5.56 or 7.62 ??

[7idl]

which is a better cartridge?


yes yes.. I know.... depends on application.


so, lets see here..


base your vote on the last 100 years of military use.



after you vote, I might suggest you take a look at this interesting article.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htm

[Marlin]

I went with the 7.62, I know, I know. :roll:

There are just certain fact's that one just cannot get around. The article confirmed this.

[bbadmin]

Well we one two wars with the 30/06. We didn't do as well after that. It is apparent that the 7.62 in the hands of a trained marksman is far superior to the 5.56. (Of course we don't seem to be teaching marksmanship like we used to either.) Sgt. York did real well with a bolt action 30/06. And the Garand was good enough for a truly global conflict.

During WWII we had most of our inventory eating 30/06. The Garand, the BAR, the .30 machine gun. And we taught marksmanship - one shot, one kill - to everyone. The 30/06 delivers that kind of power and accuracy. I doubt we'll see the /06 in the inventory again.

The 5.56 is a comprimise. It works okay, but the current trend in the military community seems to be leading back to the 7.62.

[Gun Shot]

I went with 7.62, but I'd rather not be hit by either of them :D

[AK47 Ranger]

762 all the way.....

that round goes thru the tree that the enemy is hiding behind!

[Obiwan]

7.62 HAnds down for barrier penetration

7.62 for shots over 300 yds

5.56 for Mout and CQB

5.56 is lighter....carry more ammo without hurting yourself

And now we have the 6.8 x 43...a compromise!

[7idl]

9 votes is all we have so far?

C"mon people!

[GunDog]

7.62, even if it means reducing ammo availablility by 1/2. The psychological disadvantage of having one's cover being breached could change the outcome........ or at least, get a quick change of situation.

[AK47 Ranger]

plus battlefield pickup would be easier with 7.62 than with 5.56......

[Jacobite]

hoping you mean 7.62x51 Nato not 7.62x39 commy-bloc.

[kancoyote]

Thought you meant 7.62x39. In that case, I change my vote.

[Not_A_Llama]

In the age of urban combat, the increased loadouts, high capacity, high controllability, severe wounding, and lower penetration permitted by 5.56mm give it the edge.

IMHO.

[ruger]

7.62x39 over 5.56 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
7.62x51 over 7.62x39 every day of the week, and twice on holidays.

Give me an M14 any day...

-Mike

[Hoser]

223 here.

Put 500 rounds of 308 in your backpack and carry it around for a day. A week later, do the same with 500 rounds of 223.

Add FMJ into the equasion and both are equal (nearly worthless) on soft targets. Little hole in, little hole out.

I dont fall into the typical american "bigger must be better" trap.

[shilly]

Have to kind of agree with Tom on the FMJ Arguement. Plus a .223 FMJ - as I understand - has a better tumble upon impact due to its lower mass. (More internal damage and a better chance that it would not make a hole out.


I still prefer the 7.62 - especially at any distance over 200 yards - plus the ability to puncture enemy helments (verses denting them) would be a definite plus.

If I would need to carry personal arms into a conflict, I would use my M1A for long distance shooting, the Socom 16 M1A for shorter distance shooting and run away and hide with the AR-15 and all of the ammo I could carry.

Hard to argue about the weight issue - you get much more shots per pound with the .223 - and a good shot will kill someone just as good as a .308.

[Not_A_Llama]

5.56 does better than tumble; it FRAGMENTS.

*Waiting patiently for some loon to pipe up "5.56 may fragment, but .30 never shrinks!"*

[Marlin]

5.56 does better than tumble; it FRAGMENTS.

*Waiting patiently for some loon to pipe up "5.56 may fragment, but .30 never shrinks!"*


Good enough.



:lol:

[GearHead]

I voted fot the 223.. ... just because...

[BadShot]

The comments about 30/06 and 30 cal from previous wars and conflicts just CANNOT be applied to modern combat. The same can be said about .45 and .50 cal muzzle loaders, 30/30 etc... They were great for their time, but times change.

5.56 is a decent round when facing an unarmored or out in the open target at ranges below 300m, but the facts of modern urban conflict really point out the failures of this round. VERY POOR penetration being the most glaring issue.

Is 7.62 NATO the answer... yes and no. This round has been relegated to more of a "support" weapon round where the US Army at least is concerned in the last 40 years. You can see this is the weapon type selection of the Army (and NATO as a matter of fact)... M60 machinegun, M24 Sniper Rifle and the variations of the M60 that are support/suppression weapons on vehicles.

There are rounds which are going to deliver the performance of the heavier 7.62 and the key factors of the 5.56 round... weight reduction and brutal wounding.

6.8mm comes to mind, but I'm not a ballistics expert. I've read tons of material on this exact subject and having first hand experiences with the short comings of the 5.56 round, I'm still a fair supporter of the 5.56 bullet. I just can't abide the thought that we are seeing such poor performance from the round (but more specifically the weapon platform- M4) in our current conflicts. You can see time and again that with the types of conflicts that we are engaged in over the last 15 years that 5.56 just isn't cutting it any more.

The depressing part is that the US and NATO seem to want to keep going down this path with their new weapon systems (XM-8 and G36 systems) and for some reason that I can't fathom, are passing on intermediate calibers like 6.8mm. With so many advances in weapon weight reductions (conversely cancelled out because of accessorization), round performance improvements, if the only choices left to us are 5.56 or 7.62, then 7.62 has to be the only rational choice.

There was a nice comment about the advantages of 5.56 in urban conflict due to low secondary penetration; I can't agree with that being an advantage for the 5.56. There are variations on the basic FMJ and hollow point rounds, such as the frangible classes.

Nope, long as short, given these options 7.62 is the only real choice.

[SITHLORD]

I won't change the minds of the hard core 7.62 people. I really think it depend's on application. I like 5.56 & the system we use it in [postal]