308/7.62 Nato as a Main carbine??

i would hardly go about calling the marines STUPID, if i were you- you've lost a bunch of real friends fast, and are losing more by the second- btw, the marines, although they don't like to admit it are a branch of the NAVY, not the army, and HAVE never adaopted "spray and pray"- that's STRICTLY an army doctrine, and if you make marksman, distinguished, or expert in the marines, you're REALLY doing something- LOOK UP THE QUALIFICATIONS SOMETIME
it takes the resources of ten men to look after one wounded , not 2- 3 if you're lucky, just gets first line treatment- ie the medic, and 2 stetcher bearers, just to get to the aid station-
there's a whole bunch else wrong with your post, but i haven't got the time to go over it line by line- others will surely do that
and you CAN control the m14 on full auto, you just use the same technique as the c2, or the bar- it's a 3 round burst, not just hold the trigger back and "go for it"
 
trekstor said:
I have to admit, 308 would be a lot to carry. I can handle my m14 with out issues, but a .223 has no recoil at all! 7.62 x39 with a muzzle brake is pretty much 0 climb. Look at the current soldiers. I do not think many of them would be able to handle a .308. .308 on full auto is uncontrollable. Everything has an advantage or disadvantage. .308 is a better "terminator" for sure.

.308 is not required anymore in the battle field.

.308 is good for long range, but in reality 90% of battles are under 200 yards. Urban, jungles, forests, and only lately Afghanistan started to require long range ar10 (m110). In reality for most war scenarios 400 is the limit, and your lucky to get 100 in a forest, or 200 in urban. .223 is better because you do not want to kill the enemy but immobilize him, and in reality .223 can service up to 400 yards, which is rare in most scenarios. The ak74 fires a 5.45x45 rounds for the same reason. 7.62x39 was to powerful. .223 or the ak74 round tumble on impact causing more damage to the internals of the soldier then a .308 FMJ ever would. Even the 7.62x39 would go straight through, leaving a clean entry and exist hole, making it a easy fix for the medic to stop the bleeding.

Injuring 1 soldier, takes up resources of 2 other soldiers. In reality you can achieve more with a .223, and also you can carry more ammo.

In Iraq, they started fighting insurgents, remember, marines in the big picture are stupid, trigger happy hicks, lowest level of the USA amry.I think the reserve has much better morals and reasons for joining. Most soldiers will tell you they are serving the country, but in reality, they have nothing better to do with their life. Education in the states is not cheap, and $90,000 USA tax free for a 19 or 20 year old is a miracle. Most of them do it for a way out of poverty and get somewhat of a head start in life if they do survive.

The video game generation cant wait to get some kills. But in reality it would make more sense to keep the enemy as a prisoner for interrogation, and get some useful info out of the poor bastard. So killing is a by product of stupid soldiers.

Internal bleeding takes time if shot with a .223 or ak74 round. Just like in Nam, the full out option was removed because soldiers just sprayed and prayed, which is not an adopted philosophy of the USA military. It is a by product of stupid soldiers. It has its uses in the special forces, but a rifleman is not a full automatic machine gunner. SAW 249 is for spray cover.

American soldiers are not trained that well. Marksmanship skills are much higher in the Russian army with the ak74. Russian soldiers are trained much better in all aspects of combat. Sad truth, but it is reality. Its not how expensive your gear is, but how you use it. training is key. But you also have to remember, Americans usually fight poorly equipment enemies with out bullet proof vests. In reality 6.8 mm would be my choice to upgrade if you ever had to face an enemy equipped like Russia. 6.8 can penetrate bullet proof vests much more efficiently then .223.

.223 will be replaced sooner or later, but replacing all the service rifles with a scar or something similar is not cheap. Americans also refuse to use foreign build weapons. I am surprised they use the 92FS. If they ever did order a SCAR it would have to be build in the states, to promote American labor. And I am not sure if the cost of upgrading can be justified at the current moment with the s**tty was America is fighting. Imho, until a real war brakes out, against a country like Russia or China on a grand scale, you will not see a new service rifle for the marines for another 20 years.

Canadians wont upgrade until Americans do, all the NATO countries must follow suite. The ammo has to be NATO standard for the new future rifle.

Size doesn't matter, its how you use it!

I know a guy who hunts deer with a .17 BMR, and he actually manages to hunt deer with it.
Click to expand...

So much ####in fail in one post. Where's the captain Picard facepalm FFS?
 
again, obvious reasons why I wont waste my time. Just like any other forum. Lots of talk about useless facts, on why we do not use a .308. Why isn't a m14 or ar10 a standard service rifle. .223 sucks, and we all need high power caliber talk makes me sick. Some of you rather spend 20 minutes looking for pictures like Fenix.NZ.
 
Last edited:
facepalm21.jpg


facepalm134.jpg


and for the 2nd time today..

1156.jpg



trekstor said:
I have to admit, 308 would be a lot to carry. I can handle my m14 with out issues, but a .223 has no recoil at all! 7.62 x39 with a muzzle brake is pretty much 0 climb. Look at the current soldiers. I do not think many of them would be able to handle a .308. .308 on full auto is uncontrollable. Everything has an advantage or disadvantage. .308 is a better "terminator" for sure.

.308 is not required anymore in the battle field.

.308 is good for long range, but in reality 90% of battles are under 200 yards. Urban, jungles, forests, and only lately Afghanistan started to require long range ar10 (m110). In reality for most war scenarios 400 is the limit, and your lucky to get 100 in a forest, or 200 in urban. .223 is better because you do not want to kill the enemy but immobilize him, and in reality .223 can service up to 400 yards, which is rare in most scenarios. The ak74 fires a 5.45x45 rounds for the same reason. 7.62x39 was to powerful. .223 or the ak74 round tumble on impact causing more damage to the internals of the soldier then a .308 FMJ ever would. Even the 7.62x39 would go straight through, leaving a clean entry and exist hole, making it a easy fix for the medic to stop the bleeding.

Injuring 1 soldier, takes up resources of 2 other soldiers. In reality you can achieve more with a .223, and also you can carry more ammo.

In Iraq, they started fighting insurgents, remember, marines in the big picture are trigger happy hicks, lowest level of the USA army imho. I don't care about hurting peoples feelings who are fan of marines. I cant always be politically correct.

I think the reserve has much better morals and reasoning for joining. Most soldiers will tell you they are serving the country, but in reality, they have nothing better to do with their life in the states ( reality hurts ). Education in the states is not cheap, and $90,000 USA tax free for a 19 or 20 year old is a miracle. Most of them do it for a way out of poverty and get somewhat of a head start in life if they do survive. The video game generation cant wait to get some kills.

Internal bleeding takes time if shot with a .223 or ak74 round. Just like in Nam, the full out option was removed because soldiers just sprayed and prayed, which is not an adopted philosophy of the USA military. It is a by product of stupid soldiers. It has its uses in the special forces, but a rifleman is not a full automatic machine gunner. SAW 249 is for spray cover.

American soldiers are not trained that well. Marksmanship skills are much higher in the Russian army with the ak74. Russian soldiers are trained much better in all aspects of combat. Sad truth, but it is reality. Its not how expensive your gear is, but how you use it. training is key. But you also have to remember, Americans usually fight poorly equipment enemies with out bullet proof vests, like insurgents and Talibans. In reality 6.8 mm would be my choice to upgrade if you ever had to face an enemy equipped like Russia. 6.8 can penetrate bullet proof vests much more efficiently then .223.

.223 will be replaced sooner or later, but replacing all the service rifles with a scar or something similar is not cheap. Americans also refuse to use foreign build weapons. I am surprised they use the 92FS. If they ever did order a SCAR it would have to be build in the states, to promote American labor. And I am not sure if the cost of upgrading can be justified. Imho, until a real war brakes out, against a country like Russia or China on a grand scale, you will not see a new service rifle for the marines for another 20 years. .223 is good enough.

Canadians wont upgrade until Americans do, all the NATO countries must follow suite. The ammo has to be NATO standard for the new future rifle.

Size doesn't matter, its how you use it!

I know a guy who hunts deer with a .17 BMR, and he actually manages to hunt deer with it.
Click to expand...
 
how many insurgents (taliban types) do you see providing aid to there own? Before you answer, consider they willingly blow themselves up to inflict modest casualties on our allies. The answer to this question is likely next to none due to the fact that they are in a third world country. The only resources we take up by wounding is our own by saving scum like khadr. So to sum it up i think it's preferential to kill the enemy and thus .308 would be a better mousetrap imho.
 
Ill take anything in .308 before going with 5.56 , better distance ability , better cover penetrating ability , more stability , no keyholes and more energy dump upon impact .

There was a show i watched on iraq battles and without the assistance of .308 caliber sniper rifles their FOB would have been over run as the accuracy and range needed from the 5.56 was insufficient . I think that says a fair amount on how "much awsomer" the 5.56 is over 7.62.

And this keeping insurgents alive and not killing them ? please , if someone is trying to kill you and people you know your going to smoke that ####er as soon as you possibly can , not ####ing leave his ass alive so he can go get stitches and come back to blow you up . Go back to playing your video games and half baked ideologies.
 
did some shooting with an ex british army guy a couple weeks back.. the following is a shortened version of his preference when it comes to firearms


getting into combat : 5.56 ( carry more ammo, make more noise )
getting out of combat : 7.62 ( more power, more dead )

now ive never been on combat so i dont know if thats his arse talking
 
Fenix.NZ said:
did some shooting with an ex british army guy a couple weeks back.. the following is a shortened version of his preference when it comes to firearms


getting into combat : 5.56 ( carry more ammo, make more noise )
getting out of combat : 7.62 ( more power, more dead )

now ive never been on combat so i dont know if thats his arse talking
Click to expand...

Cute comment :p , either way...;)
 
trekstor said:
key is price of ammunition. But .308 would be the best carbine. Reason why they went to ,223 is because most soldier cant handle .308. Just like the 40 S&W story.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with being able to handle a .308, but simply that we can carry almost twice as many rounds of 5.56.. Some of the guys I served with hated 5.56, and some of the guys believe that a well placed shot with 5.56 is just as effective as .308.
 
It does all depend upon what you are doing, big discussions at the moment but with the new 7.62 Marksman rifle issued to section level we are hoping that some of the issues go away. In Afghanistan (and thats where people are dying at the moment) the enemy isnt carrying out frontal attacks over open ground but setting very clever ambushes and firing from thick cover. The Minimi isnt up to the job despite it being received with rave reviews and the 7.62 GPMG is back out at fire team level again. Fire teams now have two 7.62 weapons, 1 40mm ugl on a 5.56 and possibly just one IW in 5.56. says a lot about whats needed to win fire fights.
Spray and pray is no good but UK Army rifle training is lacking. To simulate the enemy the targets now need to be tiny, almost 99% concealed and behind thick cover. Hit them and then you have passed your test. Soldiers now die less from GSW and more from IEDs which is a swing in tactics. The enemy are firing to suppress after an ambush is ied initiated allowing them selves to mask the fire of a heavier weapon such as something in 7.62 x 54R.
They may be hill tribesmen but stupid they are not! One of the problems UK Forces have is the 6 months tour and lack of a continuous plan. Getting the Govt to mandate longer tours may end the support that the military has for the war. There is very little suppo5rt amongst the general population despite respect for the troops being at ann all time high.
I'd be surprised if UK troops are there even as advisors in 5 years time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom