Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/1/2001 5:43:42 PM EST
If there were a Civil War or if the UN invaded us, which would you use for heavy duty long-term icky filthy muddy combat? Survival is the most important thing in these situations. I figure the bigger bullet will knock a man down and ensure that he doesn't get back up! The .223 is having a tough time convincing me of that same prospect. So, God forbid, if worse came to worse, would you use the .223 or the .308? Why?
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 5:47:22 PM EST
seems like the .223 would be cheaper to stockpile and would probably be better for the same reasons our gov. uses it.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 5:51:58 PM EST
I'll take .223 because I think I could carry more rounds. I've also talked to several vets that have told me they like that round.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 5:53:58 PM EST
I would use the .308 for its penetration of cover. Resupply would be a factor, but I doubt many of us would get through more than a couple bandoleers.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 5:58:29 PM EST
The .308 has got more power, but with that is more weight, recoil, and bulk. I'm not that big so I want all the ammo I can carry and 5.56NATO gives me alot more in number, which means I can not only shoot more blue hats that are in the open, but I'd have more ammo the clean out bushes and foxholes where it looks like they might be as well. 5.56NATO has good knokdown power out to 300-350 yards, and is much more suited for rapid fire up close. And as superdav pointed out it would be cheaper to stockpile, and let us not forget that the majority of UN guns will be 5.56NATO as well!
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 5:59:50 PM EST
Well I don't really buy this whole argument that "well the government does it so it has to be ok". You have to remember, our government pays $200 for a hammer and buys dud missiles from Israel to keep their economy going! The bigger .30 calibers seem to have been more successful in wasting enemies, since they were used in many 20th century wars. But the .223 has only been used in Vietnam and the Gulf and various other smaller conflicts. And the Vietnamese were little guys. And there wasn't really much man-to-man shooting in Iraq. What if you had to shoot a big burly African or Eastern European working for the Secretary General? Would these gay-blue bereted bandits fall? Or would they grit their teeth and keep on shooting?
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 6:07:42 PM EST
Within 200yds I believe the .223 is a superior round. It causes some REAL nasty wounds. The advantages that the 308 has, is a much longer effective range, and the capability to piece light armor. check out the wound pics... [url]http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html[/url]
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 6:12:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By Buddyman: What if you had to shoot a big burly African or Eastern European working for the Secretary General? Would these gay-blue bereted bandits fall? Or would they grit their teeth and keep on shooting?
View Quote
Buddyman: The 5.56 gets most of it's "kill power" from it's violent fragmentation that usually occurs under 200 yards. I believe it starts to fragment after 7" of flesh. So a "big burly african" would probably suffer more serious wounds from a 5.56.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 6:13:47 PM EST
For military operations by military units, the .223 is probably best. For survival by a lone individual, I'd much prefer a .308.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 6:16:40 PM EST
.223, because when you kill the bad guys you'll be able to strip them of ammo. They'll most likely be carrying .223 rounds, not .308. Besides, you can carry more, fire faster, and hit more accurately because of lighter recoil.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 6:17:33 PM EST
Buddyman: In the situation you described, it's best to go with a long range - dare I say - "sniper rifle" in 308. You'll live much longer.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 7:55:17 PM EST
I would take the .308 over the .223 for the civil war/UN takeover scenrio. Remember about the new body armor specs alot of the worlds' military are going to.[rail]
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 8:16:43 PM EST
for a precision shooting 308 for just OH shit i got to kill em 223
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 8:18:53 PM EST
Why choose? Why not have some of both? I work on my long range shooting with my .308 and my short range rapid fire accuracy with my two 16" ARs. My best guess is that I will want to stay far away and snipe with .308, but there may come a day when my luck runs out and have to shoot it out in close quarters and will need something light and quick. I do think that if a fight lasts more than a minute or two, I'll be a goner, so I won't need more than a battle pack of .223.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 8:21:27 PM EST
You have to remember that if your a hundred yards from your target and you can get away its better to wound them with the 223 because that costs them more. It requires them to move the man out and move him to a hospital. Dead men are just dead and can be replaced, wounded take time and recources. I would personally use both.. my 223 for general combat but my heavy barreled 308 if I wanted to remove a specific target a looooong ranges.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 10:03:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 10:08:12 PM EST
See which is cheaper, and go with the other, that way you know you're gettin the better of the two. Not really, i'd go .308 but that's just opinion. Mikie
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 11:24:45 PM EST
Neither, in either situation I'd be screwed. If they're within range of me with my AR, then I'm in range of them with full auto M4's. I lose. As far as the .308, I could get lucky and pick off one or two. But I'd be no match for a real, and well trained sniper/counter-sniper. I say give them the urban gorilla battle.... In the middle of a city, wire a building with your favorite home made boom juice and remote control. Make sure you have sewer or other well hidden egress access. Quickly unload a couple of 10/22 mags in the "oppressors" general direction, run like hell and wait for a squad to come to clear the building. Boom! Booby traps, bombs, deception, propoganda and the occational sniper. That's how I'd fight a superior force. That was all purely hypothetical of course.
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 2:11:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By Guncrazy223: You have to remember that if your a hundred yards from your target and you can get away its better to wound them with the 223 because that costs them more. It requires them to move the man out and move him to a hospital. Dead men are just dead and can be replaced, wounded take time and recources.
View Quote
True to a point, but don't ever kid yourself into thinking that the enemy will take 2 of its soldiers out of the assault to haul a wounded comrade to the rear. If you're wounded in the assault, you lay where you fall and wait for the medics, or try to crawl to the rear. Personally, I want 'em dead, not wounded. A wounded soldier heals and will be back shooting at you in a month or so, and will also have that "combat experience" under his belt. Kill him and you never have to worry about him again, plus his replacement (if any) will be green and almost as much of a danger to his own side as he is to you.
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 2:53:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 4:29:32 AM EST
Three man teams is the answer to this question. Man #1, Lightweight match AR15 for close range. Man #2, AR10 moderate to long range. Man #3 300 Remington Ultra mag to really reach out and touch someone. The longer distance from which you can keep them ducking for cover in fear for their lives the more time you have to make a safe retreat. THISISME
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 4:45:02 AM EST
I'll stick with my .223 mainly for ergos and resuppling. I also wound highly support the team shoot and move policy. Intell and ambush style fighting would be my MO. But what the hell do I really know. I have never been in that situation....so all plans are subject to change based on any given situation. One thing is for sure. I won't be unprepared, I am stocking up now. sgtar15
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 5:16:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2001 5:15:55 AM EST by HANGFIRE]
I don't understand why this thread keeps coming up! I buy guns for Hunting, Competition, and Self Protection. Other than a Natural Disaster or a Terrorist Attack I do not foresee a Combat Scenario where my guns would be used to kill other Americans. In the event of a ND or TA I would expect that our Sheriff and/or our Governor would call upon all armed and able-bodied for support. If you are after action there are plenty of opportunities in the Armed Forces of the United States, the I.D.F., the Foreign Legion, etc..
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 5:20:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2001 5:17:43 AM EST by Confederate]
Thats why they make shoulder straps, put one on your shoulder, carry the other. I would try to use both of my weapons.[frag][frag][frag][frag][frag][frag][frag]
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 4:46:34 PM EST
The .223 round was designed to replace the .308 in combat. The .223 is lighter - able to carry more ammo and the .223 delivery system (Rifle !) is lighter. The .223 rifle is good for between 300-500 yds. The .308 has a practical range of about 700 yds. Both examples rely on a competent shooter. The .308 round was going through the target and expending most of its' energy elsewhere. The .223 round/rifle was designed to expend its' energy "within" the target. That's why a shoulder/arm/sometimes hand-hit can be fatal. The .223 round sets-off a hydro-static shock wave that is sometimes fatal no matter where the hit. Speed kills - not bullet weight. In any action of long duration, organization would be required. All of us are bright enough to match the weapons to the situation. In the countryside with a (12) person team I'd see (7) .223 - (2) .308 (2) .300/.338 and (1) .408. I know you .50 guys are going to howl but the .408 is longer and lighter and is going to be more accurate.
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 4:59:20 PM EST
This past weekend I was shooting gallon milk jugs filled with water from 100 yards. My 223 made them splash a little but when I nailed them with my M14, boom. They flew about 30 feet into the air. If I were to stay in one area to defend it, I'd probably have a 308 handy. If I were on patrol, probably a 223.
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 5:03:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/4/2001 5:02:56 PM EST by SGB]
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 5:26:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By Buddyman: If there were a Civil War or if the UN invaded us, which would you use for heavy duty long-term icky filthy muddy combat? Survival is the most important thing in these situations. I figure the bigger bullet will knock a man down and ensure that he doesn't get back up! The .223 is having a tough time convincing me of that same prospect. So, God forbid, if worse came to worse, would you use the .223 or the .308? Why?
View Quote
Since I am a Civilian and am not bound by the Geneva or Hague Conventions and because I know that getting in a close range firefight by myself would be suicidal..my only realistic option would be to engage in long range attacks. I would use hunting ammo. Probably my 308 Norma Magnum Rifle.
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 7:27:36 PM EST
Yeah I looked at that website and I didn't know about the whole bullet "explosion" thing with .223. Has anyone actually seen the effects of .223 on humans? Any vets here who've blown chunks off of NVA troops? What did you guys think? I was thinking of getting an AR-10A2 but I'm starting to believe my M15 will do the job. Hell I may just buy both . . .
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 8:28:14 PM EST
well at 50 yards-100 yrds with soft point bullets, a .308, .30-06 go right through a deer, and according to a physics professor of mine, only absorb (at the most, depending on size of the animal) half the energy. Half the energy of a .308 hunting round bullet at 50 yards is 1280. My Georgia arms softpoints (64gr?) get about 1245 ft lbs of energy at 50 yards. Most of the places around here would be farely close combat with the longest shots being 150 yards. The longer the shot the more appealing .308, the shorter the shot the more appealing the .223, -Chuck [sniper] I'll just pick what I can off with my .270
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 8:57:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: The .223 round was designed to replace the .308 in combat. The .223 is lighter - able to carry more ammo and the .223 delivery system (Rifle !) is lighter. The .223 rifle is good for between 300-500 yds. The .308 has a practical range of about 700 yds. Both examples rely on a competent shooter. The .308 round was going through the target and expending most of its' energy elsewhere. The .223 round/rifle was designed to expend its' energy "within" the target. That's why a shoulder/arm/sometimes hand-hit can be fatal. The .223 round sets-off a hydro-static shock wave that is sometimes fatal no matter where the hit. Speed kills - not bullet weight. In any action of long duration, organization would be required. All of us are bright enough to match the weapons to the situation. In the countryside with a (12) person team I'd see (7) .223 - (2) .308 (2) .300/.338 and (1) .408. I know you .50 guys are going to howl but the .408 is longer and lighter and is going to be more accurate.
View Quote
This is a nice "scenario" provided you can round up that many people.. I think that for myself..I would feel more than adequately armed with my .308 Norma Magnum Bolt Gun. BTW: never heard of a 408...maybe you meant 416, 458 or 378 ? Large Cartridges like that are worth handloading since ammo is scarce and very expensive. Since Handloading would be required..you might as well go with a good wildcat in which brass is readily available. Such a good wildcat cartridge would be 375-50BMG or 416-50 BMG. The 50 BMG brass would be available from the enemy. .375 and .416 caliber bullets are also readily available. Such a wildcat would shoot flatter and hit harder than the .338 Lapua. It would shoot flatter and but not hit as hard as 50 BMG. As for engaging enemy troops..since we Civilians are not bound by the Geneva and Hague conventions (nor can we expect to be granted POW status is captured)..we might as well use "Hunting" bullets.
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 9:25:23 PM EST
Shotgun rules in CQB - out to 25 yards- 8 rounds (00 buck) per second puts up a real nice defense. Glock 30 makes good backup to shotgun. .223 rules out to 300 yards. Beyond that the energy aint there. Check out the ballistics charts on any ammo maker's sight. .308 rules to about 800 yards. 1000 on a windless day. .338 Lapau gets you to 2000 yards without much worry. Easy to carry a Sako in this config. Makes a great sniper setup. .50 BMG for 1500+ yards or special circumstance. I am acquiring the last two whilst they are still legal.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 4:56:56 AM EST
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: The .308 round was going through the target and expending most of its' energy elsewhere. The .223 round/rifle was designed to expend its' energy "within" the target. That's why a shoulder/arm/sometimes hand-hit can be fatal. The .223 round sets-off a hydro-static shock wave that is sometimes fatal no matter where the hit. Speed kills - not bullet weight.
View Quote
First of all, the ONLY ways a bullet kills a person are by blood loss or major organ/tissue damage. "Hydrostatic shock" - the temporary wound cavity - is only damaging to organs that can't stretch, such as the liver, heart (to a lesse rextent), brain, etc. " Hydrostatic shock" will NOT kill a person hit in the hand, but plain old medical shock can. While a 7.62x51 may indeed go right through a person, I doubt you'll find too many people hit in the chest by a 7.62x51 round who stayed alive for very long, nor would you find many people hit in a non-fatal area by a 5.56x45 round who died. The 10% ordnance gelatin models are helpful in that they almost exactly duplicate the bullet's travel through a human body, but they can't duplicate the bullet's effects on the body. I doubt that lack of wounding potential was one of the reasons armies moved away from .30 or 8mm rounds and adopted .22 rounds instead. A hit with either round will generally put someone out of combat, and that's your most immediate concern. Whether they come back later or not is something to think about later.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 5:02:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 5:35:28 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:55:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 6:59:37 AM EST
Well, having just taken delivery of large quantities of both kinds of ammo, I think I would choose .223. 1000 rounds of .308 took up two .50 cal ammo cans and weighed 66 pounds 1000 rounds of .223 fit in one can and weighed 34 pounds 1000 rounds of .223 in cardboard box weighs just twenty one pounds. If you are truely going to be a gurillia you are going to have to hump all this- no resupply except what you can steal.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:26:50 AM EST
I agree with 199 and Troy. If I was on my own and in a static position, a 308 with soft points would be the way to go. It will make much worse wounds than FMJ 5.56x45 or 7.62x51 rounds. If I was going to be relying on Uncle Sam for ammo or I was on the move, I'd go with the 5.56. Effective, especially at ranges less than 200 yards, light and available.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:16:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/3/2001 8:16:21 AM EST by OLY-M4gery]
Since the UN invading is only slighty more likely than a martian attack......... I would have a home built 5.56 mini-gun, 6 barrels, powered by a car battery, and operated by a starter motor. I would mount the mini gun on an ultra-light powered hang glider. The glider would have a titanium frame. For close in assualt I would use an airsoft SPAS-12 the "shells" would be loaded with 10 6mm "pellets" which would be filled with poison. Of course since martian attack is only slightly less likely tha UN invasion any weapon that is carried should be able to defeat martian equipment. Seriously if I had an ultra light I would start flying around dropping Prozac and t-f-b's( with SF emblems).
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:27:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/3/2001 8:31:13 AM EST by rg00red]
You guys who keep talking about range of the .308 blah-blah, you don't realize that you'd be lucky to see anything past 300 yds. much less hit anything that far away. Humans are small, moving targets. The militaries of the world went from bolt-action high-powers to smaller assault rifles for a reason, you don't need the range or the energy (read recoil). If you can hit a man-sized object (NOT a silhouette) that is moving past 150 yds. you should be a sniper. I seriously doubt more than a few of the people on this forum are capable of doing this. .223 is cheap, used by most of the world's armies, accurate, light on recoil and weight, and is devastating out to 300-350 yds. The light recoil will allow you to fire faster. Anothergene: Actually it was a military caliber adapted to varmint use. Regarding what the .223 can kill; Those comments are assuming that you are killing humanely, not just putting out of action. If you hit a deer in the leg bone with a .223 it won't run too good and won't live too long. Shoot to kill, if you only wound, good, leaves the enemy with a casualty to waste time and resources treating.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:35:44 AM EST
This senario is a little far out for me. If it did happen I would be acting in a very defensive manner, not looking to start trouble with superior numbers. Dave Lauck makes a lot of sense in his excellent book "The Tactical Marksman" for a single marksman having two rifles. One is a precision bolt action (308 or better), the other a match grade AR15 with a low powered variable scope. I wouldn't want to carry both guns around for long patrols, but I would not be out "on patrol" anyway. He is on to something with this concept. Standard US calibers are the obvious choice. In any case resupply would come from your dead enemy. Use what he is using. Best. Watch-Six
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:42:53 AM EST
I would choose the .223 for modern style warfare/combat. I could carry a lot more ammo and fire a rifle rapidly with better accuracy than I could any .308 In modern combat, I believe that shots over 300 - 400 yards would be much more unlikely than in years past. Just my .02 Tyler
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 9:01:16 AM EST
I'll take the .223 and my AR's, but I will always keep my Garand close by....in 30.06 of course !! WHAT A COMBO !!!! [x]
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 9:10:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By Watch-Six: This senario is a little far out for me. If it did happen I would be acting in a very defensive manner, not looking to start trouble with superior numbers. Dave Lauck makes a lot of sense in his excellent book "The Tactical Marksman" for a single marksman having two rifles. One is a precision bolt action (308 or better), the other a match grade AR15 with a low powered variable scope. I wouldn't want to carry both guns around for long patrols, but I would not be out "on patrol" anyway. He is on to something with this concept. Standard US calibers are the obvious choice. In any case resupply would come from your dead enemy. Use what he is using. Best. Watch-Six
View Quote
The problem here is carrying two rifles and the weight of two different kinds of ammo. You see, you can be as defensive as you want, but the fact is if you dont move, it is only a matter of time before superior forces concentrate against you. Even if you only intend to fight if you accidentally bump into someone and cant avoid it, you must keep moving. What ya rolling your eyes for SGB?
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 1:34:41 PM EST
If anything happens that requires us as civilians to be going around armed, I'm going to grab my AR15 for two reasons. 1. This is what I was trained on in the Army. I feel very comfortble with it and can operate it under any conditions. 2. It uses the same ammuntion as the weapons most every policeman will be using, and 90% of any soldiers on the ground. Even if you are just backing them up, it is nice to know if someone goes down, you can use their ammo in your weapon.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 2:01:37 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 2:23:01 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 2:31:16 PM EST
Civil war, chaos, breakdown of society. I'd just as soon grab a 10-22 several 1000's rounds and go to the mountains. In that situation you can only count on what you can carry.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 2:52:00 PM EST
Since I live in a Suburban area I highly doubt I would ever engage target further than 100 yards, and calling it 100 would be generous. I would opt for my 20 inch Bushmaster and my 12 gauge. But I would not rule out my SAR-1 till the ammo is gone. So judging by the question my answer would be the .223. Six
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 3:13:54 PM EST
rg00red, LOL! Your last post can’t be serious. With my scoped AR10 anything with 700 yards is an easy target and within 500 yards and closer is a sure thing. You must either be a piss poor shot or you have very little experience. A man sized target is huge. In my only my wife’s third trip to the range with my AR10 she is board shooting the 6” gong at 500 yards because she almost never misses. My two kids are almost as good and I am much better. If a target much smaller than a man is moving in my direction within 500 yards the chances of me missing are very very small and the same is likely for many others here on the board. A good .308 with a good scope and sniper quality rings and a few thousand rounds of practice and good reading like Ultimate Sniper can work wonders for most. No flame intended. THISISME
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 4:45:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/3/2001 5:12:21 PM EST by rg00red]
Thisisme: Have you shot at a moving target? That is what I stated in my post, or did you read that part? Read the other part about thing being hard to see beyond 300 yds. If you sit and stare through a scope all day you won't see all the other guys moving around you. And no I'm not a piss poor shot, I shoot at very small groundhogs from hundreds of yards away (longest shot was 543 paces, rounded that would be aroung 530 yds.). That was with an AR-15 by the by. I don't suppose you've ever noticed the tendency of humans to hunch over and run low when being fired at? Notice that troops zig-zag to advance in hostile territory under fire? You wouldn't have noticed these things because you were shooting at SILHOUETTES!! Big difference between an FBI target and an actual human, sorry to burst your "I'm a great shot and can hit a man at 700 yds. bubble." If you are so spectacular, why aren't you a sniper? 700 yds. is about the max range that most snipers will engage anything living. That is why it a such a big deal when SSGT Hathcock makes a 1000 yrd. shot. SHOOTING ON A RANGE AT SILHOUETTES AND SHOOTING AT LIVING HUMANS IN COMBAT ARE 2 VERY, VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!! Oh, and I have something you are apparently lacking, combat experience. Not to be a flame or anything. Addendum: I also live in a wooded area. The longest shot I ever took was across a levy at around 650 yds. offhand at a deer. It died shortly thereafter. That is the farthest I've ever seen anything. In the woods around here You'd be lucky to see a camoflaged soldier before stepping on him. The only places you would have long shots would be shooting down trails or roads, both of which one should avoid like the plague in war. Maybe you can hit a running, bobbing, ducking, and weaving human while he and his buddies shoot at you with automatic weapons. I can't, and I still seriously doubt many others can either. If you shoot the AR-10 well, go with it. Most people shoot light recoil weapons better and the .223 has the ammo advantage.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top