Originally posted by dooper
These arguments will go on as long as these weapons exist, and every angle, every scientific justification, and every logistical angle has been turned and churned.

An increase in rounds carried makes no difference if the rounds that are fired are accurate.

It does if you want to be putting in some fire suppression. Believe it or not not the VAST majority of rounds in a firefight are used to keep the enemys heads down. They don't actually hit the target. Contrary to popular belief they are not specifically aimed to hit individual targets (though it's nice if they do). You may think that this is bad soldiering, but it is simply part of winning the firefight. It allows friendly forces to pull a manouevre that lets them close in with and kill the enemy. In the real world that's what soldiering comes down to. That's why we carry lots of ammo.

Penetration. Soldiers rarely shoot at targets behind 3/8" steel plate. They shoot at targets behind sandbags, brush, cinder blocks, mud walls, wood walls and doors and things that require penetration.

Erm, the steel plate is just used as a measuring stick. The round does penetrate other items too. We have often used the LMG (minimi para) to burn mouseholes in walls in Afghanistan. Average urban firefights are at a range of between 75 and 150m with at least one item of cover between the shooter and the target. A round that penetrates hard cover at these ranges is REALLY handy. Both 5.56mm and 7.62mm do. 5.56mm is just more reliable at it. 7.62 tends to turn into a mushy lump with no real predictable trajectory after penetration while 5.56mm tends to be more efficient and aerodynamically stable post penetration (due to the IP properties of the steel core).

Plus you are aware of the increase in the use of body armour by the Taliban aren't you? The 5.56mm has a steel penetrator (which 7.62 NATO lacks) that is designed to cut through this, and it does so at longer ranges.

In mountains, and in open country where we are, the .223 won't hit squat at distance, and if it does, it doesn't have anything left.

7.62mm does out perform 5.56mm at longer ranges. However if you think that the majority of firefights are at long range then you're in a different place to me. In the Green Zone in Helmand (our main area of responsibility) the majority of firefights start at close range (

The end of my last post seems to have been lost for some unknown reason, so i'll continue...

Originally posted by dooper
IF and that's a big IF, you can shoot, you want a larger round. For the females in the military, give them the .223.

Oh I can shoot all right, as can everyone else in my platoon (we have 2 ex-snipers, i'm a qualified sharpshooter and pretty much everyone else consistenty shoot marksman on their weapon tests). Yet we're pretty happy with the 5.56mm. (no females in my platoon either BTW).

That .223 was designed and adapted for the jungles of Viet Nam.

Almost. The M193 FMJ was. The current SS109 IP steel tipped round may as well be a completely different beast.

Anyone that fires more than one magazine on full auto is an idiot. The idea is to shoot someone, not make noise.

I'd say that anyone who fires more than 3-5rds in a burst is an idiot. However there is a place for automatic fire (during house assaults in Operations in Built Up Areas or trench clearing for example). The more controllable this fire is means that the weapon can be brought to bear on multiple targets faster which increases the chances of survival for the assaulter. Try firing multiple aimed bursts from any of your 7.62mm assault rifles in quick succession and you'll see how difficult it is compared to a 5.56 counterpart.

The reason the rags can't hit much, is because they prefer to make noise.

They don't hit much because they prefer Rambo to using the sights. I've seen what 5.56mm does to the human body. It shreds them. The damage modern ammunition does is just brutal.

I don't want to turn this guys thread into another "5.56 vs 7.62" slagging match. You obviously have your opinions based on what I can assume to be some experience, presumably of Vietnam among other places. I do the same, with my most recent experience being 2 Iraq tours (one pretty quiet, one not so quiet) and 2 Afghanistan tours (both a flippin nightmare). My previous tours (N Ireland, Sierra Leonne and Kosovo) were pretty quiet so not so relevant.

Our experiences differ somewhat, as will our opinions.

My opinion..If it ain't huge, it ain't worthy. If I'm carrying it, I want light and small but..if I need it to protect myself and my men a howitzer isn't big enough. Give me an 'Arch Light' strike to protect us! I own AR's and FAL's and AK's and they shoot to point of aim or I get rid of them. However, 7.62 rounds are the only way to insure ending a conflict where heavy artillery isn't practical! Just my 2 cents but I like large calibers.

Zindo