Your Military round is ??

You are not that good a shot at 200 yards, the arm maybe or the leg yes, but center mass in the chest?????
Click to expand...

Not trying to be mean or start an argument, but really? First off when did I say anything about 200 yards, I said simply shot in the chest. Second a 5.56 vs any other caliber is going to be just as effective when hiting someone in the leg or arm. And lastly yes if you were standing still at 200 yards i would hit you in the chest...
 
Last edited:
(The fmj 9mm is a very poor man stopper. I can't believe it is the military's sidearm caliber.)


What do you base this statement on. ?

So the German and british armies used a poor man stopper in both world wars.
 
I come from Law Enforcement and have never served in the Military.
Since it's the topic, I'd like our guys to carry a 7X37 pushing about a 115 gr bullet at around 2450 fps. Put it in a scaled down M14 type gun NOT a Mini14 that looks a lot like a scaled down M14 but ain't.
I think the .45 ACP is the best pistol round the military ever had and think it still ought to be issue. 1911 still works for me.
 
Let me interject something here, too. The AR-15 (before it became the M-16) was first chambered in .222 Remington. The army thought the effective range should be greater, so the .223 Remington was developed. Some references mention a .224 Remington, which might be the same thing. You realize that other armies actually used it in combat before we did and still use it. That's not all they use, however, having seen no reason to quit using full-grown machine guns. Anyhow, the .223 started its killing career as a military cartridge, same as the .308, and at nearly the same time. Oddly enough, the same rifle (the AR-15, that is) initially replaced .30 carbines in the first two armies that used it.

Personally, I think the .223 could stand to be improved with a larger caliber and heavier bullet but you would immediately loose something, no doubt and what is always hard to second guess. You can't get something for nothing. Oh, and the idea about one shot, one kill (sniping excepted) is sort of a 1914 concept and that mentality would not accept Thompson sub-machine guns.

For everything else you might care to carry around, the 7.62 is fine. I pretty much see no need for pistols.
 
45-70. Carried one up San Juan Hill in 1898 (M1888 Rod Bayonet). Worked fine, that big hunk of lead never failed to put a Spaniard down.
OK, 7.62x51. Every military round is a compromise because it's meant to be an "all arounder". That's as small as you can go in a General Purpose round (OK, maybe 7MM Mauser) where you have long range, tolerable recoil, good stopping power and penetration. The 5.56 jut doesn't cut it IMHO.
 
Gee, was this meant for me eyes to read? I wonder? :)

Let me interject something here, too. The AR-15 (before it became the M-16) was first chambered in .222 Remington. The army thought the effective range should be greater, so the .223 Remington was developed. Some references mention a .224 Remington, which might be the same thing. You realize that other armies actually used it in combat before we did and still use it. That's not all they use, however, having seen no reason to quit using full-grown machine guns. Anyhow, the .223 started its killing career as a military cartridge
Click to expand...

You can sorta kinda just quote me if you want to comment on my post

Would it make you feel better if I was responding to the first sentence in this thread? I'll supply it:

We all know the .223 has been in active service for 40 years now
Click to expand...

If you want to discuss that with me, you can just do it. I don't bite; but in service for 40 years as .223? I believe that 5.56x45 is the NATO round, not .223. Forty years ago was 1971; in the mid '60s, M193 was not .223, it was 5.56, yes?

This is sort of like the "M2 ball is 30-06" discussions. Well, yes. And no.

Anyway. This is a looong read, so I have linked to the page that shows the chnage from .223 to 5.56 as the official designation

http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-2.html

Lotta words. But the gist of it was that there was a change in 1964, at least for the US military
 
Phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range.... (The Terminator)

Go back in history and look at arms development...

Smooth bore muskets lead to rifled muskets and rifles, muzzle loaders lead to breech loader single shots lead to magazine fed arms, loose black powder to first paper and then metalic cartriges. Bolt actions and lever actions and semi- or full automatics or select fire. My old Mausers have a small rear V notch and front blade while my SMLEs and M-17 Enfield have wings that protect the front blade and coupled with the rear peep are supposed to bracket a man-sized target at 300 meters. Now we have much better capacity in manufacturing and materiels, better testing equipmant, better everything.

There are many valid points made here. Weight of weapon and ammo that must be carried by infantry troops isn't given the same consideration as armament for Special Forces, who have a much different mission. A sniper team may be tasked with hard or soft targets. The jungle combat of Viet Nam is not the same as urban environment insurgent conflict in Iraq. Matching the equipment to the mission is the best bet, but standardization and economy of scale are also important factors. That's why the new fighter jets are supposed to be developed to be used by all branches and have common munitions.

All that being said, I think that the 5.56 and 7.62 are pretty effective for their given roles. Can we do better? I'm sure we will, that at some point we will come up with improvements in the future that will lead both of these chamberings down the same path taken by the .30-40 Krag and so many others.
 
All this talk about whether a 5.56 is a .223 or not is hair splitting or more technically speaking, bullet splitting, I suppose. But I am reminded of the following observations about weapons:

The one we have now isn't as good as the one it replaced (which suggests the one before that was even better).

The cartridge we use now doesn't have the knockdown power the old one had (a complaint what started when the .45-70 was adopted).

The enemy has better weapons: all of them.

The enemy's weapons were made by children and slave labor.

The armed force's weapons were all made by the contractor with the lowest bid and no reasonable person would use one.

The real reason the army quit using .45 autos is because they ran out after everyone's father brought one home when they got out.
 
The post on the 22 made me smile.

I think it would make a good round to keep the enemy down while other people with the bigger guns got in to place. Lots of cheep ammo and never have to worry about the enemy reusing the brass.
 
5.56 isnt too bad, but I think in this day where the insurgents dont come back for their wounded buddies, we should move up to a bigger round. I love .308 (7.62NATO), but for rapid follow up shots, I think 6.8 is looking pretty sweet. I'd like to see further info on it. Any used it to bag game/varmint yet?

Pistols i'd hand em .40 or .45, and I.d keep sniper/mg's at .7.62
 
If the part about wounding instead of killing is better because it takes more of the enemy to take care of the wounded were true, then we shouldn't ever be taking prisoners.
 
Assuming, traditional brass cased ammo, I'd probably go with what the military is currently using:

5.56x45 and 7.61x51 in their respective roles.

As much as I like 6.8x43, it loses out in terms of available ammo (5 less rounds per magazine) and the amount of available ammo is a factor in how many kills infantry makes with a rifle. What I'd like to see is more research to determine if the enhanced barrier capability of the 6.8x43 makes up for the 5 less rounds per mag, particularly when compared to rounds like Mk318. If there was good, solid research supporting that, I might be inclined to reconsider my approach.

If however we are talking telescoped ammo or caseless ammo where I can have my cake and eat it too; I'd be more inclined to go with 6.8x43 since you get the extra ammo and the better barrier penetration... of course you've still got the underlying issue though... is it better to have X many extra rounds of 5.56 or better to be able to punch through barriers better X% of the time?
 
5.56 has proven itself over and over. It would be my choice. That reminds me, time to restock the ammo.
 
If anyone has a copy of Barnes Cartridges of the World , there was a round called the .280 British. A 139gr 7mm FMJ-BT bullet at 2530fps. Same weight bullet as the AK-47s 7.62x39 round , but a sleek 7mm , and slightly faster. Case is about the same length , but slightly less body taper. Looked like a winner , but got trumped by the US.

The US also had an experimental round back in the early 70s called the 6mm SAW. Intended for squad automatic weapons , it had a 105gr FMJ-BT bullet at 2520.
 
Last edited:
I have never been in the military and do not play a military person on TV. Please take my post with a grain of salt. I would however like to offer my opinion.

I believe that the caliber one would use to get favorable results with deer should be about the same as one would expect to get with people. Therefore, IMO, I would say that something around .25 caliber and 110 gr. would do the job...............perhaps 25-06.
 
I may be way off base,as I am not military nor pretend to be, but since you are essentially talking about doing many missions with as few platforms as possible you can't realistically say OK the guy clearing rooms house to house needs a H&K 9mm or a 12ga. shotgun, would work great, but if there is somebody shooting at him from 100 yards away the SMG or shotgun isn't the best response tool. Soldiers have to be capable of many different missions, from clearing rooms (isn't that what grenades are for:eek:, JK, I know it isn't always a viable option), to covering fire to directed accurate fine on small targets. Thus a soldier must make compromises unless you want them to carry multiple platforms such as an SMG and a M14. While not perfect the M4 (.223 or 5.56 whichever you prefer) will clear a room, it will lay down covering fire for team movement, it the right platform and hands it will definitely deliver accurate fire to 400 Meters. So you have a weapons platform that with the addition of a scope and maybe different ammo will perform the squad designated marksman role, the same magazine the SDM shoots will slap right into the standard M4, and if it comes to that you can take ammo out the the SAW and reload the M4 mags. For longer range purposes the .308/7.62 work great for precision first shot hits, longer range the .50 cal in the right hands is an amazing thing. I like the 1911's in .45 ACP but that is a personal thing, and comparatively few troops actually carry a handgun so its not that much of an issue, especially when you start mixing in other NATO troops who are carrying 9mm's. Keep some of the speciality weapons such as the M14, .45 ACPS etc. in the hands of the specialty troops and let them use them. Mainstream troops need to cover a lot of bases with the same tool. Teach them to shoot well and let them do their job, and be ready to support them with every weapon in the arsenal if it comes to that.
 
Picking a military cartridge is much more than just selecting something you like. Logistics is a major criterion, including the interchangeability of ammo with troops of other nations.

Jerry
 
Picking a military cartridge is much more than just selecting something you like. Logistics is a major criterion, including the interchangeability of ammo with troops of other nations.

Jerry
Click to expand...

True enough. But I've been wondering , since several former Com-Bloc nations are now members of NATO , did they give up their AK-47/74s and the 7.62/5.45x39?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top