M1A in .308... not so much for distance, but for disabling vehicles, aircraft on the ground, communications, body armor, etc.  Don't think many people can hit a moving target anyway.  Most of us shot at stationary targets, even deer hunters wait till the thing stops and looks at them.  But the good news is the Military trains with stationary targets too, unless they have actually been in combat. And why carry all your ammo?  Why not hide it in different locations and retrieve as needed, that's what Charlie did.

Looks like I'll pass on the AR-10A2 and save the $1400 for an Iron Brigade Chandler. I think I'm convinced. Anything less than 300 yds, I'll use the M15. Anything past that, I'll bust out the Chandler. Thanks guys!

Give me a .223 for 0-400 yds and close air support for the long shots! [grenade]

BTW, SGB, the answer is "Chunky".

rg00red, I have not yet shot moving targets with my .308 but I have shot many moving targets much smaller than a man at distances between 100-300 yards. mostly rabbits at a full run with .22’s and .223 and I don’t consider it very hard either. Members of my family have told me that I am an exceptional marksman. One of my nephews is an active duty marine sniper and I have three other nephews in law enforcement and one brother in law enforcement. When we get the whole family together (about 40 shooters) who all love guns and practice regularly I am the undisputed best shot at long range and moving targets. Yes better than my nephew the marine sniper. Perhaps it is just because I started shooting so young and have expended so many rounds up hills and down hills and canyons. If I told you some of the shots I have made you would not believe me so I wont bother. I do not live in a heavily forested area, I live in the desert. I have never known combat but I have two close relatives who have and both say in high desert terrain the person on the high ground has quite an advantage. Personally I would not give a five man patrol moving over ground with almost no vegetation 500 yards away from me and two others in separate hides with AR10’s much of a chance. Don’t these guys ever stalk or do they always run in zig zags, before the first shots are fired? I bet they get tired real fast.

No flame intended but I am more worried about RPG’s and artillery and choppers and plains as I would run rather than fight against a large force and a small one I would likely fight only on familiar ground where hides have already been set up in advance.

THISISME  

couple of weekends ago took out a dove in flight at 100 yards with a $50 romainian open sight...only reason I can say it out loud is that my son and a friend where there to see it...not the first time, won't be the last.

I feel your pain...  

[[:)]

AZ Shooter, I believe you because I know the shot can be made (have done same with my Simi-auto win 190) and I have no reason to disbelieve you but to rg00red credit, was it bobbing up and down? Was its head down? Was it shooting back with automatic weapons while zigzagging? I think not.

By the way, great shot.

THISISME

I was reading Unintended Consequences the other day and there are many references to this book by a guy named McGivern or something that explains how to shoot aerial targets with a rifle. Is this a real book and if so where can I get it?

Sure many of you have read Black Hawk Down.  In it Sergeant Howe, a delta guy, is using .223 green tip armor piercers and seemed to have some great problem dropping the indigenous.  Many shots to take down a skinny.  Is this just the .223 round or the fact it was a green tip?  I would figure that a green tip would act much like or the same as a regular round.  Any opinions?  He seemed to become a fan of the bigger round after that.

Finally someone remembers what happened in Somalia.  The most recent case of men presented in a situation where the sheer numbers of attackers was a primary issue.  They weren't 500 yards away either, they were close.

And lets remember the real goal of shooting the enemy is to disable, or kill them with the least amount of effort and ammo.  I don't want to have to shoot everyone 2 or 3 times when one shot from a .308 will suffice.

You want to put them down and out of commission not just shoot them time after time.  One of the soldiers, a Marine I believe, carried an old M-14 because he liked it.  He was the only one able to consistently down the enemy with a single shot.  

The .223 was chosen because the "average" shooter in the military was too candy ass to shoot the .308, or the .30 06.

All of the other issues like carrying more .223 ammo, lighter weapon, etc. came about AFTER the decision to change calibers was made.  It is the theme song of everyone who doesn't have a .308 battle rifle.

I don't go deer hunting with my .223  and shoot 55 gr. FMJ, or SS109 because it won't reliably put down the animal with a single shot to the body.  Why would I use it on a man with a gun who is hell bent on killing me?

I love the .223 but if I had to choose I will listen to those who have been there and seen the .223 shoot right through a man without any seeming affect to his forward progress.

I will opt for my M1A National Match and all of the ammo I can carry and know that I won't have any trouble telling when I make a hit.

That's my favorite passage in that book. My advice is to make lots of friends. If SHTF you're gonna be glad your buddies show up with whatever they have, from 10/22 and a .38 to SKS, .50, or grampa's 30-30. For me it's M1A and Glock 30, 20"AR and Glock 19 for the wife.

A sniper was able to cap off 2-3 enemy troops before his location was found and serious counter-fire ensued (at least in Vietnam).  THISISME, I don't doubt your marksmenship, but in real combat snipers don't tend to last very long unless they are very, very good and only fire one shot.  After you fired your initial shots killing a few men, they would zero in on your location, call in artillery or close-air, advance using natural cover (arroyos, ravines, etc.) and proceed to use the infantry's primary weapon, the hand grenade.  In WWII, Korea, and Vietnam the squad's LMG was used to provide cover fire while the squad's best grenade chuckers ran forward to lob a dozen or so grenades at the enemy, this included counter-attacks against snipers.  In Wai we used a 106mm recoil-less rifle mounted on a mule to take out snipers, tanks with flame throwers were also very useful.

I think something that we are all forgetting is that infantry rarely advances alone in combat.  They have tanks with them.  One of the posters already said something about running gun fights and booby traps, he is more right than any of us.  That is what the VC did and they were fairly successful at keeping us on guard all the time, which is very tiring.  Land mines are also relatively easy to make, even anti-tank mines don't require that much engineering skill.

And, I think the possibility of an invasion is far more unlikely than an attack on gun owners by the Feds using military hardware (remember Ruby Ridge and Waco?).  Hurling insults ("you must be a piss poor shot") over a nearly impossible scenario is kind of pointless, don't you think?

All you guys that are planning to rely on one rifle, give a thought to this poor little kid who can only afford his one .223. I'll gladly take any rifle off anyone's hands who considers it a burden. I'm serious. If youre not going two hump all your guns, hand 'em out and spread the love.
I'm not sure at all about this but I heard that guns outnumber Americans by 2:1. Granted, theyre not all military capable but wouldnt it be smarter for everybody to have 1 gun than you hoard all 7 of yours?

I say the .223.  The .223 is lighter to carry, good .223 ammo is cheap to buy.  Also if you need to fire quick accurate shots there is less kick and barrel raise with the .223 vs the .308.  It would be easier to aim and shoot at different targets.[sniper]  

Regarding "Blackhawk Down" and the engagement with Somali clan fighters.

If one is to believe everything that is quoted in the book, one would believe that the .223 round was ineffective.

However, I am a skeptic and I like proof (which is why I don't like conspiracy theories).

Just because some soldier says that they shot someone doesn't make it true.  The likeliest, simplest and most PLAUSIBLE explanation is that they flat out missed the target!!!(hence they didn't fall).  Current research has established that eye-witness testimony is UNRELIABLE.

In a high stress environment, a simple yank on the trigger (rather than a controlled squeeze) will cause the shooter to easily miss the target if the target is 200 yds away.  It also helps to control your breathing, other wise the muzzle will move more than enough to miss the target. (Especially a moving target).

Also bear in mind that the .223 is at its deadliest at distances under 200 yds.  Please see the link provided, using SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH to PROVE the fragmentation and deadly effects of .223 at muzzle velocities that exceed 2500 fps.

"Blackhawk Down" is not a scientific analysis of bullet wounding capabilities.  Please do not quote this book as if it is the Constitution or the bible.  Let us remember that the M16 killed over 100,000 VC and NVA out of 2,000,000 NVA nad Viet Cong dead.

[b]ThunderStick said:

Regarding "Blackhawk Down" and the engagement with Somali clan fighters.

If one is to believe everything that is quoted in the book, one would believe that the .223 round was ineffective.

However, I am a skeptic and I like proof (which is why I don't like conspiracy theories).

Just because some soldier says that they shot someone doesn't make it true. The likeliest, simplest and most PLAUSIBLE explanation is that they flat out missed the target!!!(hence they didn't fall). Current research has established that eye-witness testimony is UNRELIABLE.

In a high stress environment, a simple yank on the trigger (rather than a controlled squeeze) will cause the shooter to easily miss the target if the target is 200 yds away. It also helps to control your breathing, other wise the muzzle will move more than enough to miss the target. (Especially a moving target).

Also bear in mind that the .223 is at its deadliest at distances under 200 yds. Please see the link provided, using SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH to PROVE the fragmentation and deadly effects of .223 at muzzle velocities that exceed 2500 fps.

"Blackhawk Down" is not a scientific analysis of bullet wounding capabilities. Please do not quote this book as if it is the Constitution or the bible. Let us remember that the M16 killed over 100,000 VC and NVA out of 2,000,000 NVA nad Viet Cong dead.
[/b]

I wasn't referring to the book written to sell to people like you to buy, I was referring to interviews with the men that were there.  They described the ice pick holes the .223 SS109 left in the victims and the lack of effect of the round compared to their buddy shooting his M-14.

Secondly, someone needs to post pictures of the damage a .308 does as were shown in SOF in the 70's war in Rhodesia.  There is no evidence that the .223 will cause more damage than the .308 at any range.  

And remember this the .30 caliber in .308, .303. .30 06 etc has killed millions of men more than the .223.  Do you disregard all wars prior to the advent of the .223 in your comparitive analysis?  

You need to read more books so you can grasp the concepts of ballistics.  If we use your logic the .17 Remington or .220 Swift at over 4,000 fps would be the ultimate battle round.

rg00red, What you are saying is very true and I don’t take it as a flame.

One of my cousins has always told me that you can’t stay in one place in a firefight. He said once you are located you will be pinned down with fire and RPG’s will start coming down around your ears only seconds later.

Even a small team will not last long if it is not mobile. The choice of weapons I mentioned assumed that not more than one patrol was advancing and that support from other sources was far away. In reality if air support or tanks are close by or if artillery can be called into play then life becomes very short indeed.

The Piss poor shot thing may have been a little much. (One of my three brothers is a piss poor shot though) in all fairness though you said, “you'd be lucky to see anything past 300 yds. much less hit anything that far away. It was not until later I realized you where speaking about terrain with vegetation and possibly forested so I started to wonder out loud. I apologize for the piss poor shot remark.  

THISISME

Big B, the man carrying the M14, was SFC Randall Shughart MOH

Come on, be realistic.

You would be grateful for whatever you had at the time, regardless of the caliber. Sure, we all have our preferences, but you may not get to choose. Besides, the first person you killed, if you could, you would probably strip weapons and ammunition off of him because...
a) He probably has full auto and you certainly don't.
b) You will be able to use whatever ammunition you capture from the enemy.

Not doubting the 100,000 VC killed, but many a time if 3 were killed, HQ reported 30 killed so that Congress would pat each other on the back for doing such a great job of running their little war.

In Blackhawk Down, they had trouble dropping a local with an M-60.  The knock-cown problem was hardly restricted to the .223s.

The effectiveness of the 5.56 was probably a result of the fact that the rangers had XM177s with extremely short barrels.  The bullets were barely at over 2,500 fps when they left the barrel.  A velocity of 2,700 is necessarily to reliably produce fragmentation.

When 5.56x45 FMJ fragments, it produces a more devestating wound than 7.62x51 FMJ.  Look for an article by Martin Fackler on the web.

Fast and Fancy Shooting by Ed McGivern..he was in real life quite a pistolero.
For a while he held the world's record for fast draw.

The Rangers in Somalia were primarily armed with M16A2s, not carbines.  The problem with the .223 round came from the projectile.  The "green tip penetrator" is an amor piercing round that is designed to penetrate 10 gauge steel at 600 (that right 600) yds.  It does not fragment, unlike the old fmjbts that we had in Vietnam.  

THISISME:  Apology accepted.  I should have indicated the kind of terrain in which I live before talking about effective ranges.

My new policy is as follows; any rifle that can hit a 4 inch circle at 200 yds and is centerfire is what you should use.  A cheap Winchester 94 in .30-30 from Kmart would do the trick.  They cost a little over $200, as opposed to the $1000+ price tags on the weapons we've arguing about.  

BUY THE HIGHEST QUALITY GUN THAT YOU CAN AFFORD AND PRACTICE.  A little bit of survival and woodsmanship training (which can be acquired from a book, like a Ranger or Marine field manual), and you should be ready for most anything

   .223 or .308?

  I think the answer would depend on what you're doing.

  For a defensive tasking, I'd take .308...

  For an offensive tasking, I'd take .223...

  But,unless you're a C-6 [M-240] guy, we're all issued with .223 these days, aren't we?  When's the last time your troop leader asked you what calibre weapon you FELT like using?

Sorry for the late reply but I don't log on regularly.

Big B,

Reading is truly a skill.  It is a skill you need to work on.

I never mentioned .308 or any wars where the .308 or similar rounds were used.

If you had any reading comprehension skills you would have noticed that I was DEFENDING the adequacy and power of the .223 round (at velocities exceeding 2500 fps).

At no point did I denigrate the .308 caliber.  

It would have been pointless to Use WWII and other wars in my statement as to the effectiveness of .223 since it WASN'T USED, so a direct comparison would be impossible to make!

When responding to any comment I make in the future, would you please do me the favor of actually reading my post, and understanding my point?

P.S.  Pinhole entry points say absolutely nothing about what the bullet does INSIDE the body.

Thunderstick,

It is obvious that you did not read the initial post of this topic.  The question was which would you choose .223 OR .308? Your support of both rounds is admirable, but it missed the point.

You did not read my post about the "ice pick holes"  or you would have seen that I did not refer to entrance wounds, or exit wounds.  Armor piercing full metal jacket rounds often pass through the body without expanding, or tumbling.  They are designed to penetrate, they don't normally expand and they are only used because some beaurocrat decided it was more "civilized" to preclude the use of more effective bullets such as soft point, hollow points, etc.

And as for what goes on "inside the body", it was stated that the Somali's had to be repeatedly shot with .223 rounds while the .308 simply knocked the men off of their feet.  

I have more .223's than .308's but if I had to pick I would pick the .308.  It is just my opinion and statement of what I would do.