[LAK]

Swatman,

I agree; I think it was a big mistake going to the 5.56. The number of rounds per casualty inflicted went from about 50,000 in Korea to about 200,000 in Vietnam. On the other hand, snipers in Vietnam ran something like 1.3 (or there abouts) rounds per casualty inflicted.

Funny, one of the "justifcations" for dumping .30 cal weapons was "weight". That bad joke called the "OICW" the hi-tech loonies want to foist on our military weighs about EIGHTEEN pounds loaded. I can just imagine how enthusiastic and effective the troopers in our "new army" are going to be lugging that thing around.

 

[LAK]

.223 ball on deer? That's a new one on me.

 

[LAK]

Keywords; "good shot placement". Indeed, I have shot rabbits with a .45 - and they didn't stop and die any quicker than hits in the right place with a .22LR.

But what precise shot placement with just about any .22 caliber rifle cartridge and a FMJ bullet can do on deer aside..... if my life is at stake, I know which one I would choose - every time, at any distance

 

[LAK]

I have fired 30-06 WW2 vintage AP and the various 5.56 AP at various thicknesses steel plate. Even allowing a generous difference in velocity between 30-06 and 7.62 NATO I'd bet some good money that 7.62 will outpenetrate 5.56; in any standard FMJ and AP comparison.

Against wood, masonry or any other tactical barriers I agree there is no comparison.

Villuj_idiot,

I used to attend a club where a note was posted swearing cost recovery for the welded repairs to a bunch of pistol plates!

 

[LAK]

GI-45,

It is a combination of factors; material (bullet) and construction, sectional density, mass, velocity and even such mundane variables as bullet stability. The 5.56 loses velocity fast, and a significant amount is lost from the short 16.5" barrel. As the range increases, the difference in velocity between a 7.62 and a 5.56 rapidly starts to disappear. Penetration of hard tactical barriers will be reduced proportionately.

Spock,

I would compare ball ammo with ball ammo - and AP with AP

 

[LAK]

"LAK
As to ball to ball I am comparing the current 5.56 and 7.62. Which version of Nato ball were you thinking of? spock"

Spock,

If I were going to make a valid comparison it would be FMJ/lead core bullets - and a separate comparison between rounds employing steel-cored AP bullets.

Ballistic coefficients do of course influence velocity loss. But there are 7.62 military loadings with longer/heavier bullets - I believe up to about 175 grains in AP, API etc with tungsten carbide cores which would compare to the heavier 5.56 loads with steel penetrators. The 147 or 150 grain 7.62 loads are really in the comparison class of the 55 grain FMJ 5.56.

No matter which way you cut it, the 7.62 is a superior cartridge. It is (as has been mentioned) a simple matter of physics.

Just for a relative comparison, take Federal's "American Eagle" .223 55 grain FMJ and their .308 150 grain FMJ load:

Velocity at muzzle, 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 yds are as follows (from Federal Cartridge website - both test barrels 24")....

3240; 2950, 2670, 2410, 2170, and 1940 fps.

A FMJ .22 cal bullet travelling at 2670 fps is already moving down into the .22 Hornet area. Not to say it still won't kill placed in the right place, but hardly "devastating".

The corresponding figures for the American Eagle .308 150 grain FMJ run as follows...

2820; 2620, 2430, 2250, 2070, 1900 fps

Even at just 100 yards there is only a 300 fps difference. This between a bullet weighing 55 grains and a bullet weighing 150 grains. And that difference narrows to about 200 fps at 200 yards, and not much over 100 fps at 300 yds.

Of course there are heavier 5.56x45 loadings with bullets having better ballistic coefficients; but there are likewise longer heavier loadings in the 7.62x51.

[This message has been edited by LAK (edited 10-27-2001).]

 

[LAK]

By RikWriter: "Sorry Kevan, but that makes no sense".

... Well - ask anyone that hunts with blackpowder guns just how effective those big round lead balls can be on game

--------

As for engagement ranges; that is a pretty subjective matter, and it depends on many things.

The average range of OPPORTUNITY for engagement will be limited by such things as topography, land character, foliage, man-made structures, visibility etc etc.

The EFFECTIVE range (of actual engagements) might factor in; the overall quality of the troops, including their levels of marksmanship - and their equipment (small arms), as well as other factors.

From the War between the States all the way to the Gulf "war", in between lie many; such as the Great (second) Boer War - where aimed engagements were often at very long ranges. Much of the "modern" military theory revolves around what are basically assumptions. For instance that "modern" wars will be "limited" engagements, mostly in urban areas, etc etc etc. All well and good as painted by political theorists - except that war is not the most predictable of things, and attempting to "limit" them and place corresponding limitations on training and equipment is foolhardy.