some .223 vs .308 questions

B

brother A

Inactive
I am looking to purchase a general purpose, semi-auto,
counter-sniper, etc rifle. have narrowed search to ar-15 variant
or m1a scout.
* first question - comparison of .223 vs .308
terminal ballistics at and up to 300 yards - is either really better?
how?
*second question - what accuracy is to be expected from
stock ar-15 vs. m1a scout vs. say, my stock remington 700 BDL
(7 mm rem mag)
*would say a bushmaster v-match or similar ar-15 be a
reasonable sniper/counter-sniper weapon? m1a scout??
please forgive the long questions but this decision has been bugging me for awhile.
thanks in advance
:)
brother a
 
No comparison

(sarcastic mode on) The .223 is a worthless round for any combat other than rockchucks, groundhogs and varmits less than 35 pounds at ranges not to exceed 200 yards. It has problems penetrating even a 2 x 4 at ranges over 150 yards and cannot be relied to create casualties at those ranges or greater. (sarcastic mode off)

People get all bent out of shape over this topic so I figured to open it with humor.

Using 69 gr Federal vs 168 grain, the former starts off at about 2850 FPS and drops down to 2000 at 300 yards with 5" of drop using an optimum 270 yard zero. At no time is the bullet path more than 5" from the aiming point. Wind drift is 8.5 " with 10 MPH cross.

The 168 starts off at 2600 FPS when loaded for op rod rifles. This also drops off to 2000 FPS at 300 with the same 5" of drop when zeroed at 250 yards. Wind drift is 8" with a full 10 MPH cross.

So, the .223 is marginally flatter shooting but the .308 has slightly better wind behavior. Where the AR15 .223 excells over the M1A is accuracy, both ultimate and out of box. Figure on 1.5 MOA from the AR and 3 from the M1A. That's a 4.5" circle at 300 with the AR and a 9" circle for the same range with the M1A.

"Hitting the switch" is the key to sniper ops. This means getting an accurate, first shot in a zone that will immediately incapacitate. Any rifle round above the speed of sound will do this provided it hits. This has been proven in the hunting field as Northern Mexico's deer population is nearly extinct from peasants using .22 shorts. Many poachers will confirm this. A .22 short is immediately lethal on head/spine shots. Tales of Eskimos killing polar bears with .22 Hornets to the head are also true. And elephants have been killed with 7 x 57 Mausers. You have to place the bullet carefully.

From the above, you can see why the M14 is inferior to bolt guns. Typical bolt guns can deliver sub MOA enabling the long range work. Your 7mm should be able to match the AR.
 
I would say get the AR-15 based on the availibility of optics and optics mounts for it. I personally have an M1A and I can hit my target out to 500 yards fairly easily. However, your AR-15 has more accuracy potential and a better means to mount optics without having improper check weld. Hands down, the .308 delievers more energy in ft/lbs at any range compared to the .223. However, if you hit what you are shooting at witha .223 at 300 yards, the target will not enjoy it. I would go with the AR for optics, magazine availability and price, and more accuracy potential (simply buy new uppers to fit your mood. You can have a 26" target upper, a 16.5" inch carbine upper, flat top, carry handle. I really regret not getting an AR before they were outlawed in the PRK.)
 
I'm curious about your use of the words "counter-sniper". What exactly are you going to be doing with this new rifle? If you really need a counter-sniper rifle, I would think that your unit should have some real experts to help you out. If you want to hit small varmits at a long range, well, that is yet another thing. If your are punching paper, yet another consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top