[Terry G]

Okay, it's a war story, so move on if you want to. I saw a NVA soldier hit with a burst of three rounds from an M-60 machine gun, stiched from just above the right hip to the left bottom of his rib cage. He stumbled for over 100 meters into our position. Our medics saved his life. Last I heard he became a scout for a Special Forces Team. I also saw a NVA struck in the left bicep with one round from an M-16. He was dead when we got to him. Our medic said he died of shock when the bullet shattered the bone in his arm. I'm making no scientific statements by this, just two examples of how different wounds may affect different people.

 

[mrostov]

Most people who deride the 5.56mm as a 'mouse gun' have never seen a real human shot with one, especially with the older M193 mankiller ammo. It's an ugly sight. There's a pre-disposition amongst many in the US military and American shooting circles to perpertuate the bad stories of poor (read: internally sabotaged) implementation in Vietnam of the early M-16's.

 

[DJetAce]

Terry,

It sounds like the M60 hits were in the stomach level or around that and did not hit bone. And notice the one hit with the 5.56 did hit bone. The bone fragments alot and the bone pieces cause a huge amount of dammage.

I'm sure the one hit in the arm had bone fragments thrown all through his body.

I remember Cooper writing about how the 7.62 Mauser pistol would not stop well unless bone was hit. So I'm pretty sure light weight small bullets just about have to either hit bone or fragment themselves (and thus doing the same thing.)

The 7.62 is more likly not to need such hits but it's no absolute guarentee either. Nothing short of 20mm HE is a 100 persent stopper.

 

[Garand]

During my 28 years in uniform, I carried 2 different rifles. The first was the 7.62mm FN C1A1 for 13 years. The second was the 5.56mm M16A1/C7/C7A1/C8 Carbine for 15 years. I have never seen combat, per say. I have been "under fire" 5 times. They weren't shooting at me, just over my head! At the other guys. I've hauled dead bodies that took .303 rds at less than 1 meter.

In the 6 years that I shot Service Rifle/Service Sniper competition I found the 7.62mm rd more effective than the 5.56mm out to 500 meters. The main difference between the 2 weapon systems was the reliability of the rifle. The 7.62mm was and the 5.56mm wasn't. I have soldiered in weather conditions from plus +100F to a windchill of -70F. I think I have a reasonable grasp of what works under adverse weather conditions. I'll stick with a 7.62mm.

 

[mrostov]

I definitely agree that the .308 round and it's kind are superior ammo at ranges past 150m.

As for the reliability, I'd say that this is an area more to the cause of the rifle rather than the round. The Alaska State Trooper test in the 1980's had 4 rifles survive the test, 3 were 5.56mm and 1 was a .308, all 4 used a Kalashnikov based operating system (the 5.56mm and .308 Galil, a 5.56mm Valmet, and the 5.56mm FNC).

The FAL wasn't in their test, but your experience shows that it also works in the extreme cold, but I bet it would function and cycle regardless of what caliber it was.

Another cold weather country, Sweden, recently shelved their G3 rifles into reserve for the 5.56mm FNC.

Myself, if I were to chose a 5.56mm rifle for the extreme cold, I probably wouldn't chose the CAR-15, which is what I pack nowadays. I'd probably chose an AK, like the American made Arsenal M5S, or a custom Mini-14

If I were to move up to BC, which is on my option list for the future, I might rig an M1A. For extreme reliability when I'm away from the hordes, an Enfield might well be a good choice.

 

[Glenn Bartley]

You really cannot say all that much based on the example given in the initial post as to the efficiency of either round without doing a lot of other comparissons. There are just too many variables when two different people are shot, who suffer different wounds, and so forth. For example there is the physical condition of each person (did one of those shot already have a 104 degree fever because of some disease), the damage done by the shot (did it hit an artery as opposed to not hitting any major blood vessels), did it hit bone, did it tumble, did it hit soft tissue and go straight through, and on and on), plus other variables.

You also need to consider the "Oh no I've been shot, so I am going to die" factor. This is a big factor when someone gets shot. Some people give up, and this apparently leads to an earlier demise in some. There are documented cases of police officers being shot with what would normally have been considered non-life threatening wounds who have succumbed and died from those wounds. Just pointing this out to show there are lots of variables.

I think testing is best done on subjects whereby the variables can be controlled. That is why things like ballistic gelatin are used in tests. It can be pretty uniform from one block to the next.

 

[andy]

animals dont have psychological factors to worry about, and they respond JUST like flesh and blood does to being shot, unlike jello does.

 

[84 C4]

You know what that, means, right? BOTH are ineffective, I say we go back to the 45-70!! Or start mass issueing the .50 Beawulf. :dgrin:

 

[Magnum88C]

Rounds of the HEi (High Explosive Incendiary) tend to have the best stopping percentages. :dgrin:

 

[DJetAce]

animals dont have psychological factors to worry about, and they respond JUST like flesh and blood does to being shot, unlike jello does.

And that is why animal studies have almost zero relationship to human reactions as far as wounds go. Animals are not at all like humans so shooting animals will give very false readings as to what works and what dosn't in combat.

Thanks gunkid, you made my case again

 

[andy]

it's a non-issue. NO military is going back to general issue of the 308. It's just not worth the extra cost, wt, bulk, etc, because the troops MISS with many,many thousands of rds for every hit that they get, and most hits are poor ones, achieved mostly by random accident. Poor hits with 308 dont do a DAMNED thingmore than the same poor hits with 223. So why use up more of our airlift capacity, burden the troops with crap they'll never have any real use for, hmm?

 

[Garand]

But keep it in perspective, we are not talking about the military, we are discussing it as individuals. None of us will ever serve in the military again so that topic is irrelevent! For an individual survivalist, the 7.62mm NATO is a far superior cartridge over a wide variety of geographical enviornments.

 

[mrostov]

For lightweight, it's hard to beat the 5.56mm, and you can carry a lot of bang.

I still keep a very, very accurate 7.62mm NATO around and if I ever have to 'bug out' it's coming with me. It's also legal in all English speaking countries (my hairy ass isn't welded to Arizona).

One of the main reasons I keep a 5.56mm as my primary is that I live in a target rich environment, near the 5th largest urban area in the US. I have my CAR-15 rigged as a gunfighing weapon for medium to close range, first and formost.

I get a boat, I'd like to rig up an AIA No4 MkIV 7.62mmNATO Enfield.In places of extreme range and visibility, like out on the prairie, and for marine use, the 7.62mm is far superior due to greater range and penetration.

 

[84 C4]

But keep it in perspective, we are not talking about the military, we are discussing it as individuals. None of us will ever serve in the military again so that topic is irrelevent! For an individual survivalist, the 7.62mm NATO is a far superior cartridge over a wide variety of geographical enviornments.

The cap in the US is 28, so I'm still eligible for the next several years.

 

[Garand]

At one portion of my life, I had fairly extensive experience in house clearing drill with a 7.62 NATO. While I understand your situation, I would personally feel more comfortable with the 7.62mm, as even in an urban enviornment if you get caught in a bad location the possibility of 300-400 meters shots could be required to extract yourself safely. Besides if the balloon ever goes up, the need to worry about over penetration shrinks.

 

[mrostov]

At one time I had my gear based around an HK-91. Compared to my CAR-15, the HK was an un-ergonomic, heavy pig. The CAR is light, small, and handy, plus I can carry a LOT of ammo for it.

Now, I'm not married to metal. I'll switch gear as soon as it becomes convenient.

If I wind up in California or British Columbia, the best choices are either a Mini-14, an M-14/M1A, or an Enfield. At that point a 7.62mm may be on the menu.

I've contemplated switching to an FAL, DSA makes some really nice ones, but, like the AR, they can be legally inconvenient in some places.

 

[John in AR]

The cap in the US is 28, so I'm still eligible for the next several years.

You're making me feel old there, chief. That means I got out of the Army when you were between diapers and kindergarten. Dang...

 

[andy]

the disadvantages of 308 STAY the same, too heavy, not really any more effective, or needed range, lack of a can, lack of concealability, lack of a .22 unit, lack of one hand use, etc. Does't matter where you go, they're still a clunker-pig.

 

[DJetAce]

Garand I do agree the 7.62 has alot to offer. Since any individual will have limited supply, spray-n-pray would be a bad idea and the 7.62 can do so much more in other areas the 5.56 has no real ability. For the individual, accurate strait shooting is a must.

If you use a 5.56 use one with a 18 to 20 inch barrel to get enough range and stopping power.

As for this dream fantacy of concealablity, get a M1A scout and a AR, you will notice the M1A can take a true folding stock and needs no disassambly. Neither can be put down ones pants legs and walked with any kind of normal walk. It's fantacy, pure fantacy.

 

[Garand]

Gunkid/erika no matter how many times that you repeat that line, it doesn't make it a fact!