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

Status
Not open for further replies.
556 works fine, tap tap is all it takes for most.
but i have like other hear, see some ####*d Up SH*T happen to people, ie being shot many times and not going down.
I have been there, you say to yourself i hit the f**ker, then he gets up and runs away leaking all over the place, really pisses you off.
I think the + of the 556 is that it is light , low of recoil so lets you takes better faster aimed shots.
The 762 rules but you hump 80lbs of kit and add another 25 for an FN, M14 ect, then tell me whats better.
I never had to hump the FN but i did have to hump the sa80 and that was a POS other then on the range.
Best gun i ever used was a 16" fn para in 308, love that gun.
bbb
 
Never having had to shoot anyone with a rifle, take this for how little it's worth.

Until your likely target is beyond 200+ yards away and behind thick cover most of the time, I suspect our guys are better served with the 5.56. In most cases, the arguments given for wanting the .308 seem better served with a crew served weapon or mortar/artillery/airstrike.
 
Best gun i ever used was a 16" fn para in 308, love that gun.
bbb


altho i havent fired a FN shorty, i like that idea very much or even this 11" DSA FN.

DSAFAL.jpg
 
I listened to a presentation by some SAS types who were involved in the Falklands. They mentioned that some of their soldiers carried the m16. I don't recall if it was the full auto version or the 3 round burst version. I think the latter.

Anyway, the Brits had both FNs and M16s. The Argies were squirled away in the rocks and the Brits found that the 7.62 blew out a lot of rock chips that added to the firepower. They said that the soldiers with the FNs thought they had the better weapon.

Persoanlly, I like the C7. I can hit things with it. I could never shoot the FN as well.

(Yes, I mean the M16 - not the bull pup they got later.)
 
you say to yourself i hit the f**ker, then he gets up and runs away leaking all over the place, really pisses you off.

Too funny!

Not being a soldier myself but really interested in physics, I'd like to contribute.

There is no guarantee to any caliber. What is important is shot placement. Hunters know this well. I knew a guy that took 5 shots of 8mm mauser to drop a moose, hitting it every time. I don't think he would have done any better with .50 bmg.

My mother took a .30 cal. to the lower leg in W.W. II Germany as a young teenager. She was so scared at the time, she didn't realize she was shot.
 
Man does this argument ever get old?

I have personally shot people with 5.56 (M16A2 w/ issue ball) and 7.62 (M240E1) and both dropped, the M240 almost halved one guy.

I have witnessed M249 (5.56) tear up people as well as coax mounted M240. I even witnessed a 25mm HEIT center-mass and vaporized a hajji. And finally while providing security for an S/S team, saw a great 900+/-m shot with a M-82 barrett on a TC in a T-62.

Guess what? They all kill folks, each round and as many of the previous posters noted, it is about application and shot placement...not 5.56 vs other...I read an article that negated the claims that the 9mm was a POS, written I believe by a former US Army bubba who went PSD, insisted on a Browning 9mm as a PSD much to the dismay of fellow PSDs, but he had several real life encounters with the M9 Berretta that the 9mm was his choice.
 
altho i havent fired a FN shorty, i like that idea very much or even this 11" DSA FN.

DSAFAL.jpg


The ballistics on 7.62x51 rifles with barrels under 16" are very similar to 7.62x39. Might as well be carrying an AK when you go that short. Shorty FALs look cool, but I'd stick with the 16" Midlength.
 
The ballistics on 7.62x51 rifles with barrels under 16" are very similar to 7.62x39. Might as well be carrying an AK when you go that short. Shorty FALs look cool, but I'd stick with the 16" Midlength.

Apples to Apples, and equal barrel lengths, equal bullet diameter and weights. a cartridge wiht larger capacity will increase velocity over a smaller one.

Generally 100% increase in powder capacity will produce 25% more velocity.:)
 
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.

I know from a few friend in the sand box that a lot of these so call "holy warriors" are pumped up on opium before the battle begins, and I think thats were we get these full mag stories from. When this is the case, and you're using FMJ, I would bet even using 7.62 would take a few round to take this Timmies down. Cops in the States have used full mags with hollow point in the same situations.....
 
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.


And in conclusion,

The search function is you friend...

:kickInTheNuts:
 
Go to the range and put one of each round in you legs. 5.56 for the right and 7.62 for the left. Now try to stand up and see which leg has the most control.

nothing compared to real world operational experience!

Oh don't forget to take pictures....
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom