Industrial-Sized Deals Best Books of the Month Shop Women's Handbags Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon Deradoorian Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Shop Popular Services tmnt tmnt tmnt  Amazon Echo Starting at $99 Kindle Voyage AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Back to School with Amazon Back to School with Amazon Outdoor Recreation Deal of the Day

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 37 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 7, 2009 9:31:11 AM PDT
Armed Taco says:
Why does JWR recommend a .308 as your MBR and not the .223...?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2009 12:38:36 PM PDT
P. Carr says:
If I were to guess I would say the .308 has better stopping power than a .223. Its the old one shot one kill rule.

Posted on Oct 7, 2009 1:30:46 PM PDT
Ask anyone in the military. The .223 is designed to wound.
#1 - it removes 3 people from the battle field. The wounded soldier and the 2 soldiers to carry the litter.
#2 - Public Relations. Wounded instead of Killed gives the enemy less propoganda to be used on the Sheeple peacenics in the US.
So, unless you want a pile of wounded "bad guys" that you have to "take care of", the .308 is a much better round. One Shot One Kill.

Posted on Oct 7, 2009 7:05:09 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 13, 2011 5:25:47 PM PST]

Posted on Oct 8, 2009 1:29:20 PM PDT
S. Thompson says:
.308 provides a rifleman with more range, more stopping power, and the ability to shoot through cover.

Posted on Oct 8, 2009 5:47:20 PM PDT
.308 or .223 each has a place.....If you don't have much hiking to do and weight is not an issue...then .308 for sure.....but becuase of the weight differences in a combat load 210 rounds + is one of the main reasons the military settled on .223 ...... when "all" the factors are taken into account....jumping out of planes and long foot marches....weight plays a big roll.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2009 8:19:46 AM PDT
No offense to anyone ... I promise. But, As goods and svcs begin to evaporate and human behavior gets erratic ... Those hungry folks behind the trees foraging will likely be your neighbors. At least offer them jerky before you drill them. It might work. Bullets will probably be more scarce.

Posted on Nov 28, 2009 12:01:00 PM PST
Basicaly if you are in a shootout you will want the biggest, baddest high capacity weapon you can handle. For many here that is a mag fed 308 rifle like the FN FAL or M14.
The 308 is also able to kill any large game in North America. Just use the right ammo for your target.Like soft points for game,FMJ for targets behind cover and match or handloads for distance shots.And practice often even if just dry practice. Train like you fight because you will fight like you trained.

Posted on May 22, 2010 12:42:16 PM PDT
James Locke says:
The .223/5.56mm can put a lot of shots down range relatively accurately, however it will take at least two to three shots to do what one .308/7.62mm will do to a target (at 500 yards a standard 55 gr .223 produces about 325 ft/lbs of energy, while a 165 gr .308 produces about 1200 ft/lbs). The .308 will also be able to reach out farther and still have enough energy Now, the .308 isn't perfect, "safari" caliber weapons will greatly surpass it in power, but the .308 will destroy them in the ability to have a follow-up shot (because of the reduced recoil and becasue you can use an auto-loading rifle with a twenty round mag), the ability for an individual to quickly reload (once again, auto-loader) and the availability of the ammo (ALL gun stores stock .308 in large quantities). Also, if you purchase a military rifle (M14, G3, or FAL) you already know the rifle will be very reliable, easy to clean, and easy to find parts and mags for.
And in response to Survival Ranger, the combat load with a .308 wouldn't be 210 rounds, with a .223 you carry seven 30 round mags (210 rounds), .308 mags are almost always twenty rounders (total of 140 rounds, with seven mags, so unless you buy the gigantic 30 round G3 mags, with no mag pouches to fit them, you won't be carrying 210 rounds). The weight of the weapon would be greater, but with all the stuff thrown onto an M4 these days they weigh as much if not more than my G3 at home.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2010 5:45:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 21, 2010 5:49:19 AM PDT
Nathan says:
Michael L. Thomas says:
Ask anyone in the military. The .223 is designed to wound.
#1 - it removes 3 people from the battle field. The wounded soldier and the 2 soldiers to carry the litter.
#2 - Public Relations. Wounded instead of Killed gives the enemy less propoganda to be used on the Sheeple peacenics in the US.
So, unless you want a pile of wounded "bad guys" that you have to "take care of", the .308 is a much better round. One Shot One Kill.

-----------------

I'm in the military; so I'll chime in.

First, the military is not using .223, they're using 5.56mm; not the same round.

Second, the old "two buddies needed to carry" idea is a myth. The round is intended to kill and we shoot to kill; not to injure. 5.56 was chosen so soldiers could carry a lighter rifle and more rounds. It's also excellent at penetrating kevlar helmets (and not to give them a headache).

Third, asking around in the military is often not a good way to get accurate information. I've heard much more nonsense than accurate information during my service. And that's often because people are usually content to pass on misinformation without checking it out.

Posted on Jul 4, 2010 4:01:50 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 9, 2011 6:14:22 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2010 4:14:38 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 9, 2011 6:14:22 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2010 4:31:29 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 9, 2011 6:14:22 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2010 7:25:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2010 7:28:10 PM PDT
Nathan says:
Screaming Eagle:

"If it's a myth, it started decades before the M16/5.56 was ever heard of. It is military theory/doctrine, but was never actually carried out on the battlefield by individual soldiers. "

Do you have access to some manuals that give this doctrine?

"As far as shooting through modern helmets is concerned, I tested a British surplus Kevlar helmet and found that just about any center fire rifle/carbine round goes through with no problem. It will deflect even 7.62 bullets that hit at an angle though. I'm sure it would ring the soldier's bell, probably knock him out. "

What distance(s) were you shooting from?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2010 9:16:54 PM PDT
James Locke says:
Nathan, you are correct that the .223 and 5.56 are different...kinda pointless to mention, though, since the only difference being that the 5.56 is hotter load. The bullet itself, however, is actually the same, unless you start going into tracers, of course. And you're right, we shoot to kill, but that doesn't mean the round is effective at doing so. In it's original state (shot out of a barrel with a 1 in 14 twist), the round was extremely effective at killing because it became very unstable upon entering the body, tumbling and creating a massive wound channel in the body. The current rifles (1 in 7 twist), allow the bullet to be more accurate at longer ranges but force it to remain too stable when entering a body and don't create much of a wound unless it is shot directly at a vital organ.

Posted on Jul 5, 2010 6:50:49 AM PDT
Nathan says:
James,

"Nathan, you are correct that the .223 and 5.56 are different...kinda pointless to mention, though, since the only difference being that the 5.56 is hotter load."

I think it's worth mentioning because the common misunderstanding that they are the same has tempted retailers to use bad ethics in their sales strategies. I was at a gun show where a vendor was pushing some SS109 as "223 Remington", knowing that people would more readily recognize 223 Remington. When I pointed out that they're not the same (and actually it's more than just a hotter load, the cases are necked differently) and she should label her sale sign correctly so the buyer doesn't damage a rifle chambered in 223 with this ammo, she just shrugged it off.

So, I think it's always worth mentioning. For anyone who's still not clear on the matter; you can shoot 223 in a rifle chambered for 5.56 mm, but you should not shoot 5.56 ammo in a rifle specifically chambered 223.

And we could all go on and on about the ballistic performance of 5.56 and 7.62x39, 7.62x51, etc.... My point is simply this: Someone please back up this 2 buddies to carry the wounded doctrine with some documentation we can all look at (and then I'll stand corrected). We certainly aren't taught to take wounding shots in the Army.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2010 12:41:54 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 9, 2011 6:14:23 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2010 12:53:49 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 9, 2011 6:14:23 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2010 1:19:25 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 9, 2011 6:14:23 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2010 1:35:10 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 9, 2011 6:14:23 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2010 1:54:27 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 9, 2011 6:14:23 PM PDT]

Posted on Jul 5, 2010 5:01:30 PM PDT
Nathan says:
Screaming Eagle,

Your posts offer some great insights.

"Now, if you were referring to the myth that the 5.56 was developed for the purpose of wounding, you are correct: it is a myth."

Yeah that's my point here. Anyone could agree that it is a nice battlefield reality when your enemy is carrying the wounded; but again and again I hear fellow soldiers say the army went with 5.56 for this reason. And I'm just not buying it since we are never taught the doctrine of wounding. If it was once published in a field manual as doctrine, I really want to know.

What you're saying about commercial 7.62x39 makes a lot of sense. I once bought a surplus yugo sks. Getting all the grease out of the firing pin channel was quite the chore. I actually never shot it before I traded it. In the end, my friend bought one of the spring loaded firing pins because as much we cleaned that channel, the firing pin would still stick forward.

There's a couple options for a spring loaded sks firing pin that I know of. You can buy the firing pin fitted with the spring and swap it out yourself (40 bucks), or buy a whole new bolt with that firing pin included (about a hundred bucks I think). The advantage there was it was modified so you could freely put in and take out tapco magazines without having to have the bolt locked back.

Here's what I'd like to know on 5.56 vs. 7.62x39 and penetrating armor/helmets. Supposedly our current ballistic plates can take a 7.62x39 round point blank, but be penetrated by 5.56. With that in mind; I'm wondering if 5.56 will penetrate a kevlar helmet beyond the range that 7.62x39 will.

Regarding our armor in the jungle; you raise a good concern. There is a short humid season in Kuwait that is nearly unbearable wearing all the gear. The jungle would be unreal with everything we wear now.

Posted on Jul 7, 2010 8:32:19 AM PDT
Nathan and Screaming Eagle, regarding body armor;

I'm not here to argue with either of you, just to add my two cents worth.

I retired from active duty as an Infantry Paratrooper (82d - not 101st <grin>) two years ago. I deployed twice each to Afghanistan and Iraq, and was stationed in Panama (long before we wore body armor in training) and did tours in Egypt (also sans armor), and training in Puerto Rico, Honduras, and lots of other hot & dry, and hot & humid locations. Point of the matter is, I know a bit about which you are speaking. Training at Bragg in the summer is about as hot and humid as anywhere, as you probably know. Campbell isn't too much different, from the time that I have spent there...

When we first were issued our new Interceptor Body Armor in 2002, during our pre-deployment rev-up, we all thought the same thing: That thing is so d*&^ heavy and hot, how in the world do they expect us to DO anything in it??? We increased our fighting load by 30% just by putting it on....

But, like so many grunts before us, we "just did it". Yes, it was hotter'n aitch eee double hockey stick. Yes it was heavy. Yes it restricted breathing and motion. We sucked it up and learned to deal with it. We trained in new TTPs (Tactics, Techniques & Procedures) which took advantage of it's strengths, and minimized it's weaknesses. We improvised, adapted and overcame.

Oh, and we did test the IBA and ACH helmets on the rifle range - both the training range and the two-way range - and they do stop both modern fighting rounds at realistic ranges. As close as 10-15 meters, and out to a couple hundred, at least.

I "heard" the 1x wounded, 2x to carry thing over the course of my entire 25 year career also, but cannot point to a doctrinal manual, either.

I've got friends who have not yet retired, who have spent time in the Phillipines and other jungle areas in recent years, with the current uniform items. Major Suckage. But yet possible.

FWIW.

Posted on Jul 7, 2010 11:41:11 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 9, 2011 6:14:24 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2010 12:44:52 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 9, 2011 6:14:24 PM PDT]
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  20
Total posts:  37
Initial post:  Oct 7, 2009
Latest post:  Nov 20, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions