User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:04:40 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Everything is a compromise. It may not be the preferred bullet for terminal performance, but it's vastly preferred by those who have to carry large quantities of it. Yup. My preferred bullet to kill a man is a 155mm HE  But I damn sure wouldn't want to carry it around on patrol. 5.56 kills well enough and is easy to carry.
Different tools for different jobs; you don't use a hammer to unscrew an oil drain plug. You don't?!  Maybe thats why I couldn't get the drai plug to hammer back in tight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:05:00 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A sniper has a single target, and time to choose it. A combat infantryman has to lump lots of ammo to a possible ambush. Apples and oranges. Agreed. Thread title and all that. I must have missed the part of it not being the preferred round for a sniper.  I agree, but that was his statement. He was discussing each weapons system he had used and the MK I, was his least favorite. .338= favorite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:06:56 AM EDT
[#3]
5.56 is a round not a bullet.
5.56 can be loaded with some very effective bullets and some very ineffective bullets |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:07:09 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
So I kind of understand it may not be prefferred, but from the accounts I read about here & history of the round in combat tells me it works just fine. Just thought it was interesting. This came from his article in SOF mag 4/2012, if anyone interested. Keep this in context. He is referring to shooting at long range. In his book he recounts several times when he grabbed an M4 and kicked in doors clearing buildings and in that role it is perfect. Context is everything. Think about it, would you prefer to be shooting from 500-2000 yds with a 77gr 5.56 round or a 300 WM (which is one of his preferred long range cartridges... Read his book, not only is it a great read but it also adds a of of context to this topic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:09:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
How many thousand BGs do you think that guy bagged? I'd trust his judgment. They were dropping like flies! Great read if you haven't caught his book. I read his book and he didn't ever claim to kill thousands. I believe 160 confirmed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:09:37 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: One time I was sitting at a meal with an active duty sniper and he told a story of a conversation he had with a visiting senior officer. The conversation went like this: Officer: "Could you guarantee a kill at 2,000 yards?" Sniper: "Yes." Officer: "You sure?" Sniper: "Yes" Officer: "What weapon would you use to do it?" Sniper: "A radio." That is awesome! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:10:09 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
One time I was sitting at a meal with an active duty sniper and he told a story of a conversation he had with a visiting senior officer. The conversation went like this: Officer: "Could you guarantee a kill at 2,000 yards?" Sniper: "Yes." Officer: "You sure?" Sniper: "Yes" Officer: "What weapon would you use to do it?" Sniper: "A radio." fuck yeah... a radio (and a fucker who's nasty enough to live in a hole in the ground for a few days if necessary) is far more dangerous than a rifle under many circumstances (or so I'm told)... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:10:56 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Don't have the article. What is his preferred round? .50 BMG of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:11:22 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
this isn't new. In Vietnam soldiers hated the 5.56 because it was so light and fast the vegetation ruined the flight paths and was less than ideal and a "wounding weapon". The M14 shot though the vegetation the limb, the bad guy, and the guy behind him. more recently the reports of the knock down power being terrible added to the fact that many of the enemies are hopped up on drugs. This was one of the main reasons Ronnie Barrett said the 6.8 M468 was devised. Up close CQC sure it gets the job done. So does .300 and a .45. It might be fast and accurate, its still a .22 though. I think our rifles should be 6.8 or .300. Long range .308 and .338.....of course the .50 There are also arguments that the 5.45 is superior round to the 5.56 as well, I have not studied up on this but it seems it does what the .223 is praised for so much (carrying and capacity) much better + 45rnd mags, and I have read the bullets are superior because of the construction and how they work when they make contact. and the 5.56 fragmentation on contact as opposed to enemies hiding behind cover. failed and forgot about that
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:12:05 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Don't have the article. What is his preferred round? Phase plasma rifle in a 40-watt range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:12:12 AM EDT
[#11]
If I were a sniper, I wouldn't want a 5.56 either. That's why we have the M110, 7.62.
I've never been in combat, but something tells me the 5.56 is just a little fine and dandy round for assault rifles. Maybe it's the fact that every superpower's military and police use it. Maybe it's the fact that you can fit 30 rounds in a little small magazine and it's light. Or maybe it's this: 
Tell tell me, would you want this little round going through your leg? Imagine getting hit in the chest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:15:10 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I kind of understand it may not be prefferred, but from the accounts I read about here & history of the round in combat tells me it works just fine. Just thought it was interesting. This came from his article in SOF mag 4/2012, if anyone interested. Keep this in context. He is referring to shooting at long range. In his book he recounts several times when he grabbed an M4 and kicked in doors clearing buildings and in that role it is perfect. Context is everything. Think about it, would you prefer to be shooting from 500-2000 yds with a 77gr 5.56 round or a 300 WM (which is one of his preferred long range cartridges... Read his book, not only is it a great read but it also adds a of of context to this topic. Thanks! I will! I kind of read it like that, but I began thinking he was calling the MK I a sniper rifle. So with that thinking, he would know the ranges he needed it for. So in context, at the ranges he was using it, possibly within 600m, it still didn't do the job without 2 hits. Right? I don't know? I like the round so, just discussing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:15:14 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: The preferred round against bad guys would be a 12 gauge slug travelling at 3200 ft/sec from a platform capable of sub MOA accuracy out to 2000 yards. 437.5 grains in 1oz slug at 3200fps = 10,000 ft/lbs 661grains .50cal at 2850fps = 11,505 ft/lbs The .50 has good enough accuracy and more force, I'll take that one please  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:16:32 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It depends on how you're being employed at the time.A sniper has a single target, and time to choose it. A combat infantryman has to lump lots of ammo to a possible ambush. Apples and oranges. Oh, it's you, in this thread.
I get to use this again?
.http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8262/rictuswin.jpg Yeah, it's me again.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:20:11 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
In his book he described using a variety of weapons for his sniping duties but favored the .300 WinMag. I would have thought .338 Lapua 
On a sidenote Designated Marksman have made shots out to 700+ yards with 5.56, though if not absolutely perfect the first shot, while it does put them down, it would take more than one shot to totally incapacitate. A member here told the story once. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:23:18 AM EDT
[#16]
What round does the Death Star use? If I had to make sure someone was dead....that round.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:25:44 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't have the article. What is his preferred round? The preferred round and weapon is as follows: Round .50 BFG Capacity 30 rounds Weight under 8 pounds Recoil similar to .22 Length under 20 inches Able to hit targets from 0-1000 meters. But because of the laws of physics this weapon cannot exist, there for we should have congress repeal them.
Please don't give that pack of fools any ideas. Imagine the spectacle of dueling press conferences when the two parties argue over which law of physics each side wishes to repeal and which each side wishes to retain, with modification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:28:34 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
He was a sniper and I think that makes a difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:43:00 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
11,000 f/lbs? That's fine if you're training girls to shoot. A real MANLY man would use something like THIS
Quoted:
The preferred round against bad guys would be a 12 gauge slug travelling at 3200 ft/sec from a platform capable of sub MOA accuracy out to 2000 yards. 437.5 grains in 1oz slug at 3200fps = 10,000 ft/lbs 661grains .50cal at 2850fps = 11,505 ft/lbs The .50 has good enough accuracy and more force, I'll take that one please
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xohy9gWz7kk Probably has a trajectory like the ST Louis arch, though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:45:01 AM EDT
[#20]
Agreed, I prefer a GAU-8 round, but the gun is too heavy to carry around.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:45:39 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Everything is a compromise. It may not be the preferred bullet for terminal performance, but it's vastly preferred by those who have to carry large quantities of it. I only got to the 2nd reply and saw this. This is the correct answer in my book. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:46:50 AM EDT
[#22]
He also preferred a weapon by some guys name like Gustev or something like that. I'd never heard of it but it blew everything away.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:54:10 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: If I were a sniper, I wouldn't want a 5.56 either. That's why we have the M110, 7.62. I've never been in combat, but something tells me the 5.56 is just a little fine and dandy round for assault rifles. Maybe it's the fact that every superpower's military and police use it. Maybe it's the fact that you can fit 30 rounds in a little small magazine and it's light. Or maybe it's this: http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b298/Runningeagle/1.jpg Tell tell me, would you want this little round going through your leg? Imagine getting hit in the chest. While thats what can happen, it is usually not what happens when you hit someone with M885 or M193. There are really only two problems with 5.56 in the military. The bullets currently used do not have very good terminal performance, though Mk318 is a big step forward. They also have very poor barrier penetration, which Mk318 also provides a step forward. While having a bigger bullet will get you better performance at range, or through barriers, you loose out on capacity and weight. Sure the bigger bullet can turn cover into not cover, but you use up your already limited capacity to do it. You are better off doing what they do now, pin down the enemy till your support squashes them. Or, the XM29. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:57:29 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The preferred round against bad guys would be a 12 gauge slug travelling at 3200 ft/sec from a platform capable of sub MOA accuracy out to 2000 yards. 437.5 grains in 1oz slug at 3200fps = 10,000 ft/lbs 661grains .50cal at 2850fps = 11,505 ft/lbs The .50 has good enough accuracy and more force, I'll take that one please
Shut the front door!!! DAMN!!! I wouldn't have thunk it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:58:47 AM EDT
[#25]
well, OK, but you use what you're issued.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:01:41 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How many thousand BGs do you think that guy bagged? I'd trust his judgment. They were dropping like flies! Great read if you haven't caught his book. I read his book and he didn't ever claim to kill thousands. I believe 160 confirmed. That is what I remember as well. I also would take into account his time on the ground doing house/building clearing. So probably a little bit more. No where near thousands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:05:05 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
So I kind of understand it may not be prefferred, but from the accounts I read about here & history of the round in combat tells me it works just fine. Just thought it was interesting. This came from his article in SOF mag 4/2012, if anyone interested. the 7.62x51 NATO will definitely kill things dead. The 5.56, however, allows you to carry more ammo. And one of the number one things to do in a firefight is achieve fire superiority. You do that by shooting A LOT of ammo. Google some pictures of an M855 round and what it does to human flesh and bone when it passes through. It works just fine on military age, height, and weight, males who aren't high on heroin or some other opiate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:08:25 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
One time I was sitting at a meal with an active duty sniper and he told a story of a conversation he had with a visiting senior officer. The conversation went like this: Officer: "Could you guarantee a kill at 2,000 yards?" Sniper: "Yes." Officer: "You sure?" Sniper: "Yes" Officer: "What weapon would you use to do it?" Sniper: "A radio." fuck yeah... a radio (and a fucker who's nasty enough to live in a hole in the ground for a few days if necessary) is far more dangerous than a rifle under many circumstances (or so I'm told)... A radio and compass can have a devastating effect on the enemy. CAS and fire support when used correctly are impressive tools of war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:08:45 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
He was a sniper and I think that makes a difference. this. I would think that the nature of the job that most shots would be at 600 yards or up, which i would agree, there are better choices than 5.56. But in the end ya gotta shoot what you carried. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:10:40 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
The preferred round against bad guys would be a 12 gauge slug travelling at 3200 ft/sec from a platform capable of sub MOA accuracy out to 2000 yards. So... an A-10? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:12:11 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: He was a sniper and I think that makes a difference. +1 Its not a sniper round. Not the right tool for that job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:19:50 AM EDT
[#32]
Ahhhh yes because we all know better than a SEAL with the most confirmed kills...
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:23:27 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
this isn't new. In Vietnam soldiers hated the 5.56 because it was so light and fast the vegetation ruined the flight paths and was less than ideal and a "wounding weapon". The M14 shot though the vegetation the limb, the bad guy, and the guy behind him. more recently the reports of the knock down power being terrible added to the fact that many of the enemies are hopped up on drugs. This was one of the main reasons Ronnie Barrett said the 6.8 M468 was devised. Up close CQC sure it gets the job done. So does .300 and a .45. It might be fast and accurate, its still a .22 though. I think our rifles should be 6.8 or .300. Long range .308 and .338.....of course the .50 There are also arguments that the 5.45 is superior round to the 5.56 as well, I have not studied up on this but it seems it does what the .223 is praised for so much (carrying and capacity) much better + 45rnd mags, and I have read the bullets are superior because of the construction and how they work when they make contact. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:26:15 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: The preferred round against bad guys would be a 12 gauge slug travelling at 3200 ft/sec from a platform capable of sub MOA accuracy out to 2000 yards. Full auto? Either way that will leave a mark on both ends. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:31:14 AM EDT
[#35]
.577 Tyrannosaur is my favorite.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:31:53 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Everything is a compromise. It may not be the preferred bullet for terminal performance, but it's vastly preferred by those who have to carry large quantities of it. Yup. My preferred bullet to kill a man is a 155mm HE But I damn sure wouldn't want to carry it around on patrol. 5.56 kills well enough and is easy to carry.
Different tools for different jobs; you don't use a hammer to unscrew an oil drain plug. No, but *I* use a hammer to unscrew lightbulbs
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:40:51 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
He was a sniper and I think that makes a difference. yep, if you are shooting someone at 800+ yards 556 is definitely not the best round for the job. No kidding. As an aside, I recently read a story about a Danish tank crew that took out a guy shooting RPGs at them in Afghanistan with the main gun. So they'd probably read this thread and say that 120mm is a superior "round" if you really want to be sure to take out the guy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:45:38 AM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:46:06 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
If I were a sniper, I wouldn't want a 5.56 either. That's why we have the M110, 7.62. I've never been in combat, but something tells me the 5.56 is just a little fine and dandy round for assault rifles. Maybe it's the fact that every superpower's military and police use it. Maybe it's the fact that you can fit 30 rounds in a little small magazine and it's light. Or maybe it's this: http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b298/Runningeagle/1.jpg Tell tell me, would you want this little round going through your leg? Imagine getting hit in the chest. 
I'd rather not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:47:23 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
The preferred round against bad guys would be a 12 gauge slug travelling at 3200 5000 ft/sec from a platform capable of sub MOA accuracy out to 2000 yards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 8:55:55 AM EDT
[#41]
I just know that I can't afford to buy a new rifle every other month in order to keep up with the latest and greatest.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 9:13:26 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How many thousand BGs do you think that guy bagged? I'd trust his judgment. They were dropping like flies! Great read if you haven't caught his book. I read his book and he didn't ever claim to kill thousands. I believe 160 confirmed. That is what I remember as well. I also would take into account his time on the ground doing house/building clearing. So probably a little bit more. No where near thousands. Some of the fire fights he described were pretty hairy. I got the feeling he tried to be pretty conservative when mentioning hits. He never mentioned a total of unconfirmed, but considering how long he was deployed and how often he was in the shit, I'd say the number was pretty damn high. When he describes the action after the desert sand-rail trip, he mentions something along the lines of he was shooting every BG he could see, and they just kept coming. I can only assume that meant more than 5 or 6 enemy KIA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 9:18:26 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
He also preferred a weapon by some guys name like Gustev or something like that. I'd never heard of it but it blew everything away.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 9:21:30 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He was a sniper and I think that makes a difference. yep, if you are shooting someone at 800+ yards 556 is definitely not the best round for the job. No kidding. As an aside, I recently read a story about a Danish tank crew that took out a guy shooting RPGs at them in Afghanistan with the main gun. So they'd probably read this thread and say that 120mm is a superior "round" if you really want to be sure to take out the guy. Yeah...but was that a HEAT, Sabot, APERS? I gotta tell ya....a sabot hit on a human would be something to behold.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 9:27:52 AM EDT
[#45]
It amuses me when arfcommers take product X, isolate its worst feature, place it into an environment where its worst feature is most apparent, then rip on it for plaguing mankind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 9:30:29 AM EDT
[#46]
Snipers tend to need fewer rounds and have a much higher hit percentage than other shooters. Though I know a few snipers that prefer 5.56, lets just say that the use for most of us (hd) isn't the same as a sniper's likely use.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 9:33:45 AM EDT
[#47]
The .50bmg was not designed to be an anti-personnel weapon. If all you are shooting at is people, other rounds are essentially just as effective (dead is dead) more accurate, more convenient, and less abusive to the shooter. That said, the bmg has it's place.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 9:34:53 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He was a sniper and I think that makes a difference. yep, if you are shooting someone at 800+ yards 556 is definitely not the best round for the job. No kidding. As an aside, I recently read a story about a Danish tank crew that took out a guy shooting RPGs at them in Afghanistan with the main gun. So they'd probably read this thread and say that 120mm is a superior "round" if you really want to be sure to take out the guy. That has to be the best, non-verbal form of "No.... fuck you" I've ever heard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 9:36:11 AM EDT
[#49]
Most people on this planet would probably prefer not to be shot by any caliber
Speed |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2012 9:36:32 AM EDT
[#50]
My preferred round would be any round I can reliably get on target with the first shot. Currently, it's 9mm because it's in the pistol I'm carrying. Everything else becomes irrelevant.
Hell, if I had my choice of any round for any engagement, I would choose Nukes and FROM ORBIT FTMFW. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
