You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Your Military round is ??
- Thread starter C7AR15
- Start date
For 556, lighter probably carry 100 more rounds for same weight in 762, less recoil, faster follow up shots, easier to train green troops on, very accurate, in combat shoot a man until he quits moving.
For 762 or 308 better long range or any range cartridge but heavier more recoil, but more lethal.
For AK 47 or 74 great rounds, I only have the 47, and rifles, love my Vepr and milled receiver AKs.
In Nam we were all jealous of the LT who if I remember correctly was the only one who carried a CAR, original M4 back in those days, shorter and lighter.
Wish they would develop a bomb that temporarily blinded soldiers, maybe also causing hearing loss, maybe a giant flash/bang, if the enemy did not kill each other while being unable to see or hear, you could finish them off with a 22 long rifle or take prisoners.
For 762 or 308 better long range or any range cartridge but heavier more recoil, but more lethal.
For AK 47 or 74 great rounds, I only have the 47, and rifles, love my Vepr and milled receiver AKs.
In Nam we were all jealous of the LT who if I remember correctly was the only one who carried a CAR, original M4 back in those days, shorter and lighter.
Wish they would develop a bomb that temporarily blinded soldiers, maybe also causing hearing loss, maybe a giant flash/bang, if the enemy did not kill each other while being unable to see or hear, you could finish them off with a 22 long rifle or take prisoners.
Sinlessorrow
New member
not quite crosshair, the seals use 5.56 because its a low recoil light round that has very high terminal ballistics with the right bullet.
they use the brown tip optimized. like i said its the Barnes 70gr TSX(triple shock) its the longest .223 bullet there is since its made of 100% copper(longer than a 77gr SMK).
when it hits soft tissue out of a 10.5" barrel it will expand to .50 size within 1.5" of tissue making it an excellent choice for CQB encounters(its very good in SBR's because it expands down to as low as 1800FPS, thats the 200yrd mark out of a 10.5" barrel)
when the round suddenly expands it transfers a tremendous amount of force, which will immediately cause the person being shot to reel back from the amount of force, and the amount of tissue damage caused by it will cause massive trauma
they use the brown tip optimized. like i said its the Barnes 70gr TSX(triple shock) its the longest .223 bullet there is since its made of 100% copper(longer than a 77gr SMK).
when it hits soft tissue out of a 10.5" barrel it will expand to .50 size within 1.5" of tissue making it an excellent choice for CQB encounters(its very good in SBR's because it expands down to as low as 1800FPS, thats the 200yrd mark out of a 10.5" barrel)
when the round suddenly expands it transfers a tremendous amount of force, which will immediately cause the person being shot to reel back from the amount of force, and the amount of tissue damage caused by it will cause massive trauma
I am not a big fan of the .45 ACP (but I have one anyway), yet I don't believe it is more difficult to shoot than a 9mm. Whoever is claiming that it is probably also claims it will knock a man down if you hit him in the little finger. It's plenty accurate in a new gun, not that many soldiers will get enough training to be a trick shot with it, same with a 9mm. There's a lot of hype here.
Should have made my post clearer. It isn't the recoil that I was referring to but people so small they need a 9MM in order to shoot. I have taught people whos fingers were so short and hands so small they were barely hanging onto to the back strap of the 45 ACP grip with their thumb and just getting enough finger on the trigger to get off a shot.davery25
can't handle a 45? but a 45 has less recoil than a 9mm?
Just between you me and the dog next door I want somebody with a little muscle next to me in the field. I'm not saying they weren't good soldiers, they did good at their jobs and didn't even shoot that bad rapid and time fire at 50' but slow fire killed them. After the 2nd or 3rd shot you could see them start to tip over from trying to hold the gun out there in front of them. My 12 year old son and daughter did better than that but they had hands like mine.
Doing supply, filling out reports or doing comm work they were great but playing cowboys and Indians they couldn't keep up with us in the field and I would hate to have to rely on one of them to have to haul me back if I was disabled and I have a hundred pounds on them. In other words rear echelon types. I wasn't even the biggest one in our company.
You can have plenty of muscle and still have small hands and for that matter, the issue Beretta is no small handgun. But anyway, one's ability with a handgun is not a critical thing in the army, unless your concept of warfare is different from mine.
You ever been inside a tank? The gunner sits there in a very cramped space (the loader has the most room--and his own machine gun) with something approaching a video game. It takes more brains than brawn. But I take your point. In a tank crew (four men) it takes, as my son put it, a lot of cursing and heavy lifting to change the air filters. The army's PT program may be putting the emphasis on producing marathon runners instead of football players.
Regarding soldiers generally, however, I suspect that American soldiers today are the largest and healthiest to ever stand in ranks. The Vietnamese are no great examples of super humans, yet they seemed to manage well enough in the field in a fight.
You ever been inside a tank? The gunner sits there in a very cramped space (the loader has the most room--and his own machine gun) with something approaching a video game. It takes more brains than brawn. But I take your point. In a tank crew (four men) it takes, as my son put it, a lot of cursing and heavy lifting to change the air filters. The army's PT program may be putting the emphasis on producing marathon runners instead of football players.
Regarding soldiers generally, however, I suspect that American soldiers today are the largest and healthiest to ever stand in ranks. The Vietnamese are no great examples of super humans, yet they seemed to manage well enough in the field in a fight.
Catfishman
New member
when the round suddenly expands it transfers a tremendous amount of force, which will immediately cause the person being shot to reel back from the amount of force, and the amount of tissue damage caused by it will cause massive trauma
Really?
Shoot someone with a 70 grain 5.56 and it will cause them to reel back from the force.
Really?
Maybe in a movie.
I've seen many animals hit by .308, 30-06, 30-30, .270 soft points and 12 gauge 3" magnum buckshot. I've never seen anything reel back from the force.
.280 Brit .... a "has been".
.260 Remington. A 140 gr 6.5mm bullet bullet (much better BC) at 2750, just .22 longer ........
6.8 SPC ..... 120 grain .277 bullet, a whole inch shorter and much lighter, at nearly the same velocity ....... fits in the current platform, and does not have the ridiculous case body taper and all it's inherent problems.
As for caseless ammo, or "smart rounds": vaporware. As useful as "a phased plasma rifle in teh 40 giggawat range" .......
The next war will be fought with what we HAVE, not with what we wish we had. To that end, stock up, because there ain't gonna be any Cavalry riding to YOUR rescue.
the .280 British. A 139gr 7mm FMJ-BT bullet at 2530fps.
.260 Remington. A 140 gr 6.5mm bullet bullet (much better BC) at 2750, just .22 longer ........
6.8 SPC ..... 120 grain .277 bullet, a whole inch shorter and much lighter, at nearly the same velocity ....... fits in the current platform, and does not have the ridiculous case body taper and all it's inherent problems.
As for caseless ammo, or "smart rounds": vaporware. As useful as "a phased plasma rifle in teh 40 giggawat range" .......
The next war will be fought with what we HAVE, not with what we wish we had. To that end, stock up, because there ain't gonna be any Cavalry riding to YOUR rescue.
not to be an internet troll sinlesssorrow because i hate net trolls - but no gun or round will ever deliver knockdown force. if the recoil doesnt knock the shooter over then the piddily 50 - 200 grn bullet can't either. It either goes straight through or it stops and you die and fall over from wounding - but never from the force of the round itself.
trg42wraglefragle
New member
davery25,
Unless you consider a recoil less rifle or one with a muzzle brake, that changes thing slightly.
Unless you consider a recoil less rifle or one with a muzzle brake, that changes thing slightly.
warrior poet
New member
Clarification, when I said there is no "one size caliber" I was referring to the widely varied missions, and therefore, needs of the military. I was not proposing, that we take 100 different calibers to war. I like the caliber choices we have. Changing them would be a logistics nightmare. Frankly, the money isn't there to do it, especially if it sacrifices other programs.
DubC-Hicks
New member
What about .300 AAC blackout? I believe it uses the same case as the 5.56 just necked up to .30. So M4/M16's wouldn't lose any capacity. But you would get a bigger bullet that probably hits harder.
Shotgun693
New member
it transfers a tremendous amount of force, which will immediately cause the person being shot to reel back from the amount of force
It can’t, it’s one of the Laws of Physics.
The bullet hits with the same amount of recoil the gun generates. The gun, rifle, in this case has its’ recoil spread out over the area of the butt against the shoulder minus some lessened by the weight of the rifle.
A whole lot of the damage caused by a full metal jacket is lessened by the range the target is from the gun. At longer ranges there’s more of a chance the bullet will just poke a small diameter hole through the target.
When my Son was in Afghanistan, he heard plenty of complaints about the 5.56 not ‘knocking down’ or ‘keeping down’ those on the receiving end of the 5.56. The US Military is apparently more interested in keeping the AR Platform than in going to a new gun in a more effective round.
kilimanjaro
New member
The military has a lot more experience in selecting combat cartridges than I do, and they also train their troops pretty well. I vote for what the military chooses, they've got 50 years of success with both 5.56 and 7.62 in several major conflicts across most continents, climates, and terrain, they know best.
seansean1444
New member
6.5 grendel
Quote:"The military has a lot more experience in selecting combat cartridges than I do, and they also train their troops pretty well. I vote for what the military chooses, they've got 50 years of success with both 5.56 and 7.62 in several major conflicts across most continents, climates, and terrain, they know best."
Well I tend to disagree. While yes the 7.62x51 is a very good choice for a designated marksman, I would rethink the 5.56mm. I have heard soldiers time and time again saying that it has little stopping power. I think they may be on the right track going with a 6, 6.8, or even 6.5mm. Look at Vietnam. Those 7.62 AK rounds would tear through the jungle and make hits on their targets. We should have learned something from that, but I guess the idea of a lighter, faster soldier was a better option for our military.
Well I tend to disagree. While yes the 7.62x51 is a very good choice for a designated marksman, I would rethink the 5.56mm. I have heard soldiers time and time again saying that it has little stopping power. I think they may be on the right track going with a 6, 6.8, or even 6.5mm. Look at Vietnam. Those 7.62 AK rounds would tear through the jungle and make hits on their targets. We should have learned something from that, but I guess the idea of a lighter, faster soldier was a better option for our military.