7.62 being replaced by 5.56?

Having used 223 for hunting, I can tell you that it works just fine at ranges of up to 300 meters. And the fact is, nearly ALL military firefights occur at ranges far under 300 meters.

------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

Originally posted by LAK:
.223 ball on deer? That's a new one on me.

Click to expand...

Well, ya learn something new every day.

------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

Well, shot placement is the key with any caliber, but I did not find it moreso with 223 than with anything else.
In fact, once I accidentally gutshot a deer with 223 from about 75 yards and not only did it not run another step, it hit the ground with its internal organs hanging out, its gut split wide open. I was quite impressed with the stopping power of the round.

------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

Originally posted by In service to His Majesty:
Yes it has. And not for the good. Let me respond to a whole bunch of posts instead of one-by-one replies.

The 5.56 is an anemic round. It's adoption has far more to do with what DSK wrote of than any kind of ballistic superiority.


That would be an inaccurate assessment of the 223 round. It is not anemic, in fact at ranges under 200 meters it is devastating to human targets.

In my opinion only, the 5.56 has been adopted to accomodate a new generation of video-gaming, mall-skateboarding soldiers who are inexperienced with arms.

Click to expand...

Of course that theory falls completely apart when you look at the fact that the 223 was adapted in the 1960s, before video games or skateboards (or malls really) even existed.



------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

Originally posted by In service to His Majesty:
True. But even if the Army wanted to go back to the 7.62, it couldn't. Today's PDA wearin', wireless internet gadget man would cry like a baby if a 7.62 recoiled against his shoulder. And can you imagine the women? They would want to take a six-month hiatus under the Family Medical Leave Act. "The ferocity of the rifle causes me recurring nightmares and anguish. I need to get away and deal with the violent trauma to which I have been subjected."

Click to expand...

Frankly, I think that's a load of hooey. The current Army infantry and Marines are not wimps, contrary to what you may think. You sound like the propogandist for the Taliban, frankly.
The advantages of 223 over 308 are clear enough to anyone that has had to hump through the boonies for any length of time, and abundantly clear to anyone who's ever seen the rounds used against living tissue.



------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

Originally posted by Villuj_idiot:
And comfort reasons usually have little to do with effectiveness in a fight.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, when you've road-marched twenty miles at a pace of 5MPH and then gone into the woods for a couple more miles before setting up for an attack, that weight has a LOT to do with effectiveness in a fight.



------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

Originally posted by McNamara:
Unfortunately, these nasty things only happen at close to muzzle velocity, which is to say less than 100-150 meters. Around 200 or more meters, the stretch cavity is smaller and there are no fragments to destroy extra tissue. Then all you get is a .224 caliber hole.


Fortunately, close to 100% of all infantry engagements occur at under 200 meters.


I don't know whether or not the designers of the 5.56 really intended it for wounding, but it's a bad way to go about combat.

Click to expand...

They didn't. It's a military urban legend.



------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

Sorry Kevan, but that makes no sense. "Ballistic evidence?" The IWBA uses ACTUAL wounds in ACTUAL people, not some esoteric gelatin test. I've seen what the 308 does vs the 223 at ranges of 200 meters to the same species and about the same size of animal.
I know the heavy-caliber afficianados like to trot out 19th Century studies such as the momentum tests by Thompson and LaGarde, but I don't need century old tests done with century old guns. I've seen the proof with my own eyes.

------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

Originally posted by swatman:
Rik,
Now it's down to 200 yards>? I thought awhile back you posted that almost all Military engagemensts happened under 300?
Anyway, Do you have any statistics and actual Data to back this up?

Click to expand...

Actually, the usual distance of engagement is around 100 meters. I don't have any reference handy to give you, it's just what I was taught in Infantry Officers Basic Course and in ROTC. I've also read it in various articles and I will try to dig one or two up for you.

------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure