# Opinion thread. 308 vs 5.56 military rifles



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Well since the arrival of the smaller caliber 5.56 in military rifles what is your opinion which is best overall in military situations. 5.56 or .308. Ok Jammer here is your turn.


----------



## Screeminreel (Jun 2, 2004)

Hey there,

Well as this is an opinion, personally I would opt for the 7.62 over the 5.56. I simply have been spoiled by my little Kruger Compact though.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Remember I am speaking of military uses not for hunting or any other aspect.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

There is no "right" answer. It all depends on the intended use/mission. Its like asking, what's the best hunting round, without stating what you might be hunting: bears at 30 feet or ground hogs at 400 yards. 

That said, the Soviets began transitioning to a round very similar to the 5.56 in the 70's. There are very good reasons for that.


----------



## topwateraddict (Mar 5, 2008)

In a military/combat situation the last thing i would want to happen is to run out of ammo. I'll go with the 556 thank you very much....


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Ernest

But normally in the military you are issued a weapon. They dont ask what you are going to "hunt" with it.


----------



## Bird (May 10, 2005)

Well having spent some quality time in the Army carrying M16's and M60's I'd rather have 5.56 than 7.62. The M16 was very effective and easy to shoot out to 300 meters with iron sights, which we practiced regularly on the range. The magazine pouches on our web gear carried 3 30 round mags each of 5.56 which really wasn't all that heavy and the M16 was a relatively light rifle to carry day after day in the field. We carried them not slung over our shoulder when in the field and after a while they got heavy. Since the primary target of the M16 is a human and as a whole the human body is pretty fragile, plenty damage is caused by the 62 grain 22 cal pill.

When I was a 60 gunner (thankfully for a short time) and carried that big beast, along with 300 rounds of link belt 7.62 it was heavy. Yes I got to sling the M60 instead of carrying it but trust me it gets heavy real quick. After a few days and nights of plodding through the woods it was like chronic pain, hurts but you deal with it.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Charlie: 

But normally in the military you are issued a weapon. They don't ask what caliber you prefer. 

And, normally in the military, they issue you a weapon reasonably tailored to your mission, right?


----------



## DCAVA (Aug 5, 2013)

Never served in the military, but killed my first buck when I was 11 w/a .308; it dropped like a sack of potatoes........


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

And normally the military issue you a weapon reasonably taylored for your mission right?



Come on Ern you think the military is always right ??


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

I think on top of the standard weight issues, it also was built around the decreasing ability of the standard recruit to shoot.. In 1942, a LOT of the country already knew how to shoot, could handle recoil, etc.: that's been decreasing ever since. Enter the 5.56: negligible recoil, and you could carry a LOT of ammo. Apply the same "hit ratio" to 5 lbs. of 5.56 and 5 lbs of 7.62... The amount of ammo one soldier can carry is finite, might as well get the most effect out of it as possible..


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Certainly the amount of ammo a person can carry is good. Last thing you want to do is run out of ammo. Anyone ever mention that it may take 2 rounds of 5.56 to duplicate what 1 round of 7.62 will do ?


----------



## Lezz Go (Jun 27, 2006)

IMHO, I'd like a .556 with a 7 twist barrel shooting a 69-77 grain bullet.


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

CHARLIE said:


> Certainly the amount of ammo a person can carry is good. Last thing you want to do is run out of ammo. Anyone ever mention that it may take 2 rounds of 5.56 to duplicate what 1 round of 7.62 will do ?


My thoughts exactly. It's funny how most peoples' opinions on this are opposite of pistol caliber preference. With a pistol, everyone wants the biggest caliber possible, but would prefer the smaller caliber in a rifle??? I'm confused. I own both and since i've acquired the .308, the .223 gets very little attention.


----------



## B-Money (May 2, 2005)

If I had light cover, I would much rather somebody shoot at me with a 5.56 than a 7.62.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

If you had to shoot at somebody in heavy cover which round would you rather have ? Would you rather wait for the bad guy to step out from behind the tree or just shoot through it ?


----------



## pg542 (Oct 9, 2006)

I think from a purely military standpoint. the 5.56 is the best option. Lighter weapon for the grunt who has to tote it all the time. Pound for pound, more rounds of ammo can be carried. Quicker follow up shots due faster recoil recovery. A wounded adversary is(generally) taken out of the game regardless of what hit him. A wounded foe may be strategically more valuable than a dead one due to the fact that a wounded one needs attention(from another) where a dead one requires no immediate care. So much would depend on the theater as well. Is it house to house urban warfare or 400 meter shots across an open battlefield. The latter may be better served by a .308......I think most situations a 5.56 is(militarily) a better choice....Now from a Texas hunting aspect, I'll take my AR10 hands down.


----------



## 6.5 shooter dude (Jan 8, 2008)

Can carry a lot more 5.56 vs 7.62.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

7.62x51 does not shoot thru heavy cover significantly better than 5.56. No, it does not take two 5.56's to do what a 7.62 would do. 

That's the problem with these discussions. People bring up all these silly myths. 

Here is a quick c-n-p from testing by the Marines in the 80's: 

"PERFORMANCE OF TYPICAL MILITARY RIFLES AGAINST NATO 3.5mm STEEL TEST PLATE 

AKM 7.62x39mm PS: 300 CP, 400 50% CP/50% PP 
AK-74 5.45x39mm PS: 600 CP, 800 FP 
M16A1 5.56 M193: 400 CP, 500 50% CP/50% PP, 600 FP 
M16A2 5.56 M855: 600 CP, 700 CP, 800 50% CP/50% PP, 1000 FP 
Rifle M1, Ball M2: 500 CP, 600 FP 
Rifle M14, Ball M80: 700 CP, 800 FP 
Rifle M21, M118 Special Ball: 800 CP, 900 50% CP/50% PP, 1000 FP 
Carbine M1, Ball M1: 100 CP, 200 FP 

CP= Complete Perforation in which a major portion of the projectile exits the armor. 

PP= Partial Penetration in which a hole is generated but the major portion of the projectile does not exit the armor. 

FP= Failure to to Penetrate, the plate may be dented but it is intact. 

Data source - USMC Firepower Division, Modified Operation Test in the early 1980's." 

No, I don't think the military always knows best. I do believe that the military knows more than 99.999999% of civilians when it comes to these issues.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Again Ern you really think that a 7.62 does not shoot through cover much better than a 5.56 ? I am beginning to worry about you. LOL. Sorry but I cannot really understand the chart you put up. I know now you are worried about me. What does PS stand for and the big numbers like 600 and 800 is that rounds fired or is that distanace from target ?


----------



## B-Money (May 2, 2005)

a lone soldier could carry about 5000 rounds of 22lr, or 100,000 BB's.


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

I've never been in the military (thanks for your service if you have), so it's difficult for me to imagine being in a "military situation". Further, military situations can vary so broadly that it makes answering more of a challenge.

As best as I can imagine, I'd have to say 5.56. I can't imagine toting around the .308.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

PS is the description of the bullet used in the Soviet rounds. 

The numbers are distance measurements. They are expressed in the same units for each round so it really does not matter what they stand for. The chart expresses the relative performance of the rounds. Thus, be it yards, meters, feet, inches, or even nanometers, the results are the results. 

Why would it be rounds fired? It would make no sense to use a sample size that large, right? 

In calculating standard deviation, you take the sq. root of the variation. The formula uses sample size minus one as the denominator in calculating variance. Then you take the square root. So, a sample size that large would provide essentially no additional information. In other words, after the first 50 or 100 rounds fired, the rest provide no new info.


----------



## THE JAMMER (Aug 1, 2005)

I have been out of town for a while so that's why I'm late to the party. This is a tough one. Never having been in that type of combat before, I guess my opinion should be measured. My combat was from 5-6000 feet from my enemy and my four 20mm cannons worked just fine-thank you very much.

The obvious advantages of each have been put forth. I think when supplying a battle weapon one has to predict what type of combat will comprise the majority of conflicts to expect in the reasonable future. If the majority of expected conflicts will be long range, Afghanistan type of battle, where more "killing power" is needed at longer ranges, then obviously 7.62. If shorter range, house to house Iraq type of battle is expected, then obviously the 5.56. Since we have experienced both of those in the last decade, it's a tough call. So each excels in its own environment, so the question is which one excels better in the other's environment. In a short range battle would you feel "less efficient" using a big heavy, less ammo 7.62. Vs. how would you feel with the lighter 5.56 in a long range Afghan environment. 7.62 is probably my favorite caliber, because it is so versatile, however, I guess if I had to pick one to go into battle with, I would have to choose the 5.56 with a boat load of ammo.

I think what the military has done has really solved the problem. By including units armed with "older" M14 weapons, and some HK"s and SCARS and whatever else they are using along with the majority of the element members with 5.56, I think they can cover both scenarios. I don't know this but I would hope that the number of higher caliber weapons has been increased, as a percentage of the overall platoon sized unit. In Viet Nam everyone had an M16, and there was a guy with maybe a BAR, maybe one with a shotgun, etc. I would hope the percentage of men carrying higher caliber weapons within the platoon unit has been increased.

Interesting subject. will never be solved, just commented on. You know I guess we could start the same kind of discussion about the 9mm vs. the 45 for the military. Same exact discussion.


----------



## capt mullet (Nov 15, 2008)

This is a loaded question!! Like asking if Obama is a good president.

My m1a shoots wells at a few hundred yards with irons or scoped and will knock any game in North America down.

My AR is more accurate under 125 yards and it wont knock down a moose or bear or elk at 300 yards every time like the bigger round will.

For knockdown power it is the 7.62 but when walking the creek bottoms in the forest for hogs I like the AR because it is lighter to carry and easier to get acquired quickly on target and easier for follow up shots.

*There is NO Correct Answer!!*

Sorry I havent been in combat so a real life hunting scenario is what I had to do.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

CHARLIE said:


> Certainly the amount of ammo a person can carry is good. Last thing you want to do is run out of ammo. Anyone ever mention that it may take 2 rounds of 5.56 to duplicate what 1 round of 7.62 will do ?


Just depends on which round. If you're carrying 200 rounds of 5.56, and 100 rounds of 7.62, the 102nd round of 5.56 is a heck of a lot more powerful than the 102nd round of 7.62... Click.


----------



## dunedawg (Jun 17, 2007)

I think the 7.62 x 39 might be the best of both worlds.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

D

You think that if you are carrying a M16 5.56 with more ammo you might tend to fire more shots than you really should thinking well I have plenty ammo ? But saying that we know that in normal firefights (if there is such a thing) now days it's all about getting some lead in the air. Actual aiming and shooting is almost a thing of the past. Buddy of mine says in VietNam their M60 gunner would cut down trees when a firefight began. Dont think a M16 would come close to that. Really a good discussion so far. Being a old man like myself I have heard from WWII vets and Viet Nam vets. WWII vetscomplained about the lack of firepower from the 30 carbine and praise the M1.Same with Korean vets. Viet Vets from early years cussed the M16 and wanted M14's. US went to 9MM pistols and now the individuals are really getting back to 45's. Jus sayin.


----------



## DCAVA (Aug 5, 2013)

^^^ I think ur right Charlie, I would rather prolly have more firepower w/the 7.62 even though the gun and ammo weigh more in a combat situation........


----------



## Bird (May 10, 2005)

One of the things to consider is that with the conventional military, as opposed to special ops, the combat geography has changed from WW2 or Viet Nam to a more urban fight. Yes, the troops were in the desert, but almost all of the fire fights are now urban and CQB (close quarters combat). In this situation, the 5.56 fired out of the relatively lightweight AR platform is a favorable weapons platform and cartridge. The SAW, M60 and the M24 squad level sniper weapon are support weapons for the squad/platoon but there is only 1 or 2 issued per squad/platoon. For the regular modern military grunt, the M16 is a good choice compared to the venerable and heavy M14. Weight in hand makes a difference folks, I carried my M16 for 8 years, even that got heavy.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Hate to admit it but I think Bird is right regarding close quarters combat. Jungles, deserts, hills, mountains, longer ranges different story. But saying that through walls of houses (not cement) 5.56 takes a back seat. Shotgun with buckshot mite be the best.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

CHARLIE said:


> D
> 
> You think that if you are carrying a M16 5.56 with more ammo you might tend to fire more shots than you really should thinking well I have plenty ammo ? But saying that we know that in normal firefights (if there is such a thing) now days it's all about getting some lead in the air. Actual aiming and shooting is almost a thing of the past. Buddy of mine says in VietNam their M60 gunner would cut down trees when a firefight began. Dont think a M16 would come close to that. Really a good discussion so far. Being a old man like myself I have heard from WWII vets and Viet Nam vets. WWII vetscomplained about the lack of firepower from the 30 carbine and praise the M1.Same with Korean vets. Viet Vets from early years cussed the M16 and wanted M14's. US went to 9MM pistols and now the individuals are really getting back to 45's. Jus sayin.


 I think it's the pretty rare individual that would take a 5.56 over a 7.62, or a 9mm over a .45, if all other things were equal.. The conditions where the smaller calibers actually win head to head are for the most part generally very narrowly defined. That being said, the battlefield is probably the grand bull moose of places in which all other things are NOT equal.. The move to the smaller calibers is just playing the laws of averages of the whole "battlefield experience", not a purely ballistically defined comparison. That includes everything from knockdown power to cost per round to NATO standardization to women in combat... Add in those variables, and the lines of the decision really get blurred.

Also, notice WHO is moving to 7.62 battle rifles and .45 sidearms: it's not the basic infantry: it's the guys who, much more than the service average, make their shots count..


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

dwilliams35 said:


> I think it's the pretty rare individual that would take a 5.56 over a 7.62, or a 9mm over a .45, if all other things were equal.. The conditions where the smaller calibers actually win head to head are for the most part generally very narrowly defined. That being said, the battlefield is probably the grand bull moose of places in which all other things are NOT equal.. The move to the smaller calibers is just playing the laws of averages of the whole "battlefield experience", not a purely ballistically defined comparison. That includes everything from knockdown power to cost per round to NATO standardization to women in combat... Add in those variables, and the lines of the decision really get blurred.
> 
> Also, notice WHO is moving to 7.62 battle rifles and .45 sidearms: it's not the basic infantry: it's the guys who, much more than the service average, make their shots count..


Wow D couldnt have said it better myself.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

The 5.56 was developed and implemented long before any women were expected to see combat. So, gender played essentially no role whatsoever in its adoption. 

The idea that a significant portion of our troops in WWII were some sort of Daniel Boone type crack shots from the river bottoms is a myth. Some studies indicate that only 25% of our troops in WWII ever even fired an individual weapon in combat. 

Most of our infantry were conscripts, with little training before seeing action. Very little live fire exercises in training because ammo was being conserved for actual combat. The problem got ever worse in Korea. As a result, a program called Trainfire 1 was launched because of the ineffectual use of individual weapons in combat by our troops. 

Cutting down trees with an M60? I'm sure it has happened, but its far from typical. Considered a lightly treed area with ten enemy combatants hiding behind 10 separate trees of 12 inch diameter. The rounds necessary to chop down those trees would be huge. And, unless you cut them down near the base, the enemy still has cover - the stumps. Thus, you would seek to pin them down with cover fire and flank the position, rather than expend all your M60 ammo cutting down trees only to find them now hiding behind stumps. 

The 7.62x39 is the worst of both worlds. Low BC, low velocity, short barrel, short range. Blow the shoulder forward, neck down to 6mm, eliminate the taper, and now you have the 6mmAR Turbo which slings 105's at 2900+. And, it will feed without problems from a straight mag. 

Barrier penetration involves a number of factors, but primarily velocity and projectile construction. Back to the chart. Notice how the high velocity, relative high BC, steel core round performs? Same in pistols. Notice the high velocity 5.7x28 round. Plus, which would you rather pound thru a barrier: A nail or a piece of rebar?


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Earnest 

Now you are saying that WWII vets could not shoot better when they entered the military than the guys we get now. Wow Ern sometimes you amaze me. Re the M60 true story my buddy (Sgt 101'st Airborne) recon in Viet Nam told me the story. As he asked his men one by one if they were OK after a firefight the only one who said no was he M60 gunner. Trees that he cut down with him M60 had fallen on him so they had to get the trees off of him and he was OK. PS he did not use a M16 (Sgt) he used an AK47 for two reasons, more gun and the other was the VC would ignore him when shooting. Thought he was one of them. Distinct sound of AK47. I will get back to your chart and do some more study.

OK Ernest I wish the chart stated ball or AP. I dont really know what M193 and M 855 bullets are. Are comparing apples to apples or what ?


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

Most of the Vietnam line vets that I've talked to hated the M-16 and wanted to keep the M-14 but were not allowed to do so.

Most of the SF guys loved their CAR rifles due to there being light and being able to carry more ammunition. Since those guys in MACV-SOG moved quick and quiet and sometimes needed mucho ammo it makes sense.

TH


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

No Charlie, the difference in our views is basically this. You relay "stories" told to you by people you meet. I tend to discount "stories" and rely upon the opinions of experts. 

Its just like our discussion of the alleged differences between military 5.56 and commercial .223 brass. You repeat a "story" that there is a volume difference. I relay the actual testing demonstrating no volume difference. 

On this issue, read the Trainfire 1 manual. It describes the whole purpose of the program instituted after Korea- ineffectual use of individual arms by our troops in WWII and Korea. 

Yes, our professional combat troops today demonstrate superior marksmanship relative to our infantry troops in WWII or Korea. They have superior weapons, superior training, and superior ammo. In that regard, the M-16/AR-15 is an inherently more accurate platform with better sights. So much so, today it absolutely dominates NRA High Power Shooting competitions.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

M16 and AR15 dominate hi power Shooting competition. You gotta be kidding What the heck kinda competetion is Hi Power Competion. M16 and Ar 15 arn't even hi power.. Must be something special made up for them .Must be maybe 50 or 100 yard targets. LOL

Regarding stories sometimes actual experiences teaches the reality of how things really are. You cannot depend on what some people put down on paper. 

Re 5.56 brass and .223 I dont recall saying that but if I did I was wrong. 

Have competed in the National Matches B4 at Camp Perry Ohio so do know a little about "competion", accuracy, ballistics, and real time not paper theories. LOL. Sure an enjoyable subject.. Keep up the good work..


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

depends on what you as a troop are able to carry hundreds of rounds of, and what the DOD gets the best deal on.


----------



## Screeminreel (Jun 2, 2004)

Screeminreel said:


> Hey there,
> 
> Well as this is an opinion, personally I would opt for the 7.62 over the 5.56. I simply have been spoiled by my little Kruger Compact though.





CHARLIE said:


> Remember I am speaking of military uses not for hunting or any other aspect.


Well in the back of my head yes I knew that was what you were referring to. Unfortunately I have no military experience what so ever, so that portion of my opinion is pretty much moot.

As an aside to that however I DO SALUTE those who have and appreciate greatly their service to us and our country.

If I WERE to use either as has been mentioned the choice wouldn't really be mine, I would simply use whatever was issued to me to the best of my abilities. I do however still have a preference for the 7.62, but the added ammo in a combat type situation of the 5.56 would be an added bonus.



> the difference in our views is basically this. You relay "stories" told to you by people you meet. I tend to discount "stories" and rely upon the opinions of experts.


I don't have a dog in this ring, but to be honest, those folks you meet, who were there and used these weapons and made it back TOO be asked, are more of an expert than most writers will ever be. Most of their "stories" are real life experiences, they were there, and made it back.

I would, and do, hold their opinions in much higher regard than I do most any other opinion I could, or have gathered from supposed "experts". THose who piddle in labs with equipment, and report this or that is fine, but real world hands on combat experience where you are using the tools to keep yourself and your buds alive, to me can not be duplicated in any other situation no matter how well you try to set it up. When others who have a mind of their own and are also trying to stay alive and keep their friends alive are shooting back, it changes everything and that cannot be duplicated in a lab setting. It would be like 10 people playing on one chess board. it is mas chaos to say the least.

I will agree ballistics are ballistics, interior and exterior, and can be repeated and tested and duplicated over and over. It is useful in comparing fps, energy, pressure, penetration and the like. That however doesn't really apply to the end game results. It only applies when comparing one load to another, not one soldier to another using them against each other.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Ernest said:


> The 5.56 was developed and implemented long before any women were expected to see combat. So, gender played essentially no role whatsoever in its adoption.


 I wasn't talking about the history of the initial NATO adoption, but rather the continuing process and the general move to lighter calibers: there's been a push from some segments of the military to go back to heavier rounds from the beginning, however it's a fluid process; a heck of a lot of different factors get considered in the process of selecting just what to put in the hands of the armed forces, and I guarantee you that one of the major criteria NOW is women in combat. The 9mm got and will further get similar consideration, and if the military ever makes another shift toward the 6.8 spc or back to the 7.62 or whatever, such will certainly be an aspect that is considered.



Ernest said:


> The idea that a significant portion of our troops in WWII were some sort of Daniel Boone type crack shots from the river bottoms is a myth. Some studies indicate that only 25% of our troops in WWII ever even fired an individual weapon in combat.


 Myth is a pretty strong word for this: It pretty much goes against common sense to posit that the average recruit in 1942 had the same or any less experience with firearms before enlistment than one in 2014. Sure, urban recruits may not have had any experience at all even in the 40s, , but as a whole, the basic pool hadn't been yet tainted by the anti-gun movement: a 1942 kid may very well take a gun to school, leave it in the corner, and shoot some squirrels on the way home: his 2014 counterpart is taught to run away screaming in fear if somebody draws a picture of a gun on a bathroom wall with a sharpie..

In 1903 the response to the need to have recruits that could shoot before enlistment fostered the creation of the CMP. Now, despite some lingering activity with that program, 4H, and the NRA, the entire concept is anathema to our society in general: thus, military marksmanship programs have progressed, firearm technology has progressed, etc. etc. etc. until the point where they can basically work around the effective lack of any possibility of initial shooting prowess in the average soldier. If a guy can't shoot, give him more bullets so his chances of hitting something go up.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Screeminreel said:


> I don't have a dog in this ring, but to be honest, those folks you meet, who were there and used these weapons and made it back TOO be asked, are more of an expert than most writers will ever be. Most of their "stories" are real life experiences, they were there, and made it back.
> 
> I would, and do, hold their opinions in much higher regard than I do most any other opinion I could, or have gathered from supposed "experts". THose who piddle in labs with equipment, and report this or that is fine, but real world hands on combat experience where you are using the tools to keep yourself and your buds alive, to me can not be duplicated in any other situation no matter how well you try to set it up. When others who have a mind of their own and are also trying to stay alive and keep their friends alive are shooting back, it changes everything and that cannot be duplicated in a lab setting. It would be like 10 people playing on one chess board. it is mas chaos to say the least.
> 
> I will agree ballistics are ballistics, interior and exterior, and can be repeated and tested and duplicated over and over. It is useful in comparing fps, energy, pressure, penetration and the like. That however doesn't really apply to the end game results. It only applies when comparing one load to another, not one soldier to another using them against each other.


 This cuts both ways: the real-world aspect is certainly of great value, but it's also lacking repeatability: nobody knows just what happened on that given shot to make it work or not work. Thus, it gets firmly planted in the realm of hearsay and anecdotes rather than actual factual observations. Somebody saying "the 5.56 is fine: I watched it flat-out rip apart a guy in Fallujah with one shot" doesn't mean jack squat unless you also scientifically include the forty rounds preceding that one that ripped right through the guy with little or no instantaneous "take the enemy out of the fight" damage.. Similarly, anybody who sees what a .50 BMG would do to a human body is going to swear by it... right up until he has to carry 200 rounds, at which point the 5.56 seems like a heck of a deal..

The "scientific process" judging ballistics, interior, exterior, and terminal, doesn't happen in a vacuum: that's just data that gets thrown into the pile along with more "creative" laboratory testing and real-world results. All of them have been and are being considered, it's just what trade-offs you want to accept in adoption of a cartridge.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

About to wear this post out. Getting up there in post numbers. Been fun too. 

Hey D or maybe Earnest its yall's turn to come up with a new subject. 

Now Earnest yall see he will take the opposite side of whoever or whatever subject is brought up. He has to practice to keep his practice up. LOL


----------



## Oceola (Mar 25, 2007)

pg542 said:


> I think from a purely military standpoint. the 5.56 is the best option. Lighter weapon for the grunt who has to tote it all the time. Pound for pound, more rounds of ammo can be carried. Quicker follow up shots due faster recoil recovery. *A wounded adversary is(generally) taken out of the game regardless of what hit him. A wounded foe may be strategically more valuable than a dead one due to the fact that a wounded one needs attention(from another) where a dead one requires no immediate care.* So much would depend on the theater as well. Is it house to house urban warfare or 400 meter shots across an open battlefield. The latter may be better served by a .308......I think most situations a 5.56 is(militarily) a better choice....Now from a Texas hunting aspect, I'll take my AR10 hands down.


 X2...Right on the money about the wounded foe.


----------



## B-Money (May 2, 2005)

I pick neither. Something along the lines of 7mm-08 would provide double the energy of a 223, a flat trajectory, lighter than 308, and tolerable recoil.

So, how's that for throwing a fork in the soup kettle?


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Bobby Miller said:


> I pick neither. Something along the lines of 7mm-08 would provide double the energy of a 223, a flat trajectory, lighter than 308, and tolerable recoil.
> 
> So, how's that for throwing a fork in the soup kettle?


 It's about military calibers. NATO hasn't adopted the 7mm-08. Thus, irrelevant.

Next?


----------



## B-Money (May 2, 2005)

dwilliams35 said:


> It's about military calibers. NATO hasn't adopted the 7mm-08. Thus, irrelevant.
> 
> Next?


geez. i wish you ran this whole board! you're awesome!


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Bobby

yes sir but you see he is correct.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Bobby Miller said:


> you're awesome!


 Yep, I've been told that repeatedly...


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

M240 over an M249 any day of the week.


----------



## Mustad7731 (May 23, 2004)

Depends on the place. For urban combat i prefer the 5.56 NATO because of its lack of recoil and great accuracy you can do hammer pairs (2 round burst) all day as a completely novice shooter and still have nice groups at 50-75 meters but what it lacks in recoil it makes up for in lack of stopping force yea a round to the head will stop someone but a drugged up terrorist who's on PCP and knows he about to die and meet his (alleged) virgins if you go for center mass hes not going to stop the 7.62x51 on the other hand will stop just about anyone where they are. Do not pass go do not collect your 40 virgins yea the recoil is more severe but look at this the M16 with its 5.56 loses effectiveness at about 550 meters granted we train at 500 meters but the Taliban ALWAYS engaged us at 600+ meters every time also granted it was open desert as far as the eye can see regardless that's the truth. The 7.62x51 is the better round for military purposes its been in service since the 1960's and is still in service what more do you need.


----------

