Two armies duking it out. Doesn't make any difference on the terrain, mountains, cities, open areas,just ground troops meeting to do battle.

One side is armed with M-16s and SAWs.

Other side is armed with M-1 Garands and BARs.

Neither side will suffer ammo shortages.

What side would you rather be on? In other words, which small arms fire would you rather recieve?

Tough one here:
Let me really oversimplify the differences as I see it.

M-16's and SAW's = Superior Rate of Fire,  Small FAST Bullets

M1 Garands and BARS = Superior Range, BIG Bullet

If the side with the M1's and BAR's can maintain Range Superiority they'll win.

If the army with the M16's and SAW's can close the range w/o getting killed first, they'll probably end up winning.

Trench warfare = M-1 Garands & BARs.

Fast moving, aggressive warfare = M16's & SAWs

First off, terrain DOES matter.  In a city, a jungle or a dense wood, the M16-armed troops have the advantage.  In open ground or mountains, the Garand-armed troops have the advantage.
But realistically, battles aren't decided by what rifle the men have but by who has the better arty and air support.

I agree. If the range is far....the M1's and BAR's would rule. If it is a close-in fire and maneuver type battle....I would go with M16's and SAW's. One other thing to consider is the fact the 30-06 would also penetrate cover much better...brush, bunkers, walls, etc. But the outcome of the battle would probably depend more on what type of men were carrying the weapons, rather than the weapons themselves. And as someone mentioned...air and arty would play a big role.

Hell, I'd take a side that had ONLY SAWS!!
[^][^][^][^][^]

Having fired SAWS on several occasions, I'd realize that the gross amount of firepower each SAW offers would prove devastating.  The BAR has a 20 round mag, the SAW's drum holds many many more rounds.  Less downtime for reloading, more time for aggression.  And, even if no drums were available, you could always jam in a 30 rounder.  Also, with the SAW you can turn the gas regulator so as to achieve an incredibly high rate of fire--which would prove devastating to both the M1 and BAR firers.

I would rather recieve NO arms fire at all!!
I DEFINETLY prefer DELIVERING small arms fire...


The REAL question I think you are asking is "What round would you rather be shot by;5.56 or 30.06?"

IF(BIG IF)I HAD to "take a round" 5.56 was designed to wound;30.06 was designed to kill
I'll pick 5.56 every time..(live to fight another day)

Since both sides have unlimited ammo, the best tactic would be to lay down continuous fire at the cyclic rate of the weapons.  In this scenario the M16/SAW will have a huge advantage over the Garand/BAR.

OK, my less flippant answer is similar to many other's.  At long range in open country the Garand/BAR people can at least hold their own, but as ranges shorten and the terrain becomes less open the M16/SAW people will have the advantage.

Ha Ha!  Wrong!
At ranges of 200 yds or less:

I would rather get shot with a .30 cal solid chunk than a .223 exploding one.  The difference in diameter isn't that much.

I'd think I'd like to have my M1 in open combat.  Given I can make hits on man sized targets at 200 yards about 90% of the time.  Of course, I can do that with my AR, but I want the 'knock the baddie on his ass/kill baddie' factor of the '06.  

Up close, or in an urban situation, a good M4gery or M16 would handle better, and the higher mag cap would definitely be desireable.  That's when, thinking about 'classic' weapons, I'd rather have an M1 Carbine.  

He meant, dont put it in the equation.
GG

SAWs. and the group with the fodder send the fodder to the front and arm 1/2 with SAWs and 1/2 of the m16 and the rest bring up the rear.
You will never win any conflict with out taken some pain.  

Wrong my ass!!you go ahead and take a 30.06
hit and most likely you WILL be "through bookin"
in a quick way.

No flame intended.

Well, Interesting.

Hypothetically shouldn't the M-16 aremd side also have some M-203's? Shouldn't they also have some DRM M-16's?

BAR vs. SAW: Advantage SAW. The SAW should have close to the effective range of the BAR. But the SAW also has a higher rate of fire, belted ammo, and a higher sustained rate of fire.

M-1 vs. M-16 Advantage??? Very terrain dependent. Long range may favor the M-1, but I supsect that it's combat effective range, you know against moving, using cover, shooting back kinda targets isn't that much greater than the M-16. I think hits would be more serious. Of course it's 8 rounds vs 30 rounds. If ranges close the M-16 gets much better, at CQB auto fire is usable. Also I suspect that the M-16 has a better sustained rate of fire than the M-1.

Ammo: Advantage 5.56. Even if there are no ammo shortages, 5.56 is easier to move large quantities of ammo. It's also easier for an individual soldier to carry around. If we look at BAR vs. SAW 5.56 linked ammo is going to be signifiganlty easir to carry than .30-06 in steel 20 round mags.

It's often not how much of anything you have, but whether or not the people that need it have it, in sufficient quantities. 5.56 is much easier logitically.

FYI I was assigned an M-16 and an M-60 for 2 of my 3 years in the Army. I like bigger bullets. But they have limitations.

There is no advantage for heavier rounds in open terrain.  It is one thing to think a heavier round gives more range it is another thing to hit a moving, camouflaged target that knows you are shooting at it, especially when it is firing back throwing off your aim.  A battle field isn't a KD course, volume of fire is more important than unrealistic expectation of accurate aimed fire.  

Well, it seems that the consensus is spraying more lead at a high rate of fire as opposed to aimed, accurate fire.
Then what are we doing with M-16s when we should be using AK-47s. Which is better for spraying lead?
If i'm not mistaken the Garand did just fine in the forests of Germany, the cities, towns, and villages of France, not to mention the open areas of the european battle fields.  

You are correct rainman.STLRN seems to believe
in the"spray and pray"method;for that matter
so does most of the US armed forces.In the Civil
War the South used accurate,aimed fire from LONG
distances to make up for a lack of manpower and held thier own for 5yrs!IF(theres that "if" again)the two armies are equally manned then aimed fire will carry the day.It seems that "spray and pray" is for folks who are too scared to fight anyway.The army that AIMS to kill(pun intended)and keeps thier wits WILL win the battle.

Ever fired a real machine gun?? The M-60 has a a range of "1100 meters or as far as you can see to effectively adjust fire".

Thats why MG's have tracers. Yes a certain amount of spraying from a SAW will keep your M-1/BAR equipped soldiers immobile with their heads down. It is called suppressive fire.

If you look back at every war 1900-today the majority of fire was suppressive fire. If you put enough rounds in the area where the enemy is you will get hits.

Also if you suppres the enemy from efectivley firing, friendly marksman will be able to use aimed fire to eliminate indiviual targets.

Most rounds fired on a battlefield are addressed "to whom it may concern".

If that wasn't true the military weapon of choice would still be a large caliber bolt action rifle. In WW-II some of the best trained soldiers in the world, were trained that the basic infantry weapon was the MG. Rifles were used to support the MG.

Artillery kills more of the "enemy" than rifle fire, rifle fire holds 'em down..........

MAC-DADDY, you have some wrongheaded ideas.
First off, 5.56mm makes a devastating wound at under 200 meters, and having seen what it can do as opposed to 308 on deer, I would much rather be shot with 30-06 at close range than 223.
Second, STLRN is not advocating spray and pray...you're putting words on his keyboard.  You are also incorrect when you imply the military teaches this.  The military teaches aimed fire, one shot one kill, and teaches its infantry troopers to keep their rifles on semi.

I'm not really an advocate of "spray and pray" but of a coherent warfighting doctrine that works.  It is very easy to believe the myth of the riflemen, but most cannot do what is required to be effective riflemen in combat.  Smalls arms (rifle fire) produces about 5-10 percent of battlefield causalities, most wounds on the field of battle are caused by fragments generated by explosives, followed by a much smaller portion caused the supporting weapons such as machine-guns. Just about every study shows hits are more likely to occur from generally random fire in the direction of the enemy, than "accurate, well aimed fire." Hence the importance of automatic weapons fire, vice the fire that is best delivered against stationery silhouetted on a manicured rifle range. The usefulness that style of fighting went out in World War I (really in the Boer War, when the Boars firing against formed lines, a very large target, could hit but the English firing against troops using open order combat formation couldn't) since those days the only time that long range accurate single shot fire has really made a difference is when the enemy went back to closed order fighting techniques, but in those cases the ranges that the combat occurred at were normally within a couple hundred meters, and volume of fire was still more important than accuracy of fire. A perfect example of this was at the battle of Belle Woods, the Germans formed into assault line (Densely packed) against Marines at around 800m, the Marines mowed them down, however when the Marine attack they attack as small groups and didn't present the large targets that were easy to hit and were able to get into the enemy positions

Rainman you need to read some military history.  Accurate long range fire in the civil war was around 300m.  Even then they practiced volley fire, against massed formations, not "Single aimed fire" that most of the accuracy is the most important thing types preach.

BOY! I got it started now didn't I?

OK boys.FINE





OLY-M4gery:
Ever fired a real machine gun??  

Of course...and after 250 to 300 rounds of constant fire a machinegun WILL "cook-off"
putting the gunner in a compromising position
( have to change the barrel)at a cyclic rate
of 650rpm it doesn't take long to overheat a machinegun and THAT IS a disadvantage.


STLRN:
Rainman(MAC-DADDY?) you need to read some military history. Accurate long range fire in the civil war was around 300m. Even then they practiced volley fire, against massed formations, not "Single aimed fire" that most of the accuracy is the most important thing types preach.

When you say "they" you mean the NORTH don't you?BTW HEADSHOTS were frequently made at 1500yds on a regular basis (by southern snipers)using the British Whitworth(sp)rifle.


I live and breathe civil war history.The south
HAD to rely on well aimed fire to make up for the lack of troops(the NORTH outnumbered the south by atleast 3 to 1 in most cases and the north could replace troops MUCH easier than the south)




RikWriter:
MAC-DADDY, you have some wrongheaded ideas.
First off, 5.56mm makes a devastating wound at under 200 meters, and having seen what it can do as opposed to 308 on deer, I would much rather be shot with 30-06 at close range than 223


fine by me,it's your choice........
BUT do you BELIEVE that the 30.06 was made to WOUND and the 5.56 was made to kill?HAHAHAHAHA!!!

BUT hey NO FLAME INTENDED.I don't want to get into a pissing match with anyone about a "what if" BS/fun topic anyway...THAT makes it NOT fun.

If you go cyclic to expose yourself to counter fire. Also most MG'er are taught to use controlled bursts.

MG's, real military MG's fire from an open bolt, which aids cooling. The M-249 was tested for cook offs keeping a sustained rate of fire of 85 rounds per minute. It didn't cook off. The M-249, unlike the BAR, has a changeable barrel. The 5.56, being smaller than .30-06, produces less heat than a BAR per round.

Plus if a fire team with M-16's and M-249's get word that the SAW needs a barrel change one of the M-16's can swithch to auto fire and the other M-16's can be ready to deliver a concetated volume of fire.

Try doing that with the BAR, M-1 team. The BAR will fire less rounds before it becomes unusable, and doesn't have a quick change barrel. 8 round Garands can not replace the volume of fire from the BAR. I suspect the Garands will overheat quicker than M-16's will.

As far as North Vs. South. There were great rifleman on both sides. Your blakent statement is BS. The South was fighting defensivley most of the war. It is easy to kill the enemy when you occupy defensive postions and the enemy must negotiate open ground to get to you. Mini-ball and cannister rounds accounted for massive casualties.

.30-06 was made to kill and 5.56 was made to wound. [red]Right, wounds kill.[/red] Unless they are loading 5.56 with silly putty rounds they will kill you if the hit you, in the right spot. Also 5.56 has some pretty good armor penetration at closer ranges.

As far as North Vs. South. There were great rifleman on both sides. Your blakent statement is BS. The South was fighting defensivley most of the war. It is easy to kill the enemy when you occupy defensive postions and the enemy must negotiate open ground to get to you. Mini-ball and cannister rounds accounted for massive casualties.

AGREED......HOWEVER ..I didn't use a "blanket statement"..if I did,it was unintentional.



.30-06 was made to kill and 5.56 was made to wound. Right, wounds kill. Unless they are loading 5.56 with silly putty rounds they will kill you if the hit you, in the right spot. Also 5.56 has some pretty good armor penetration at closer ranges.

My understanding regarding 5.56 as a "wounding bullet"is that if you wound a man;2 more will be
out of action as a result of carrying him (wounded man)off the field

If you wound him with a .50 2 more with have to take him away too.

5.56 was sold to the troops as a "wounding bullet" because a lot of .30 cal. types didn't believe it had the oomph to get the job done.

Look at the Civil War, even with no real medical facilities, they still had many more wounded than killed. Since WW-II the wound-kill ratio is 7-1. There are fluctutions, but that is a GENERAL rule of thumb.

5.56 isn't a big bullet, an M-16 doesn't kick like a mule when it is fired. So people will say it is weak.

That little projectile is going 2215 mph. It will put a hole in whoever it hits, and will tumble, or fragment if it hits going fast enough. It's possible that some wounds caused by 5.56 will be worse than the straight ahead .30 round. Of course the opposite is also true.

But a 5.56 or .30 cal. hit to the head, neck, chest, abdomen, or pelvis will result in death or serious injury. No-one gets "winged" in the guts. Of course with that tumbling fragmenting 5.56 in the guts, the gun shot recipient will also be screaming in pain until removed, or dead.

On balance I'd say the are both effective, and both have limitations. 5.56 may be more effective in 0-200 meters, .30 cal. might be more effective at longer distances. But it's tougher to hit armed targets at longer distances. At close range 5.56 from an auto weapon can be devestating.

FYI the Chinese and some others don;t stop for their wounded.

OLY-M4gery:
If you wound him with a .50 2 more with have to take him away too.

If you hit'em with a .50,the victim will be DEAD.




5.56 was sold to the troops as a "wounding bullet" because a lot of .30 cal. types didn't believe it had the oomph to get the job done.


WRONG....and partially right.

The idea of wounding a man was to take out 2 additional men as a result of his injuries



FYI the Chinese and some others don;t stop for their wounded.  


TRUE,this is WHY the wound theory doesn't work.HOWEVER...the wound theory WAS one of the supposed "benifits" of 5.56mm(troops don't stop for the dead);untill the theory was proven to be inacurate(pun intended).




Look at the Civil War, even with no real medical facilities, they still had many more wounded than killed.


The doctors of the time reported that facilities were in the "dark ages" of medicine.
The death FROM wounds suffered from battle were
VERY HIGH due to lack of sterile surgical instruments and disease


Since WW-II the wound-kill ratio is 7-1. There are fluctutions, but that is a GENERAL rule of thumb.

Those ratios are for OUR troops!!
Flip-flop those ratios for the enemy.






5.56 isn't a big bullet, an M-16 doesn't kick like a mule when it is fired. So people will say it is weak.


Not me ! I'VE always believed in the 5.56.
It's a BAD MF'ER!!!



That little projectile is going 2215 mph. It will put a hole in whoever it hits, and will tumble, or fragment if it hits going fast enough. It's possible that some wounds caused by 5.56 will be worse than the straight ahead .30 round. Of course the opposite is also true.


no argument here




But a 5.56 or .30 cal. hit to the head, neck, chest, abdomen, or pelvis will result in death or serious injury. No-one gets "winged" in the guts. Of course with that tumbling fragmenting 5.56 in the guts, the gun shot recipient will also be screaming in pain until removed, or dead.



or here.......




On balance I'd say the are both effective, and both have limitations. 5.56 may be more effective in 0-200 meters, .30 cal. might be more effective at longer distances. But it's tougher to hit armed targets at longer distances. At close range 5.56 from an auto weapon can be devestating.



or here either.



 

You did use a blanket statement, and for someone who "lives and breaths civil war history" I'm calling BS on the statement "HEADSHOTS were frequently made at 1500yds on a regular basis (by southern snipers)using the British Whitworth(sp)rifle."  The optics of today much less that day would make it pure luck to make a head shot at 1500 yards.  Not to mention snipers are not the forces as a whole and the effect of sniper fire is not a war winner or even a prolonger.  The standard TTP of the day was a copy of Napoleonic tactics:  march until you were within a few hundred meters fire 1-2 volley and charge.  But the effective kill area of rifled muskets allowed 1-2 more effective volleys to be made in the "charging distance"

TRUE,But the Northern soldiers started using sniping on a regular basis ONLY after southerners showed them how effective they were.
I NEVER said sniping was standard fighting proceedure at all.

Here is the problem with that, first "reports" from troops with out the means to determine true distance.  Two it wasn't accurate aimed fire against troops using open order tactics, which almost everyone after the First World War uses, it was firing at a mass of troops, if wasn't shooting an individual in the sense of modern snipers.  Take those same men and have them attempt to hit a single human in camouflage at any distance beyond 300-400 meters and I can guarantee a miss.

If "winged" (arm, leg, grazing hit, richochet) is just as much wounded with a .50 as he is with a .30 or a 5.56. Yes getting hit in the arm would make an ugly wound, but it would still most likely be a non-fatal wound.



Again, in WW-I and WW-II to name a couple of the big wars when people carried full sized rifle ammo for full size rifles. They had SCADS OF WOUNDED PEOPLE.

Soldiers are taught not only how to shoot but how to use cover and concealment. If you don't expose it it's unlikely it'll get shot. An arm wound or a leg wound is just a minor wound when inflicted by a rifle bullet. .223, .308, etc. those are both really thin ice-picks. Since the militaries of the world us FMJ bullets any wounds are likely to be through shots. Unless the actually contact something on the was through it's likely to cause a bloody painful non-fatal wound.




Yes, of course since the same weight of ammo means many more 5.56 rounds than 7.62 or 12.7 there will be more projectiles in the air all other things being equal if you use 5.56 weapons.



Doctors of the time were smoking cigars when the were "operating". There were no anti-biotics. They weren't doctors at all in the modern sense.




I'm pretty sure the Germans were close to that on both fronts. The British probaly had similar numbers too. In either case WW-II was fought using????? That's right full power rifle rounds. I bet the numbers for US troops were similar in Vietnam. What were they using there??? Assault rifles.

You CAN'T guarantee a miss...BET ON IT!!!
You are SEVERLY underestimating the accuracy of
black powder weapons.Ask ANY long range match shooter worth his salt and you'll learn otherwise.Black powder was replaced MAINLY because "smokeless"powder was just that...smokless (and more powerful).NOT because black powder couldn't get the job done.BP is more stable than smokless powder resulting in better,more uniform shot placement(assuming the shooter does his part)

OK BP works well, I can't disagree with that, but 1200 yard headshots are simply BS.  No two ways around it.  Even with a modern cartridge, this is a tricky proposition.

Musket + Iron Sight + BP + ball + 1200 yards + headsize target = Miss no matter how you add it up, or a 1 in a million shot.

I would rather have this shot taken on me than getting a BB at 25 yards!

You better do some research my friend.Do you think that I made it up?HAHAHAHA
BP is WAY more stable than SP.LOOK IT UP.Those "Quigly Down Under " shots HAVE been duplicated(Hank Williams Jr. did it in 1993)FRENQUENTLY!!!

Rainman,I for one am sorry that we have took over your thread with an unrelated topic.

I apologize.

Never confuse massing volume fire on an area target, with "spray and pray".

The SAWs/M16A2s would be victorious.
The MUCH GREATER volume of fire that they could provide, would keep the BAR/M1 guys behind cover, allowing for the SAWs/M16A2s to maneuver unfettered.

The assumption that the M1 owner will be more capable of aimed shots, is a foolish assumption.

The SAW (with it's 1000m range{area targets}, much greater rate of fire, and 200 rd boxes), combined with the M16A2's accuracy, 30rd mag and burst fire, would always pravail, in any scenario.

Sorry gents, but facts are facts.

No, not being a gibbering moron, I know they were both designed to kill.

You keep repeating that lie often enough, even you might believe it.




That has been established as an urban legend so many times that everyone who was paying attention should have caught it.

The  Warsaw Pact 7.62 round tumbles and breaks up on inpact as well. Not just the 5.56 Nato

Uhhhhh, which one? They use two, you know.

have you ever looked at something let alone someone cammied up at 1200-1500ms?  Probably not if you make foolish claims like a head shot at 1200 ms using iron sights is possible, even without cammie on.  Without magnification a human is just a speck at that distance, all you can really see is movement not people.

MAC-DADDY,  I'm enjoying the "friendly" argument. Granted it has kinda morphed into a civil war thread but, not to worry.

I'll tell you what Mr. MAC-Daddy.  You and I will go out to the range this weekend.  I'll give you my $1700 match grade M1A, with a $600 SA scope and some match grade 308.  I will give you ten dollars for every "head size" hit you make at 1500 yards.  You give me $.10 for every miss you  make.  If you loose money at the end of the day we will try the same bet the next day with you being able to use the flintlock of your choice.  Only I will change the bet to giving you $100 dollars for every hit you make.

The fact that it is in use infers that the M-16 is better suited for modern battlefields.
If the M-1 was better we would have kept the M-14.

With 5.56 you're more likely to bleed out.

lol!You cover my round trip airfair and lodging
and I would LOVE to go to WA State!!!Is it prettyup there?(I've never been there)

Mac-Daddy

Sorry I can't swing the airfare right now just to prove my point.  In fact I was thinking of changing the bet to include you paying for every round of match grade 308 that you used that didn't hit the target.

I live in East Washington.  It is a desert here and not all like you think of when you think of Washington state.  The West part of the state is very liberal.  Over in King County (Seattle)I heard that they will throw you in jail for hate crimes if they find out you own an AR or AK.  We are very conservative on the East side.  Kinda like our friends in Idaho.

Our shooting range is great.  The rifle range goes out to 500yds.  We also have a stand alone 1000 yd range.  The range is also up against a protected game area.  Sometimes we have to stop shooting because a herd of elk is passing by.

By the way, I love Tennessee.  As an ex Gator I've been to Knoxville several times to see the Gators give an ass kicking to the Vols.