XM8 VS. M16/M4 and 5.56 VS. 6.8SPC what's next...?

FACT: If the Bad Guy is behind cover, in heavy brush, etc. etc. *I'd* rather have a heavier bullet.

The whole argument is rather moot though, irregardless of the round we are firing, we are going to keep shooting and moving until they are very dead :)

Semper Fi,
Mike F.
 
FACT: If the Bad Guy is behind cover, in heavy brush, etc. etc. *I'd* rather have a heavier bullet.
Click to expand...

So you're saying you are going to empty you're rifle mag into this cover, or brush the tango is in, or hiding behind in hopes of hitting him? I hope you want cary alot of ammo, because you're going to run out of ammo real fast fighting like that.
 
M4A3,

You can't confuse "cooperites" with facts. To them, the .45 ACP and the 7.62X51 are "magical' star trek death rays!

God forbid that our military should use a weapon or cartridge designed after 1950! They all know that there have been no advances in weapon or cartridge design since the Korean war!

It really surprises me that the 7.62/.45 crowd isn't raising hell with the air force for using jets! I mean, after all, wasn't the Sopwith Camel the greatest warplane ever devised? Isn't it better than those dadburn newfangled F-16s and A-10s?
 
Laser_anim.gif
 
Don't you think you're more combat effective with 280 rounds of 5.56 as opposed to 100-120 rounds of 7.62? I shure do, and so did the people that implemented the M16 system.

Fact: With in fragmentation range, the 5.56mm bullet causes MORE extensive tissue damage than the 7.62 / .308.
Click to expand...

FACT: That's a function of bullet design and not an inheriant characteristic of a cartridge or weapons flatform. I love it when people say the 5.56 is more effective than the 7.62mm and the 5.45 is a deathray compared to the "obsolete" 7.62x39 when the only explanation for their effectiveness is that their lack of effectiveness with traditional ammunition forced the design and creation of more fragible ammunition. If you apply this same technology to the 7.62mms they instantly become much more formiddible than any of the .22 caliber centerfires. In fact, I understand the the West German 7.62x51 was actually designed like and performs similar to the M193 ball ammo of the 5.56, only with larger and more dramatic wounds and the Chinese developed an ammunition for the 7.62x39 using a similar concept from the 5.45x39 except with low density plastic beads in the nose. Mr. Kalishnikov himself is quoted as saying he was adamently opposed to the 5.45mm abortion that they turned his rifle into, though he was all for modernizing the 7.62x39.
One disadvantage of the 5.56 and 5.45 is that they run contradictory to their stated mission. They were supposedly developed for lightweight, handy rifles suitable to combine SMG-automatic fire with an effective engagement range of about 300 yards. However, being only .22 caliber, they are heavily dependent on velocity over bullet mass or diameter for their effectiveness, and this virtually requires a longer barrel. You can only do so much with bullet design and our current technology. So you can put a longer barrel on it to get more velocity, but you lose the handiness of the rifle. The only thing you have left seperating it from a battle rifle is automatic fire and less power. Stunt the former with a 3-shot burst mechanism and you mine as well go with the latter and simply adopt a battle rifle. In other words, if you're going to deal with a 20-inched barreled rifle that lacks the capability of automatic fire as originally stated for the intent behind the conception of the assault rifle, you would be better off going with a 20-inch barreled 7.62mm.

Now, that doesn't mean I want to see us go back to the 7.62mm either. I would maybe retain it for LMG use but that is about it. But I am really not to entused about the 5.56mm, having used it on animals larger than I should have and seen the results. Multiple studies have been conducted into the matter over the past 60 years or so and all have concluded pretty much the same thing--about the ideal caliber for combined external and terminal ballistics with attention paid to recoil and ammunition weight is around 7mm. That is why we saw the original Garands in .276 Peaderson, why the British developed their Enfield (M43?) bullpup around a 7mm cartridge and pushed for its standardization by NATO, and why the 6.8 SPC was developed at .277 caliber. I feel eventually the theory of probability states that the politicians will get something right and zero in on a happy medium in the matter by adopting something with more "oomph" than the 5.56 and less ammunition weight and recoil than the 7.62mm. Hell, you'd think eventually they'd do it just by accident.

As for the M16, I don't know how much experience you consider legitimate, but my brother hates the f-ing thing. He's only in AIT right now and despises it. Maybe he was just spoiled by his $300 Romananian AK-clone but his letters home indicate that he is not happy with his issued M16. In fact, he recently steered me away from the Bushmaster Varminter I was considering in favor of "anything but an AR." With all due respect to you fine people out there, I actually know my brother. He is mechanically minded, anal about weapon maintence, and has been around firearms his entire life. I value his opinion. If he tells me that not only has there got to be something better than the M16, but that nearly anything would be better, I am inclined to believe him. So even if it looks like something off of HALO, I bet he'd be willing to give the XM-8 a try.
 
Last edited:
Very well said MTMilitiaman. As many know, the fragmentation effect is simply a side effect of the light bullet construction. Apply that same construction to a 7.62 and you get the same results.
 
cheygirl said:
"You can't confuse "cooperites" with facts. To them, the .45 ACP and the 7.62X51 are "magical' star trek death rays!

God forbid that our military should use a weapon or cartridge designed after 1950! They all know that there have been no advances in weapon or cartridge design since the Korean war!

It really surprises me that the 7.62/.45 crowd isn't raising hell with the air force for using jets! I mean, after all, wasn't the Sopwith Camel the greatest warplane ever devised? Isn't it better than those dadburn newfangled F-16s and A-10s?"


So if there haven't been any advances in weapon or cartidge design since the korean war, what are the berretta storm, xm8, the 6.68spc, scar weapons, and more and more and more? are they ficticious?

and the reason the 7.62 is used by almost every other country but us... is because it is a SUPERIOR round. and why change something when it doesn't need to be changed. there really aren't any inherient flaws with the 7.62 like there are with the 5.56. The 5.56 has to many variations out there, and unfortunatly the military is using one of the worse ones.

and when it comes to carrying 200 rounds of 5.56 compared to 100 rounds of 7.62.... if i can kill them quicker with less bullets... hell yeah i'd rather carry it. if it takes me 200 rounds to kill the enemy then i'm doing something wrong.
 
I shure do, and so did the people that implemented the M16 system.
Click to expand...

You may want to research on how the M16 was implemented into our armed forces. Keyword McNamara. BTW For the last time, I do not dislike the AR platform, I own one, and served with one. I PREFER 7.62NATO for all the reasons given above by those are knowledgable in these areas. I suggest you do some more research in your quest to label the 5.56 as the do all round. Good round? Sure, but nothing is the golden BB.

CheyGriz- Get a life, no one likes the sideline male cheerleaders. If your going to get into the game, come with some half way inteligible comments, otherwise keep quiet.
 
You may want to research on how the M16 was implemented into our armed forces.
Click to expand...

I have. I even have doc vidio's on it. It wasnt just McNamara, and his group. Alot of people felt this would be a better weapon than the M14. All the M14 could replace was the Grand. An average soldier with basic infentry training cant handle the recoil of the M14 on full auto.

Also, the standard combat munitions load can be increased when carying smaller lighter cartrages. This was another good point with the M16/AR-15 system.

Somone did bring up a possable valid point about the M855, and it's ballistics. I've read both ways. If you look at a ballistics chart you will see that the M855 doesnt fragment much beond 50-70M or so (14.5"). On the other hand I've read about soldiers saying the M855 does just fine at longer ranges. I just dont know. I use M193 in my M4. I think maby this summer I'll do some testing with the M855 and find out my self... Too much here say.

Ok, here's a question. If the M14 / 7.62 system is better. Why did the US Govt. choose to go with the AR-15?
 
It seems to me that the dinosaurs of the .45/7.62 crowd are the male cheerleaders on the sideline here! They are the ones that keep spouting "The Gospel According To Jeffie Cooper." Try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating what writers in gun magazines tell you to think.

As far as "every country but the U.S. usong the 7.62 NATO??

WOW! Try to name one single MAJOR military power that issues the 7.62 as it's primary military rifle? And I don't mean el salvador or Turkey or Rwanda. Just name one single major power that does!

There isn't a single one. None! Nada!! Even the Russians have given up on the old time pumpkin rollers.
 
Someone made a statement that 7.62 would act just like .223 with a similar bullet design.

I disagree. .223 gets its bizarre effectiveness because of its high velocity. The bullets tumble and even break on impact because of the severe forces on the small round as it rapidly decelerates.

The 7.62 starts slower and slows down much less quickly - which is exactly why it is a good penetrator.


.30 rounds were considered obsolete by military ballistic experts long before the Garand came along. It has been kept alive by those who "know better", like some of the posters on this thread.


.223 isn't perfect, but its effectiveness is hard to discount in light of its battlefield accuracy, controllability and light weight. It really does work out of all proportion to its size, and that size is a very big deal to those who must carry and shoot it.
 
It seems to me that the dinosaurs of the .45/7.62 crowd are the male cheerleaders on the sideline here! They are the ones that keep spouting "The Gospel According To Jeffie Cooper." Try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating what writers in gun magazines tell you to think.
Click to expand...

Since this part was directed at me. How about you providing some insight on why you are even talking? All you are doing as I stated before is sideline cheerleading...."Jeff Cooper dinasaur this, what he said that" Think I'm a Jeff Cooper advocate? I'd take a .357magnum over a .45acp any day of the week pal. Try something else your childish diatribe has far lost any humor you were trying to intend.

.30 rounds were considered obsolete by military ballistic experts long before the Garand came along. It has been kept alive by those who "know better", like some of the posters on this thread.
Click to expand...

And there is no need for penetration is there? Not in squad automatic weapons nor mobile vehicle mounted light machine guns right? I don't recall hearing too many complaints of the 30-06 failing to stop the opposition during ww2 or Korea do you? Have you read Blackhawk down? Off the top of my head I remember distinctly reading that no one questioned the old M14 being lugged around by Sgt Shughart because "when it hit, the skinnies stayed down." Opposite of everything else we've heard/read of their less than stellar performace of the M855's. We have all seen multiple reports from both sides in regards to the 556. Why is that? You really really believe that everyone who reports to contrary of what you beleive is lying for the hell of it? In theory the 5.56 is a winner. In reality its a mix match especially the 62gr M855's out of 14.5" barrels. And in this game, its reality that counts.
 
In reality, those who are CURRENTLY in combat on this board like the rifle and the round. I don't know who you're speaking for, exactly.
I don't recall hearing too many complaints of the 30-06 failing to stop the opposition during ww2 or Korea do you?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. No round is 100% effective. But do YOU recall the Marshall report and reports from Vietnam that demonstrated that .223 actually inspired more soldiers to return fire than ever before?

No doubt .308 is great for machineguns and snipers. But the needs of an infantryman are a constant compromise between weight and effectiveness. .223 IS a compromise - but a really good one. It increases hit probability, increases the likelihood of soldiers returning fire and offers more rounds to be carried. You can't make the same argument with .308, even if it might be better on a per shot basis.


In any case, didn't Randy Shughart die because he eventually ran out of ammo? Would he have been effective longer with the same weight in .223 rifle and ammo? (Apologies if I'm getting the players confused.)


What really gets me with Shughart and his M14 is that everyone brings that up like "the wise and knowledgeable Delta member carried a .308", while completely ignoring what all the other "wise and knowledgeable" Delta guys had. Oh yeah, .223s. ;)
 
And judging strictly from Blackhawk Down they weren't too keen on the 5.56's ability to put enemy soldiers down for good, especially when they were high on kaht and thought they were invincible. IIRC, Gordon ran out of ammo pretty fast too. If you want to judge the effectiveness of a round based on a single incident, then it should also be noted that the guy with the M16 died first. I know several people who have been to Iraq or Afghanistan, and the only ones with anything positive to say about the M16 or the 5.56mm as a combat weapon/round are those with little or no experience with anything else. Nearly all the Montana boys that I know that grew up with firearms think pretty poorly of the M16 and the 5.56mm.

And I will respectfully disagree with your evaluation of the 7.62mm. It may always have more penetration than the 5.56, but it can be made to expand rapidly and tumble in a manner than cause damage far more excessive than the 5.56mm. This is why we see specialty rounds like Hornady's 110 gr TAP loading for law enforcement and personal defense applications requiring limited penetration. That said, I realize that players such as General MacArthur (McArthur?) have kept the .30 caliber in play much longer than necessary or even beneficial. I am not saying the 7.62x51 is an end all solution to any problems the military may or may not be experiencing with the current service rifle and load. I think I would rather have the 7.62mm if given a choice between the two, but then, as I said before, I feel a better alternative to either would be something along the lines of the 6.8mm--a "happy medium" of around 7mm that offers more power than the 5.56 and less recoil and ammunition weight than the 7.62mm.
 
No one forgot about what the other Delta members had, and that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The other Delta members were impressed in the scene being played out before them. The .308 when it hit did not require any follow ups. There were multiple reports that stemmed from 93 that led to the search for a better performing round. Unfortunately it has not come about but has led to researching in the 6.8mm. If there wasn't a problem with the round, why the research to find another?

If the Marshal report is based solely on the weapons platform, what has changed from Vietnam to the Modern Era to increase the return fire/small arms combat effeciency yet another ten fold? Nothing. Its the training that has evolved.

You're right the 5.56 is easier to shoot for 99% of the people out there. That is not the case I was trying to make. I admitted as much in the AR vs M1A thread. The efficiency of the round is the problem. Varying bullet weights and barrel twists again and again to find any solution to gain solid performance.

BTW both Shugart and Gordon both ran out of ammo.
 
but it can be made to expand rapidly
Click to expand...
How is this pertinent to a discussion of a military round? I was speaking of rounds we actually could issue, being some sort of ball. For closed tip bullets, the bullet is more likely to do something odd on impact if it is light and fast.


I wasn't aware country boys in Montana had alot of experience shooting people. I thought it was more of elk and sheep hunting state.



What I find so interesting is that the current bandwagon is for a more intermediate round - closer to the .276 of the orginal Garand or the .280 the British designed. Yet 15 years ago several countries were eyeing the 4.7mm high speed stuff. This was right after the Soviets dumped their intermediate 7.62x39 round.

So not only has .223 been a mistake, but one that convinced alot of smart people to make the same or greater mistake? Color me skeptical.
 
cheygirl... i gotta ask

have you shot both the 5.56 and the 7.62? and if you have, have you shot it at anything other than paper? Ie: steel targets, wood targets, or hell... even in combat?
 
If the Marshal report is based solely on the weapons platform, what has changed from Vietnam to the Modern Era to increase the return fire/small arms combat effeciency yet another ten fold? Nothing. Its the training that has evolved.
Click to expand...
Good question. The only thing that changed between WWII and Vietnam was the rifle. Since then, the rifle has been a constant and we now have an all volunteer Army, rather than a conscripted Army like in those three wars.

Conclusion:
1. The rifle made a big difference.
2. Motivated and highly trained soldiers ALSO made a big difference.

Obviously, both helped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top