You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
.308 effectiveness
- Thread starter kdf101
- Start date
The 7.62x51 will outperform the 5.56 where the bullet meets the bone. Not that I'd want to be hit by either round. The troops can pack around more 5.56 ammo when compared to 7.62, but the .308 has an advantage of bullet weight, effective range, penetration and energy delivered on target.
RoundsDownRange
New member
5.56 makes for a lighter weapon system, and engaging multiple targets in close range urban combat, the 5.56 is a better weapon IMO. There's less recoil and much higher capacity than a 7.62. You can put shots on target faster and keep a good sight picture with the 5.56. I'm speaking from my experiences here in Iraq, and both my rotations being in an urban environment. Troops in Afghanistan however? I cant speak for them, thier battlefields are much larger, and open than the ones I'm used to.
The performance that won WW II
The 7.62 Nato delivers the same performance as the GI .30-06. That performance won WW II in the hands of our troops. Hard to argue that it isn't effective anymore.
The 5.56mm has the advantage of lighter weight and recoil. You get on target faster, can put more rounds downrange. Balance this against lesser performance of the bullet in certain situations.
Can it be better than the 7.62x51mm? In certain situations, yes. In others, no. There's no free lunch, sorry.
The 7.62 Nato delivers the same performance as the GI .30-06. That performance won WW II in the hands of our troops. Hard to argue that it isn't effective anymore.
The 5.56mm has the advantage of lighter weight and recoil. You get on target faster, can put more rounds downrange. Balance this against lesser performance of the bullet in certain situations.
Can it be better than the 7.62x51mm? In certain situations, yes. In others, no. There's no free lunch, sorry.
pythagorean
Moderator
It goes straight through instead of tumbling off leaves or light armor.
war, especially the sort we are waging in the heavy cover of iraq and afghanistan, is not fought one bullet at a time. It is fought by laying down a layer of lead so heavy that "a chicken couldn't cross that field." Of all of the available options, other than ton daisy cutters, the best option for armament for this war is the 5.56. You can carry a squad of soldiers and enough rounds to tear down a building in a truck. You can't do that with the 7.62 nato.
When you change the paradigm of war, and bring in a sniper, what are they packing?
7.62, 338 lapua, or even a .50 browning.
As has been remarked, there is a reason that we are using the 5.56, and that reason is to fill the air with so many bullets that the bad guys are likely to go into anaphylaxis.
When you change the paradigm of war, and bring in a sniper, what are they packing?
7.62, 338 lapua, or even a .50 browning.
As has been remarked, there is a reason that we are using the 5.56, and that reason is to fill the air with so many bullets that the bad guys are likely to go into anaphylaxis.
James R. Burke
New member
I was in the Army and had a M-16. I would rather have had a .308 or a 30-06but I guess they figure the weight and amount of ammo that can be carried was more with the 5.56. I could not believe the folks that never shot a rifle of any type, and were really scared of recoil. They asked for a vol to shoot it, and up went my hand. The D.I. keep telling me not to worry about the recoil etc. They had me shoot at a ammo can about 15 yards away. I thought at first it was some kind of joke but it was not. It got to the point were anytime they needed a vol they would say anyone but me. They only let me throw a grenade once. I was not good at throwing. The D.I. was not impressed with all the mud we got covered with. But when I seen that round I could not believe it. At that point in my life I never seen a round that small. It would have been neat to see the same design in a .308 of course built to handle it.
Some tests.
Last week, my shooting buddy and me conducted two tests regarding penetration of 7.62x51 on steel plates. We actually tried the standard 124 grain FMJ military issue bullet ahead of 43 grains of powder (FIL), and a Hornady 190 grain BTSP ahead of 38 grains of the same powder.
First config usually reports around 2600 fps, while the second one does 2300 fps.
Targets were standard steel plates, 3 mm and 4 mm thick, at 25 yards. The 3mm was like an A4 sheet of paper sized and the 4 mm about 4x4 inches. Their stance was not fully perpendicular to the firing line, slightly deflected upwards, and placed on sand.
Both were fully penetrated. We weren't able to recover any fragments. The 3 mm one showed no bending, while the other piece of metal was bended.
Sorry for the long post.
Kind regards.
Last week, my shooting buddy and me conducted two tests regarding penetration of 7.62x51 on steel plates. We actually tried the standard 124 grain FMJ military issue bullet ahead of 43 grains of powder (FIL), and a Hornady 190 grain BTSP ahead of 38 grains of the same powder.
First config usually reports around 2600 fps, while the second one does 2300 fps.
Targets were standard steel plates, 3 mm and 4 mm thick, at 25 yards. The 3mm was like an A4 sheet of paper sized and the 4 mm about 4x4 inches. Their stance was not fully perpendicular to the firing line, slightly deflected upwards, and placed on sand.
Both were fully penetrated. We weren't able to recover any fragments. The 3 mm one showed no bending, while the other piece of metal was bended.
Sorry for the long post.
Kind regards.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
The .223, like most varmint loads, does okay on unarmored people, but ain't worth a hoot on walls or trees and such.
The .308 and .30-'06 GI rounds are pretty much the same animal, ballistically. Back around 1950, my father set up a piece of 1/4" armor plate at the 100-yard backstop. GI Ball '06 loads would make a deep, rounded dent but not penetrate. 150-grain Hornady Spire Points would blow through, making a hole about 3/4" inch in diameter. He didn't particularly load much hotter than GI, generally, staying with 4895...
The .308 and .30-'06 GI rounds are pretty much the same animal, ballistically. Back around 1950, my father set up a piece of 1/4" armor plate at the 100-yard backstop. GI Ball '06 loads would make a deep, rounded dent but not penetrate. 150-grain Hornady Spire Points would blow through, making a hole about 3/4" inch in diameter. He didn't particularly load much hotter than GI, generally, staying with 4895...
Having no experience in combat I can only go on history.
The average number of rounds fired during Vietnam per enemy killed, if memory serves me (and normally it does not) was way over 100,000 fired.
So to me the advantage to the regular solder would be the more ammo you can carry the better off your going to be.
The average number of rounds fired during Vietnam per enemy killed, if memory serves me (and normally it does not) was way over 100,000 fired.
So to me the advantage to the regular solder would be the more ammo you can carry the better off your going to be.
If your enemy is out in the open, and not too far away, then yes the 5.56/.223 has advantages over the .308. However, once he gets behind something reasonably solid, like a tree trunk, or wooden structure, those .223 rounds aren't going to be of much use whatsoever.
This is the problem of assuming that one cartridge can suit all roles on the battlefield - it just can't. And if you're going to ask your fighting grunts to fight at people inside buildings, you need to provide them with a weapon that can actually punch through a fair amount of barrier.
This is the problem of assuming that one cartridge can suit all roles on the battlefield - it just can't. And if you're going to ask your fighting grunts to fight at people inside buildings, you need to provide them with a weapon that can actually punch through a fair amount of barrier.
The reason the military brought in the 308 and got rid of the 30-06 IMO is money. If you know everything that goes into manufacturing a cartridge after 1 billion rounds the difference in cost is substantial. The 308 can do nearly everything a 30-06 can with the right person behind the rifle. Though put two pro's behind both cartridges and let them reload. The 06 will be superior. I think if the military had the money now they likely convert the 5.56 to 6.5 or 6.8 and this would resolve this topic shortly.
TheRifleMan99
Moderator
Regarding the 7.62x51mm round it's just about one shot kill everytime. Shot placement was a term that came up because the 9mm and .223 round. You don't have to worry much about shot placement with the 7.62x51mm round. You can even take down a small structure with a few rounds because the hydrostatic shock.
The .223 round is good for two things varmints and making noise. The only reason it was adopted was so Europeans and women would be able use our weapons.
Anyone ever hear any people complaining about the .30-06 lack of stopping power during world war 2 and the Korean war? You can't read an article about Iraq or Afghanistan without hearing a story of troops complaining about the .223 round.
The .223 round is good for two things varmints and making noise. The only reason it was adopted was so Europeans and women would be able use our weapons.
Anyone ever hear any people complaining about the .30-06 lack of stopping power during world war 2 and the Korean war? You can't read an article about Iraq or Afghanistan without hearing a story of troops complaining about the .223 round.
HorseSoldier
New member
How effective was the 7.62 i combat?
I've pointed out in other threads the fact that the first military organization I am aware of that made controlled pairs their SOP for engagements due to frequent failures to stop with just one round were the Rhodesian Security Forces. Their standard weapon was the FAL in 7.62x51.
Regarding the 7.62x51mm round it's just about one shot kill everytime.
In addition to the above fact, see Bing West's No True Glory for an account of a Marine sniper who made a head shot on an insurgent with his 308 bolt gun. The insurgent went down, hopped back up, and ran off.
Further, please review casualty information from WW2 -- plenty of our boys made it home (or just simply stayed in the fight) after taking hits from rounds with equivalent power to our 30-06. Plenty of their guys survived hits from 30-06 and 303. If full power rifle rounds were "just about one shot kill everytime" it would be hard to understand why we worried much about medics for the troops at all, etc.
The .223 round is good for two things varmints and making noise. The only reason it was adopted was so Europeans and women would be able use our weapons.
I'm pretty sure it'd get me in a bit of trouble with the moderators of the board, but I've got some photos of a few devoutly religious Afghan gentlemen who, if they weren't deader than fried chicken, would probably disagree about the lethality of 5.56mm. I'm venturing to guess that the last thought going through their heads was not "gee, who brought the noisemaker to the gunfight?"
You can't read an article about Iraq or Afghanistan without hearing a story of troops complaining about the .223 round.
I spent my last five years on active duty in an SF unit, and what I saw and heard was that the team guys who actually knew their weapons and used them to kill bad guys almost never had any problems with 5.56mm or their weapons. And they tended to look at things differently than all the writers for gun rags and internet theorists -- 77 grain 5.56mm ammo was cause for excitement not so much because of terminal ballistics but because it's about a 1 MOA round versus the 3-4 MOA performance you see with a lot of green tip. It was really interesting because it looked likely to improve the ability to make hits at longer range, not because it was some magical silver bullet.
On the other hand, the further you went back from the sharp end, through conventional combat arms units and then back to support units the more and more whinging and whining you heard about 5.56mm lethality. It's hard not to start suspecting that a lack of ability with weapons, and/or a lack of confidence in abilities with weapons fuels a whole lot of the complaints about 5.56mm lethality.
Its really all about energy or the lack thereof. Beyond 250-300 yards, the 7.62X51 begins to shine and the 5.56 begins to fade. At longer distances, the 5.56 loses energy rapidly and it's ability to tumble and fragment upon striking something. Up close and personal, the 5.56 leave very ugly calling cards while the 7.62 leaves a nice thru-and-thru hole.
"ain't none of them tickle"
The breakpoint in my mind is the proven superior ballistics for each shot using the 7.62x51 versus the question "how much weight in ammo are you able to carry if you are running from tree to tree/building to building and needing to fire at moving targets all day (or two) long."
Yes, those are two completely different questions and that's how this debate seems to break down where I've seen this type of thread before.
The breakpoint in my mind is the proven superior ballistics for each shot using the 7.62x51 versus the question "how much weight in ammo are you able to carry if you are running from tree to tree/building to building and needing to fire at moving targets all day (or two) long."
Yes, those are two completely different questions and that's how this debate seems to break down where I've seen this type of thread before.