited for barrier penetration. It is not a question of "which is better" but which tool is right for the job.

TDC
 
Well, more specifically I was wondering if the .223 is 'enough gun' for dealing with enemy combatants. I know that 'stopping power' is at best a controversial theory, but I've got to know more from people who've actually had experience.

- Dave.

this is a very new and refreshing debate, glad you brought it up.:rolleyes:
 
First off I have never shot anyone But I do know bullets hurt. 5.56 does the job and so does 7.62 "alittle better"
I like 5.56 because the mags are smaller and you can carry alot more ammo. But 7.62 has long range nock down power.
So I must say am happy with 5.56 aslong as we still have 7.62 GPMGs as support.
 
I'm with Dsiwy on this one.

And on a side note my crowd still use the gpmg as a section level weapon. So every section still has immediate access to that extra punch if needed.
 
Last edited:
two friends of mine, one in the canadian forces, the other a canadian serving with the US Marines, both have absolutely no trust in the .223 round.
they both have horror stories of unloading entire magazines into people to put them down, while the need exists to take down additional enemies.
 
two friends of mine, one in the canadian forces, the other a canadian serving with the US Marines, both have absolutely no trust in the .223 round.
they both have horror stories of unloading entire magazines into people to put them down, while the need exists to take down additional enemies.

:onCrack::onCrack:

There are about 15 people I know on this board who have shot people with 5.56mm who will disagree with you (and this entire stupid thread AGAIN)

I've shot people with both 5.56mm and 7.62mm.

I carry an M4 (I also have a choice, I will admit I have an FN in the car for barriers) as my primary duty weapon.
 
:onCrack::onCrack:

There are about 15 people I know on this board who have shot people with 5.56mm who will disagree with you (and this entire stupid thread AGAIN)

I've shot people with both 5.56mm and 7.62mm.

I carry an M4 (I also have a choice, I will admit I have an FN in the car for barriers) as my primary duty weapon.

Sounds authoritative to me. Next? :sucks:
 
:onCrack::onCrack:

There are about 15 people I know on this board who have shot people with 5.56mm who will disagree with you (and this entire stupid thread AGAIN)

I've shot people with both 5.56mm and 7.62mm.

I carry an M4 (I also have a choice, I will admit I have an FN in the car for barriers) as my primary duty weapon.

you can't disagree with me because I never stated an opinion.
I spoke of the experiences of two people in the armed forces.
my opinion never entered into it at all.
 
:rolleyes:

I trust and carry a M4 (10.5 or 16" recce depending). The 77gr round works well, that's a fact. If for some reason I need to "unload an entire magazine into a person to put them down":onCrack:, then I'll just shoot them in the chest with a 40mm HEDP.
 
While attached to a U.S. Army intelligence battalion during the tactical field phase of a Reforger exercise in Germany (late 1970s), I had several American soldiers take a keen interest in the FN that I carried slung over my shoulder ...they of course had M16s. Many of them had seen service in Vietnam and more than one of them commented on the FN with something along the lines of "...Now that's a rifle...". While examining both side-by-side, very few expressed a preference for their black rifle.

I would agree with others who have suggested that it boils down to 'the right tool for the right job' ...so it really depends on which 'job' is at hand.
 
you can't disagree with me because I never stated an opinion.
I spoke of the experiences of two people in the armed forces.
my opinion never entered into it at all.

Well have they ever shot anyone? You commenting on their heresay - and do they actually have any experience?

From what I have seen NOTHING will guarantee anything.

What I have seen is some units deplorable marksmanship and piss poor drills result in a #### load of rounds fired and no hits -- you can't blame bad marksmanship on the calibre.

BigRed and I saw a guy 5m from a 60mm Mortar impact skip away and all he had to do is change his underwear- not a scratch.

no guarantees in life, love or war.
 
Well,

I've heard quite a lot from both sides of the ".223 vs. .308" argument from various people, but I guess it's time for me to step over here and ask the soldiers themselves.

Maybe you guys can help me out - what's your opinion on the rifles? If you could pick either a battle rifle or an assault rifle, which one would you take into combat conditions - and why?

Just curious, as usual.

- Dave.

Dave is asking for a SOLDIERS OPINION, not heresay or, I heard from a guy who heard from a guy who knows this guys brother etc.....


Properly deployed every weapon has it's use. All depends what you are doing.
 
I never had an opportunity to shoot anyone while I was in Afghanistan. But the guys I worked with who did had different experiences. Some had to shoot taliban multiple times to stop them because they were wasted on opium. They took multiple hits to the torso and kept going until the blood in their brains ran out of oxygen since their hearts weren't pumping anymore. They didn't seem to feel the pain of bullet impacts. Even guys who took 7.62mm strikes were able to get up and run! Then on the other hand, some taliban took a single round and dropped dead where they stood. It's like Kevin B said. Nothing means nothing!
 
My tour was the Canadian version of Jarhead, Nothing happened.

I only ever raised my rifle against someone 3 times. Thats what was not reading road signs and trying to barrel in or vehicles getting to close.
 
just shoot them in the chest with a 40mm HEDP
Just as effective IMHO. :D
5.56mm works well enough. Marksmenship is where the problem lies. We need more rounds to practice taking down targets. Hammers, double taps and NSR's are what is need in most cases.
I have seen guys hit with 25mm HEIT and kept running until he went down.
This topic has been tossed around forever, it needs a few NSR's to finally put it down. I carried a C8SFW and I trusted my life to it. It is just a tool. Master your tools.
My skills are what kept me alive.
YMMV,
Hoddie
 
Just as effective IMHO. :D
5.56mm works well enough. Marksmenship is where the problem lies. We need more rounds to practice taking down targets. Hammers, double taps and NSR's are what is need in most cases.
I have seen guys hit with 25mm HEIT and kept running until he went down.
This topic has been tossed around forever, it needs a few NSR's to finally put it down. I carried a C8SFW and I trusted my life to it. It is just a tool. Master your tools.
My skills are what kept me alive.
YMMV,
Hoddie

Agreed, Weapon is just a tool, you must master it. Took me 2 1/2 months to get on a range to test fire my Issued Inglis HP and then when they made me turn in my trusty C7A2 for a C8 FTHB a month later to able to test that out. Both worked like ####. HP mags were the problem and the C8 did not like the new mags I was issued.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom