Question About Military Rounds & History

[Tifford]

Please educate me on the following.

I understand why the 30-06 came into play. The Kraig was a sad case compared to the German 8mm round.

For the most part I can understand why they switched from the 30-06 to the 308....shorter action with a round that comes real close to the 30-06.

But why on Gods green Earth did they go from the 308 down to the 223? It seems to me that long range shots are better with the 30-06. It seems that the 30-06 and 308 would be better in the wind. It also seems that if a guy were wearing any kind of protection that the heavier bullets of the 30-06 and the 308 would penetrate better.

Also, in moving from the 30-06 all the way down to the 223 was the military wrong with the 30-06? or are they wrong now with the 223?

I understand that the USA has to conform to what NATO uses but it just seems to me that the 223 is just too small.

Please tell me all the reasons for picking the 223.

[Ridge_Runner]

If you kill a man in combat you have one less guy shooting at you, if you wound him then it takes two to look out for him. 5.56 are much lighter than 308's so a foot soldier can carry many more rounds for the same weight. The 5.56 is capable of making kills to 600 yds. The really long range stuff is left to the snipers and they don't use 5.56's
RR

[Myk]

'06-308, ever shoot a metal padded Springfield prone? Use lighter bullets, no need for all that case with lighter bullets.

308-223, ever shot a 308 on full auto? Hold 20 rounds of 308 in one hand and 20 rounds of 223 in the other.

What RR said about wounds vs kills, but I think it's more like 5.56 is capable of poking holes at 600 yards IF the wind drift doesn't get you.

I also think there was some payola going on. Why not use the 222Mag or 222? I think payola is why the SABR will have a wimpy 9" barrel and get away with not realistically meeting the tests.

I agree, the 223 is too small for as wide of military use as it gets. When the switch happened it seems many of those who were there agreed and would beg, borrow, steal a 308 for their troops. 223 does have it's place, but that place is not a catch all like it's being given.

[Elkein]

I think there's is also a logistical issue too. Bottom line is 500 rounds of 5.56nato is lighter than 7.62, by a lot. You see not everyone is the claimed "sniper, with ocean dive training" And the military figured why bother with all the extra weight when your typical real combat small arm accuracy is 1,100 misses to each hit.

[Tifford]

Thanks for the info guys,

I agree with the wounding part. If you wound a guy it's like taking out three.

I agree with shooting a 30-06 in the prone position......it hurts...been there done that.

I have to agree with the weight issue. I can't imagine a lighter round that could be as effective.

I disagree with the power of the 223 though. If I were on the battle field I'd want a 308 or a 270. I can shoot a 270 all day long. I imagine both the 308 and the 270 would have a better range. Personally I'd prefer the 270 but because of the long action I bet that we will never see that caliber used on the field. For the same reason we will never see the 30-06 again either. Which I disagree with the arguement of the shorter action being better than the longer action. I wouldn't care if it were a long action I was carrying if I knew my caliber I had a 200 yard advantage over the guy shooting back at me. I agree with the recoil part of the equation. I bet there were a lot of GI's that aimed in the general direction and hoped for the best because of the recoil factor.

But I bet that 270 would be a solid round in the field. I wonder how much tree or sand bad the 270 would penetrate as compared to the 223. I know the rounds that the military uses are different than what we hunters use so it might be hard to test.

Then there is that round called the "whisper" which is a subsonic round. They have made the whisper in different calibers.

I really would like to use my math degree to research the different bullet designs and different calibers out there to find the best over all option. I'm sure there has been a lot of research already but to have the 223 as our main military round.....the research must be flawed.

I am not an expert so some of what I just said might be wrong and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am. You guys are some of the most educated guys on hunting in general. This forum is one of the highest quality sites on the web.

I guess it would be kind morbid work because the research would lead to the deaths of some guys out in the field but calibers, rifles and bullets have always interested me.

I'll stop rambling now.

Tifford

[Tony]

With the itty bitty 5.56 you have a lot of ammo to spray and pray that you hit something. Each man is a machinegun squad,therefore each squad is more expendable and less of a loss as a one man squad.More ammo can be thrown at the enemy in smaller bits more like a heavy shrapnel.So the way it works out is who ever throws the most is the winner,on up to howitzers and 500 pounders.Even a nuke can throw shrapnel by picking up the surroundings and accelerating them with a shockwave so powerful that very little can withstand the force and be left standing.
I think Sgt York had the right idea on how a war should be fought.
How would the revolutionary war have turned out if every one only cared about themselves and not the blood shed to make this the greatest country in this world?
PS If you kill 3 or 4 men in a platoon with a 308 at 500 yds,the other 50 or so will shiver $hitting in their britches dumbfounded what to do without thier leaders that were picked off first,so how many more were 'disabled' with fewer shots?
Tony.........................

[Tifford]

Tony,

I have to agree with you. If you hit the officer at 500 to 1000 yards the subordinates would be running for cover. I guess I would be too b/c of the sprying and praying from all those 223 machine guns.

Given a choice though, I'd take the 308.

Is there any books out there that discuss the factors that lead to the 223 round being our military round?

I think there was a video out there somewhere that talked about it.


Tifford

[Mr. Beanfield]

love the topic.. but lets set it straight.......


The reason the DOD not the military choose to go with the 5.56 was not just weight.. they had a problem with hit probabitly and first strike ability of the average GI. In ballistic drop the 7.62 and the 5.56 arn't that much diffrent in terms of battle zero. However when the SS109 round was devloped its velocity vs. wound channel was and is very minimal. The round was devloped for light armoer for use in the M249 SAW and for GP was not a bad choice for anti-material targets. However once the choice was strictly green tip thats when problems began. The 7.62 in its 147 FMJ load is not as slow as you would think and to be honest leaves its nasty wound cavity. BUT.. the main problem with it is its heavy recoil in a light carbine... A majority of the rounds we have sent into the enemy have been multiple round contacts and basically rip someone to shreds. However there are other choices. When we stepped up to the 175 grain version for precision work at long range the 5.56 doesn't have leg to stand on. The 30-06 was a great round and many will speak of it as a wonderful battle cartiridge in the Garand. To me in the past year and a half the 7.62 is the best damn choice for anything but CQB. In terms of performance and ballistics vs. accuracy and range you would be hard pressed to find a more versitile choice. Our SR-25 and M40A1 are the greatest weapons systems for extended range one could as for in terms of serviceabiliy. The fact is no matter what it is that you are shooting if the bullet wont destroy enough tissue fast enough and doesn't create a large enough wound channel, then you are at a disadvatage. The 7.62 is the best and will remain so, Its pulled many a man out of a tight spot no matter if you have saved 2 pounds in ammo weight or not. Its not a matter of personal choice but I think the 3 wars in one century of use proves it......i'm done ranting on now so have a great day and enjoy....

[Tifford]

Mr. Beanfield,

I love to learn. You are not ranting. If you have anything else to add please do. It seems we are in agreement that the 223 is to small.

I think we'll go back to a bigger round when we have to go to a war against an enemy that is large, powerful and uses a better cartrige than us.

When the Germans went to the 8mm it didn't take us long to compensate.

But you guys are right. The 30-06 in something light like the m-16 would be painful to shoot. However if someone is shooting at me then I don't think I'll feel the recoil when I shoot back. But the 308 or even a 270 or 280 would be nice to shoot all day long at long range.

Tifford

[CSA]

Hey folks go here to find most of the answers your looking for this is some great reading

http://www.ask.com/main/askjeeves.asp?ask=...ato+ammo&qsrc=4 (http://www.ask.com/main/askjeeves.asp?ask=nato+ammo&qsrc=4)

['da law]

Howdy All!

I'd have to agree w/Beanfield, the 7.62 has "earned it's spurs" countless times over on the battlefield. The .30/06 and .308 are both outstanding cartridges and like many, I don't understand why the Armed Forces do the things they do. As for the .308/7.62 NATO, one can't ask for a better combat cartridge, the M-14 was and still is one of the best and most reliable weapons that our boys ever carried. The US Navy Seal Teams still rely on the ol' 14 to this day and is commonly carried for it's reliabilty and knockdown power.

As for the .223, I carried both the M-16 A1's and A-2's as well as the M-4 and can say that they left a lot to be desired. Moreover, I carried the 7.62 NATO in the current sniper rigs employed by the US Army Spec. Ops. Command and was a hell of a lot more comfortable w/them. The .223 is a good CQB weapon and well suited for that task, however, I have shot the AR-10's and the like in the 7.62 and feel that w/frangible ammo would have been a better choice due to the difference in knockdown power. But that is strictly my opinion! ;)

When I started in law enforcement, I carried an Imbel reciever L1A1 in the 7.62 and absolutely loved it, I worked in a rural area for a small Sheriff's Dept. and the rifle was well suited for that kind of terrain. Now I work for a municipal department and am the firearms instructor and carry a Bushmaster AR-15A3 w/collapsible stock and the flat-top reciever. I purchased this rifle myself and went w/the .223 strictly due to liabilty issues, frangible ammo only due to shorter range and risk of injuring someone due to richochet. The .223 ain't my choice, but it'll get the job done if I need it (God forbid).

'da law

[Tifford]

Here is another good read:


http://www.chuckhawks.com/243_service_rifle.htm



Tifford

[Tifford]

Here is another........scroll down to article 5


http://www.sftt.org/dw07172002.html#7



Tifford

['da law]

Interesting article, just reinforces the fact that "if it ain't broke-the govt. is still gonna TRY and fix it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Hmmmmmmmmmmm, let's see, "I know he's down" OR "spray and pray" he is :huh: Somehow Washington's math don't add up!!!!!!! :unsure: :lol:

[Tifford]

You are so right.

I wonder if they will re-evaluate the 223 after this war with Iraq is over. With Bush upset with the UN the USA might just go to a cartrige of its own.

We have seemed to have had the most troops on the field during the last few conflicts. We might as well have our own cartrige. The French don't seem to know how to use a rifle or what one is used for. All Germany is good for is making of cars to try to sell to the United States.

My, how times have changed.


Tifford