Pros and Cons for the 223 vs 308

Status
Not open for further replies.
7.62x51...

I want what ya'll are smoking if you think the 5.56 can touch it, at any range. With expanding ammunition, the 7.62x51 offers just the right amount of penetration with nearly the wound cavitation of your standard 12 gauge buckshot load.

Follow up shots? Amount of ammo that can be carried? How is this as much a concern as terminal effect? I realize the 7.62x51 isn't the poodle shooter, but that is kinda the point. With practice, you're arguing over maybe a couple hundredths of a second in your split times for a vast increase in effectiveness.

Yes, when you have to gain fire superiority to cover the advance of your team mates as they flank an enemy position, the amount of ammo you can carry, and the difference in fire rate might make a difference. But this couldn't matter less for the purposes of this discussion.

He's one man! He's not going to be laying down suppressive fire! He lacks the manpower, and the firepower to use modern infantry tactics, so the benefits the military considered when choosing its standard cartridge are irrelevant.

And he's on his property. He doesn't have to consider ammo weight. He can have 2500 rounds loaded in mags and stockpiled in a closet and he doesn't have to worry about how much it weighs.

For these purposes, the 5.56 offers absolutely no advantage over the 7.62. None. Any gain in fire rate by the 5.56 is neutralized by the dramatic increase in terminal effect of the 7.62. This is an advantage that can be appreciated at every range, not just 500+ yards. Plus, suppressive fire, and fire and movement aren't options here. The increase in ammo weight couldn't possibly be less of a concern. This is the equivalent of an entrenched defensive position.
 
With practice, you're arguing over maybe a couple hundredths of a second in your split times for a vast increase in effectiveness.
That is the great debate, whether there actually is any increase in effectiveness and if the difference matters. Currently, most of those that do ballistics work suggest no difference that matters.
 
I'm a 5.56 guy, in so far as I am not in a position to be engaging anyone beyond its capabilities.

On split times and effectiveness:

My splits, along with the rest of the world, are faster. If I need to go even faster, I flip the selector switch to three round burst. My split times are, shall we say, mechanically impressive at that point. And the effectiveness of one round, let alone three? I'm comfortable with it.

Oh, and DA's comment about the difficulties of training with the heavier options shouldn't be under estimated. I've seen guys fatigue and allow bad habits to surface as the day wore on with some of the more traditional main battle rifles.

Don't get me wrong, the heavies have a place, and I like them there.
 
Last edited:
No, it hasn't. That was the impetus for the move to smaller calibers. Within expected fighting distances there was/is no loss of effectiveness.

MTMillitiaman explain perfectly the main reason militaries are moving/have moved to the 5.56.............
Yes, when you have to gain fire superiority to cover the advance of your team mates as they flank an enemy position, the amount of ammo you can carry, and the difference in fire rate might make a difference. But this couldn't matter less for the purposes of this discussion.
..............the 5.56 is not as effective as the 7.62x51 sorry.

IFAIK, such a claim has nothing behind it to support such a position.

If we are correct as to why the military switched to the 5.56 and I believe we are correct, that supports my position.

The .223 will do just fine in the typical urban environment. If heavy cover is a worry that is probably more of a bullet selection issue than a caliber issue.

I'm sure it will however I don't want "just fine" I want the best available. I'm sure the 308 will do fine in a wave style attack but if that was expected I would want the 223.
 
I don't see this discussion coming to any conclusion. Its the same as the pickup truck vs compact car argument. It all about how you see yourself, what your needs are, and how much are you willing to sacrifice to achieve your goal. Either will get you from point A to point B, but the psychology of what you NEED vs the drawbacks of what you pick to fulfill that need.

Somehow I really dont see a need to defend against "rioters shooting from behind vehicles or other urban cover. Areas better suited for a hit from a heavier caliber"...I see more of a threat from roving mobs or bands of gangs looking for easy prey...not entrenched snipers or coordinated attacks by militias.
 
Comparing military needs to civilians needs isn't realistic. The odds of me ever needing 300 plus rounds of rifle ammo is remote to say the least.

All the other stuff you listed were high on my list and the reason the 223 was my choice for so many years. Things are changing now however. I'm not as mobile as a decade ago despite switching to the lightest rifle out there and removing some of my load weight.

As I try to imagine what types of threats I may face, threats like riots, looters (live in hurricane Florida), and gang attacks (gang activity increasing daily in my area), a few things keep popping up. I'm not going to need 300 plus rounds of ammo and I might need to penetrate vehicles and/or building material to eliminate a threat that has taken cover.

It certainly has given up some effectiveness in exchange for increased firepower. I don't even think military brass will argue that they are sacrificing caliber effectiveness for firepower even thought the net effectiveness may remain the same or increase under military style maneuvers due to the increased firepower. For someone unlikely to face a large group of attackers, like me, the trade off is less appealing. Especially in the urban environment were cover is everywhere.
One thing is certain if all these militaries could find a way to eliminate the difference in the volume of ammo each soldier could carry the 223 would find itself in trouble. With its only advantage then being controllability.

I own several AR's in 223. I love them dearly. I just think that I may have prioritized the wrong areas. I can picture rioters shooting from behind vehicles or other urban cover. Areas better suited for a hit from a heavier caliber. I can't imagine being bum rushed by 5 guys heck bent on getting me...........a scenario that favors the 223 and its lighting fast followups. If I am bum rushed by 5 guys the 308 can get it done albeit slower. I question whether the same can be said of the 223 trying to penetrate urban cover.

Thats my conundrum.

threegun (or should I say Walter Smitty),

If you want to buy a friggin .308 in an AR type platform, just do it. Stop making up ridiculous scenarios to justify your purchase.

You live in Tampa (in an urban setting from your posts) for crying out loud. What are the chances you will really NEED a .308 to defend yourself? You are talking about shooting through cover and what not.

For your threats, you mentioned riots, looters, and gang attacks. When is the last time Tampa had a riot? Do you actually live close to the bad parts of town where riots typically occur? If so, saving your money and moving to a better area would be a much better option. As for the looters, are you really that much of a target? Looting normally occurs in grocery stores where people need essentials and then moves to non-essesntials when civil unrest sets in. I went through hurrican Andrew and I helped out during the recover efforts. I saw all that stuff first hand. Looters rarely go into residential neighrborhoods since that is not where the goods are concentrated. As for your gang attack scenario, have you done something to **** off some gang members? Are you the leader of a rival gang? What do you think your actual chances of being target by a gang attack are?

Like I said, buy whatever the heck you want to buy but don't make up ridiculous scenarios for it. If some antis stumbled across they post, it would read like most people here are gun nuts hell bent on shooting people. There is a difference between self defense and murder. Some of your scenarios blur the lines quite a bit.
 
MTMillitiaman explain perfectly the main reason militaries are moving/have moved to the 5.56
According to some. According to many others, no. If the smaller round will do what you need, there is no reason to use the larger round with all the downside that goes with it.
the 5.56 is not as effective as the 7.62x51 sorry.
Sorry, but that is not an isue. The issue of concern is if there is any difference in effeciveness for the situation. In some ways the 5.56 is more effective than the 7.62x51.
If we are correct as to why the military switched to the 5.56 and I believe we are correct, that supports my position.
As has been siad before, you can base a decision on beliefs or you can base them on facts. I prefer facts.
I'm sure it will however I don't want "just fine" I want the best available.
There is usually no best, just different.
 
What will the roving mob do after you fire the first shot? If the don't run away in fear that is.

More than likely they will do just that. Historically, mobs don't stick around to areas of aimed live fire.
 
It's not reallya ridiculous scenario. It's in keeping with the hope for the best prepare for the worst doctrine. Certainly far fetched according to history up to this point at least, but hey, cover them bases too. The fam will be counting on you.

Kinda brings us back to multiple 223's and at least one 308 for the party.;)
 
It's in keeping with the hope for the best prepare for the worst doctrine. Certainly far fetched according to history up to this point at least, but hey, cover them bases too.

That's what my scoped 30-06 bolt gun w/AP is for....
 
basic needs

Atually, everybody is right except for the one that's wrong.... heheheheh...Anyway, the way I see it, in my home , I'll use my .45 ACP ( Gock 30 or Webley mk VI ), then if caught outside my 20 ga. AL 48 Franchi. and finally , if having to exchange fire with someone at over 25 yards and more, my Kel-Tec .223. Note that the shotgun has a 20 " barrel and still will score at 50 yards or more with good slugs. I don't really see the usage a .308 would have unless you're sniping or target shooting , besides who wants to carry that heavy babe in the streets when somebody is after you. As for the .243, that's a hell of a nice cartridge , shoot very flat and about 3 -4 " low at 400 yards , something like that. But find ammo in a running battle. You guys are right in my book about foreseeing heavy troubles and thinking about getting ready , I live in a rural area but figure them freaks from the city raiding a small town or a farm or some ranches just to show off back in their turf....heheheh...I got news for those retard turds , we're waiting for you...heheheh... dan
 
In some ways the 5.56 is more effective than the 7.62x51.

And in some ways the 308 is more effective.......thats the dilemma. I want the most effective for whatever I may face.

More than likely they will do just that. Historically, mobs don't stick around to areas of aimed live fire.

I think they will also....just want to be ready with the best possible if they don't.

...and 2-4 guys on security with .223's

My "team" is getting to the right age to be able to help out if something nasty ever happened. My 12 year old has a bushmaster superlite and can run and gun right along with me. Shoots better than most adults already.
 
And in some ways the 308 is more effective.......thats the dilemma. I want the most effective for whatever I may face.
Again, there is no most effective for whatever you may face. There are differences that may or may not be of value in a particular situation. But what is of value in Situation 1 may be disadvantageous is Situation 2.
 
But what is of value in Situation 1 may be disadvantageous is Situation 2.

David, I'm looking for the one that gives the most advantages in most situations. The one with the better average so to speak. For decades I choose the 223 as that caliber. I'm just questioning that decision.
 
Maybe I missed it the first time, but what was it in particular that made you question that decision?

Before talking to you....penetration. I'm thinking that many of the situations I may face will require (at some point) a round that can penetrate vehicles and building material and still remain lethal. Now that I understand what happens after a round is fired (everybody runs for cover or escape) it just seems like it would be advantageous to be able to get behind most cover. To turn cover into concealment as someone posted.

I just cannot imagine the need for stopping a group of charging BG's were the need for fast followups is key.

Anyway thats the confusion for me.
 
50 BMG is the most effective round you can fire from a weapon that one person might actually carry - if they are desperate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top