Dave, good point. I'm 40, and while I'm not as active as you, I'm reasonably fit. I just put 50 rounds through my M1A yesterday, a hot, humid day on the range with me walking back and forth to the 100 yard line every five shots (forgot my binoculars). I shot from a rest, standing with a sling, and standing with no sling. No degredation of accuracy. I even told a co-worker this morning how good it felt to shoot the M1A. God I love that rifle! But, as noted, recoil is subjective and subject to a person's build. I rather like M1A recoil, consider it mild. I like .45 ACP too. But I don't care for .40 S&W recoil or 12 gauge 00 buck.
Something we rarely touch on when debating the .223vs.308 effectiveness
- Thread starter Jamie Young
- Start date
glock glockler
New member
Dagny, while the 6.5 Swede is a great round, it's damn big, maybe something like the .257 Roberts (I hear it has comprable ballistics) with a little more power would do.
I've always been partial to the ballistics of the .220 Swift and 22-250. I think a 75gr .22cal at 3000+ would be the ideal short range anti-personel round.
I've always been partial to the ballistics of the .220 Swift and 22-250. I think a 75gr .22cal at 3000+ would be the ideal short range anti-personel round.
Jamie Young
New member
We're drifting a little off topic here......
I also could bang away with My FAL all day but I've heard an enormous number of comments about the recoil from .308s.
When issuing a caliber for "average" infantry men, most are going to loose there ability to shoot straight with a .308.
I think "most" people won't hold up to 200rds of aimed fire with a .308.
Would you like an army that has a higher percentage of hits or a lower one? I think when issuing a .308 caliber whether its a FAL or M14, your going to have a lower hit hit ratio over time compared to a bunch of out of shape scrubs with M16s or AK74s.
I also could bang away with My FAL all day but I've heard an enormous number of comments about the recoil from .308s.
When issuing a caliber for "average" infantry men, most are going to loose there ability to shoot straight with a .308.
I think "most" people won't hold up to 200rds of aimed fire with a .308.
Would you like an army that has a higher percentage of hits or a lower one? I think when issuing a .308 caliber whether its a FAL or M14, your going to have a lower hit hit ratio over time compared to a bunch of out of shape scrubs with M16s or AK74s.
Clarified....
Ronin:
Not making it sound easy, just pointing out that IF I hit you, you most likely will go down, at which time my follow up shot is that much easier. Your point goes a long way towards marksmenship.... You could have a ma-deuce (Browning .50 cal) out on the firing line and if you can't hit anything with it, the size of the bullet really doesn't matter -- now does it?
John:
I believe the current M16 variant does not have full auto available - IIRC they went to 3rd burst instead. My point is, is that cyclic rates being equal, and payloads being equal, I will have 3x as many bullets to work with.
Ed
Ronin:
Not making it sound easy, just pointing out that IF I hit you, you most likely will go down, at which time my follow up shot is that much easier. Your point goes a long way towards marksmenship.... You could have a ma-deuce (Browning .50 cal) out on the firing line and if you can't hit anything with it, the size of the bullet really doesn't matter -- now does it?
John:
I believe the current M16 variant does not have full auto available - IIRC they went to 3rd burst instead. My point is, is that cyclic rates being equal, and payloads being equal, I will have 3x as many bullets to work with.
Ed
I've been trying to decide between the M14 and AR15 and can't pick. M14 lets me carry 100 rounds easily, 160 with effort, but I am slightly more accurate with it at long ranges and .308 penetrates better. I can carry 210 rounds with AR15 (300 with effort) and shoot it better and faster at close range...but penetration suffers.
On an un-protected target, would it really make any appreciable difference what round hits the enemy so long as it penetrates his vest or hits a bone in a limb? I'd have expected pretty much anything over .22mag to do enough damage to distract the recepient from returning fire or doing anything but tending to the wound...
On an un-protected target, would it really make any appreciable difference what round hits the enemy so long as it penetrates his vest or hits a bone in a limb? I'd have expected pretty much anything over .22mag to do enough damage to distract the recepient from returning fire or doing anything but tending to the wound...
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Aw, Oleg, split the difference: Get a Win Mod 100 in .243. I know from personal observation that a 6mm will give a one-shot kill on a fella, at 420 yards. (Charlie Whitman nailed a guy standing about 40 feet from me. I paced the distance, later.)
Art
Art
Much as the US army has been criticized for sticking with 30-06 for financial reasons, I find myself sticking with common rifles and calibers for the same reason. .243 isn't a mil-surplus round, that makes practice more expensive...and I can't think of many magazine available for a .243 AR10.
Nightcrawler
New member
A .243 AR-10 would use the same magazines as a .308 one. I agree about the ammo cost, though, unless you got into some SERIOUS handloading.
.243 is by no means an uncommon round, though, just not available in bulk military surplus like .308.
.243 is by no means an uncommon round, though, just not available in bulk military surplus like .308.
I figure it is all about trade offs.
.223 has some advantages, you can carry more ammo: That may be great for the military, but I'm just Joe-Schmoe shooter. If I get into an engagement that requires 300+ rounds I'm probably dead anyway. Plus I always get a kick out of the Gun Shop commandos (hats off to KSFreeman for his quote "Freedom's Last Hope) who are going to head for the hills, and they can carry an extra 100 rounds of ammo. Good for them, except most of the ones I know get winded going up the stairs. So moot point for me. If you are in good shape, and have the correct gear, then you can comfortably carry 300 rounds of .223 or 200 rounds of .308. I've done 300 rounds of .308 on a hike once, (PvtPyle's death march/web gear test), and it does get really heavy.
.223 recoils less: I'm a big dude, and very recoil tolerant. I don't think either one kicks much at all. I can do several hundred rounds through my FAL in one day and be fine. But if you are sensative that way, perhaps the .223 is the way to go.
.223 is more controllable in full auto: Moot point for all of us non-military, non-sworn, types. It is dang hard to legally and $-wise to own a select fire weapon, so controllability on full auto is about as usefull as mudflaps on a camaro.
.223 weapons are shorter and lighter: Anybody ever play with a DSA lightweight FAL carbine? Very slick. But I will admit, the average .223 weapon is much handier.
I will say that the AR series in .223 is quicker on follow up shots than a comparable .308. If you look at the top 3 gunners, there are only a handfull of shooters who can hang in there at the top shooting a .308. Just because of the split times on targets that require multiple shots.
.308 goes farther, hits harder, and works better in the wind.
Personally, I think they both have their uses.
And for a 3rd option, if you are very poor, get a 7.62x39 because it is only $80 a case!
.223 has some advantages, you can carry more ammo: That may be great for the military, but I'm just Joe-Schmoe shooter. If I get into an engagement that requires 300+ rounds I'm probably dead anyway. Plus I always get a kick out of the Gun Shop commandos (hats off to KSFreeman for his quote "Freedom's Last Hope)
who are going to head for the hills, and they can carry an extra 100 rounds of ammo. Good for them, except most of the ones I know get winded going up the stairs. So moot point for me. If you are in good shape, and have the correct gear, then you can comfortably carry 300 rounds of .223 or 200 rounds of .308. I've done 300 rounds of .308 on a hike once, (PvtPyle's death march/web gear test), and it does get really heavy..223 recoils less: I'm a big dude, and very recoil tolerant. I don't think either one kicks much at all. I can do several hundred rounds through my FAL in one day and be fine. But if you are sensative that way, perhaps the .223 is the way to go.
.223 is more controllable in full auto: Moot point for all of us non-military, non-sworn, types. It is dang hard to legally and $-wise to own a select fire weapon, so controllability on full auto is about as usefull as mudflaps on a camaro.
.223 weapons are shorter and lighter: Anybody ever play with a DSA lightweight FAL carbine? Very slick. But I will admit, the average .223 weapon is much handier.
I will say that the AR series in .223 is quicker on follow up shots than a comparable .308. If you look at the top 3 gunners, there are only a handfull of shooters who can hang in there at the top shooting a .308. Just because of the split times on targets that require multiple shots.
.308 goes farther, hits harder, and works better in the wind.
Personally, I think they both have their uses.
And for a 3rd option, if you are very poor, get a 7.62x39 because it is only $80 a case!
I have kept my AR15s while selling off the M14 and Garand because I found I didn't shoot them. I enjoy shooting the ARs and as I get older I find them easier on me (the point of the original post if I understood it correctly).
I am curious why so many of you 30 caliber fans object so strenuously to my AR15s when I don't object to your preference for the 30 caliber.
I am curious why so many of you 30 caliber fans object so strenuously to my AR15s when I don't object to your preference for the 30 caliber.
Senior_rifleman
New member
Value Judgement
Gentlemen,
As a fellow paper puncher I can understand the distress of those who want to make larger holes in the paper, (.308") than those who prefer smaller holes, (.223" or .22") but are loath to accept absorbing more recoil energy.
The fact that these holes are often the product of you all firing rifles designed and produced for military applications affects the way that I perceive the situation. From the posts one would think that the .223 and the .308 are identical in every way except "Felt" recoil. Here is my idea for a test that might be more revealing than punching hole in paper.
The army thinks that a bullet striking an enemy soldier with 58 ft-lbs of energy will disable him. Let's have a test to determine how the .223 and the .308 perform with real shooters pulling the triggers.
Set up 8 targets, steel plate, 18"wX30"h, that will fall over when hit with 60 ft-lbs of energy. set them up in two's at 100, 200, 300 and 500 yds, (or meters). One of each set of two's to be 30% exposed behind a 4" thick wooden barrier.
Shooters would run the course twice, once with .223 and once with the .308. The event would be timed. and number of steel knocked down recorded. Any firing position would be accceptable but no bench rest firing permitted. Shooters could carry any amount of ammo they deem necessary.
Oh yes, the shooters would be timed (started) as they crossed the starting line which would be located one mile from the firing line.
Would anyone care to alter the procedure? Would anyone care to participate?
Gentlemen,
As a fellow paper puncher I can understand the distress of those who want to make larger holes in the paper, (.308") than those who prefer smaller holes, (.223" or .22") but are loath to accept absorbing more recoil energy.
The fact that these holes are often the product of you all firing rifles designed and produced for military applications affects the way that I perceive the situation. From the posts one would think that the .223 and the .308 are identical in every way except "Felt" recoil. Here is my idea for a test that might be more revealing than punching hole in paper.
The army thinks that a bullet striking an enemy soldier with 58 ft-lbs of energy will disable him. Let's have a test to determine how the .223 and the .308 perform with real shooters pulling the triggers.
Set up 8 targets, steel plate, 18"wX30"h, that will fall over when hit with 60 ft-lbs of energy. set them up in two's at 100, 200, 300 and 500 yds, (or meters). One of each set of two's to be 30% exposed behind a 4" thick wooden barrier.
Shooters would run the course twice, once with .223 and once with the .308. The event would be timed. and number of steel knocked down recorded. Any firing position would be accceptable but no bench rest firing permitted. Shooters could carry any amount of ammo they deem necessary.
Oh yes, the shooters would be timed (started) as they crossed the starting line which would be located one mile from the firing line.
Would anyone care to alter the procedure? Would anyone care to participate?
Wingnutx
Thanks for the clarification.......I knew there still had to be some branch of service still carrying them, which is why I qualified it. Thanks a bunch for helping me out.
Senior_Rifleman:
Will the .223 knock the plate over at 500 meters on one shot? If so, I will happily take the test. AND my MONEY would be with 9 out of 10 of the fastest times would be attributed to the .223.
Any first hand knowledge of said "test"?
Thanks,
Ed
Thanks for the clarification.......I knew there still had to be some branch of service still carrying them, which is why I qualified it. Thanks a bunch for helping me out.
Senior_Rifleman:
Will the .223 knock the plate over at 500 meters on one shot? If so, I will happily take the test. AND my MONEY would be with 9 out of 10 of the fastest times would be attributed to the .223.
Any first hand knowledge of said "test"?
Thanks,
Ed
ballistic gelatin
New member
I want to hear more from Senior_rifleman...or his lab rats
Senior_rifleman
New member
Ceol, Shivan and spectators,
First off, I don't have any more knowledge on this subject than anyone else so we can resort to logic and intuition (which is an elegant form of guessing).
Remember that when a bullet hits a target either directly or by ricochet, the plate will not fall unless 60 ft-lbs or more of energy is transferred by the bullet. The question is, under what circumstance does the bullet have 60+ft-lbs?
Let's consider the stategy of engaging the targets. At each range, one target has 540 sq. in. of exposed plate and one 30% less ( 162 sq. in.) of exposed plate. Of course if enough energy is still is present in the bullet at a given range, then a shot through the 4" wooden barrier that is covering the 70% of the second plate would be enough to cause the plate to fall. This in effect turns the appearance of "Cover" for the target into merely "Concealment". Bang, Bang, the target is dead.
The only data that I have is that the 223 round (SS109) has one- half the energy that the 308 round (M80) has at the muzzle and over the flight path to 500 yds. My assumption is that somewhere during the course of fire the 223 round will have insuffient remaining energy to penetrate the wooden barrier AND knock down the plate. At this point the shooter will have to aim at the 30% exposed plate surface. The 308 shooter will then gain an advantage by being able to shoot through the wooden barrier.
My guess is that at the 100 yd range both the 223 and the 308 will penetrate the barrier. Moving to 200yd range, additional factors become of increasing importance. Recall the initial condition of starting a mile away from the range --- and being timed to boot? That causes precision shooting to be adversely affected. We now get a chance to estimate the probabilities (Pr)of knocking down the two plates; the Pr of hitting the plate, the Pr of having enough energy in the bullet to defeat the barrier and/or trip the plate.
As the shooter continues to shoot at the longer distances, shot placement and remaining bullet energy work against him. The shooter may require more ammo than the basic course requires, (8 targets, 8 rounds). How much ammo should he carry?
How should such a course be scored? I don't know. Any suggestions?
In my view this approaches a realistic combat course. With the current day focus on hosing your opponent with mini-machineguns, it is called to your attention that some third world warrior out there can out range you with his 1900's bolt action rifle and turn your cover into mere concealment. What say you?
First off, I don't have any more knowledge on this subject than anyone else so we can resort to logic and intuition (which is an elegant form of guessing).
Remember that when a bullet hits a target either directly or by ricochet, the plate will not fall unless 60 ft-lbs or more of energy is transferred by the bullet. The question is, under what circumstance does the bullet have 60+ft-lbs?
Let's consider the stategy of engaging the targets. At each range, one target has 540 sq. in. of exposed plate and one 30% less ( 162 sq. in.) of exposed plate. Of course if enough energy is still is present in the bullet at a given range, then a shot through the 4" wooden barrier that is covering the 70% of the second plate would be enough to cause the plate to fall. This in effect turns the appearance of "Cover" for the target into merely "Concealment". Bang, Bang, the target is dead.
The only data that I have is that the 223 round (SS109) has one- half the energy that the 308 round (M80) has at the muzzle and over the flight path to 500 yds. My assumption is that somewhere during the course of fire the 223 round will have insuffient remaining energy to penetrate the wooden barrier AND knock down the plate. At this point the shooter will have to aim at the 30% exposed plate surface. The 308 shooter will then gain an advantage by being able to shoot through the wooden barrier.
My guess is that at the 100 yd range both the 223 and the 308 will penetrate the barrier. Moving to 200yd range, additional factors become of increasing importance. Recall the initial condition of starting a mile away from the range --- and being timed to boot? That causes precision shooting to be adversely affected. We now get a chance to estimate the probabilities (Pr)of knocking down the two plates; the Pr of hitting the plate, the Pr of having enough energy in the bullet to defeat the barrier and/or trip the plate.
As the shooter continues to shoot at the longer distances, shot placement and remaining bullet energy work against him. The shooter may require more ammo than the basic course requires, (8 targets, 8 rounds). How much ammo should he carry?
How should such a course be scored? I don't know. Any suggestions?
In my view this approaches a realistic combat course. With the current day focus on hosing your opponent with mini-machineguns, it is called to your attention that some third world warrior out there can out range you with his 1900's bolt action rifle and turn your cover into mere concealment. What say you?
Jamie Young
New member
I've pretty much tested My theory out on a number of SAR I and SAR II with inexperience shooters. I saw more hits with the SAR II than the SAR I. I think it would be the same with an M14 and AR.