You are not logged in. Log In |  Register New Search
  Previous Topic    Next Topic  
advanced
First Previous [1] 2  of 2 Next Last

Posted:  11/24/2005 12:13 PM #2192
kcoruol


Joined: 11/23/2005
Posts: 10
Last Post: 11/24/2005
Subject: 308 or 223 ?
Can't have a firearm forum without at least one discussion on the ole 308 vs 223 debate!

Posted:  11/29/2005 4:22 AM #2172
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
For what? Hunting? SHTF? War? Are there NATO limitations?

Posted:  11/29/2005 8:43 AM #2170
C0wboi


Joined: 10/8/2005
Posts: 113
Last Post: 1/17/2006
Subject: Well
Basically, does it go "bang" in my chosen platform 100 percent of the time? Yes? I'll take it.

Dead is dead, and "one shot stops" are a myth. I'll pick either one, whichever I can get cheaper.

In my area, and with my situation, 7.62 is my choice.

If I had to use 5.56 would I feel out-gunned? Nope. Two words. Shot placement.


Just my $.02
What part of "Shall not be infringed" do people not understand????

Molon Labe!!

Posted:  11/29/2005 9:48 AM #2171
Boogyman


Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 689
Last Post: 12/21/2006
It's like comparing oranges and apples.
.308- Longer range. more recoil, heavier ammo (&; gun) so you carry less rounds. I'd prefer it for sniping and defending open areas.
.223- shorter range, just as accurate, less recoil, lighter ammo (&; gun) so you carry more rounds. I'd prefer it for a fire-fight or defending close-in or urban areas.
Can't decide? Get both.


Posted:  11/29/2005 5:03 PM #2190
benstone85


Joined: 11/8/2005
Posts: 24
Last Post: 12/16/2005
Subject: 308 or 223 ?
i would say...223! its a lot cheaper and almost just as effective for most things. you can also fire shots a lot quicker and with less recoil, which means shooting at a fast shotrate you would be more accurate with the 223. 308 packs a lot of more power though!

Posted:  11/29/2005 6:02 PM #2191
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
As far as FMJ, .223 in is far more effective than .308. Once you move up to TAP or other "special" ammo, the .308 takes the cake. Like cowboi said earlier, I wouldn't want to get shot be either :D

Posted:  11/29/2005 11:10 PM #2183
SplitHoof


Joined: 11/23/2005
Posts: 11
Last Post: 11/23/2005
Subject: 308 vs 223
Removed
"Hi-Speed, Low Drag"

Posted:  11/29/2005 11:29 PM #2184
C0wboi


Joined: 10/8/2005
Posts: 113
Last Post: 1/17/2006
Subject: I think some of the confusion
May be with 5.56 vs 7.62.

Are we talking 7.62x39? or .308?

Damn.. if it's .308, then NO CONTEST. .308 with NO hesitation. None. I'll take a .308 over any 5.56 any day of any week.

Give me my M-14!!
What part of "Shall not be infringed" do people not understand????

Molon Labe!!

Posted:  11/30/2005 12:12 AM #2185
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
Subject: Re: I think some of the confusion
C0wboi-May be with 5.56 vs 7.62.

Are we talking 7.62x39? or .308?

Damn.. if it's .308, then NO CONTEST. .308 with NO hesitation. None. I'll take a .308 over any 5.56 any day of any week.

Give me my M-14!!


He said .308. .308 is 7.62nato bud, not x39.

Posted:  11/30/2005 12:54 AM #2186
SplitHoof


Joined: 11/23/2005
Posts: 11
Last Post: 11/23/2005
Subject: 308 vs 223
rem
"Hi-Speed, Low Drag"

Posted:  11/30/2005 12:54 AM #2187
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
Subject: Re: 308 vs 223
SplitHoof-Sorry, but I don't buy that last one. From a professional standpoint, I have seen what FMJ bullets do from both rounds, and by far the bigger .30 cal takes more folks out of the fight than the .22. True, you can carry more of the smaller stuff, and I would not want to be shot by either, but I will go with the proven track record of the larger, heavier payload any day.

This stuff was proven over 20 years ago my friend, there's nothing to disagree with. It's not my opinion, it's FACT. The 7.62x39 FMJ is damn near useless in disrupting tissue. The 7.62x51 (AKA .308 or 7.62 NATO) FMJ is more effective because it tends to yaw (turn on end) and make a wider wound channel. The 5.56NATO on the other hand yaws, then fragments causing massive tissue damage. Fragmentation only happens over a certain velocity so engaging targets with M855 out past 200-250 yards isn't as effective. Unless you're "professional" standpoint is that of a battle field surgen, I can't imagine a grunt or LEO knowing anything technical about terminal ballistics and looking at two entry wounds side by side doesn't prove anything other than .308inches is in fact larger than .223 inches. "Hydrostatic shock" is a myth. "Pressure waves" although effective are not the primary wound mechanism. Basically, Bigger is not always Better.

I could type out a page but the information is out there. Research Martin L. Fackler. There's enough documentation from his research out there. More specifically, look up "Wounding Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets".

Posted:  11/30/2005 1:27 AM #2188
SplitHoof


Joined: 11/23/2005
Posts: 11
Last Post: 11/23/2005
rem
"Hi-Speed, Low Drag"

Posted:  11/30/2005 1:55 AM #2189
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
Subject: 308 or 223 ?
Edited: never mind

Posted:  11/30/2005 6:23 PM #2179
C0wboi


Joined: 10/8/2005
Posts: 113
Last Post: 1/17/2006
Subject: I will make one comment
If you are getting all of your ballistics information from Fackler, then I don't believe I can have an intelligent conversation with you.

As for your attitude...

So I made a little "error" in my thinking of x39 vs .308

Pardon me for breathing.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" do people not understand????

Molon Labe!!

Posted:  11/30/2005 6:32 PM #2180
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
LOL! Yes, revert to personal insults because you lack any education or real world experience. I provided a readily available source for information by mentioning Fackler. PLEASE in all of your wisdom and experience, offer something besides your bad attitude and lack of reasoning to counter Fackler or any fact I've stated. For someone who doesn't know the difference between and the shorty round and NATO spec round, I don't know why you opened your big mouth in the first place. Get a library card.

Posted:  11/30/2005 9:51 PM #2176
RendonRedneck


Joined: 6/23/2005
Posts: 797
Last Post: 4/30/2009
Subject: 308 or 223 ?
Lets keep it clean, No name calling. I don't mind people posting opinions but remember everyone has a right to his or her opinions, and people will disagree that’s ok but keep it clean people.

I know that are a lot of facts about one bullet vs. another, but a lot depends on what that bullet is used for.

For war the 223 is a wicked bullet that does a lot of internal damage that is way the US uses it.
For hunting the 308 is a better bullet for making good quick clean kills on deer and larger game.
The part about the 308 as a hunting round is my opinion.

If people have a problem with respecting each other and their opinions then I will lock his forum so play nice.
I work to support my outdoor habit
Aaron
NAHC Life Member
NAFC Life Member
Trained Gunsmith
According to wife outdoor and computer nut
I support the Bill of Rights
RendonRendneck@dovesoutdoors.com

Posted:  11/30/2005 9:52 PM #2177
SplitHoof


Joined: 11/23/2005
Posts: 11
Last Post: 11/23/2005
Subject: .308 vs .223
rem
"Hi-Speed, Low Drag"

Posted:  11/30/2005 11:06 PM #2178
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
RendonRedneck-Lets keep it clean, No name calling. I don't mind people posting opinions but remember everyone has a right to his or her opinions, and people will disagree that’s ok but keep it clean people.

I know that are a lot of facts about one bullet vs. another, but a lot depends on what that bullet is used for.

For war the 223 is a wicked bullet that does a lot of internal damage that is way the US uses it.
For hunting the 308 is a better bullet for making good quick clean kills on deer and larger game.
The part about the 308 as a hunting round is my opinion.

Agreed!

If people have a problem with respecting each other and their opinions then I will lock his forum so play nice.


Sorry for the disturbance in the force :)

Posted:  12/1/2005 11:55 AM #2174
Boogyman


Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 689
Last Post: 12/21/2006
Subject: Behave!
Boys, boys, boys. Settle down now and behave. You both happen to be a bit opinionated and stubborn and that's fine, nobodies perfect!
"Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King
I do have a question though... if "hydrostatic shock" is a myth, then what's all that dark red, jelly-like meat around the bullet impact area on the deer when I butcher them? I find more of it when I use smaller, faster calibers then when using big, slow bullets. I've killed and butchered over 200 deer over the last 40-some years and the only times I haven't found it is in deer killed with an arrow. Even a lead round-ball from my .50 black-powder causes a minute amount of this tissue damage.
This is hands-on, not book-larnin'. Whaddya say, boys?


Posted:  12/1/2005 2:31 PM #2175
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
The way I understand it, hydrostatic shock is the theory that bodily fluids can't be compressed and when the bullet comes into contact with them they are pushed by the bullet rather than compressed, matching it's speed and becoming a sort of projectile on their own tearing through bone, organs, and tissue.

The pressure wave is what pulverizes the meat around the entry wound and wound channel. Different bullet designs are more effective with pressure waves. A bigger round doesn't always mean a bigger pressure wave. For example, the .40S&;W creates more of a pressure wave and does more surrounding damage than a .45ACP, which I've seen.

I think in theory the pressure wave is what is supposed to create hydrostatic shock and that's why they sound the same. The "shock" from the bullet dissipates quickly but does do some damage. It doesn't turn fluid into a wounding mechanism though.

I'm no expert; this is just how I understand it. I reserve the right be wrong :)

Posted:  12/1/2005 4:34 PM #2162
Boogyman


Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 689
Last Post: 12/21/2006
Subject: 308 or 223 ?
OK, very well put. It is always wise to leave yourself an "out" when making statements, that way you have your butt covered if you just happen to be wrong. :oops:
What I'm thinking is this (and I might be wrong), the word "hydrostatic" is a combination of the words "hydro", which refers to fluid, or water, and the word "static", which means "at rest".
Add the word "shock" which means "violent impact" in this case, and you basically have "the violent impact on water at rest".
Our bodies are made up of 90% water, and I'm guessing deer are about the same. If this "pressure wave" you refer to is the cause of the tissue damage, and water can't be compressed, then wouldn't it make sense that the "wave" is actually water traveling at high speed through the tissue, escaping from compression at the impact point, which is caused by the kinetic energy delivered by the bullet?
If this is true, and the damage is caused by a fast-moving water wave, what else would you call it but "hydrostatic shock"? :shock:


Posted:  12/1/2005 8:14 PM #2163
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
You're dead on, but the popular idea is that that water/fluid will continue to move and destroy tissue, organs, and everything else in it's path becoming a weapon in itself and even traveling out the back of the body. In reality that only happens out to 3/4" around the wound max. That's where the myth is crushed. So I guess you could say that hydrostatic shock happens, it's just not as devastating as it's made out to be. The "distant damage" is the myth, even with high-powered rifle rounds. The shock wave or pressure wave form high powered rifle rounds is not much more, if any, than pistol rounds. I don't like even using the word because people believe what ammo advertisements tell them (Example: Federals "Hydashok" ammo).

As with any blunt trauma, energy is transferred from the point of impact to surrounding areas but our tissue stretches, it is only temporary and by no means a primary wounding mechanism.

Posted:  12/1/2005 8:28 PM #2157
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
Here's something I found:

Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association-A review of 1400 rifle wounds from Vietnam(Wound Data and Munitions Effecetivemess Team) should lay to rest the myth of "distant" injuries. In that study there were no cases of bones being broken, or major vessels torn, that were not hit by the penetrating bullet. In only two cases, an organ that was not hit (but was within a few cm of the projectile path), suffered some disruption.

Posted:  12/1/2005 11:06 PM #2158
Boogyman


Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 689
Last Post: 12/21/2006
Well that makes sense. Which brings me to another point: I wonder how much of a factor the speed of the bullet is in relation to the amount of damage inflicted. In my deer hunting experience I've noticed a definite difference between fast cartridges and slow ones, the bullet size doesn't seem to matter as much. One of the kills I made last week with my .250-3000 Savage (.257 dia. 90-grain boat-tail at about 3200 fps.) entered right behind the left shoulder and exited about three inches behind the rearmost right rib. The liver was completely destroyed, along with every soft organ within 4 inches of the bullet path. I mean it was mush, and at the exit wound the entire right flank was just red jelly.
A similar shot made with a .30-30 (150-grain, about 2400 fps.) last season showed way less damage, in fact this deer ran for almost 100 yards before succumbing to the holes in both lungs. We were able to save 2/3's of the liver even though the bullet passed through a portion of it.
I don't think the rated energy-ft.-lbs. is much of an indication because it's amost the same for both these cartridges.
I did see on Discovery Channel once where these scientists were testing various satellite-skin materials for meteorite impact damage. They used the same sized projectile (about the size as a BB) at different speeds through this super-gun they had that could reach over 10,000 MPH and the damage was definitely way worse exponentially as the speeds increased.
How does this relate to our topic (.308 vs. .223)? My theory is the higher speed of the .223 makes up for it's lighter mass on impact. I've also used both of these cartridges on deer and at medium distances found them to about equal as far as tissue damage, except the .308 tends to make a straighter path whereas the .223 deflects more easily. At longer distances, the .308 retains more impact energy because of it's heavier mass.
The main advanyage that the .223 has, as far as I can see, is being lighter and smaller... a soldier can carry almost twice as many rounds as he can .308, which I think is one of the main reasons the military adapted the lighter cartridge.
(whew) ok now I think I have a blister on my finger....


Posted:  12/1/2005 11:31 PM #2159
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
Like rendonredneck said, the main reason the military uses the 5.56 is because it fragments above ~2700fps doing massive damage compared to any larger round that doesn't expand or fragment. Although the US isn't bound by the Houge Peace Treaty stating no one may use projectiles that do unnecessary damage to humans (hollow points and the like), we still abide by it for the most part. The fact that M855 is so light is definitely a plus though, I agree.

Did you recover the .250-3000 round from the deer? Or any pieces? What bullet was it?

Posted:  12/2/2005 1:24 AM #2160
Boogyman


Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 689
Last Post: 12/21/2006
The .250-3000 cartridge was one of my own handloads using a Sierra 90-grain hollow-point boat-tail. The .30-30 was a Winchester factory load, also a hollow-point. Both bullets seemed to fragment about the same, the .30-30 left slightly bigger chunks, being a bigger bullet, of course.
As far as the various reasons the military adopted the .223 cartridge, I seem to remember when Stoner was presenting his M-16 for government testing, he ran into a lot of opposition from some of the old guard types who were in favor of retaining the M-14 because of it's heavier firepower and proven reliability. One of Stoner's biggest selling points was the ability of a soldier to carry more .223(5.56) ammo than .308(7.62), and was definitely a main factor in the winning of the contract.
Now before you tag me as a M-16 guy, I gotta tell you this. I did my BCT at "The Knocks" in 1971 and we trained with M-14's. When I graduated a lot of us were in limbo waiting on our duty assignments because most of those being sent to Vietnam were slated as replacements in units already deployed in combat zones. I finally got my MOS and was sent to Tigerland at Ft. Polk, LA for AIT and that's when I was issued an M-16 for the first time. I HATED IT. I wanted my M-14 back but I might as well have asked for the moon. I remember the chief armorer instructing us on the "virtues" of the M-16, and he stressed the point about being able to carry more ammo quite strongly.
Needless to say, I now own a Ruger Mini-14, which to me is the best of both worlds, it has the basic design of the M-14 with the lighter, easier-handling .223 round. To me the only drawback of the M-14 was it was difficult to stay on target in full-auto because of the recoil.
I still prefer the .308 for long range shooting (in my bolt-action) and for hunting I like my Savage. But the Mini-14 is my "goto" gun when the SHTF, I'm well stocked with mags and ammo.
When it comes down to it, the goal in combat (besides staying alive) is to kill OR disable as many of the enemy as possible so they cannot kill or disable you. If the .223 round is easier to shoot accurately by the average soldier, he'll probably get more hits on the enemy. Most recruits have very little experience with high-power rifles and I saw a lot of city-boys in basic that couldn't hit crapola with the M-14 but suddenly were qualifying Expert with the less-intimidating M-16. When it wasn't jamming, that is.


Posted:  12/2/2005 2:18 AM #2161
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
Oh man, this is round vs. round. The M16 in Vietnam is a whole different discussion.

The introduction of the M16 was purely political and cost many lives.

A) The material used in making the chamber/barrel was, without going into detail, the wrong material for the job.

B) The rifling of the barrel was completely wrong also at 1:14. They called it the “meat axe” because the bullet was never stabilized and wobbled end over end. Sure, the entry wound was impressive but the round never had the velocity to do what it was meant to: fragment. Did it work? Kind of. Was it accurate? Hell no.

The rifle wasn't ready for introduction into the military and especially into combat. Everyone will agree the M16A1 was lacking to say the least but that subject is best left to a different thread. It's history has nothing to do with the 5.56 today and how it is a better round.

I had ZERO problems with the M16A2/M16A4/M4 in service. The only problem I had was a worn out rifle that the armors didn't know what to do with. Easy fix for them; give me a new one that worked perfectly.

Anyways, so the .250-3000 fragmented? That would explain a 4" zone of pulverized meat.

Posted:  12/2/2005 12:24 PM #2164
Boogyman


Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 689
Last Post: 12/21/2006
Oh yeah, I totally agree with ya man, I'm sure the M-16 is a much improved weapon today. Even then, they were able to improve it's reliability by chrome-lining the chamber, and changing the type of powder used in the ammo. I only brought it up because I wanted to point out some of the reasons why the switch was made, such as the increased amount of rounds carried, and the "friendliness" of the softer recoil to inexperienced recruits. As one who was there at the time, I thought you'd like to know. It wasn't "purely" political, although politics did play a big part in it. As always, unfortunatley.
Besides, it wouldn't be a well-rounded debate without bringing up the M-16 and M-14, since they had so much to do with popularizing the .223 and .308.
And yes, the fragmentation of hollow-point bullets does contribute to tissue damage. I have no hands on experience with the effect of FMJ bullets on tissue, since I never had the oppurtunity to gut and butcher a dead gook to study the results.
Anyway, I think we've covered this subject pretty well, and I've enjoyed this discussion. .308 vs. .223? A matter of personal preference and application, but we knew that before we got into this, right AR?
As far as hydrostatic shock, I still think there's something to it, but I repect your opinion. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one...


Posted:  12/8/2005 12:47 AM #2165
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
A few diagrams to support my earlier ramblings for those passing through.

5.56mm round as it yaws, then fragments.


7.62 NATO entering the target, yawing, and exiting the target.


Two things to note: The 7.62 doesn't yaw until ~11" meaning it is almost all of the way through a human torso meaning the larger wound channel do to the yawing isn't present through most of the body. The 7.62 retains all or most of it's mass and leaves the target taking all of that energy with it. This effectively squashes the ft/lbs of energy comparison because the 5.56 delivers most of it's energy to the target.

Posted:  12/8/2005 10:26 AM #2166
Boogyman


Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 689
Last Post: 12/21/2006
Hey, you draw them pitchers, AR? :) (just kidding) I'm assuming this is ballistics gel? In my experience with real live deer kills, the area marked "temporary cavity" corresponds to tissue damage from a shock wave. This makes sense looking at it, I mean SOMETHING caused the temporary cavity, and the tissue damage. If not hydrostatic shock then what? I doubt fragments because 90% of the fragments I find are very close to the exit wound. (true with both calibers).


Posted:  12/8/2005 2:26 PM #2167
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
The temporary cavity is caused by a pressure wave, part sonic, part fluid. Poke yourself in the belly and tell me if you're elastic. It is temporary damage because most of the human body can flex and compress with out serious damage. Excluded from this is the pancreases, liver, spleen, appendix, and the like that will obviously be destroyed if directly effected by the pressure wave. The pictures are not ballistics gel, I believe they are from put together from observing GSWs in live swine.

Posted:  12/8/2005 9:14 PM #2169
Boogyman


Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 689
Last Post: 12/21/2006
Ok makes sense, point taken. But if you poke me in the belly, you won't feel any elasticity. Nothin' but rock-hard abs, buddy! :roll:

There, ya see? All it took to convince me was some solid, irrefutable evidence such as a crude, hand-drawn diagram. :shock:



Posted:  2/12/2006 10:22 AM #2133
Hobo53527


Joined: 2/12/2006
Posts: 3
Last Post: 10/18/2006
It seems to me that the virtues of the 7.62MM NATO and 5.56MM NATO rounds have been batted around, heeled into the ground and otherwise malaligned for any number of different theorys and reasoning. No sense adding to the confusion in regards of killability of either round. As Maj Lones Wigger stated, "Only Hits Count." The motto of the Sniper is, "One shot, one kill." I've carried both the M14 and M16A1 in combat and found both to be excellent rifles once the aluminum bolt problems were taken care of in the M16. Both were capable of first round hits, both were capable of first round kills. As for carrying ammunition, there is only so much room for ammo pouches on a pistol belt. I carried 4 pouches of 2 magazines loaded with a full compliment of 20 rounds of 7.62 for a total of 160 rounds plus 20 in the weapon. When the M16 was issued dependent upon your waist size you may be able to get one more pouch on the pistol belt but for most of us it was still 4 pouches of 40 plus the twenty in the weapon. In regards to accuracy problems with the M16A1 when they left the factory they were all accurate enough for the job. Unfortunately every M16A1 also had a selector switch that would allow full automatic fire, which is what most people used. It was also unfortunate that with as little as two twenty round magazines fired at full automatic the barrels would overheat and cause cracking and erosion of the forcing cone. The accuracy of the rifle from that point on was anywhere from questionable to poor depending upon how many rounds were fired, especially at full auto. In all fairness the M14 with full auto capability suffered from the same dilemma as the M16. Competitive shooting using both rifles demonstrated the M14 deadly accurate to 600 meters, and capable of 800. The M16 was accurate out to 400 meters and capable of 500. Beyond 500 meters the bullets started tumbling and went where they wanted to. In an urban scenario the M16 had the advantage of being more compact, less recoil and easier to handle than the longer, heavier recoiling and unweildy M14. So which is better? In my opinion both are up to the challenge depending upon what that particular challenge is. If the rifleman can place his bullet where he aims, one shot, one kill is entirely feasible for either.

Posted:  2/19/2006 2:02 PM #2122
STELLA


Joined: 2/17/2006
Posts: 250
Last Post: 2/15/2007
one shot stop is not a myth. its all about shot placement. if you shoot someone in the head with most any military round they're gonna stop.

Posted:  3/29/2006 6:38 PM #2243
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
Hobo53527- It seems to me that the virtues of the 7.62MM NATO and 5.56MM NATO rounds have been batted around, heeled into the ground and otherwise malaligned for any number of different theorys and reasoning. No sense adding to the confusion in regards of killability of either round. As Maj Lones Wigger stated, "Only Hits Count." The motto of the Sniper is, "One shot, one kill." I've carried both the M14 and M16A1 in combat and found both to be excellent rifles once the aluminum bolt problems were taken care of in the M16. Both were capable of first round hits, both were capable of first round kills. As for carrying ammunition, there is only so much room for ammo pouches on a pistol belt. I carried 4 pouches of 2 magazines loaded with a full compliment of 20 rounds of 7.62 for a total of 160 rounds plus 20 in the weapon. When the M16 was issued dependent upon your waist size you may be able to get one more pouch on the pistol belt but for most of us it was still 4 pouches of 40 plus the twenty in the weapon. In regards to accuracy problems with the M16A1 when they left the factory they were all accurate enough for the job. Unfortunately every M16A1 also had a selector switch that would allow full automatic fire, which is what most people used. It was also unfortunate that with as little as two twenty round magazines fired at full automatic the barrels would overheat and cause cracking and erosion of the forcing cone. The accuracy of the rifle from that point on was anywhere from questionable to poor depending upon how many rounds were fired, especially at full auto. In all fairness the M14 with full auto capability suffered from the same dilemma as the M16. Competitive shooting using both rifles demonstrated the M14 deadly accurate to 600 meters, and capable of 800. The M16 was accurate out to 400 meters and capable of 500. Beyond 500 meters the bullets started tumbling and went where they wanted to. In an urban scenario the M16 had the advantage of being more compact, less recoil and easier to handle than the longer, heavier recoiling and unweildy M14. So which is better? In my opinion both are up to the challenge depending upon what that particular challenge is. If the rifleman can place his bullet where he aims, one shot, one kill is entirely feasible for either.
Interesting post but it's all severely out dated. Everything stated is accurate for the M16A1 and M193, but doesn't apply to the M16A2/M16A4/M4 and the M855 NATO round. Additionally, USGI issued mags are 30rd, not 20 now days.

Posted:  3/30/2006 9:25 AM #2244
Boogyman


Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 689
Last Post: 12/21/2006
Oh, crap, here's the know-it-all AR-snob again.

Unless you like arrogance and insults, let's just ignore him and maybe he'll go away.


Posted:  3/30/2006 1:38 PM #2245
AR_and_Glock


Joined: 11/26/2005
Posts: 69
Last Post: 12/7/2005
Ah how cute, another response with absolutely NO information. Figures.

Almost 500 posts? I see you've overrun this forum with your BS and most likely cleansed the site from any accurate or unbiased information. And you wonder why these forums are near dead and never got off the ground... couldn't be the company?

Don't bother replying, last post.

Posted:  3/30/2006 2:04 PM #2246
Boogyman


Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 689
Last Post: 12/21/2006
Last post? Jeez, I sure hope so. I doubt it tho, nobody with an ego that big is gonna just walk away... :lol:

You see, the only "accurate" information would be from the junior nazi here, cuz everyone else is wrong, of course.

Let's hope he's really gone... :wink:


Posted:  3/31/2006 10:52 AM #2242
C0wboi


Joined: 10/8/2005
Posts: 113
Last Post: 1/17/2006
Subject: I thought he had gone away long ago!
Imagine my surprise...

And look where he returns to...

:roll:
What part of "Shall not be infringed" do people not understand????

Molon Labe!!

Posted:  4/26/2006 3:33 PM #2236
Red Neck64


Joined: 4/26/2006
Posts: 138
Last Post: 6/22/2006
You,Must be kidding the 308 compared to the 223.

Posted:  4/26/2006 7:06 PM #2241
oldiron_79


Joined: 2/20/2006
Posts: 220
Last Post: 5/29/2013
Subject: 308 or 223 ?
Well if you get to the topic of hunting, it is ILLEGAL to hunt a deer with .223 in TN, its perfectly legal to hunt one with .308

has to be "centerfire and at least 6mm/.24 cal"
"A nation willing to sacrifice liberty for some temporary safety deserves neither safety nor liberty, and shall receive neither" Benjamin Franklin

Posted:  1/18/2008 12:46 PM #2403
4runner308


Joined: 1/16/2008
Posts: 2
Last Post: 1/17/2008
Short answer...get neighter if your a infantry man or simply wants the best of both worlds.
The world is much more then .223 or .308.
Both the 5.56 and the 7.62 rounds have some faults. First of all the 5.56 has no punch after150-200. Their kinetic energy is just to low. At 200 meter it cant knock a man down and at 50 meter its no good if hes wearing any kind of body armour.
Ill say go with the 6.8 mm. Thats the best combo youll gets. Its small. light and fast, but still has 50% more punch than the .223 at 200 meters. It can reach out and get someone at 6-800 meter and still do serious harm. The recoil is about the same as the .223 but a bit sharper. You can still handle it great in rapid semi auto fire and still have some control in full auto. Not so with the .308.
Personaly I prefer the stand of distance. And there the .308 is king at the moment. Best round at long range sniping against persons is the .408 but the guns are to big to run around with. Remember .408 has more kinetic energy than the 50 cal after 600 meters and out and travels much much faster. Thats why Barretts downsiced to the 416 as their real long rang bullet

Posted:  9/6/2012 7:46 PM #33765
Calhoon


Joined: 8/25/2012
Posts: 11
Last Post: 9/28/2013
If I was shooting long-range at foxes or coyotes , the .223 is a good choice , a .243 might be a bit better .
 
If I was shooting at a bear , an elk or deer , or a man , I'd take the .308
 
for anything over 500 yards , I'd just not take the shot .
 
It'd just be a waste of ammo , and it'd give my position away to someone that would prolly take a shot back at me . 
 
Hunker down and stay hid , that's my advice .
 
now , having said that , if push comes to shove , and you don't have a choice , then you need to run , and run as fast and as hard as you can .
 
leave a few suprises as you go , large treble hooks hanging from trees slow things down , as does other things , and that's all I'm gonna say.


Posted:  9/6/2012 8:53 PM #33771
horselips


Joined: 5/2/2012
Posts: 2062
Last Post: 8/19/2014
What a silly discussion, founded as it is on simplistic objective absolutes and subjective experiences. I don't choose between them, I own them both,or should I say, all three - I include 7.62x39. What makes each of them special in their own right, is how the various weapons have been pimped out. If I mount a high power scope on the .308 and a red dot on the .223 and a low power scope on the 7.62x39, the real life charcteristics and capabilities of each caliber is changed. If I play musical optics, they each change again. Go ahead, flip your lips.
 
Circumstances in which the deadly use of force is required are never constant. A soldier in Afghanistan may go from a firefight begun at 500 yards to urban street fighting in the same day. Or even simultaneously. Can a single caliber exceed the qualities of all its competitors in all situations? Of course not. There are so many variables to consider, not the least of which is the availability of effective special purpose loads like AP, API, Tracer, etc.
 
The military made its choice based on several factors, including the TRENDING of recent wars to GENERALLY involve gun battles at SHORTER ranges than was once BELIEVED when calibers like .30'06 were in vogue. Same with the .45ACP. All the reasons and rationales the US considered important when it adopted the 1911 pistol in that caliber were poop-canned when the 9 Sillymeter was adopted in its place. The pendulum is swinging back to the .45ACP. The .308 is now the 'comeback kid.' As for the 6.8mm, who knows? It would be an expensive change, and Washington can't rub 2 nickels together right now. Like Don Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have..." 


Posted:  9/7/2012 2:54 AM #33775
78corvette


Joined: 2/26/2009
Posts: 53
Last Post: 2/19/2013
Lets just say I have never been in a situation that I wished I had less power and less range.


Posted:  9/7/2012 11:57 AM #33783
hot_lips_banana


Joined: 6/28/2005
Posts: 1336
Last Post: 8/8/2014

CTD Forum Moderator

Posted:  9/7/2012 1:13 PM #33789
horselips


Joined: 5/2/2012
Posts: 2062
Last Post: 8/19/2014
Hot_Lips_Banana has closed the case with her photo. When a lady says "size matters" don't argue.


Posted:  9/7/2012 7:43 PM #33801
Warblade


Joined: 1/19/2012
Posts: 115
Last Post: 12/18/2012
It's not the size of the rounds but how well you can place those shots! Sorry, had to go there Hot_Lips.


Posted:  9/7/2012 10:01 PM #33804
BigDukeSix


Joined: 12/4/2011
Posts: 202
Last Post: 1/26/2013
I'd take the .223 for normal range fighting/shooting, and the .308 for reaching out to greater distances.
~Stay safe, stay prepared!

~Remember, two is one and one is none. Always have a backup!

~If you show up for a fair fight, you are NOT prepared!

Posted:  9/9/2012 6:41 AM #33868
JohnBeals52


Joined: 9/9/2012
Posts: 1
Last Post: 9/9/2012
308

Posted:  9/9/2012 10:59 AM #33874
Snapshot Buntline


Joined: 7/15/2012
Posts: 4
Last Post: 11/10/2013
Just bought a new Windham Weaponry carbine in .223. Really wish my money spoke louder, so I could afford a Springfield .308 instead. Like the AR -- It is light and I can carry more rounds, etc. That's important for an old dude like me, but I can tell you I'd rather carry an M-14 than an AR. Trained on the M-14 in basic but was given an AR in Vietnam. I promptly went out and got an M-1 carbine to carry and left the AR in the arms room. They've improved since then, though. Bottom line is get the best gun you can afford, handle and hit with for the situation. I really love the Windham, and how the Army sets up ARs nowadays.

Jump to:
First Previous [1] 2  of 2 Next Last
 
  Previous Topic    Next Topic  

CheaperThanDirtForums