Your Military round is ??

C

C7AR15

New member
We all know the .223 has been in active service for 40 years now.
But there are complaints about it's effectiveness ......
I know you can carry lots of it , little recoil , flat shooting to ???, etc

But what would you pick for your soldiers ??

My choice is the Win .243 This cartridge is just soooo good JD

What's your pick and why???
 
.22lr is good, cheap, and troops could carry LOTS of it. It would be great for forcing the enemy to cover. :)

.223 and .308 is getting the job done now. I'd probably stick with it until a new platform requires a new round.
 
I'd rather switch to something other than hardball ammunition. spitzers hurt when i poke them with my finger, i certainly wouldn't want to be shot with one, but if i'm shooting a bad guy with something thinner than a pencil i want it to do more than just zip through. in boot camp we were taught to shoot a controlled or hammer pair, two shots, then if he needs more do 'failure to stop' (2 chest 1 head or pelvis), for a total of 5 rounds on one baddy. I'd much rather use better bullets than more of them.

but, any sort of hollowpoint goes against the Geneva Convention. what do i know, i'm not a politician. :mad:


the idea of using .22's made me smile, but the reasoning is good. there's worse ideas. maybe a 100-rd Calico to keep heads down and .223's to finish the job :D
 
Pardon the interjection, but my understanding is that the military round is derived from the .223, but it is not actually a .223 round. I also believe that the way that 5.56 and .223 are tested aren't the same either
 
I would choose 243 and 50 cal for sniper rounds
9mm and 5.7mm for pistol and SMG rounds
and battle rifle I would probably stick with 5.56, it's got more than enough power for people and you can fit a lot of ammo in a small amount of space
 
7.62x51mm soft points.

Yes, in an M14.

I know it weighs more. I know the ammo weighs more. I don't care.

I'm more concerned as to why we need to have so many rounds available at the infantryman level... Let's get back to the basics of marksmanship training and letting our guys train to shoot once and hit once.. This spray and pray crap is for the birds...

I know marksmanship training doesn't look as sexy on the budget as a new simulator, helicopter, or tank... But will any of that stuff really win the wars we're in??? Or will it be the infantryman administering fatal lead poisoning at high speed???

I know we can do a better job training people to hit what they're shooting at, instead of spraying bullets in the vicinity of the target and waiting for a lucky hit...

If you could build me a few hundred thousand M14's in .260 Remington, I'd pick that.
 
It's the Hague Declaration that banned non-FMJ bullets. 1899
No soft points (e.g. .303 Dum Dum), no hollow points, and I guess no lead round nose (e.g. .38-200) either. Which put 00 Buckshot in an ambiguous position - not designed to flatten, but not FMJ either.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I beleive our current weapon setup is what I would choose.

5.56 for infantry
7.62 NATO for designated Marksman and machinee guns.

But it depends on what doctrine of fire you subscribe to.

I have read studies that say that whoever gets the most rounds downrange in the shortest amount of time is usually the one to win a military engagement. This makes sense on a few levels, more rounds incoming on the enemy reduces their effectiveness to return fire. the 5.56 with its low recoil and high capacity allows soldiers to put many more rounds downrange effectively than the average soldier could with a heavier round. The 7.62 has the ability to extend the engagement range and also turn much cover into concealment.

I know there are more "effective" rounds than what we are currently using, however "effective" does not always necessarily come down to wound potential for an on target hit. Until we come up with a military round that has the range, wounding potential and penetration of the 7.62, but the recoil and high capacity of the 5.56, I think we are on the right track.

there are certainly those that would disagree, but thats because they prescribe to the accurate, low volume, method of engagement. This doesnt make that opinion wrong in any way, I just dont beleive there will ever be one perfect round for military use, and until there is, its all going to depend on your opinion of correct engagement.
 
I'm more concerned as to why we need to have so many rounds available at the infantryman level... Let's get back to the basics of marksmanship training and letting our guys train to shoot once and hit once.. This spray and pray crap is for the birds...

I know marksmanship training doesn't look as sexy on the budget as a new simulator, helicopter, or tank... But will any of that stuff really win the wars we're in??? Or will it be the infantryman administering fatal lead poisoning at high speed???

I know we can do a better job training people to hit what they're shooting at, instead of spraying bullets in the vicinity of the target and waiting for a lucky hit...

If you could build me a few hundred thousand M14's in .260 Remington, I'd pick that.
Click to expand...

um...I dont know about you but I dont know too many guys that have even used the FA setting in combat. all of our guys are taught marksmanship, army and air force make you hit steel plates at 300 yards/meters depending on on different ranges, navy makes you hit a 1" bullseye with a 1" ring at 25 yards, marines hit steel plates at 500 yards...all of these are well beyond urban combat range requirements. spray and pray is only used if you are offering covering fire for your guys that are in a bad spot and need to relocate and you want the bad guys crapping their pants under a lead storm until your guys get to a more defensible posit. once that is done you switch from cover mode to kill mode and you switch your gun back to SA and start using that marksmanship training that our boys apparently don't get.

in the 50s while the french were fighting in vietnam they were still using bolt action rifles from WWII and the bad guys were using brand new SKS assault rifles...even a regular army with marksmanship training cant stand up to a bunch of thugs if the technology is not there.
 
I shoot service rifle and CMP GSM, so I shoot 223, 308, '06, 30 carbine, 7.62 Russian, and 300 WM.

How ever I think you are asking about a round we would choose to go into combat, or have our soldiers carry in Combat.

My vote is the 223/5.56. It worked for me before, nothing leaves me to believe it wont work again.
 
I don't believe in the .223 Remington or .308 Winchester as service rifle cartridges. Apparently, neither does our military, as these have never been service cartridges, but are in fact civilian cartridges developed from service cartridges. And I am among those who do not believe that our current platform needs to be changed. I carried the M16A1 for a number of years, and it worked fine. Yeah, yeah, M14 blah, blah, knock down a man at a mile, blah, blah . . . let alone that most of the people saying that stuff never shot a mile, but whatever. 5.56X45mm NATO works fine, makes beautiful crushed bone when it hits bones, makes messy soft tissue wounds, and makes vicious chest wounds. If there are any military medics on this forum, they will confirm or deny this. Not that 7.62X51mm NATO doesn't, but the cartridges and the weapons weigh so much more, and the poor schmucks who didn't go to college don't need any more gear to hump.

Let's get back to the basics of marksmanship training and letting our guys train to shoot once and hit once.. This spray and pray crap is for the birds...
Click to expand...
Having instructed on the firing line while in the military, I actually agree with this. Most of the people asking for more firepower weren't delivering the firepower they had. Read kraigwy's post and pay attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top