5.56 vs something bigger
- Thread starter Ganderite
- Start date
Starscream
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Alberta
Interesting... but there's one teensy little flaw in this fellow's argument.
Who's gonna pay for it all?
Who's gonna pay for it all?
That's easy!! Same person(s) who paid when we dumped the superior FNC1 rifles for the poodle shooter C7's. Don't get me wrong. I have owned AR 15's of many different makes and flavors, but after living with a FNC1 for quite some time, I would not trade the one for the other. Curse the morons that outlawed the FN's for private ownership in this country!!!!
The FNC1A1 is in no way superior to the C7,the FN was well past it's prime and was unreliable in conditions that the C7 doesn't even hiccup in. Nostalgia is one thing I like my personally owned FNC1A1 and the 5 I was issued over the years were adequate for any task assigned but even the best 8L series (including my own pampered one) don't hold a candle to the AR/C7 in terms of reliability, accuracy and function.
All this hoopla of how inadequate the 5.56 NATO round is performing is for the most part uninformed,use the caliber within it's limitations (true for all) and there are no issues with performance. Poor training and poor employment are the main issue here that are conveniently swept under the rug when ever the topic is discussed.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Bingo, as for how good people used to be................I will quote my friends dad. "The only reason made Marksman, hell passed was a friend with a pencil".
Are there better rounds? Yes but the 7.62 is not one of them.
LOL... ahhhh, the good ol' 556 pencil!
Confidence booster, performance destructor. Sadly, I can admit to applying this method once (or twice). When stuck in the butts for 2+ retries, you start to give less of a damn over legitimacy.
As for the 5.56 vs 7.62, either way it's a hot chunk of metal flying at supersonic speeds, aimed at a slab of meat (human body). Effectiveness difference between either is marginal as to the end result. For the C1 vs C7, I'd go with the C7 because; would tire less carrying it and/or carry more ammo, has a higher rate of fire in close quarter situations when there is less regard for deliberate marksmanship (rather reflex firepower), and lastly the increased options for personalized enhancement (accessories).
Likewise, are both decent rifles in general and I would trust my life with them over numerous other service rifles available.
Wow. They really just glance over the whole fragmentation issue and the good results of the Mk262 rounds.
Seems hypocritical to want a round that does more damage, then use the Hague convention to criticise the US decision to use frangible ammo.
The whole reason that the 5.56 punches above its weight is fragmentation! So the UK gives its troops glorified 22s that sometimes yaw, if the article is to be believed. No s**t they are having problems. They are handicapping their soldiers. The Hague convention also shouldn't mean s**t against non-nation insurgents like in Afghanistan.
It seems silly that they want a round to do more damage, but neglect the fragmentation wounding method due to some weird interpretation of the Hague convention...
So let's shoot a bigger bullet instead of a better designed smaller one.
Seems hypocritical to want a round that does more damage, then use the Hague convention to criticise the US decision to use frangible ammo.
The whole reason that the 5.56 punches above its weight is fragmentation! So the UK gives its troops glorified 22s that sometimes yaw, if the article is to be believed. No s**t they are having problems. They are handicapping their soldiers. The Hague convention also shouldn't mean s**t against non-nation insurgents like in Afghanistan.
It seems silly that they want a round to do more damage, but neglect the fragmentation wounding method due to some weird interpretation of the Hague convention...
So let's shoot a bigger bullet instead of a better designed smaller one
.
Back in 1994 the US Army started to look for a replacement for the M16/5.56 family of personal weapons. It's now almost 2010 and all NATO forces still haven't found a suitable replacement. Maybe, just maybe, the 5.56 round as it is issued now and the weapons it fires from are doing the job on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq just fine. I could be wrong of course, but maybe some of the boots on the ground that are members here can tell us what their experience has been or still is.
To say that the C1 was in no way superior is maybe a tad hasty. The C1 is superior in hitting power at all ranges. Accuracy? Perhaps - always depends on the shooter. I know that I could deck anything to 600 meters no problemo back in the day with a C1 and younger eyes. Give me an Elcan, etc. on a C1 and I think I would fare better with the C1. Superior for clobbering someone upside the head? I will take the C1 there too. Also, the C7 is also a much different rifle than it was when the m16 was still the FN's contemporary - in the late 1960's. Let's compare apples to apples here. Take a C1 styled rifle with much of today's technology like one of the 16" versions from DSA and it is a much more updated weapon. Heck, the C7's that were being issued when I left the military are much different critters than are issued now. The C1 of the 1960's was definitely better than the m16a1 of the late 60's. The updated C1's style rifles of the 21st century are as capable as the modern day C7's.
And reliability? I couldn't think of any other rifle I'd rather have in adverse conditions than a good C1. Talking to a buddy who is from the dark continent - now a landed immigrant here about the FN and he held it in the highest regard. He said that the outfit he was with were issued G3's and/or FN's. He said that they prayed that they got the FN as it was as reliable as anything they got. The FN's have not had issues in the sand, dirt, mud and snow. I know that there are enough stories of reliability problems with gas impingement systems of the m16 series though - urban legend or not. Just my take on it
Last edited:
- Location
- Gananoque Ont.Canada
I believe the 5.56 is a good combat round as the recoil is minimal giving you the oppertunity to quickly reaquire your target for follow up, todays combat enviroment is taking place mostly in the urban setting and shots rarely exceed more than 25o yards.
Starscream
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Alberta
The C7 and C8 ARE a superior general issue assault rifles that can do the vast majority of jobs that an infantryman is expected to be performing with acceptable lethality. Inside 300 yards the C7 is plenty lethal, and the lighter handling will be much more appreciated when you're going up flights of stairs clearing a building.
Outside of 300 yards is the job for the marksmen with a specialized sniper platform, with heavier optics and a bigger heavier rifle, because he'll only be carrying maybe 100 to 200 rounds or so.
If it's too many troops for the DM, then you've plenty of other options too.
1) The 60mm mortar
2) The Carl G has HE rounds.
3) The M203A1
4) The Stryker's M2 browning machine gun
5) Heavier armor
6) Artillery
7) Close air support
