User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:04:15 PM EDT
It came up on page 3-4 of the M14 thred that the 7.62 x 51 may not be the best service rifle ca'tridge:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 7.62x51 was a bad idea from the start. I agree, should have been .260s. Quoted:
Quoted:
Something along the lines of the .260 Rem would have been better. Yep. The "Cult of .30" has hindered our small arms development pretty much since the smokeless power era began. The .30-06, .30 Carbine, .7.62X51... all would have been better rifle cartridges with 6-6.5mm bullets. As an added bonus, something like a .260 Remington might have been considered too small for a GPMG (whereas the .308 was incorrectly considered to be "just enough". Then we might have ended up with GPMGs chambered in something like a hot .338-.375 round, which would be awesome. This got me thinking on a subject that has intrigued me alot over the years: what would be the "perfect" service rifle cartridge? As serious students of military small arms know, we flirted briefly with the .276 Pedersen (7mm) round for the M1 Garand, before chambering it in God's choice of caliber, the .30-'06. 
Yea, I know;  there ain't no free lunch, there is no "perfect", right tool for all jobs, etc., etc., yadda yadda yadda, got it. That being sed, the 5.56, while easy to carry alot of, has low penetration on cement block, the primary construction medium of the mideast (where it seems we will be for the foreseeable future  ). In the hunting fields, .223 is a varmint cartridge, at most. OTOH, 7.62 x 51, ~I~ think, is a great cartridge: hits hard enough to kick heiny, while shorter/easier to carry than thutty-aught-six. What's not to love? 
This does, however, create a logistics/end user problem: why do we have two separate rifle ca'tridges to keep in stock & to supply to our boys in green? What if you are rockin' an easy-to-carry 5.56 when you end up REALLY needing the penetrating power/range of a 7.62? IS there a good middle ground? I freely admit to being a .250 Savage slut; I inherited a rifle in this (semi-obsolete) caliber from my father. It is a great mid-range, do-it-all caliber: more horsepower/boolit than a .223, yet not so much as a 7.62. Load it light? Varmints. Load it heavy? White tail. The .243 (which rendered it obsolete ) is in the same class.
Or is the "One caliber for all purposes" concept just a pipe dream? After all, when an APC is being rude and unmannerly, you don't reach for a 5.56; you call in 30mm AP. At the end of the day, military might depends on the grunt with his individual rifle; I'd sure like to see him armed with something more than a varmint caliber. But maybe we should be satisfied with a glorified .22 LR, and just call in arty when the poop gets deep?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:14:18 PM EDT
[#1]
There is no one "perfect" cartridge. Remember that, in Vietnam, the swampie, muckie jungle effected the soldiers who had to carry gear, so for the same weight-burden, troops could carry more ammo. Most fire fights in Vietnam were close range.
Now we're back in the Middle East--you can see how far? Miles? So a bigger round with more oooomph carries the message to the enemy & a 7.62 NATO seems like a great idea, until you're clearing rooms & the indoor blast is a bit much. A 6 or 7mm might not be bad, but increase or decrease the range & it will likely still not be 100% perfect. When the Phase Plasma Rifle in 40 Watt range comes out--then we will be all set. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:18:16 PM EDT
[#2]
6.5X55mm
It didn't happen in america so it qualifies!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:18:52 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no one "perfect" cartridge. Remember that, in Vietnam, the swampie, muckie jungle effected the soldiers who had to carry gear, so for the same weight-burden, troops could carry more ammo. Most fire fights in Vietnam were close range. Now we're back in the Middle East--you can see how far? Miles? So a bigger round with more oooomph carries the message to the enemy & a 7.62 NATO seems like a great idea, until you're clearing rooms & the indoor blast is a bit much. A 6 or 7mm might not be bad, but increase or decrease the range & it will likely still not be 100% perfect. When the Phase Plasma Rifle in 40 Watt range comes out--then we will be all set. Yep, somehow we need small-arms ammo that is dial-a-yield. Same ammo, but dial it down for feminists, and dial it up for snackbars. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:19:47 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
6.5X55mm It didn't happen in america so it qualifies!!!! Alot to be sed for it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:23:50 PM EDT
[#5]
I have yet to see any solid evidence that 5.56x45 is inferior to 7.62x51 in military use, at least in 95%+ of the envelope... And a good bit of the envelope has 7.62 as the inferior option.
The 6.5's do show advantages in BC and whatnot, but with a cost of weight. Maybe .260 and .338 would be a good pairing if one were to start over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:25:40 PM EDT
[#6]
280 British.
Drops mike, walks out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:26:03 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
It came up on page 3-4 of the M14 thred that the 7.62 x 51 may not be the best service rifle ca'tridge: Quoted:
Quoted:
The 7.62x51 was a bad idea from the start. I agree, should have been .260s. Quoted:
Quoted:
Something along the lines of the .260 Rem would have been better. Yep. The "Cult of .30" has hindered our small arms development pretty much since the smokeless power era began. The .30-06, .30 Carbine, .7.62X51... all would have been better rifle cartridges with 6-6.5mm bullets. As an added bonus, something like a .260 Remington might have been considered too small for a GPMG (whereas the .308 was incorrectly considered to be "just enough". Then we might have ended up with GPMGs chambered in something like a hot .338-.375 round, which would be awesome. This got me thinking on a subject that has intrigued me alot over the years: what would be the "perfect" service rifle cartridge? As serious students of military small arms know, we flirted briefly with the .276 Pedersen (7mm) round for the M1 Garand, before chambering it in God's choice of caliber, the .30-'06.
Yea, I know; there ain't no free lunch, there is no "perfect", right tool for all jobs, etc., etc., yadda yadda yadda, got it. That being sed, the 5.56, while easy to carry alot of, has low penetration on cement block, the primary construction medium of the mideast (where it seems we will be for the foreseeable future ). In the hunting fields, .223 is a varmint cartridge, at most. OTOH, 7.62 x 51, ~I~ think, is a great cartridge: hits hard enough to kick heiny, while shorter/easier to carry than thutty-aught-six. What's not to love?
This does, however, create a logistics/end user problem: why do we have two separate rifle ca'tridges to keep in stock & to supply to our boys in green? What if you are rockin' an easy-to-carry 5.56 when you end up REALLY needing the penetrating power/range of a 7.62? IS there a good middle ground? I freely admit to being a .250 Savage slut; I inherited a rifle in this (semi-obsolete) caliber from my father. It is a great mid-range, do-it-all caliber: more horsepower/boolit than a .223, yet not so much as a 7.62. Load it light? Varmints. Load it heavy? White tail. The .243 (which rendered it obsolete ) is in the same class.
Or is the "One caliber for all purposes" concept just a pipe dream? After all, when an APC is being rude and unmannerly, you don't reach for a 5.56; you call in 30mm AP. At the end of the day, military might depends on the grunt with his individual rifle; I'd sure like to see him armed with something more than a varmint caliber. But maybe we should be satisfied with a glorified .22 LR, and just call in arty when the poop gets deep? .276 Pedersen, killed by Douglas MacArthur to save a little money while decreasing the magazine capacity of the M1 by 20%. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:26:34 PM EDT
[#8]
6.5 is a good choice .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:28:01 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Alot to be sed for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
6.5X55mm It didn't happen in america so it qualifies!!!! Alot to be sed for it. Imagine an M-14 in 6.5 Swede....  ......or an AR platform? 
And YES!....I have a Ljungman. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:29:16 PM EDT
[#10]
Much testing was done back in the 1930s and IIRC, the results heavily favored either 6.5mm or 7mm. 6.5mm gave higher accuracy, and 7mm gave higher lethality (more mass and all that). We had our chance twice with the 276 Pedersen and the 280 British. Both times, incompetent brass fucked things up for us and we'd be light years ahead with an infantry cartridge. But then again that's nothing new here in Murica where if it wasn't made here it isn't shit.
We should have always given weight to what the Europeans have been doing WRT to warfare and small arms as they've pretty much mastered the art of killing each other. The Swiss beat us to a .308 class cartridge by over 60 years. The Swedes and the Italians were fielding wonderful cartridges when we were still using the 45-70. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:29:31 PM EDT
[#11]
7.62x45
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:45:28 PM EDT
[#12]
I think the 556 makes sense until caseless ammo becomes a thing. IMO the worst thing you can do to a 556 is feed it a heavy bullet out of a short fast twist barrel. You basically got 7.62x39 velocity with 77 grain prjectiles. you can hit stuff farther away, but the bulet is moving slow.
556 is 300 yard cartridge, the cartridge and gun that fires it should be designed to take full advantage of that. The A1 did that perfectly. Todays technology could create a bullet longer and denser then the old m193 projectile that weighs less. As in some kind of aluminum alloy core bonded to polymer or copper alloy jacket. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:51:35 PM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:01:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryBut did the G11 ever actually become a viable service rifle cartridge?  "Caseless" ammo never did hit the big time...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:17:23 PM EDT
[#15]
7.65 Mauser and 7.5 Mas........there was no reason for 7.62 Nato other than it had to be " Made Here "....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:20:12 PM EDT
[#16]
until we get our Phased Plasma Rifles in the 40Watt Range, Mk262 77gr OTM turns the M4/M16 family of rifles into a longer-range, greater-lethality weapon. It should be standard issue for all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:24:37 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:49:48 PM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:30:22 PM EDT
[#19]
A Grand in 276 Pedersen with a detachable box mag would have been a hell of a gun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:35:45 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like my old Hakim. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Imagine an M-14 in 6.5 Swede.... ......or an AR platform?
And YES!....I have a Ljungman. http://www.gotavapen.se/gota/artiklar/ag42/ag42b_1024w.jpg Stands to reason - Hakims were essentially Ljungmans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:45:12 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
6.5X55mm It didn't happen in america so it qualifies!!!! This is the correct answer. My favorite long arm round. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:50:30 PM EDT
[#22]
.225/5.56 has killed MANY deer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:51:51 PM EDT
[#23]
7mm mauser
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 6:58:43 AM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 7:00:29 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A Grand in 276 Pedersen with a detachable box mag would have been a hell of a gun. Why yes. Yes, it would.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 7:07:59 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.225/5.56 has killed MANY deer. But how well? Shot placement is crucial, and I, for one, prefer a tad more horsepower. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 7:13:28 AM EDT
[#27]
5.56 is perfect for carbines, but a 6.5 of some variety would be nice for MGs and DMRs.
The .260 Rem is pretty close to what I'd like to see adopted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 7:36:04 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
5.56 is perfect for carbines, but a 6.5 of some variety would be nice for MGs and DMRs. The .260 Rem is pretty close to what I'd like to see adopted. Oh, good, I was hoping you'd weigh in on this. .260 must be the bee's knees for you to like it over your own 6.5 x 55. I should look into it more, maybe pick up a rifle chambered in that. Heck, looks like you can get an AR 10 upper in .260. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 7:57:56 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, good, I was hoping you'd weigh in on this. .260 must be the bee's knees for you to like it over your own 6.5 x 55. I should look into it more, maybe pick up a rifle chambered in that. Heck, looks like you can get an AR 10 upper in .260. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
5.56 is perfect for carbines, but a 6.5 of some variety would be nice for MGs and DMRs. The .260 Rem is pretty close to what I'd like to see adopted. Oh, good, I was hoping you'd weigh in on this. .260 must be the bee's knees for you to like it over your own 6.5 x 55. I should look into it more, maybe pick up a rifle chambered in that. Heck, looks like you can get an AR 10 upper in .260. With light bullets the .260 is a ballistic twin of the x55, but from a shorter action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 8:05:40 AM EDT
[#30]
5.56 for riflemen and .260 Remington for MGs, light weight sniper rifles and DMRs.
Modern 5.56 can do almost everything 7.62 NATO can, and weighs less than half. 7.62 is fine for hunters and target shooting, but it's way outdated for fighting a war with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 8:21:53 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But how well? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.225/5.56 has killed MANY deer. But how well?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 8:24:53 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
5.56 for riflemen and .260 Remington for MGs, light weight sniper rifles and DMRs. Modern 5.56 can do almost everything 7.62 NATO can, and weighs less than half. 7.62 is fine for hunters and target shooting, but it's way outdated for fighting a war with. ???? Edumicate me. Standard load in 5.56 is 62 grains; in 7.62 it's 147. More than double. Sure SEEMS like that would hit harder & have better penetration; how is that outdated? War is often about hitting 'em harder. DMRs in Trashcanistan aren't chambered in 5.56. Or are you saying .260 Rem is all that, and should replace the 7.62 outright? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 8:26:55 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.225/5.56 has killed MANY deer. But how well? Care to be a little more specific?  Just posting is not saying a great deal. 5.56 IS borderline for deer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 8:42:15 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ???? Edumicate me. Standard load in 5.56 is 62 grains; in 7.62 it's 147. More than double. Sure SEEMS like that would hit harder & have better penetration; how is that outdated? War is often about hitting 'em harder. DMRs in Trashcanistan aren't chambered in 5.56. Or are you saying .260 Rem is all that, and should replace the 7.62 outright? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 5.56 for riflemen and .260 Remington for MGs, light weight sniper rifles and DMRs. Modern 5.56 can do almost everything 7.62 NATO can, and weighs less than half. 7.62 is fine for hunters and target shooting, but it's way outdated for fighting a war with. ???? Edumicate me. Standard load in 5.56 is 62 grains; in 7.62 it's 147. More than double. Sure SEEMS like that would hit harder & have better penetration; how is that outdated? War is often about hitting 'em harder. DMRs in Trashcanistan aren't chambered in 5.56. Or are you saying .260 Rem is all that, and should replace the 7.62 outright? Mk12 with mk262 has a effective range right about equal with 7.62 NATO. Meaning, you can hit a guy regularly at 800 yards with it. 5.56 is better at penetrating body armor than 7.62 NATO as well. "War is about hitting them harder"? That sounds like a statement from someone who grew up completely outside of the military. It's far more complex than shooting big bullets out of a gun.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 8:44:36 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mk12 with mk262 has a effective range right about equal with 7.62 NATO. Meaning, you can hit a guy regularly at 800 yards with it. 5.56 is better at penetrating body armor than 7.62 NATO as well. "War is about hitting them harder"? That sounds like a statement from someone who grew up completely outside of the military. It's far more complex than shooting big bullets out of a gun.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
5.56 for riflemen and .260 Remington for MGs, light weight sniper rifles and DMRs. Modern 5.56 can do almost everything 7.62 NATO can, and weighs less than half. 7.62 is fine for hunters and target shooting, but it's way outdated for fighting a war with. ???? Edumicate me. Standard load in 5.56 is 62 grains; in 7.62 it's 147. More than double. Sure SEEMS like that would hit harder & have better penetration; how is that outdated? War is often about hitting 'em harder. DMRs in Trashcanistan aren't chambered in 5.56. Or are you saying .260 Rem is all that, and should replace the 7.62 outright? Mk12 with mk262 has a effective range right about equal with 7.62 NATO. Meaning, you can hit a guy regularly at 800 yards with it. 5.56 is better at penetrating body armor than 7.62 NATO as well. "War is about hitting them harder"? That sounds like a statement from someone who grew up completely outside of the military. It's far more complex than shooting big bullets out of a gun.... Precisely. Nothing hits harder than HE, which is what the military uses when a rifle round isn't enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 8:48:48 AM EDT
[#36]
There's an excellent, excellent article that covers why the author (a high speed SOF operator) favors the Mk18. He remarks that his weapon is good out to 300m. Anything beyond that? Crew served weaponry(medium machine guns). Anything beyond that? Close air support and artillery. Anything beyond that? He doesn't need to worry about that.
I mention this because within that threshold, Terry Taliban doesn't care what you shoot him with. Having a light, short and handy rifle, effective out to ~300m, with ammo that doesn't weigh as much is what I will chose over ballistic efficiency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 8:53:43 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Precisely. Nothing hits harder than HE, which is what the military uses when a rifle round isn't enough. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 5.56 for riflemen and .260 Remington for MGs, light weight sniper rifles and DMRs. Modern 5.56 can do almost everything 7.62 NATO can, and weighs less than half. 7.62 is fine for hunters and target shooting, but it's way outdated for fighting a war with. ???? Edumicate me. Standard load in 5.56 is 62 grains; in 7.62 it's 147. More than double. Sure SEEMS like that would hit harder & have better penetration; how is that outdated? War is often about hitting 'em harder. DMRs in Trashcanistan aren't chambered in 5.56. Or are you saying .260 Rem is all that, and should replace the 7.62 outright? Mk12 with mk262 has a effective range right about equal with 7.62 NATO. Meaning, you can hit a guy regularly at 800 yards with it. 5.56 is better at penetrating body armor than 7.62 NATO as well. "War is about hitting them harder"? That sounds like a statement from someone who grew up completely outside of the military. It's far more complex than shooting big bullets out of a gun.... Precisely. Nothing hits harder than HE, which is what the military uses when a rifle round isn't enough. People get too much info from movies and have never heard of combined arms warfare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 8:55:35 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But how well? Shot placement is crucial, and I, for one, prefer a tad more horsepower. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.225/5.56 has killed MANY deer. But how well? Shot placement is crucial, and I, for one, prefer a tad more horsepower. this is 2015.you have the internet and all you need to do is search. 55g fmj isnt the newest bullet available for 223/556. just look at the reviews on one bullet in particular. the 65 g sierra gameking. people are dropping deer left and right with this bullet. and that is just one bullet from one manufacturer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 8:57:56 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Care to be a little more specific? Just posting is not saying a great deal. 5.56 IS borderline for deer.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.225/5.56 has killed MANY deer. But how well? Care to be a little more specific? Just posting is not saying a great deal. 5.56 IS borderline for deer.in 1980 maybe. it 2015 you have no idea what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 9:01:28 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: in 1980 maybe. it 2015 you have no idea what you are talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .225/5.56 has killed MANY deer. But how well? Care to be a little more specific? Just posting is not saying a great deal. 5.56 IS borderline for deer.in 1980 maybe. it 2015 you have no idea what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 10:12:10 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mk262 77gr OTM turns the M4/M16 family of rifles into a longer-range, greater-lethality weapon. It should be standard issue for all. No it shouldn't be standard issue, your normal Marine Grunt isn't shooting out to 5-900 yards with his M4. M855 is doing just fine as your general issue round not everyone needs to be a DM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 10:24:52 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's an excellent, excellent article that covers why the author (a high speed SOF operator) favors the Mk18. He remarks that his weapon is good out to 300m. Anything beyond that? Crew served weaponry(medium machine guns). Anything beyond that? Close air support and artillery. Anything beyond that? He doesn't need to worry about that. I mention this because within that threshold, Terry Taliban doesn't care what you shoot him with. Having a light, short and handy rifle, effective out to ~300m, with ammo that doesn't weigh as much is what I will chose over ballistic efficiency. Awesome. Link? I'd like to read it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 10:28:35 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Much testing was done back in the 1930s and IIRC, the results heavily favored either 6.5mm or 7mm. 6.5mm gave higher accuracy, and 7mm gave higher lethality (more mass and all that). We had our chance twice with the 276 Pedersen and the 280 British. Both times, incompetent brass fucked things up for us and we'd be light years ahead with an infantry cartridge. But then again that's nothing new here in Murica where if it wasn't made here it isn't shit. We should have always given weight to what the Europeans have been doing WRT to warfare and small arms as they've pretty much mastered the art of killing each other. The Swiss beat us to a .308 class cartridge by over 60 years. The Swedes and the Italians were fielding wonderful cartridges when we were still using the 45-70. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 10:29:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People get too much info from movies and have never heard of combined arms warfare.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
5.56 for riflemen and .260 Remington for MGs, light weight sniper rifles and DMRs. Modern 5.56 can do almost everything 7.62 NATO can, and weighs less than half. 7.62 is fine for hunters and target shooting, but it's way outdated for fighting a war with. ???? Edumicate me. Standard load in 5.56 is 62 grains; in 7.62 it's 147. More than double. Sure SEEMS like that would hit harder & have better penetration; how is that outdated? War is often about hitting 'em harder. DMRs in Trashcanistan aren't chambered in 5.56. Or are you saying .260 Rem is all that, and should replace the 7.62 outright? Mk12 with mk262 has a effective range right about equal with 7.62 NATO. Meaning, you can hit a guy regularly at 800 yards with it. 5.56 is better at penetrating body armor than 7.62 NATO as well. "War is about hitting them harder"? That sounds like a statement from someone who grew up completely outside of the military. It's far more complex than shooting big bullets out of a gun.... Precisely. Nothing hits harder than HE, which is what the military uses when a rifle round isn't enough. People get too much info from movies and have never heard of combined arms warfare.
*shrug* I admit, I've never served. All of this begs the question, tho, that if 5.56 in its more lethal chamberings is so good, wuffo would you need the .260 Rem for? You say you can already hit guys out to 800 yards with 5.56, sounds like it's ideal for everything then already. Que? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 10:32:50 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
*shrug* I admit, I've never served. All of this begs the question, tho, that if 5.56 in its more lethal chamberings is so good, wuffo would you need the .260 Rem for? You say you can already hit guys out to 800 yards with 5.56, sounds like it's ideal for everything then already. Que? In certain weapons it makes sense to use a different caliber. DMRs and MGs reach out much farther than a normal service rifle will ever be expected to do. .260 would extend that range a bit, and increase hits at most ranges over the 7.62. 5.56 is a stellar carbine round, but it can't do it all. It's one tool in the toolbox. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 10:33:12 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This....if asked what was the best military round my vote would be for the Swiss G11 (best for its designed terrain and defensive purpose) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Much testing was done back in the 1930s and IIRC, the results heavily favored either 6.5mm or 7mm. 6.5mm gave higher accuracy, and 7mm gave higher lethality (more mass and all that). We had our chance twice with the 276 Pedersen and the 280 British. Both times, incompetent brass fucked things up for us and we'd be light years ahead with an infantry cartridge. But then again that's nothing new here in Murica where if it wasn't made here it isn't shit. We should have always given weight to what the Europeans have been doing WRT to warfare and small arms as they've pretty much mastered the art of killing each other. The Swiss beat us to a .308 class cartridge by over 60 years. The Swedes and the Italians were fielding wonderful cartridges when we were still using the 45-70. 7.5 Swiss is basically a 7.62 NATO; it even uses the same diameter boolit. Can you tell me how it's in any way better? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 10:33:50 AM EDT
[#47]
.300BLK
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 10:34:44 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In certain weapons it makes sense to use a different caliber. DMRs and MGs reach out much farther than a normal service rifle will ever be expected to do. .260 would extend that range a bit, and increae hits at most ranges over the 7.62. 5.56 is a stellar carbine round, but it can't do it all. It's one tool in the toolbox. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
*shrug* I admit, I've never served. All of this begs the question, tho, that if 5.56 in its more lethal chamberings is so good, wuffo would you need the .260 Rem for? You say you can already hit guys out to 800 yards with 5.56, sounds like it's ideal for everything then already. Que? In certain weapons it makes sense to use a different caliber. DMRs and MGs reach out much farther than a normal service rifle will ever be expected to do. .260 would extend that range a bit, and increae hits at most ranges over the 7.62. 5.56 is a stellar carbine round, but it can't do it all. It's one tool in the toolbox. Thanks, appreciate the answer. This was the stuff I was looking for.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 10:40:32 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In certain weapons it makes sense to use a different caliber. DMRs and MGs reach out much farther than a normal service rifle will ever be expected to do. .260 would extend that range a bit, and increase hits at most ranges over the 7.62. 5.56 is a stellar carbine round, but it can't do it all. It's one tool in the toolbox. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: *shrug* I admit, I've never served. All of this begs the question, tho, that if 5.56 in its more lethal chamberings is so good, wuffo would you need the .260 Rem for? You say you can already hit guys out to 800 yards with 5.56, sounds like it's ideal for everything then already. Que? In certain weapons it makes sense to use a different caliber. DMRs and MGs reach out much farther than a normal service rifle will ever be expected to do. .260 would extend that range a bit, and increase hits at most ranges over the 7.62. 5.56 is a stellar carbine round, but it can't do it all. It's one tool in the toolbox. I think that's what the OP isn't quite understanding. There is no one cartridge that "does it all". With rifles and cartridges, they have a large variety that are better for certain tasks than others. That's why you would want carbines with 5.56, and the support weapons and long range weapons using longer range ammo. You cannot be absolutist about it, otherwise, you might as well say EVERYONE should carry and shoot .50 BMG ammo because it shoots the farthest and the hardest of all the infantry cartridges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 10:41:44 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mk12 with mk262 has a effective range right about equal with 7.62 NATO. Meaning, you can hit a guy regularly at 800 yards with it. 5.56 is better at penetrating body armor than 7.62 NATO as well. "War is about hitting them harder"? That sounds like a statement from someone who grew up completely outside of the military. It's far more complex than shooting big bullets out of a gun.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 5.56 for riflemen and .260 Remington for MGs, light weight sniper rifles and DMRs. Modern 5.56 can do almost everything 7.62 NATO can, and weighs less than half. 7.62 is fine for hunters and target shooting, but it's way outdated for fighting a war with. ???? Edumicate me. Standard load in 5.56 is 62 grains; in 7.62 it's 147. More than double. Sure SEEMS like that would hit harder & have better penetration; how is that outdated? War is often about hitting 'em harder. DMRs in Trashcanistan aren't chambered in 5.56. Or are you saying .260 Rem is all that, and should replace the 7.62 outright? Mk12 with mk262 has a effective range right about equal with 7.62 NATO. Meaning, you can hit a guy regularly at 800 yards with it. 5.56 is better at penetrating body armor than 7.62 NATO as well. "War is about hitting them harder"? That sounds like a statement from someone who grew up completely outside of the military. It's far more complex than shooting big bullets out of a gun.... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Rimmed.