Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/9/2003 12:39:55 PM EDT
So I'm at the range today and a "friend" from work shows up and gives me some shit on my AR. Says they're toy guns, under powered, and blah, blah, blah.

So I kindly laugh at his ignorance, make a few educated retorts, and he continues to trash the .223/5.56 caliber. He seems to be the big-bore nut, you know, the guy that thinks bigger is always better. If so, I can see his distaste for the 5.56.

He goes into the discussion on how the 5.56 is not "combat hard" and the military should have stuck with the 7.62, or gone with something bigger. I responded with points on ideal penetrations, accuracy, better combat loads, etc. to no avail.

I doubt that anything that I say to this character will make a difference, but just in case--What are some good arguments for the 5.56 that can't be overlooked?

I'm sure I'll run into him again, and I'd appreciate some "fuel for the fire" from the experts here.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 12:43:06 PM EDT
tell him to carry around 300 or so rounds of 7.62
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 12:46:35 PM EDT
Ask him if he knows how long ago our Military switched to the 5.56 and ask if 30+ years makes it combart hard. Then ask him why the Russians went with the 5.45 round if the 5.56 round sucks so bad.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 12:55:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tivoli410: tell him to carry around 300 or so rounds of 7.62
View Quote
So what is the average combat load? Is it pretty close to 300rds? I took an educated guess of 270 when I spoke to him today. Anyone have a raw estimate of the weight difference between the two (5.56 VS 7.62) on an average combat load?
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 12:57:43 PM EDT
Rough estimate: 30rds of 5.56x45mm = 1lb. 20rds of 7.62x51mm = 1lb.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 1:00:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M4arc: Ask him if he knows how long ago our Military switched to the 5.56 and ask if 30+ years makes it combart hard. Then ask him why the Russians went with the 5.45 round if the 5.56 round sucks so bad.
View Quote
Yeah, we discussed that. 5.56 has been around for awhile. I guess he saw the same show I saw (Tales of the Gun) were Kalashinkov said they went to the 5.45 against his advisement, and how he was pissed about it.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 1:13:14 PM EDT
See if he would like to go down range and experience how ineffective the round really is. I have yet to have anybody volunteer. -J
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 1:40:29 PM EDT
Wound ballistics information - Articles by Dr. Fackler [rocket]
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 2:06:38 PM EDT
7.62 is superior to 5.56 in just about every respect. I do not see the problem, but bad-mouthing 5.56 serves no purpose.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 2:14:07 PM EDT
To Each his own I guess, there is no one size fits all but if TSHTF I’ll grab my AR not my FAL or M1A unless there is a specific threat in which case I would grab the rifle best suited for that specific threat. [url=http://www.rand.org/publications/CF/CF162/]Preparing for Urban Operations in the Twenty-First Century Appendix M: The Urban Area During Support Missions Case Study: Mogadishu - The Tactical Level I by SFC Matthew Eversmann, U.S. Army[/url] [b]Quote: You can only plan so deep, and you can only carry a finite amount of ammo. I shot 13 magazines, as did most. In a situation where you must shoot or die, it is a terrible feeling to know that you are out of ammo.[/b] This is from the main character portrayed in ‘Blackhawk Down’. That is (13) 30rnd magazines, that’s 390 rounds; tell your friend to carry 390 rounds or (20) 20rnd mags for his M1A or FAL or whatever, ouch??? Besides the weight, how could you even carry that many 7.62 mags, my SOE Gear patrol vest will only hold (8) 20rnd 7.62 mags while it can also carry (12) 30rnd 5.56 mags. [b]Quote: The 50 meter battlefield is very fast, very close, and very frantic.[/b] My AR is much faster for multiple target scenarios (combat matches, I’ve never been in combat), and follow up shots (double taps) are much faster with my AR than my FAL or M1A. I am also much, much, faster changing mags with the AR than my FAL or M1A. Besides what is the average engagement distance encountered by US troops over say the past 30 years, I don’t have it in front of me but I think it is pretty short? The 7.62 is definitely a better anti-material rifle than the 5.56 although not truly up to the task and still no comparison to a .50 BMG; conversely the 5.56 has the fragmentation effect and reduced penetration in modern construction materials making it well suited to CQB reducing to possibility of collateral damage, but still giving reliable incapacitation at <50 yards with the ability to penetrate soft body armor. While hard body armor with stop either one… Weapon weight compared to a 7.62 rifle is also significantly less. In regards to military effectiveness a select fire M14 is almost useless in full-auto. It is also much easier to teach someone who had never fired a weapon before to get hits with a 5.56 that it is with a 7.62, flinch… From a civilian standpoint the cost a quality firearm, the cost of M1A magazines (not true for a FAL), and the cost for quality ammo is significantly less for a 5.56 than a 7.62. 7.62 is total and complete overkill for home defense, where as 5.56 is nicely suited for reasons stated above about CQB. I watched a show on OLN last night ‘Training the SAS, are you tough enough’ they were training with FAL’s. Our American special forces (SEALs, Force Recon, Delta, etc…) have access to M14’s. The Israelis have the 7.62 Galil’s. But what do all these elite units use most of the time in actual operations, a 5.56mm M4 w/ an M203 GL. If the 5.56 was “toy gun, under powered, and blah, blah, blah” why would the worlds most elite fighting forces use them when they have access to anything they want with a virtually unlimited budget??? In today’s battle space (or your personal SHTF scenario) I feel true long range shooting, or shooting at hard targets is no longer a job of a rifleman. Most hard targets HMMWV’s as an example have an M60, M240, M2, or Mk19 on them, if you fire on that with a FAL, M-14, M-16 you’ll be cut to pieces in short order. You’ll need a grenade launcher or a crew served weapon, and reinforcements. If you are in a military operation, other than a sniper, you won’t engage the enemy at long range 500+ meters you’ll call in air support, arty, etc… If you’re a freedom fighter in your personal SHTF scenario you won’t engage the enemy at long range, as this will be suicide revealing your location, instead you will hide or exfil the area and live to fight another day. In my opinion the long arm (carbine/rifle) is for soft targets up close, say under 100 to 150 yards in which case a 5.56 will do great, for truly hard targets a 7.62 is still under powered. Just my personal inexperienced civilian opinion, I hope my rambling will be of some help to you,
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 2:19:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2003 2:20:35 PM EDT by Lockedon]
the best point about the 5.56 is recoil, or lack thereof. Less recoil=better follow-up shots. .30 caliber recoil makes the gun an anti-aircraft weapon after the third shot on full auto. And hell if that doesn't work tell him he has a small penis and is trying to compensate for something!
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 2:46:01 PM EDT
Thanks Omega for all of the good points made. Two comments in his argument that especially irritated me was that the military went to the M-16/5.56 to save $ (insert additional typical "lowest bidder" rants) and that the 7.62 is better at penetrating body armor (a ludicrous, unsupported claim if you ask me). Oh, but it gets better! I forgot to mention that he said "if the 5.56 was so good in stopping power, why doesn't anyone hunt with it?" I was tired of his crap by that point, I smiled, called him a dumbass under my breath, and continued firing (to his luck, away from his direction!)
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 3:16:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By crochunter: Thanks Omega for all of the good points made. Two comments in his argument that especially irritated me was that the military went to the M-16/5.56 to save $ (insert additional typical "lowest bidder" rants) and that the 7.62 is better at penetrating body armor (a ludicrous, unsupported claim if you ask me). Oh, but it gets better! I forgot to mention that he said "if the 5.56 was so good in stopping power, why doesn't anyone hunt with it?" I was tired of his crap by that point, I smiled, called him a dumbass under my breath, and continued firing (to his luck, away from his direction!)
View Quote
Well those who hunt men, do hunt them with 5.56. Since killing men and killing animals can be two totally differant things, I have no problem using the 5.56 against men.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 3:25:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN:
Originally Posted By crochunter: Thanks Omega for all of the good points made. Two comments in his argument that especially irritated me was that the military went to the M-16/5.56 to save $ (insert additional typical "lowest bidder" rants) and that the 7.62 is better at penetrating body armor (a ludicrous, unsupported claim if you ask me). Oh, but it gets better! I forgot to mention that he said "if the 5.56 was so good in stopping power, why doesn't anyone hunt with it?" I was tired of his crap by that point, I smiled, called him a dumbass under my breath, and continued firing (to his luck, away from his direction!)
View Quote
Well those who hunt men, do hunt them with 5.56. Since killing men and killing animals can be two totally differant things, I have no problem using the 5.56 against men.
View Quote
Damn right STLRN. I'll remember that one.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 3:36:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RenegadeX: 7.62 is superior to 5.56 in just about every respect. I do not see the problem, but bad-mouthing 5.56 serves no purpose.
View Quote
I agree here. It seems to be a choice of "wound and remove" v.s. kill. Which is more effective? Each philosophy has its own place in battle. Large advancing enemies would be defeated by 5.56 but small units would be defeated with 7.62. Its a "toolbox" theory. Was the guy talking about hunting game or human ballistic damage? [coffee]
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 3:44:24 PM EDT
The .223 was meant to wound. A kill was extra. Theory was a dead enemy could be left behind but it would take between 2 and 4 to take care of a wounded enemy, thus hurting them more.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 3:54:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By alaman: The .223 was meant to wound. A kill was extra. Theory was a dead enemy could be left behind but it would take between 2 and 4 to take care of a wounded enemy, thus hurting them more.
View Quote
So why do Elite units and SWAT use the M-4? If I'm in their shoes when I fire my weapon at somebody, I want them to go down and stay down. I sure as hell don't want to wound somebody if I'm on a Special Op mission deep in theatre or in the middle of dynamic entry on a hostage rescue.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 4:02:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ConLima:
Originally Posted By RenegadeX: 7.62 is superior to 5.56 in just about every respect. I do not see the problem, but bad-mouthing 5.56 serves no purpose.
View Quote
I agree here. It seems to be a choice of "wound and remove" v.s. kill. Which is more effective? Each philosophy has its own place in battle. Large advancing enemies would be defeated by 5.56 but small units would be defeated with 7.62. Its a "toolbox" theory. Was the guy talking about hunting game or human ballistic damage? [coffee]
View Quote
That is actually one of those military urban legends that the 5.56 was designed to wound. When the original proposal for the SCHV weapon was put out, the requirement was for a weapon that had equal too if not greater lethality that the current issue of the day 30 caliber rounds.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 4:26:51 PM EDT
That is actually one of those military urban legends that the 5.56 was designed to wound. When the original proposal for the SCHV weapon was put out, the requirement was for a weapon that had equal too if not greater lethality that the current issue of the day 30 caliber rounds.
View Quote
I calmly disagree. Now, before we start the 5.56 v.s. 7.62 daily debate we have to agree that the 308 had more knock down power than the 223. You have to. Yes the 223 has a flatter trajectory, it wiggles and separates in ballistic jelly much different than the 308. It still doesn't match the internal concussion of a 7.62. Lets through out the ballistic lab stuff and just walk out to the imaginary shooting range. (I am not trying to piss anyone off here, just prove a small point) Lets put (two) 5 gallon jerry cans full of water out on the 200 yard line. Shoot one with the 223 and one with the 308. Now lets image that that jerry can is the belly button of an enemy. The 223 has a pencil entry with a quarter exit. The 308 has a dime entry with a raquetball exit and the can is now 2 inches wider than before. One can gets dragged off the field, the other is dead. I promised not to type "I can't shoot a deer with a 223"
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 4:38:35 PM EDT
Well you can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the military requirement docs for the SHVC (precursor to the 5.56mm) specifically stated equal too if not more lethal than current issue rounds of the day. Hence all the claim that 5.56 was meant to wound more than kill are false.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 4:40:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2003 4:45:26 PM EDT by PAEBR332]
Originally Posted By ConLima:
That is actually one of those military urban legends that the 5.56 was designed to wound. When the original proposal for the SCHV weapon was put out, the requirement was for a weapon that had equal too if not greater lethality that the current issue of the day 30 caliber rounds.
View Quote
I calmly disagree. Now, before we start the 5.56 v.s. 7.62 daily debate we have to agree that the 308 had more knock down power than the 223. You have to. Yes the 223 has a flatter trajectory, it wiggles and separates in ballistic jelly much different than the 308. It still doesn't match the internal concussion of a 7.62. Lets through out the ballistic lab stuff and just walk out to the imaginary shooting range. (I am not trying to piss anyone off here, just prove a small point) Lets put (two) 5 gallon jerry cans full of water out on the 200 yard line. Shoot one with the 223 and one with the 308. Now lets image that that jerry can is the belly button of an enemy. The 223 has a pencil entry with a quarter exit. The 308 has a dime entry with a raquetball exit and the can is now 2 inches wider than before. One can gets dragged off the field, the other is dead. I promised not to type "I can't shoot a deer with a 223"
View Quote
Please read the [url]http://www.ammo-oracle.com/[/url] at the top of the ammunition forum. It will dispel many of the myths you (and others here) are spouting. And your comparison is great... if I'm ever threatened by roving bands of water-filled jerry cans, I'll grab a .308.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 4:45:00 PM EDT
I'd like to reiterate that the strenght of .223 lies within the recoil, NOT the wounding potential. Naturally the .308 cartrige will cause greater damage, there is no debate about that. However, 30 rounds of even .50bmg are worthless if you can't hit your target. With .223 the likelyness of hitting your target the second or even tenth time around is far more likely, should you miss with the first shot. [b]Its hits and fast target acquisition that counts![/b] Specially if you're outnumbered, like in many of todays battle situations (ie. Somalia)
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:35:26 PM EDT
I own both 5.56 and 7.62 rifles, and love them all. I would obviously prefer to take my AR in to a battle, however. I was always under the impression that the 5.56 was designed to "tumble" as it passed through a human target, thereby causing more tissue and organ damage than another bullet of similar caliber. This theory is hard to test with water-filled jerry cans, of course. [ROFL]
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:55:37 PM EDT
SWAT isn't constrained by ammo choices the military is limited to. Don't sell current loads short. Also, if successful at a cranium shots, practically anything will put the target down.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 8:31:43 PM EDT
All things being equal (similar bullet, similar range etc) a .308 is always going to be carrying more engery, and it's always going to punch a hole that is .085" bigger on entry. Unfortunatly in life all things aren't equal. Standard surplus .308 ball ammo doesn't fragment, while standard US surplus .223 ball does. So out to the limit of fragmentation range, the .223 actually is more lethal. But either round will kill a man with a heart/lung or headshot at most any realistic range(not talking snipers here). And either round with only wound if you don't hit these vital areas (although inside of it's fragmentation range the .223 is more forgiving of placement). Yes you can step up to a mean .308 round like the AMAX loads, but you can also step up the 77gr NATO OTM for .223. So for shooting humans, lethality is really a wash - both rounds are more then lethal at short to medium range if you do your part. And both rounds will fail if your shot placement isn't good enough. With that out of the way, the .223 has almost all the other cards stacked in it's favor: lighter weight so you can carry more less recoil cheaper so you can practice more generally more accurate (AR platform) just as much body armor penetration as .308 far more accesory options from AR platform The advantages of .308: barrier penetration - but for CQB or home defense this is actually a disadvantage range - for most combat situations the .223 has more then enough hunting big game That's why I think the .223 is a superior round for the typical civilian user, and for the typical military user.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 9:57:32 PM EDT
There are one or two clowns like that where I shoot, like when I had the dealer xfer a BM preban lower, the guy is standing behind me (literally) saying " ooo, somebodys building a new rifle" and "sure hope thats a preban". I just about turned around and told the bone smoker to shut up. But I stayed cool. Guy was a complete dick head. If it was me Id just acknowledge his comments and move on.Not worth a pissin match IMO. Cant win with dudes like that. They know it all...:)
Top Top