US GI wanting .308 back

I notice that it's mostly the rounds that are named by their size in millimeters that catch the most critisism. I thnk it must be a phsycological thing, people saying "wow 5.56 mm is not big, neither is 9mm" but cannot gauge a .45 or .308 or whatever for their size in mm.
 
Clobbersauras said:
The book "Black Hawk Down" summed it up for me.....good read...and an eye opener on the 5.56 round being less than ideal. It's common sense in my mind here guys... How many true hunters would use a 5.56 on anything larger than a deer (if we could)??? You really need a .30 or larger to take out larger animals...i.e humans. Now if the thought is just to wound a soldier that's fine....but I think the whole "the 5.56 was designed to wound" mumbo jumbo is crap....a soldiers job is to kill, and I'm sure every round a soldier fires is meant to kill the enemy....not wound them and possibly still be able to fire back.....
Click to expand...

Please don't start this again. For record, the body count in Somalia was about 100 to 1. Speak to the people who are down range now, have gone or will be going....they are quite happy with the 5.56. That say a lot. I have carried a 5.56mm into harms way three times and would and will do it again....with no reservations. There is no record anywhere of the 5.56mm round being selected to wound. I can tell you our trials in the CF had no wounding category. Don't forget, there are lots of big guns in a platoon from 7.62mm machine guns to the real long range punch being the 25mm cannon......trust me when I say that even with the recent combat involving Canadians, the feedback has been positive on the 5.56 and the C7/C8. There is no problem......besides in the gun mags or those who long for the old days.....

All is well.....

Cheers

Jeff
 
Also we want to eat the meat from a deer - so we dont use fragmenting ammo...


Follow Hitzy's link - read the ARF ammo oracle.

Given the deplorable marksmanship today in most armied -- firing 4-7 rounds that may not have hit. Second you keep shooting a threat till it drops -- it may be dead in the first round, but until results are visible keep shooting..
The only way to shut people down is either by blood loss - or CNS hit.

I can only reinforce the point that people here:
RobAk
Reaper
Hoddie
BigRed
amongst others that are using 5.56mm overseas have no qualms with it.

Perhaps first person opinions are better than tripe being passed along.


*Paul Howe was the only one to complain about M855 in the BHD stuff -- he had a 10" Colt CAR15, he ran out of 52gr OTM that Delta had been using and bombed up with M855 during resupply.
Compounding problems that M855 is not ideal from a shorty, and the locals where very skinny and hopped up an Khat.
 
Thanks to the guys who walk the walk and talk the talk. Nothing like getting the facts. That is why I like this forum you can get to the truth by asking the right people. Sorry if I annoyed some people by asking redundant questions but how else does one learn the truth?
In the thirty odd years that I have pasted on info that I have learned I always do it knowing I have helped someone understand something they did not know.
Have a great Christmas everyone.
 
Peter Kokalis (who has to be considered the world's biggest proponent of "big and heavy") wrote the best article I think I have ever read on this subject in SOF years ago, when he went to El Salvador to train the Army.

He started off carrying a FAL. After seeing endless insurgents get taken down with M16s and also the insurgents using Vietnamese supplied M16s to take out Govt. troops, he ditched the FAL.

The problem with 5.56mm is penetration, not lethality. That's why 7.62mm is used in the support weapon role because it can go through things that 5.56mm won't. If you shoot it at someone in the open or concealed, rather than behind significant cover, 5.56mm should do the job.

Try getting a concrete block and shooting both of them into it and you'll see what I mean.

As for 9mm being crap, yawn. All pistols are crap, that's because they're pistols. If they were super effective, there would be no need for rifles. .45 FMJ is definitely not more effective than 9mm FMJ, IMO. .45 FMJ doesn't penetrate as deeply as 9mm and it's harder to shoot straight with it because of more recoil (bullet weighs nearly twice as much), plus you get less rounds. The only advantage is that the wound channel is 2.43mm larger in diameter.

If .45 was so ####ing amazing, the JCP contract wouldn't have been suspended. Bull#### meets reality, reality wins. Sorry, Jeff. No Army on the face of the planet uses .45ACP as their primary pistol round.

As for the M249 SAW, the main problem that I've been able to discern is that the ones they have are simply worn out. People I know in the British forces that are issued the FN Minimi Para can't say enough nice things about it, the only problems I've heard about is that it's quite difficult to clean and the issue cleaning gear isn't sufficient. Plus the clip-on box is considered to cause jams, they recommend using the bag instead.
 
Military is equipping our troops with it, soldiers are dropping tangos with it.
What the heck is problem with 5.56mm? cause I just don't see it. If 30s are so much superior, why isn't allied casualties higher than those of insurgents? Isn't that what they are all carrying? 7.62X39 and .308, isn't it?
I noticed that people who advocate superiority of 7.62 over 5.56 are usually people who's job is to sit and write, not run and shoot.
 
To all the guys who use the 5.56 every day....thanks for setting us straight here. If you are comfortable using them to protect your life and the lives of your buddies then I guess that is the best proof we have that it works. Stay safe and happy holidays.

But something still knaws at me......the controvery still exists doesn't it? I will be the first to admit that my experience is limited (and being a civilian have no "real world" experience) but I have never read anything about anyone that was unhappy with the performace of the 7.62 x 39 when it came to killing anything human within 300 meters, but I have read numerous reports about the 5.56 lacking in performance. Also, I have never heard tell of anyone complaining of 30-06, .308 or 7.62 x 54 lacking power either - all .30's...so my thought is that bullet mass is much more of a deciding factor in performance than velocity or frangibility. To all the "operators" out there what would you prefer? Has anyone used both in combat (7.62 x 39 vs 5.56)?

So, can someone tell me why do we still have this debate over the 5.56 if there is nothing wrong with it? Why would the U.S. military even consider another round if there is nothing wrong with it? I would really like to know...I'm not trying to be an armchair quaterback...I'm just trying to figure this out.

I know I'll probably get slammed for this but please set me straight about the 5.56 if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
The gun mags are the biggest culprit in extending the issue. As far as I am concerned, particularly from the CF's perspective....there is no issue. There have been no complaints concerning lethality or performance. People often forget that the army fights in groups with a variety of calibers, all designed to do different things. Ask an M14 fan to clear a building at night with NVGs and he will be longing for an C8....I guarantee it. The counter arguement that the 7.62mm is better at long range....sure it is....but the majority of engagements are under 300 metre....in fact most are rock throwing distance....so the compact size and manoeverablity of the C7/C8, particularly at night, rules. If the target is at longer ranges, a platoon has, a C6 machine gun, 25mm, 155mm high explosive and 2000lb JDAM.....were pentration and lethality arguements are mute. As Kevin said, there is no problem....mostly from those who look at the fight from a one bullet vs one bullet perspective that seem to perpetuate this arguement. Trust me....all is well. The gun mags and armchair warriors will tell you otherwise but having carried an AR type in Somalia, and Afghanistan, I never felt underarmed or prepared....

Merry Christmas.....say a prayer for the troops in harms way...

Cheers

Jeff
 
Morpheus32 said:
The gun mags are the biggest culprit in extending the issue. As far as I am concerned, particularly from the CF's perspective....there is no issue. There have been no complaints concerning lethality or performance. People often forget that the army fights in groups with a variety of calibers, all designed to do different things. Ask an M14 fan to clear a building at night with NVGs and he will be longing for an C8....I guarantee it. The counter arguement that the 7.62mm is better at long range....sure it is....but the majority of engagements are under 300 metre....in fact most are rock throwing distance....so the compact size and manoeverablity of the C7/C8, particularly at night, rules. If the target is at longer ranges, a platoon has, a C6 machine gun, 25mm, 155mm high explosive and 2000lb JDAM.....were pentration and lethality arguements are mute. As Kevin said, there is no problem....mostly from those who look at the fight from a one bullet vs one bullet perspective that seem to perpetuate this arguement. Trust me....all is well. The gun mags and armchair warriors will tell you otherwise but having carried an AR type in Somalia, and Afghanistan, I never felt underarmed or prepared....

Merry Christmas.....say a prayer for the troops in harms way...

Cheers

Jeff
Click to expand...

Thanks Jeff - I guess the gun mags do have to come up with something to write about, and any contovery increases readership;) . I guess I'm just trying to justify my decision to sell my AR and go with the VZ-58.
 
Although I've never driven one myself, I think the V8 RWD is much better than the inline 4 FWD. I know they are heavier and less efficient but they are more macho. ...oh wait, wrong argument. sorry.
 
While I have no experience shooting people with rounds of either caliber, I have considerable first person experience shooting whitetail and mule deer with both 7.62 and 5.56. There was a time I seriously resented the caliber restriction (must be greater than .24 to be legal) of my home province, but after participating in some out of province hunts where .223 is allowed I've come to not only accept Alberta's caliber restriction, but believe and support it as well.

7.62 observations: I can only remember one deer that got away after a rushed/poor shot placement; all the others died very quickly, many like they were struck by lightening. Granted, projectiles were all either fragmenting (most experience with Nosler and Hornady bullets from 125gr to 168 gr) or expanding (most experience with Barnes ### from 130gr to 168gr) and careful attention was usually paid to shot placement. I think the furthest I've ever seen a 7.62 shot deer run (other than the one non-recovered deer) is 100 meters.

5.56 observations: same careful attention to shot placement, bullet selection either 69gr sierras or 62 & 70gr Barnes ###. Sadly, I can remember several non-recovered 5.56 deer and many more that ran in excess of 300 meters before bleeding out.

Another consideration is that all my experience is with deer shot once after with careful consideration to shot placement. For those who use and find 5.56 effective in theatre, I'd be curious to how or if round count and semi vs. short bursts fired on full auto weigh into the equation.

Starting with the notion that both the guns and the ammo are way lighter and recoil far less than their 7.62 predecessors and finishing up with Morpheus's statement that they're almost always deployed as a mixed-arms force with access to monster-huge tools, it's not hard to understand the infantry boys liking their 5.56 for a myriad of reasons. I'd be curious to learn what type of heavier-weapon fire support the private security contractor boys have access to and to what degree they support their own needs in this regards. I suspect they're equipped to a somewhat lesser degree, which IMHO makes KevinB's interesing (simply as I'm curious to know more).

Brobee
 
Brobee said:
While I have no experience shooting people with rounds of either caliber, I have considerable first person experience shooting whitetail and mule deer with both 7.62 and 5.56. There was a time I seriously resented the caliber restriction (must be greater than .24 to be legal) of my home province, but after participating in some out of province hunts where .223 is allowed I've come to not only accept Alberta's caliber restriction, but believe and support it as well.

7.62 observations: I can only remember one deer that got away after a rushed/poor shot placement; all the others died very quickly, many like they were struck by lightening. Granted, projectiles were all either fragmenting (most experience with Nosler and Hornady bullets from 125gr to 168 gr) or expanding (most experience with Barnes ### from 130gr to 168gr) and careful attention was usually paid to shot placement. I think the furthest I've ever seen a 7.62 shot deer run (other than the one non-recovered deer) is 100 meters.

5.56 observations: same careful attention to shot placement, bullet selection either 69gr sierras or 62 & 70gr Barnes ###. Sadly, I can remember several non-recovered 5.56 deer and many more that ran in excess of 300 meters before bleeding out.

Another consideration is that all my experience is with deer shot once after with careful consideration to shot placement. For those who use and find 5.56 effective in theatre, I'd be curious to how or if round count and semi vs. short bursts fired on full auto weigh into the equation.

Starting with the notion that both the guns and the ammo are way lighter and recoil far less than their 7.62 predecessors and finishing up with Morpheus's statement that they're almost always deployed as a mixed-arms force with access to monster-huge tools, it's not hard to understand the infantry boys liking their 5.56 for a myriad of reasons. I'd be curious to learn what type of heavier-weapon fire support the private security contractor boys have access to and to what degree they support their own needs in this regards. I suspect they're equipped to a somewhat lesser degree, which IMHO makes KevinB's interesing (simply as I'm curious to know more).

Brobee
Click to expand...


Best post in this thread I've read so far.
 
From my limited perspective.

This whole debate about 7.62 vs 5.56 is rather plagued by false information and people who tend not to know what they are talking about.
I haven't had any experience with these so I don't know if what I am about to say is correct or not. (People who know please let me know if I am right)

I have read / seen tests (I DO NOT know this for sure, but I am pretty sure)that say to me that:
7.62 goes through stuff better, 5.56 goes through stuff too, just not as much.
7.62 may be better at long range, but most crap happens at short range.
You can hold more ammo with 5.56.
The recoil of 7.62 is a real problem if you are on auto
5.56 had some problems with terminal effectiveness but they have been sorted out.

And the last deciding factor.....
If the 5.56 was the absolute crap some people make it out to be, Why the hell do so many of the worlds armed forces use it?

Just my 2 cents.
For those in the know, please correct any incorrect things I have said.
 
Clobbersauras said:
To all the guys who use the 5.56 every day....thanks for setting us straight here. If you are comfortable using them to protect your life and the lives of your buddies then I guess that is the best proof we have that it works. Stay safe and happy holidays.

But something still knaws at me......the controvery still exists doesn't it? I will be the first to admit that my experience is limited (and being a civilian have no "real world" experience) but I have never read anything about anyone that was unhappy with the performace of the 7.62 x 39 when it came to killing anything human within 300 meters, but I have read numerous reports about the 5.56 lacking in performance. Also, I have never heard tell of anyone complaining of 30-06, .308 or 7.62 x 54 lacking power either - all .30's...so my thought is that bullet mass is much more of a deciding factor in performance than velocity or frangibility. To all the "operators" out there what would you prefer? Has anyone used both in combat (7.62 x 39 vs 5.56)?

So, can someone tell me why do we still have this debate over the 5.56 if there is nothing wrong with it? Why would the U.S. military even consider another round if there is nothing wrong with it? I would really like to know...I'm not trying to be an armchair quaterback...I'm just trying to figure this out.

I know I'll probably get slammed for this but please set me straight about the 5.56 if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


Ask KevB what he thinks of 7.62X39 as a man stopper. :D As to why is there an argument, becasue there can be one. Anytime you change from one thing to another, there will always be someone saying "it was better in the old days". Fact is, it really wasn't much different. Case in point, the whole 9/45 thing. The real world effectivness of any handgun bullet that isn't hollowpointed and moving fast is poor on humans, round noses being the worst. Both rounds will stop someone about 60% of the time with a torso hit, but there is a huge body of hype around 45 fmj. If your in a situation where you need the pistol in the first place, better be aiming for heads, cause it's allready hitting the fan. I used to be a die hard 308 fan. After reading and listening to some of the folks who are using 5.56, esp the new heavier stuff, i'd take it hands down, and as much as I'm no AR fan, thats what I'd stuff it into because, 1 its light, 2 its accurate 3 it works 4 there's lots of support for the platform. why grab a weapon no one else has parts for if you need it?


Merry Christmas all, I'd wish you all peace on earth, but probably not in our lifetime:( Those of you on the sharp end, God bless and stay safe
 
I have never participated in any military action, so I do not have a first hand experience. But I do follow the news. As far as I remember the so called "snipers" Mohhamed and Malvo used AR 15 in.223. Malvo shot 12 people with one torso shot. 10 of them died. As far as 9mm round, every time i hear about cops shooting someone in Toronto, the person always dies.
My wife's classmate moved to Israel where he served in the army for few years. He has been in numerous combat situations. I personally asked him about M16. He said everybody loves it there, because it's light and compact( he was talking about M4). He said sand was not a problem and he never had poblem with lethality of .223. I asked him about Galil. He said he preferred M4.
 
Cocked&Locked said:
if you take a 5.56 in the torso and are still up and shooting inside 300 yards your a whole lot tougher then any human I've ever met. The latest issue round (M262? 77grn bullet I believe, KevB knows) is working quite well from all I've heard.
Click to expand...


I've used 77 grain... It fly's. The amount of kinetic energy travelling with it will take the guy down. As long as your barrel length is long enough. I still think a DM with a .308 per section is a very good idea though.
 
Brobee said:
While I have no experience shooting people with rounds of either caliber, I have considerable first person experience shooting whitetail and mule deer with both 7.62 and 5.56. There was a time I seriously resented the caliber restriction (must be greater than .24 to be legal) of my home province, but after participating in some out of province hunts where .223 is allowed I've come to not only accept Alberta's caliber restriction, but believe and support it as well.

7.62 observations: I can only remember one deer that got away after a rushed/poor shot placement; all the others died very quickly, many like they were struck by lightening. Granted, projectiles were all either fragmenting (most experience with Nosler and Hornady bullets from 125gr to 168 gr) or expanding (most experience with Barnes ### from 130gr to 168gr) and careful attention was usually paid to shot placement. I think the furthest I've ever seen a 7.62 shot deer run (other than the one non-recovered deer) is 100 meters.

5.56 observations: same careful attention to shot placement, bullet selection either 69gr sierras or 62 & 70gr Barnes ###. Sadly, I can remember several non-recovered 5.56 deer and many more that ran in excess of 300 meters before bleeding out.

Another consideration is that all my experience is with deer shot once after with careful consideration to shot placement. For those who use and find 5.56 effective in theatre, I'd be curious to how or if round count and semi vs. short bursts fired on full auto weigh into the equation.

Starting with the notion that both the guns and the ammo are way lighter and recoil far less than their 7.62 predecessors and finishing up with Morpheus's statement that they're almost always deployed as a mixed-arms force with access to monster-huge tools, it's not hard to understand the infantry boys liking their 5.56 for a myriad of reasons. I'd be curious to learn what type of heavier-weapon fire support the private security contractor boys have access to and to what degree they support their own needs in this regards. I suspect they're equipped to a somewhat lesser degree, which IMHO makes KevinB's interesing (simply as I'm curious to know more).

Brobee
Click to expand...


The thing about burst is that in Canada at least, your only going to be throwing 5.56 down range in burst if you are using an LMG. Granted I have fired the C8 on full auto at about 5 meters and have got about a 12 inch all rounds grouping. Which is not bad for auto. But realistically you fire on semi at the enemy. With the LMG you are going to get a beaten zone, so the enemy will catch a few all over the place. it doesn't really matter what caliber the round is.

With the complexity of the terrain and the operations overseas, I'm glad that the C6 (308) is a platoon asset and is controlled in either a firebase or on a vehicle. Because the bullet will rip through most of the mud/#### walls, where as 5.56 will most likely get stuck. That sucks if you are shooting at the enemy, but good if you are in complex built up areas where friendly forces are advancing all over the place.

When people talk about having to fire more than one round to take down an insurgent, well, for those here who have been in battle you all know the amount of fire power that goes down range during an attack. And for those here who have seen people who have taken 5.56 to their center of mass. They know that people are pretty much incapacitated afterwards. Altough I did see one guy in Haiti who had taken one to the side and it had gone through his rib cage and out the other side. Missed his vitals and he was trying to walk, but he wasn't going to fight anything.

I say keep 5.56. Have a DM per section with something heavy. You give a section .308 and you will not have the same sight picture speed or ability to keep eyes on target while firing. 6.5mm Yeah maybe but not .308 for standard rifles.

My 2 cents. Those who have seen the elephant can attest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom