User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 12:48:44 PM EDT
[#1]
The distances that they were fighting I think would have allowed 5.56 to do well.
They were also extremely out numbered at the end. I think the surrender would have happened even if they had ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 1:38:53 PM EDT
[#2]
Not sure of the actual engagement distances of the real battle. But it took place in 1961. At that time not sure if any country was running 5.56. The US was still running the M-14.
The ability to carry more 5.56 may have helped, but again, they were vastly outnumbered, and without the ability or unwillingness to be re-supplied, any ammo supple would have eventually been exhausted. They were not failed by their FAL's, they were failed by the UN. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 1:48:23 PM EDT
[#3]
It's a movie. Directors rarely get battle scenes right, most actors end up doing shit that will get you killed.
5.56mm is plenty powerful and has so many advantages over .308 it's almost an unfair comparison. Like the OP already mentioned, the ability to carry twice the ammo is priceless. Virtually zero recoil allows for faster follow up shots and dramatically reduced fatigue in extended firing sessions. Laying down a lot of accurate fire over a short period time is much easier when shooting 5.56mm vs. .308. In 1961 or 62 the Irish soldier didn't have any other options. Nobody ever allows their position to get overrun by the enemy if they have the ability to stop it. The 5.56mm round starts running out of steam between 500 to 700 yards, but very few shots are made at that distance in the real world of combat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 1:58:09 PM EDT
[#4]
5.56 > 7.62
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 5:10:07 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure of the actual engagement distances of the real battle. But it took place in 1961. At that time not sure if any country was running 5.56. The US was still running the M-14. The ability to carry more 5.56 may have helped, but again, they were vastly outnumbered, and without the ability or unwillingness to be re-supplied, any ammo supple would have eventually been exhausted. They were not failed by their FAL's, they were failed by the UN. In 1961, most of the US Army, and just about all of the Marine Corps, still had M1 Garands.... By the end of 1961, only 155,690 M14 had been delivered, let alone issued. (And, many of those had to be returned for rework because of quality issues.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 5:32:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Logistics > 5.56 > 7.62 
The Irish could have had 87 million rounds, and it wouldn't have helped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 5:41:00 PM EDT
[#7]
Politically, the Irish were fucked; it didn't matter if they had 5.56, 7.62 NATO, .22LR, or .500 RUM.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 6:31:00 PM EDT
[#8]
The home made brass casing claymore would have had more shrapnel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 6:34:52 PM EDT
[#9]
You said knockdown power
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 6:36:28 PM EDT
[#10]
30.06
Which is technically accurate as they were using FN 49 rifles during that time....The rebels anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 6:41:57 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
5.56 > 7.62 No never has been .. Dont talk out yer rectum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:13:14 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You said knockdown power Which was a commonly used term at the time, and an argument used to promote .308 over .223 for decades among shooters. since real scientific method had never been solidly applied to terminal ballistics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:18:51 PM EDT
[#13]
It sounded like one of the key turning points was having all their ammo supply in one shed, and that shed subsequently getting blown to crap.
Other than the bit they managed to drag out, bye bye ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:24:49 PM EDT
[#14]
At the time that took place, it had been known since post WW1 that .30 caliber service rifles were not needed for battlefields, and that smaller calibers and lighter ammo was the way to go. But so much ammo had been made lots of post WW1 designs got rechambered or forced to used ammo .like 30-06 due to nothing more than using surplus stock, not effectiveness. I.E. the Garand was never intended as a .30-06 rifle.
Fast forward, WW2 reinforced that knowlege even more with guns like the STG-444 M1 carbine and such, the intermediate cartridge finds it's role. The AK gets developed postwar. The FN FAL gets designed in .280 British, but force fucked into being .308 because 'Merica! Meanwhile after pushing .308 we do the whole project salvo thing and are all oh shit, small light bullets are the hot hot heat. So full circle, if the Irish would have had AR-15's (61 predates the M-16) instead of FAL's they would have had more ammo, that ammo would have been more lethal (fleet yaw) and out of the M-16 more accurate with a longer max point target effective range, and so on and so forth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:32:11 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It sounded like one of the key turning points was having all their ammo supply in one shed, and that shed subsequently getting blown to crap. Other than the bit they managed to drag out, bye bye ammo. Now imagine that everyone with a FAL, having an AR-15 instead, and being able to carry double the ammo (or more). Even if they would have started with exactly the same round count, they could have kept more ammo by having it on people instead of blown up. Or as shown in the movie, and seen in pictures of the real event, imagine every crate of ammo they pulled out trying to save it, had twice as much ammo in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:36:36 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The distances that they were fighting I think would have allowed 5.56 to do well. They were also extremely out numbered at the end. I think the surrender would have happened even if they had ammo. Concur. If the ranges depicted in the movie were halfway accurate, caliber would make no difference and having more 5.56 would have been a plus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:36:55 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a movie. Directors rarely get battle scenes right, most actors end up doing shit that will get you killed. I'll agree with this for sure. 500-600 yard engagements don't translate well to even the "big screen." Things tend to get compressed. In any case, that was like 1960. What 5.56/.223 options were there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:37:19 PM EDT
[#18]
I've watched the scenes from this movie where they were under attack.
I've also watched the scenes from 13 Hours where the Americans were under siege, using 5.56, and optics and night vision. The result would seem to indicate that 5.56 is as effective. The ranges in the scenes from both movies seem to be within 300 yds. Of course, it's all Hollywood. My reasoning would be that, with iron sights, it is difficult to take advantage of the .308's extended capability, because of difficulty in identifying targets. I compete with .308 and iron sights at 1000 yds. But I'm shooting at a big black circle on a 6' wide white target frame, which doesn't move. Within 300 yds, my personal feeling is that, if you hit people with either round, they will stop bothering you. I have no military experience. My opinion comes from having been shot. I found it very distracting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:41:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a movie. Directors rarely get battle scenes right, most actors end up doing shit that will get you killed. 5.56mm is plenty powerful and has so many advantages over .308 it's almost an unfair comparison. Like the OP already mentioned, the ability to carry twice the ammo is priceless. Virtually zero recoil allows for faster follow up shots and dramatically reduced fatigue in extended firing sessions. Laying down a lot of accurate fire over a short period time is much easier when shooting 5.56mm vs. .308. In 1961 or 62 the Irish soldier didn't have any other options. Nobody ever allows their position to get overrun by the enemy if they have the ability to stop it. The 5.56mm round starts running out of steam between 500 to 700 yards, but very few shots are made at that distance in the real world of combat. Errrrr... 500-600 yards (maybe) with a 20" barrel. 16" or 14.5"? More like 400 yards. 7.62? 600 yards no problem (if your sights are capable). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:44:44 PM EDT
[#20]
I'd take an M4 any damn day over an FAL.
Good movie tho! I though it was badass. I kinda liked the main Merc bad guy. He was a badass 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:47:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd take an M4 any damn day over an FAL. Good movie tho! I though it was badass. I kinda liked the main Merc bad guy. He was a badass Was a super bad-ass in real life. Fought in tons of shitty little bush wars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:49:18 PM EDT
[#22]
ITT I feel like we're going to learn that people haven't heard yet that 5.56 immediately usurped 7.62 as the most effective service rifle round back in the early 60's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:51:10 PM EDT
[#23]
Small caliber, high velocity rounds, such as 5.56 and 5.45, are so incredibly inferior to "full powered" .30 caliber cartridges that every single first world, and most second world, militaries have been issuing them for decades.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:55:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Errrrr... 500-600 yards (maybe) with a 20" barrel. 16" or 14.5"? More like 400 yards. 7.62? 600 yards no problem (if your sights are capable). Bullet velocity is negligible between 14.5" and 20". Certainly not a 200M difference. More like 50M. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 8:00:35 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Small caliber, high velocity rounds, such as 5.56 and 5.45, are so incredibly inferior to "full powered" .30 caliber cartridges that every single first world, and most second world, militaries have been issuing them for decades. Or, you know, that's not the case at all, as has been seen for the last 50 years. 
Oh, I mean, you're right in that shithole third world countries that can basically only arm themselves with cheap throw away guns use .30 cal... but damn near every country that can afford to, outfits their special ops and special police (people who's main job is to shoot people all the time) with 5.56, even if their regular forces don't use it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 8:04:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or, you know, that's not the case at all, as has been seen for the last 50 years.
Oh, I mean, you're right in that shithole third world countries that can basically only arm themselves with cheap throw away guns use .30 cal... but damn near every country that can afford to, outfits their special ops and special police (people who's main job is to shoot people all the time) with 5.56, even if their regular forces don't use it. What I said was clearly sarcastic. "They suck so much everyone uses them." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 8:07:14 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I said was clearly sarcastic. "They suck so much everyone uses them." Clearly it wasn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 8:13:29 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clearly it wasn't. Nobody else seems to have had that problem.
I know you like to pick fights with people saying dumb shit, but you should pay more attention to sarcasm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 8:15:14 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clearly it wasn't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What I said was clearly sarcastic. "They suck so much everyone uses them." Clearly it wasn't. Better get that meter calibrated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 8:17:25 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody else seems to have had that problem.
I know you like to pick fights with people saying dumb shit, but you should pay more attention to sarcasm. Or poes law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 8:36:55 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
they were failed by the UN. This statement could be used in almost any occasion. |
|
|
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.
