DeusComedis
Inactive
Ok, I realize this will get a lot of heat here, but hear me out.
Both of them major wars of the 20th century were fought mainly with full power cartridges. I with bolt actions and II with semis. The logical next step seemed to be a full auto version (AKA the Battle Rifle). This took the form of the FN FAL, which probably would have become the universal rifle of the West, if the US had adopted it (and didn't dislike foreign designs so much). Eventually though, it became apparent that a shoulder fired, full power, full-auto rifle was essentially uncontrollable.
Enter the 5.56 (or any other intermediate cartridge). It was a compromise that had more power and range than an SMG, but still allowed for full auto fire. Put that in a semi, and the compromise is lost, because you have given up range and power, and gained nothing. Yes it is a little lighter, but any fit, trained, military age male could carry a sufficient amount of 7.62 NATO (and did for decades). Aside from from that, the 7.62 is superior in range, power, and penetration. (I realize that soliers/marines engage a lot of target in semi, but the ability to go full auto, especially in 3-4 round bursts is really the whole point of a select fire weapons.
So, unless you are a really small person, if you are limited to semi-auto, is it really a good idea to choose 5.56 if you are going up against determined and well armed opponents, who may or may not be armored (purely from a combat effectiveness POV, excluding ammo availability/cost). Have we kind of deluded ourselves that the AR-15 is a good combat platform because that is what we are limited to by law, or is it really the better choice over a true battle rifle.
(Edit: I do realize that the issue of recoil/follow up shots exists, but that is really only an issue in QCB, as 7.62 follow ups are quick enough at range. In that sense, the 5.56 really is the best replacement for the SMG (same package, bigger punch), but I'm referring more to the middle ranges.
Edit: To clarify, by a "real fight" I mean against a disciplined, well armed and equipped for (essentially soldiers) , not just a quick SD scenario, or robbers, or riots. Enemies that will use cover and movement.
Both of them major wars of the 20th century were fought mainly with full power cartridges. I with bolt actions and II with semis. The logical next step seemed to be a full auto version (AKA the Battle Rifle). This took the form of the FN FAL, which probably would have become the universal rifle of the West, if the US had adopted it (and didn't dislike foreign designs so much). Eventually though, it became apparent that a shoulder fired, full power, full-auto rifle was essentially uncontrollable.
Enter the 5.56 (or any other intermediate cartridge). It was a compromise that had more power and range than an SMG, but still allowed for full auto fire. Put that in a semi, and the compromise is lost, because you have given up range and power, and gained nothing. Yes it is a little lighter, but any fit, trained, military age male could carry a sufficient amount of 7.62 NATO (and did for decades). Aside from from that, the 7.62 is superior in range, power, and penetration. (I realize that soliers/marines engage a lot of target in semi, but the ability to go full auto, especially in 3-4 round bursts is really the whole point of a select fire weapons.
So, unless you are a really small person, if you are limited to semi-auto, is it really a good idea to choose 5.56 if you are going up against determined and well armed opponents, who may or may not be armored (purely from a combat effectiveness POV, excluding ammo availability/cost). Have we kind of deluded ourselves that the AR-15 is a good combat platform because that is what we are limited to by law, or is it really the better choice over a true battle rifle.
(Edit: I do realize that the issue of recoil/follow up shots exists, but that is really only an issue in QCB, as 7.62 follow ups are quick enough at range. In that sense, the 5.56 really is the best replacement for the SMG (same package, bigger punch), but I'm referring more to the middle ranges.
Edit: To clarify, by a "real fight" I mean against a disciplined, well armed and equipped for (essentially soldiers) , not just a quick SD scenario, or robbers, or riots. Enemies that will use cover and movement.
Last edited: