.308 effectiveness

[Dannyl]

I still think the 5.56 is more suitable for infantry soldiers

Hi,
We all seem to agree that a good hit with a .223 will kill you just as much as a 50 BMG. In 82, a chap in my unit took a round of 12.7mm russian machine gun to the leg (DSHK) he is alive 28 years later and still walks on that leg, so caliber only does not guarantee a more efficient kill.

As many others have said, for the same amount of weight, a soldier can carry considerably more ammo if he carries .223.

many soldiers will tell you that sometimes even if you try and make each shot count and fire without spraying (not always possible, especially in a night-battle) a few hours later your pack starts to feel uncomfortably light, because most of your magazines are now empty.

most engagements happen in ranges at which the 5.56 is just as effective as the 7.62 (Nato) and if the enemy is behind a rock or concrete wall neither will be the solution.

Therefore, the ability to carry more ammo is IMO a more important factor in this case, and if I have to go into combat again I'd rather have 14 mags of (35 rounds each) 5.56 Nato than 8 or 10 (20 rounds) mag of 7.62, I am drawing the comparison of ammo to weight ratio between mags for a Galil and for a FN FAL.

Also, one needs to remember that soldiers fight in groups, and in all of them there are at least some heavier weapons like 7.62 machine guns, mortars, Dragon missiles and other items that can be used to deal with what the 5.56 cannot. (off course, in a combat post you'd also mount one or more 50's, and 81mm mortar etc)

bottom line, the way I see it, for the infantry (and similar units) the 5.56 is most suitable. Indeed wars were fought with the 30-06, because that is what they had at the time (the British and Australians used the 303 British, off course) and although the infantry played an important role, no war is ever won by one service arm on its own.

Brgds,

Danny

 

[Old Grump]

It isn't the lack of power or mass of the bullet but the fact that we are relegated to shooting hardball ammo. Clean hole in-clean hole out no matter whether it's a puny mouse----er I mean 5.56 or a 8MM. placement is critical no matter what the gun. I know 2 people whose backs are heavily puckered up from scars where MG bullets went through and through from the front. One just died of cancer, the other is an old dinosaur like me and still kicking, cussing and making a general nuisance of himself. He also taught me to shoot the M1 Garand.

7.62x51 was chosen because new powders gave equivalent power, range and accuracy of the 30-06 back when it was still using the old cordite powder. Advantage was it could be used in a shorter action and lighter rifle. It was and still is a good idea. Problem still isn't the gun or the caliber but the bullet we have to shoot out of it.

 

[James R. Burke]

You are correct on the question, and it ends up going every way but the way it was asked. I never used it in combat. I think it would be alot better. End of question.

 

[sc928porsche]

You can move as much stuff with a honda civic and you can with a chevy pick up. It just takes a lot more trips. I would rather use the pick up. Count me in on the 308 thank you.

 

[HorseSoldier]

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 40mm HEDP round that each grenadier in an infantry fire team carries a bunch of will out penetrate 7.62x51 all day long -- if he misses the window/door/whatever the bad guys are shooting from. Though most of the time this doesn't make a damn bit of difference when you're fighting in a part of the world where architecture runs to couple foot thick adobe walls that shrug off multiple .50 cal hits. On the other hand, if the grenadier makes his shot at the opening, he probably just ended that part of the fire fight.

People always want to bring up the idea of chewing through cover to get at guys behind it and how this is a big weakness of 5.56mm. Most of the times, having guys who think firing semi-blind (at best) into structural walls indicates issues with operator head space and timing, not their issue weapon (whatever the caliber). Basic ammunition load just doesn't allow for it, not being able to positively ID your target is very bad juju, and we have much better tools in the tool box for doing it than an individual rifle.

 

[NWCP]

There is something else to consider. At one time a wounded combatant was considered advantageous over a dead one. The theory was it takes at least one if not two more bodies to remove a wounded soldier from the field. It was also demoralizing to leave the wounded on the field of battle, so any serious hit was as good as a kill. You're tying up more enemy soldiers and resources by creating a large number of non fatal casualties. When fighting an enemy that places no value on life the equation changes. Our current batch of bad guys look forward to martyrdom. Being a Cold War Vet we depended on the threat of massive civilian casualties as a deterrent to the other side making any such move against us. Today it appears we are in the business of assisting our adversary in meeting his maker as a favor to him. I'm all for that. I just want our troops to have whatever they need to make that happen as quickly as possible. They've proven they can do the job when given the support time and time again. Get the politicians out of the way and let the General and his men take care of business however harsh that may be.

 

[jhenry]

I can't speak to the newer 5.56 stuff used in the 1:7 twist rifles and carbines, but I can tell you the old 55 grain stuff in the 1:12 and 1:14 rifles is extremely lethal. Range and accuracy is not the same, but performance is impressive.

 

[THORN74]

its more than just penatration, as most have said, its the extended killing range of the 7.62nato. 7.62nato has confirmed kills out to 1 mile, show me a 5.56 that can do that??!

as for penetration/wound/damage.... yes the tumbling of the 5.56 COULD cause more damage to a body, but the shock cavity created by the 7.62 is much greater.

 

[Jimro]

When all else is equal, and all else is never equal, bigger bullets make bigger holes and bigger holes bleed more.

Air in, blood out, is a good recipe for incapacitation inside of a minute.

Jimro

 

[jakec2789]

7.62 is a very stout round for throwing down range. However knowing how the fighting in Iraq is the 5.56 round is just as suitable. multiple targets most of the time and varying distances. Most not beyond 100yds. So if I knew I was to engage targets that close, give me an M-4 all day long. I bet I will not be as tired from being pounded time and time again from a .223 as opposed to a .308 in close quarters.

Now the mountains of Afghanistan, give me a 50 or a .308. Longer range engagements, make the need for a more powerful round to send downrange.

 

[5RWill]

I agree on most of the points pointed out, but just to add the OP question and like others have said. Each has their own advantage. The 2 big to choose over for me would be ammo capacity and recoil. To me the .308 is just a little too heavy for an Assault Rifle. Then Recoil plays alot of my downside on the .308. I hate the fact that shot after shot i can't get back on target quickly, and that full auto and 3 round burst for CQB are equally harder to control. Comparison between these 2 rounds have now sprung up the 6.8 SPC/6.5 Grendel and such others. So it is possible in a sense to have the best of both worlds or a medium between the 2 rounds.