Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/17/2016 5:29:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/17/2016 5:29:19 PM EST by Old_Painless]
The Netflix film, Siege of Jadotville, had some nice scenes with Irish soldiers using their FAL's in a dug-in position to fend off waves of attackers.

*Spoiler alert*

I wanted to ask if this movie might highlight some aspects of the grand ole 5.56 vs 7.62 debate.
From my limited knowledge, part of the argument for 7.62 is it gives you more knock down power farther out, which the Irish in the movie seemed to benefit from a great deal, with the open ground and their apprehension about allowing the attackers too close.
On the other hand, the 5.56 is lighter and allows you to carry twice as much ammo. And running out of ammo was a big part of the Irish surrender.

Do you think the Irish might have been better served with twice as much 5.56?
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 11:48:44 AM EST
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.

Link Posted: 12/17/2016 12:38:53 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 12:48:23 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 12:58:09 PM EST
5.56 > 7.62
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 4:10:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/17/2016 4:15:11 PM EST by lysanderxiii]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wesr228:
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.
View Quote

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.)
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 4:32:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Click2Boom:
Logistics > 5.56 > 7.62
View Quote




The Irish could have had 87 million rounds, and it wouldn't have helped.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 4:41:00 PM EST
Politically, the Irish were fucked; it didn't matter if they had 5.56, 7.62 NATO, .22LR, or .500 RUM.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 5:31:00 PM EST
The home made brass casing claymore would have had more shrapnel.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 5:34:52 PM EST
You said knockdown power
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 5:36:28 PM EST
30.06

Which is technically accurate as they were using FN 49 rifles during that time....The rebels anyway.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 5:41:57 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Click2Boom:
5.56 > 7.62
View Quote



No never has been .. Dont talk out yer rectum.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:13:14 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Currahee:
You said knockdown power
View Quote

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. 

Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:18:51 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:24:49 PM EST
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. 
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:32:11 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CaverX:
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.
View Quote

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. 
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:36:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By shadohh:
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.
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:36:55 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By borderpatrol:
It's a movie. Directors rarely get battle scenes right, most actors end up doing shit that will get you killed.
View Quote


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?

Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:37:19 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:41:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By borderpatrol:
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.
View Quote


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).
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:44:44 PM EST
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
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:47:57 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ak4784:
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
View Quote

Was a super bad-ass in real life. Fought in tons of shitty little bush wars.  
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:49:18 PM EST
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. 
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:51:10 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:55:05 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By heavymetal762:


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).
View Quote


Bullet velocity is negligible between 14.5" and 20".

Certainly not a 200M difference.

More like 50M.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 7:00:35 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Nameless_Hobo:
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.
View Quote

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. 
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 7:04:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/17/2016 7:05:26 PM EST by Nameless_Hobo]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Madcap72:

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. 
View Quote


What I said was clearly sarcastic.

"They suck so much everyone uses them."
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 7:07:14 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Nameless_Hobo:


What I said was clearly sarcastic.

"They suck so much everyone uses them."
View Quote

Clearly it wasn't. 
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 7:13:29 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Madcap72:

Clearly it wasn't. 
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 7:15:14 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Madcap72:

Clearly it wasn't. 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
Originally Posted By Nameless_Hobo:


What I said was clearly sarcastic.

"They suck so much everyone uses them."

Clearly it wasn't. 


Better get that meter calibrated.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 7:17:25 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Nameless_Hobo:


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.
View Quote

Or poes law. 
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 7:36:55 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wesr228:


 they were failed by the UN.
View Quote

This statement could be used in almost any occasion.
Top Top