Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/28/2001 3:45:13 AM EDT
This has likely been done to death here, but I'd like to see it. Was watching a TLC or Discovery channel presentation on SEALs last nite and one warrior was proudly displaying an M14, declaring "it wasn't no sissy .223", then proceeding to expound on the virtues of the 7.62 NATO cartridge. So which would it be, guys: .223 or .308 for a battle rifle? Why do the SEALS, a highly mobile combat force, opt for the heavier M14 with its bulkier ammo over the AR15? Seeking replies from those who have been there, done that. I personally would prefer a .308, preferably and AR10/Stoner type rifle. Laissez les bon temps roulez!! [sniper]
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 5:11:29 AM EDT
Actually, the SEALS don't normally use the M-14. I've seen that program, the guy talking was an "old-timer." My cousin was briefly a SEAL before he went silent service to stabilize his life. He carried a Colt M-4 in .300 Whisper with the Gemtech QD flash suppressor/suppressor. The change to .300 Whisper is not because of the inferiority of the .223 round, but because the subsonic loading needed wasn't too great with 55 and 62gr slugs. The SEALS uses a 240gr bullet pushed to something like 900 fps. That's a little better than the .45 ACP. Carried an M-14 when I was in basic and while an embassy guard, great rifle. It was highly accurate, very reliable, and very easy to take care of. Carried an M-16 in Vietnam. Also highly accurate, very reliable, and easy to take of. Combine that with full-auto and lighter weight/recoil. I personally prefer the M-16 because I've had to hump a rifle all day long, 7 days a week, for weeks on end. SEALS typically get transported to the battle zone, blow something up or kill some people, and promptly leave. They don't have to carry anything for extended periods on typical operations. Before you get into the ".308 has better penetration and armor piercing qualities" argument, it can't penetrate armored vehicles and the kind of body armor that it can penetrate but the .223 can't is not likely to be encountered on any battlefield.
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 5:16:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 6:37:36 AM EDT
I was in the infantry, but have never seen combat, so I can't say I have "Been there" as you put it. But I have hunted with military ball in both 223 and 308 and I can tell you the 223 made much more impressive and nasty wounds. I sure as hell would rather be shot with 308 than 223.
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 8:24:21 AM EDT
Again, not from actually using anything in combat,(as I was on a ship, and we just lob vw's at them,) having fired all sorts of rifles, I feel that there are really only 2 calibers necessary for combat purposes. The 223, and the 50 cal. Because if you can't get them with the 223 you are darn sure to get them with the 50. Seriously, for iron sight ranges, why abuse yourself with 308. And if you are talking about scope shots,especially through stuff, then you need to step up anyway to either 300 win mag or better, so why not go up to the 50(other than real life cost problems with buy and feeding it.)
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 8:49:12 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 9:18:15 AM EDT
Pardon me for jumping in here. I've only worked law enforcement so maybe my opinion doesn't count as much. These are the points that I believe it comes down to: When the AR-10 was presented, the win was awarded to the M-14. The military was so impressed with the technology that they asked Armalite to develop a small high energy round rifle based on that. Hence the AR-15/M-16. Why? Well the results of lots of statistics showed a few things. First, most small arms conflicts occured within 200 yards (something like that or even closer). Second, a spray of rounds into an enemy's area was as much or more effective as carefully aimed fire. This resulted in an interest in the small caliber high energy round (.223). The advantages of the .308 are still recognized. It has great kill range. It is a bigger round, capable of higher energy at subsonic speeds. Note that the .223 uses high velocity for compensation of low bullet mass to achieve the necessary kinetic energy. You keep it subsonic and it loses most of its appeal. So this is why you get so much disagreement on this issue. Each is a very capable round and extremely worthy of recognition. Which one is right for you depends on what type of fighting you plan to do. .308 - sniping, generic long range shooting, maximum penetration, functional when supressed. High energy. .223 - great full auto stability, excellent short to medium range power. High energy at fast speed. I personally have thought about it time and time again and still can't make up my mind. I love them both.
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 9:20:47 AM EDT
Escuse the lack of clarity. The military was so impressed with the technology of the AR-10 (which didn't win) that they asked Armalite to ...
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 9:20:48 AM EDT
Escuse the lack of clarity. The military was so impressed with the technology of the AR-10 (which didn't win) that they asked Armalite to ...
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 9:32:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 10:00:55 AM EDT
Seriously, for iron sight ranges, why abuse yourself with 308. And if you are talking about scope shots,especially through stuff, then you need to step up anyway to either 300 win mag or better, so why not go up to the 50(other than real life cost problems with buy and feeding it.)
View Quote
Good point, but personally I don't find either the .308 or 300 Win abusive, and I'd personally feel better in a marksman's role with the WinMag over the .308. I wouldn't choose a .50 on a dare unless I was tasked to anti-materiel at ranges over 1500 yards. Talk about abusive, heavy, and expensive. This is a tough question. I've really gotten to like my ARs, but ballistic gelatin be damned, I'm not really impressed with the ballistic performance. Full auto is not a consideration in my case as I don't want the hassle of Class III. I'm still one of those ancient holdovers believing in accurate, aimed fire. I've talked to Rangers, SEALS, and SpecFor men, and what it seems to boil down to is personal preference and the job at hand. There you go. [sniper]
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 10:14:06 AM EDT
RAF is right. They are different tools for different purposes. That being said, are we talking about Full Auto's in battle, or civilian semi's? In a semi, I go .308 simply because I am a good enough shooter to hit targets at 500 yards, so I can really use the .308's range. For dynamic close range entry? The wound left by a .223 at close range is brutal. If I were kicking in a door, and arresting a suspect at arms legnth, I would go AR/M16 (well, probably subgun, but this is about rifles) For civilians who for the most part are limited to a semi auto only, there is no reason to go .223 for an all purpose weapon, which was adopted solely for it's lower recoil in FA fire. Unless you aren't a compotent rifleman who can engage targets at rifle distances, .308 is the way to go IMO. Not claiming to be a SEAL, I have read a few books about them. The conclusion I drew about what weapons they choose is pretty much whatever the hell they want. One book mentioned a hunt a SEAL team went on where several of them carried Shotguns!
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 10:29:55 AM EDT
Both will kill ya just as dead as long as the shooter does his part. For a full auto assault type rifle I'd take the 223, or sniping or long range work I'd take the 308.
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 10:30:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By retrodog: Second, a spray of rounds into an enemy's area was as much or more effective as carefully aimed fire. This resulted in an interest in the small caliber high energy round (.223).
View Quote
I would definitely question the above claim. Full auto fire, while a good tool for use in sticky situations is NOT nearly as effective as aimed fire.
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 10:43:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2001 10:46:50 AM EDT by Big_Bear]
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 10:45:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 11:00:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By retrodog: Escuse the lack of clarity. The military was so impressed with the technology of the AR-10 (which didn't win) that they asked Armalite to ...
View Quote
The AR10 never competed against the M14 for a contract. Nor against the FAL or G3 that I'm aware of. By the time the AR10 came around, all those decisions had been made. That's why they came up with the AR15 - to catch the next wave.
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 11:04:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 11:31:43 AM EDT
I agree that one has to decide what the GOAL or TASK is, then choose a rifle or caliber which gives you the best chance to achieve that goal. Personally, I haven't been able to answer this question as I don't have a clue as to which SHTF scenario will occur. The .223 has an edge in that many agencies and all the services have adopted it. There would be more of a chance of picking up ammo from other friendlies or adversaries you popped.
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 8:02:50 PM EDT
Let's not get into a pissing contest about history, please!!! But since you contridict me,,, The AR10 tracks back to before 1955. Although in that year they were doing reports on it and reviewing its engineering advances. I underwent a number of changes blah blah blah and then the M14 won the US contract in 1957. Granted the original AR10 didn't shoot .308 win but instead used .30M2 (7.62x63mm) fed by a 20 rnd BAR mag. Blah blah blah then they afterwards told Armalite that they would be interested in a 22 caliber version of this technology rifle. Blah blah blah then we had an AR-15. The remark about the effectivity of the spray of bullets was a slight loose reference. Sorry for the missed interpretation. I didn't think it germain to the main point to go into the details of that one. Come on guys, get a grip. The main point of the report that comment was based on was in conjunction with the shorter distances of a modern battlefield confrontation. This led to the need for lighter rounds for greater quantities, along with the decision that the goal was not to kill but primarily to wound. I really don't feel like looking up the report and quoting it word for word though. I just thought it was enteresting that the US military wasted a lot of time before deciding to commit to these smaller caliber weapons. Seems their egos took some time to adapt to it. Anyway, just sideline points to the original one. Although these two calibers have a lot of overlap for what you can do with them, they still have advantages for differnet uses and I agree with everyone who pointed that out. Especially the way raf put it.
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 11:07:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2001 11:09:05 PM EDT by Bostonterrier97]
[img]http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/wund8.jpg[/img] The design standards for ammunition that can be called "NATO" ammunition do not specify bullet jacket material or jacket thickness. The construction of the West German 7.62 mm NATO bullet differs from the US 7.62 mm NATO round in that, the jacket material is copper plated steel, whereas the US version is copper (or the so called gilding metal alloy, which is predominantly copper). The West German steel jacket is about 0.6mm thick near the cannelure and the US copper jacket is about 0.8mm thick at the same point. [b]This design difference is responsible for a vast difference in performance in tissue. The German bullet, after travelling point-forward for only about 8 cm, yaws and breaks at the cannelure. The flattened point section retains only about 66 % of the bullet's weight, the remaining 45 % mass becomes fragments (Fig. 8). The wound profile can be described as an enlarged M16 profile (Fig. 3), with dimensions of the tissue disruption increased by 60 % (temporary stress cavity about 22 cm diameter; permanent crush cavity about 11 cm diameter, penetration depth of the bullet point about 58 cm). [/b]The uncomplicated thigh wound from this bullet is likely to have a large exit with the loss of substantial tissue near the exit; still, this might not be a very serious wound since the bullet fragmentation does not occur until beyond 10 cm penetration depth and, in most shots, the bullet will have passed well beyond the major vessels before this occurs. The abdomen shot, however, because of the much enlarged permanent cavity from bullet fragmentation, is likely to prove fatal in a majority of cases. Basically 7.62 NATO ammo made by Hirtenberger..kicks butt.
Link Posted: 8/29/2001 1:02:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/29/2001 3:50:09 AM EDT
Yeah Big_Bear, I can't argue with you on your first statement. After further recolection I think I was getting an urban legend (for lack of a better term) added in there. I'll have to go check that one. It is an interesting concept though and that is probably what helped it to propogate. I'll see if I can find more out about its origin. Reference for the other stuff was directly from "The Black Rifle". Anybody that doesn't have a copy of this book should get it. Great pictures and more info about the history of AR than most sain people would ever want to know.
Top Top