.308 vs .223 at 400 meters plus?

[1911 fan]

Does anyone have actual data or experience with terminal effects at 400 plus meters with a comparison between 223 and 308 in FMJ? Debating the actual facts, not speculation would be much appreciated.

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

[Scott Jimenez]

US M855, or SS109 to you Euro types, will pierce a steel helmet out to 600 meters.

US M80, 147gr 7.62NATO, will not achieve this penetration performance.

scott out
PS. http://www.vnh.org/EWSurg/ch02/02Mis...sedWounds.html
http://www.vnh.org/EWSurg/ch16/16Sof...WoundsInj.html
http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arn...rmy/wound.html

[alan a]

:US M855, or SS109 to you Euro types, will pierce a steel helmet out to 600 meters. US M80, 147gr 7.62NATO, will not achieve this penetration performance.

This conjured the amusing image of a bunch of guys holding sheet metal targets in front of themselves at the 600 yd line at Camp Perry while the M14 and M1 marksmen bounced bullets off their targets in front of their noses.

[Molon_Labe]

For a 69gr .223 vs. 168gr .308 both Fed Match

the "mouse" has 600 ftlbs at 400yds
375 at 600, 235 at 800, and only 170 at 1000

the "lion" has 1355 ftlbs at 400yds
970 at 600, 690 at 800, and 510 at 1000

A commie 7.62x39 has 522 at 400 and 299 at 600

Plenty of good data from many sources. This came from Maj Plasters Ultimate Sniper which was within reach from the computer.

Always go with the lion over a mouse for anything past 400yds, probably 300 too.

Or another way the mouse is good for in da house (CQB) but the lion rules out doors

[FALshot]

I realy love the data guys, especially because by design I've chosen to have the majority of the guns in my stable chambered for military rounds, so I can enjoy the luxury of having plenty of cheap ammunition, if not the superior ballistics other calibers may offer.

But unless I'm reading this wrong, I see a direct conflict of information.

Scott Jimenez says the M855/SS109 can pierce a steel pot helmet at 600 meters, yet the 147gr .308 will not? If ANY of the ballistics numbers posted by Dano or Molon_Labe have a shread of validity, how can this be?

I recall a very outspoken poster on the AR15 board calling anyone who shoots a 7.62 round a "Neanderthal", and I don't want this thread regress into that kind of thing.

I also recall hearing the main reason the U.S. converted to the .223, and the rest of the NATO was forced to follow, while they grumbled about Yankee imperialism, was that even though the .308 was clearly the superior round beyond a certain range, the .223 was adequate in terms of wounding, and thus taking a soldier out of action in a battle field situation.

One thing I have to admit about the old AR15 board, the moderator in the "Ammunition" section was a no nonsense guy who gave some great answers backed by statistics.

I'd like some more solid information on this, it really interests me.

Bill Woodward
"FALshot"

[This message has been edited by FALshot (edited March 02, 2001).]

[StirFry]

Is US M855 (SS109 -Euro) AP? I recall an observation by a Delta operator in Somalia making an observation of 'new green tipped AP' .223s having an over-pennetration effect which resulted in the use of upwards to around 5 hits to take down an individual. One thing to note is that Somalis tend to be pretty stoned around mid-day from chewing a 'herb' known as kat -I'm guessing that it has the effect of dulling the painful aftermath of being riddled by .233 The same operator also mentioned a fellow Delta had an M-14 (chambers .308 for those who're not "in the know") which he thought at the time was a better round to be using.
I suppose I'll be conducting some tests on some watermelons and coconuts this summer. I'll take pics for sure


-Dean

[sturmgrenadiere]

Well, neither 55 or 62 grain 5.56 isn't going to fragment beyond 190 yards (sea level at a standard atmosphere I think, at whatever point velocity drops below 2500 fps). So beyond that range, I would go with whatever makes the larger diameter hole for greater tissue damage and blood loss. And I have shot holes in metal things at 500 yards with both .308 and mil 7.62, so I wonder about the helmet comment from above.

We carry the 5.56 becasue how many fire fights occur beyond 200-300 yards, even 150 yards? It is a lighter round of which you can carry more (never was an A gunner for a 60 or 240G, but tossing that extra box of SAW ammo is still extra weight against my own gear), its terminal effects at normal engagement ranges are just as good as anything else, and it is much more controlable in full auto, for the most part, fired from the shoulder.

[TimW]

This is taken from FM 90-10-1, the Army Military MOUT manual, Chapter 8

Protection. The following common barriers in built-up areas stop a 5.56-mm round fired at less than 50 meters:
One thickness of sandbags.
A 2-inch concrete wall (unreinforced).
A 55-gallon drum filled with water or sand.
A small ammunition can filled with sand.
A cinder block filled with sand (block will probably shatter).
A plate glass windowpane at a 45-degree angle
(glass fragments will be thrown behind the glass).
A brick veneer.
A car body (an M16A1/M16A2 rifle penetrates
but normally will not exit).

Weapon Penetration. The ability of the 7.62-mm and .50-caliber rounds to penetrate are also affected by the range to the target and type of material fired against. The 7.62-mm round is affected less by close ranges than the 5.56-mm; the .50-caliber’s penetration is reduced least of all.
(1) At 50 meters, the 7.62-mm ball round cannot penetrate a single layer of sandbags. It can penetrate a single layer at 200 meters, but not a double layer. The armor-piercing round does only slightly better against sandbags. It cannot penetrate a double layer but can penetrate up to 10 inches at 600 meters.
(2) The penetration of the 7.62-mm round is best at 600 meters but most urban targets are closer. The longest effective range is usually 200 meters or less. Table 8-3 explains the penetration capabilities of a single 7.62-mm (ball) round at closer ranges.

Table 8-3 7.62 Ball Penetration (inches)
Range Pine Dry loose Cinder Concrete
(m) Board Sand Block
25 13 5 8 2
100 18 4.5 10 2
200 41 7 8 2

Protection. Barriers that offer protection against 5.56-mm rounds are also effective against 7.62-mm rounds with some exceptions. The 7.62-mm round can penetrate a windowpane at a 45-degree obliquity, a hollow cinder
block, or both sides of a car body. It can also easily penetrate wooden frame buildings. The .50-caliber round can penetrate all of the commonly found urban barriers except a sand-filled 55-gallon drum.

Hope this helps.
TimW
Phoenix

Originally posted by 1911 fan:
Does anyone have actual data or experience with terminal effects at 400 plus meters with a comparison between 223 and 308 in FMJ? Debating the actual facts, not speculation would be much appreciated.

[FALshot]

Thanks Tim,
This is the kind od data that I like. It's very intersting to see how much energy the 7.62 round packs at 600 meters.

Regards,

Bill Woodward
"FALshot"

[This message has been edited by FALshot (edited March 02, 2001).]

[Texfal]

I'm confused.
Your military data seems to indicate that 7.62 will penetrate more at greater ranges.
How can that be?
A while back I conducted my own penetration experiment, 5.56 v 7.62 NATO, using 16" bbl AR15 and 18" bbl M1A Scout. From about 5 yds away I shot at the side of a standard railroad cross-tie. Cross-ties are very hard, ever try to cut one with a saw? I didn't measure it but I guess it was about 10-12 inches thick.
The 55gr FMJ 5.56 would not exit the other side of cross-tie. The 62gr M855/SS109 FMJ would penetrate the cross-tie about half the time, with sometimes only the tip of bullet sticking out of back side of cross-tie. The 147gr FMJ 7.62 NATO would always penetrate the cross-tie with great ease, as if it were a laser beam. The bullet seemed to still be going quite fast after leaving the target! Also, while using old plow disc for a target (don't try this at home kids) 5.56 will sometimes be deflected and go all over, not good. The 7.62 NATO (from HK91 this time)always go clean through hardened steel plow disc.
I know this is "farm boy science", but it made me a great fan of 7.62x51, and the guns that shoot it. I have not been able to shoot at any cool stuff with my FAL since I don't live at the farm anymore. But, at least I know what it's capable of.
Have fun and be safe,
TF

[Arado]

A simple fact...Shoot at a car with a .223, the energy is gone after penetrating the door. Shoot at the car with military 8 Mauser ball(no US commercial) and it penetrates the door, both occupants and the other door..keep your .223. No substitute for horsepower....7.62 NATO has enough

[bitethisbullet]

ss109 has a steel core, it's a light ap round. As far as I know it's designed for penetrating body armor.


Johnny

[eodinert]

TimW: I know you got that information straight from the FM, but I don't think it's very accurate.

According to that reference, the following items offer the same amount of protection (will stop a 5.56 bullet at 50m)

-One sandbag filled with sand
-A 55 gallon drum filled with sand
-Window glass at a 45 degree angle

Which would you want to hide behind?

Doug

[cm2037]

I agree with Arado. Case study. A 1982 Plymouth 4 door sedan at 50 yards. My partner put a 5 shot group into the driver side door with a 20" AR using military .223 ball surplus. Nothing came out the other side. I put a 5 shot group right next to his with my FN using military surplus .308. 5 holes came out on passenger side door. Bullets went through the bench front seat also. Next test. The side section of the roof behind the rear window just above the rear fender. 5 shots of .223, nothing thru other side. 5 shots of .308, 5 holes on other side. Conclusion... a 1982 Plymouth is not effective cover against a .308, works great against a .223.

[TimW]

TexFal: I believe they both penetrate a greater ranges than at less than 100 yards due to velocity and the structural integrity of the round...at shorter distances, they bullets are going so fast, they disintegrate upon impact (or shortly thereafter).

Further out, they have enough velocity to penetrate but retain bullet shape.

EODInert: the 55 gallon sand-filled drum, of course. Granted, the manual says it will stop a round. It didn't specify, in your order "stop a 5.56 round, REALLY stop it, mostl likely stop it but I don't want to be there".

TimW

[Molon_Labe]

My data posted earlier, as I said, comes from The Ultimate Sniper by Maj J Plaster, USAR. Chapter V is dedicated to bullets and ballistics. It is an interesting read.
There are lots of comparisons (more than have been posted so far) of penetration of various media - sand, wood, helmet, stell, aluminum, concrete, car doors..etc for the .223 and .308.
He also talks about wound ballistics as well.
There is too much for me to put it in this post, so get the book if you want more of this kind of info.

He does mention that the .223 penetrates better at medium ranges vs. shorter due to the fact that it fragments upon impact at the shorter ranges.
It was designed with fragmentation in mind (more tissue damage) to get around the the Rules of War/Geneva convention - no hollowpoint clause.

For my own exp I have witnessed the SS109 go through things the 55gr ball will not.
I have also put 147gr & 168gr FMJ .308 through various trees, scrap steel & Al plate that stops the ss109 cold. The 147gr AP does better still and the 30-06 AP improves on that.

From what I have read by respected authors and experienced myself I go by this:

Assuming std military rounds....
Short range and CQB, go with the .223 for its lighter weight & recoil. For medium ranges on up or if you need to cut through wind or barriersof any kind, go with a .308
If I have only one choice it is a .308 FAL (of course)

[ByronF]

Here's why the 7.62 penetrates BETTER at LONGER ranges. Ever read "HATCHER'S NOTEBOOK"? There are two photos showing M2 bullet penetration of layered 4" oak timbers. The photos show a cross section of the stacked beams cut through the penetration path. At 200 yd, the bullet path shows that the bullet penetrated only about 24" or so IIRC. Because the bullet had not yet achieved a perfect spiral, it quicklly yawed sideways and abruptly stopped. At 300yd, the bullet penetrated 44", leaving a path that looked like someone snapped a chalk line. The bullet stopped still pointing perfectly in the direction of travel.

At short ranges the bullet is still wobbling a bit. After a bit it will steady out into a nice spiral. That's my understanding.

Byron

[Talyn]

Both cartridges have their place. Higher performance bullets and loadings have enhanced the capabilities of both. It still boils down to that the .223/5.56 is the standard rifle cartridge for most western armies, with the .308/7.62 as their standard medium MG and sniper round.

Both will do their jobs when applied properly. I don't see any western country going back to using the .308/7.62x51 as a standard rifle round after going to the .223/5.56. My opinions of course.

Talyn

[FALshot]

I'll agree Talyn in that I don't see any western country going back to the 7.62 round either.

In terms of the ballistics, I really just seek information. Beyond that, since we've seen a big influx of members from the former and current AR15 board where I've read propaganda about the benifits of the 5.56 "Wonder round" for quite some time, disguised as information, I think a more appropriate question would be, why did the NATO countrys go to the 5.56 round in the first place?

That information IS very well documented, and it had NOTHING to do with the 5.56 round being superior beyond say, four hundred meters! It was the U.S. who dragged the rest of NATO into the 5.56 round, and all information shows that the rest of NATO was not at all happy about it! I have, and enjoy shooting the 5.56 round, but some of the stuff I've read from the disciples of the 5.56 "Wonder round" defy all reason.

I enjoy the data and all of the statistics about ballistics, but I still go back to one of the oversimplified explanations I was given by an old fella who owns a gun shop here in Portland, Oregon. He told me, "A .223 is a varmit round, we humans qualify in terms of our size, as varmits. The .308 round is for bigger game, and you'll find it a bit more difficult to shoot accurately compared to the .223."

I really liked that explanation, and I think it's a great rule of thumb to go by when thinking about the .223 and .308 rounds.

Bill Woodward
"FALshot"

[This message has been edited by FALshot (edited March 02, 2001).]

[Talyn]

I agree with you Bill. I think this has been one of the better threads posted in quite awhile. The info here is very valuable for thought and discussion.

Advocates on both sides will defend their favorites when both have their places. There are situations where I would grab an AR, and others an FAL or bolt gun. Your and several other posts are right in the 10 ring on this discussion.

BTW, I lived in western Oregon, McKenzie River valley for 10 years in the 80's, and am a OSU grad. As a member of the OSU rifle team we shot .22 match during the winter and DCM matches once the spring season started. My gpa might have been higher if it wasn't for the many hours at the range. The sacrifice was worth it though.

Talyn
central Idaho

[Molon_Labe]

Governments do stupid things all the time.
The US forced the 30-06 lite or .308 on NATO.
The individual countries had various choices in between the .223 and .308
We really should have taken the .280 Enfield, .260, 7-08 or one of the other rounds being developed then. A good disscusion on this and the "ideal" choice can be found in Boston's Gun Bible. He pursues his .264 Boston round with great detail. It is quite interesting...

The US then downsized too far (for a Battle Rifle) to the .223 and had even more muscle by then to force this on NATO.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the .223, its fun to shoot and is quite effective to a point. I just think something in between it and the .308 makes for a better all around b-rifle round because human "varmits" can shoot back and need to be taken out with one hit reliably. The .223 does not do this under all circumstances, the .308 does.

[Dirtfarmer]

..Time to re-barrel our FALs' to .243!!!
...George?..

Goodwill,
-Dirtfarmer



[This message has been edited by Dirtfarmer (edited March 02, 2001).]

[FALshot]

I agree Talyn, threads like this, along with some of the great pictures and the posts from Kevin, (NZ Arms Collector) are the primary reasons I love this site.

You being an OSU Alumnus I'm sorry to admit I bought a house up here about eight years ago after twelve years in San Diego. (Be mad at me but DON'T call me a California Native! I'm a Native of Colorado.) But then heck, Colorado's been all but ruined by the steady influx of well healed foreigners too!

A pal of mine just told me about one of his recent trips, (I think to the Burns area) hunting dogs. (coyotes) Now, I wish my Remington 700 PSS was chambered in .223!

All in good time, all in good time!

Bill
"FALshot"

[paintballmagnet]

Never having seen a human being shot with either of these rounds, I can however offer my input as to what I have seen using both for Coyote hunting. Neither caliber when using military ball seems to make much impression to the Coyotes being hit. A center hit will usually result in a long chase. Stepping up to soft point bullets causes a dramatic difference. Both the 5.56 and the 7.62 soft points work like a death ray.

[StirFry]

you know... I think the refference was simply offerring solutions in terms of fortification/cover and not necessarily items that have the same stopping power? Been awhile, but I recall a bathtub filled with water was also a good stopper -guess it's something along the lines of a oil drum huh? Personally I'm a bit weary of figures given by the military since I've heard about (unidentified caliber but more than likely soviet/nato type 7.62 as well as 5.56) small arms fire pennetrating the doors of hummers and still carrying enough velocity to do tissue damage -unless you had the "bullet proof" window rolled down so you get that extra stopping power in that spot (I'm not sure how the windows'll stand up to fire btw)....

Originally posted by eodinert:
TimW: I know you got that information straight from the FM, but I don't think it's very accurate.

According to that reference, the following items offer the same amount of protection (will stop a 5.56 bullet at 50m)

-One sandbag filled with sand
-A 55 gallon drum filled with sand
-Window glass at a 45 degree angle

Which would you want to hide behind?

Doug

[FALshot]

Hey Paintballmagnet:

In another month it won't matter in terms of their pelts, but what kind of shots (range) are you getting at the dogs you hunt in AR.?

Also what kind of damage do you see .223 vs .308 with both ball, (after the chase down) and with soft point?

Are you guys calling them in, or waiting them out in their known areas of operation?

Thanks for the feedback.

Bill Woodward
"FALshot"

[Talyn]

Bill,

No reason to be mad at you for getting out of the PRK. My sister (non native)lives in San Diego. At least you made the escape. I wasn't a native Oregonian anyhow (originally from PA 20 + years ago).

Considering Kalifornia's a lost cause now (sorry guys & gals but the truth hurts)I don't hold anything against any pro-gunner making the move to greener pastures. I consider New York, NJ, and Mass. lost also. For our friends behind enemy lines they have all my sympathy. Oregon and Washington are still salvageable. Next time I come over that way maybe we can visit & hit the range.

Hang in there.

Talyn

[rMac71]

1911 Fan,
There is a couple of nice articles on the FAL in the Jan 20, 2001 (vol 55 issue 3) of the SGN. Any way according to the author, the jagdkampf (austrian special forces, had a preference for the FAL over the Steyr AUG because of its ability to "shoot through trucks and light cover during ambushes." Nice article if you can get a copy.
Randy

[BushMeister]

The 5.56mm round has been adopted by the US (and recently Germany) for 2 primary reasons:

1- (Primary) Soldier can carry 2x as many 5.56mm rounds than 7.62mm rounds

2- Greater wounding potential within usual combat ranges (0-200 yards)


Obviously, the 7.62mm is better for shooting through cover, and the 5.56mm is a more brutal round if it fragments in the body. The exception to this is the copper-plated steel jacket 7.62mm rounds, which are even more lethal than the 5.56mm rounds.

[New Shot]

Is any of the mil surplus ammo copper plated?

[FALshot]

Yes Talyn by all means next time you get to the area please get in touch. If we con't go shoot I'd like to see if we could get together for a beverage.

Oh and BushMeister, thanks for the information, but that ain't the tune the AR15.com boys have been singing for a long time. That's why I've found this thread so helpful, maybe it's helped to dispell some of the bologny floating around.

Bill Woodward
"FALshot"

[This message has been edited by FALshot (edited March 04, 2001).]

[Taz]

(This is sort of OT, but)I forgot the name of the author, but the book "THE GREAT RIFLE CONTROVERSY" is some interesting if not somewhat dry reading. It goes from the M1 Garand through the m16. Also talks about the FAL fiasco. Lots of politics involved in the decisions. I agree with the post above about the choice of the NATO cartridge. It should probably have been somthing inbetwixt the two. Say in the 7mm-08 area (.280 Ross)
In the book it says the gov't decided that after extensive studies, just as many kills were achieved by mines, bombs etc. as by aimed fire. So they decided that aimed fire wasn't really that important. They even developed some weapons that were designed to shoot in an open, circular pattern when fired in short, say, five shot bursts.
My impression in the end was that they decided that well aimed fire wasn't really that important. Worth the read. Not that I BELIEVE that, of course.

[This message has been edited by Taz (edited March 04, 2001).]

[Molon_Labe]

If you want a review of just the numbers (skipping the political blundering) behind the cartridge debate, read Boston's Gun Bible, Chapter 14. It is only 10 easy reading pages, but effectively highlights the benefits of an intermediate choice between .223 & .308
With this you could have nearly .308 power with less powder (due to the bullets better ballistic coefficient and sectional density) and be able to carry nearly as many rounds as the .223 and still have control in FA.

[CSAcavalry]

Gents, I was under the impression that the Geneva convention specified non-fragmenting/
expanding rounds for mil ammo, hence the full jacket. It sounds like this may be wrong given the fragmentation observations of 5.62.
If the latter is true I'd take a .223 at close range, out to 400yrds. but I'd want a
220 swift case behind the sucker

Which is it? Jes axin.
CScav

[Tom S]

I sold my AR-15 after the wife and I spent and afternoon trying different anlges at a 1978 OLds Toronado for a target. Poor penetration indeed! I bougt an M1 Garand to replace the AR.

I spoke with a former British Royal Marine who was busy during the Fauklands campaign. He said the Royal Marines got quite a few chanes to try their AR-180s(5.56 Nato) and various ranges aginst the Argentine troops. They were not pleased...and switched ASAP to FALs firing the more potent 7.62 round. It seems I heard similar stories from the Sandbox(Gulf War to the uninitiated) with British troops being very unhappy with their
Enfield Bullpups chanbered in 5.56 and even had a Cargo 747 fly in a load of L1A1s from storage to replace the pop guns, which proved to lack effectiveness past 300 meters.
That is two "real world" senarios that proved the point for me! Thus I have bought two FALs in recent years and no 5.56/223 "rat guns".

[J MOSBY]

1911, here is something you might like to read, I don't know how to make it so you can click on it but try http://www.frii.com/~gosplow then click on "Trends in small arms tactics"

[Molon_Labe]

The best point brought up by that link is the comparison of the organized military grunt vs. the freedom fighter.
We will never be supported light or hvy mgs, cannon, mortars, air support etc; they always will. They can get away with using the "mouse gun" we cannot.

As I have easy access to steel, aluminum, cast iron etc I will try to scientifically test some of the penetration claims this Summer. Especially the SS109 vs. the 147gr .308 I really want to see the SS109 go thru a steel helm at 600?
I read another claim that it could do it at 1000yds!!! I know I can't hit a helmet sized target at 100yds with a 62gr bullet....

[CSAcavalry]

BTT

[CSAcavalry]

J. Mosby (is that John S. Mosby?)
I went to the site also, thanks for the link?
CScav


The typical resistance or guerrilla fighter does not have access to these heavy weapons, nor could he provide the logistical support they require. Thus, he cannot utilize this tactical dogma. Should he engage the enemy on the enemy's terms, the resistance fighter will be utterly overwhelmed rather quickly. His individual weapon, likely being the only weapon he has access to, must conform to the tactical problem he is confronted with. The tactical problem that the Christian freeman confronts today is very similar to that which faced his forebears, the militia at Lexington and Concord, in 1775.

So again, it seems that in many ways we have come full circle.

[J MOSBY]

And thank you sir, and yes it is , however I am just using that remarkable man's name out of respect.

------------------
"If historical experience teaches us anything about revolutionary guerrilla war, it is that military measures alone will not suffice." - USMC Gen. Samuel Griffith

[This message has been edited by J MOSBY (edited March 09, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by J MOSBY (edited March 09, 2001).]

[yorick]

The AR15 forums (and MANY others) have a large portion of posters interested in and dedicated to "CQB".

Thank god we don't have any CQB weenies here at the FALFILES.

Bear with me, this is a pet peeve of mine

CQB = Close Quarters Battle, ie: 100 yards or LESS. For this, the .223 is perfect. 55 gr explodes on impact, SS109 penetrates. I personally however NEVER want to be involved in CQB. I value my own hide way too much, too much random shit happens in any CQB engagement.

The US military went to .223 because they determined that MOST (20th century) military enagements happened inside 100 yards.

Previous military doctrine (WWII and earlier) presumed average 300 yard engagements, hence the 308, 30-06, 8mm Mauser, etc etc.

IMHO, any intelligent freedom fighter would prefer the 300 yard engagement, especially if the "evil oppressor" has a weapon designed for 100 yards.

Bottom line....I like my AR15, but I LOVE my FAL.

[1911 fan]

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS! I, TOO LIKE MY BUSHMASTER 20" AR, BUT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING A DSA 21" OR AZEXARMS 18.5" FOR IT'S INCREASED RANGE POTENTIAL. USED TO HAVE AN M1A, AND MISS THE 308. JUST NEEDED A LITTLE PUSH TO CONVINCE ME. AGAIN, THANKS FOR ALL THE "REAL HARD DATA" I HOPE TO SEE FURTHER INPUT ON ACTUAL "SHOOTINGS" AT 300-400 +

[CSAcavalry]

1911,
I'd suggest that you get a good bolt gun,
7mm mag,300 win mag, or whatever wildcat you
like for that range.
mil-dot scope and engage at 800+yrds.
CScav

[J MOSBY]

CSA, I'm looking real hard at that 300 Win magnum. On Mel's sniper page, he says it can reach 1000 meters reliably, 1200 on a nice calm day. Thats not too far behind a .338 and .50 BMG. Plus it arrives with a lot of Horsepower. 7mm Mag. is simular. Meanwhile an STG 58 is on the way.

------------------
"In one sense the charge that I did not fight fair is true. I fought for success and not for display, There was no man in the Confederate army who had less of the spirit of knight errantry in him, or who took a more practical view of war than I did" - John S. Mosby

[Schlickenmeyer]

Infantry Weapons 2001 - 2002
Terry Gander
March 2001
Jane's Land Forces
Calibres reconsidered

To turn from an uncertain future to the present, the past year has provided several indication, to add to those already present, that all is not well in the accepted field of rifle calibre ammunition selection. With only a handful of standard service calibres in both the East and the West it would have been thought that matters had been decided for the indefinite future but it is becoming apparent that this is not so.

The level of discussion of the effectiveness of the smaller rifle calibres, 5.45mm and 5.56mm, seems to indicate that for many tactical applications such small rounds are unsatisfactory. Leaving aside the fact that these smaller calibre rounds were not meant to have a long-range capability in the first place, it has become apparent that in the field of fire support, larger calibre ammunition, including the most widely deployed round of all, the ex-Soviet 7.62 × 39mm, is infinitely preferential to the smaller equivalents. This was highlighted during several of the recent small-scale conflicts, such as those in the Balkans. In most instances the relatively recent `rifle family' concept of individual weapon backed by a similar squad fire support weapon with a heavier barrel has not produced the level of firepower required in many tactical situations.

There are many other indications that the small calibres cannot always deliver what is required, especially in areas where vegetation is thick. In practical terms, the small calibres cannot always hack their way through to an intended target. It is for this reason that some nations, Finland being but one example, have never adopted the small calibres.

The general opinion is that in the longer term, there will be a move away from the current dominance of the smaller calibres back towards something heavier. This will probably not happen for years for any move from an accepted norm towards something different is bound to have many ramifications along the way. For many users there may be no need to move away from the well-established 5.45 or 5.56, just as the 7.62 × 51mm NATO round remains firmly entrenched with many current rifle users. Yet it seems certain that squad fire support weapons could well move away from 5.45 or 5.56 towards something heavier, while special forces will eventually carry rifles with calibres heavier that most of those now in service. This tendency will probably take years to become widely apparent but it seems that the initial moves are already in progress.