.223 vs. .308

[Vesper]

I am going to be the black sheep and start up a controversial topic.

WORD OF WARNING
I DO NOT WISH TO CAUSE A FIGHT OR DISHORMONY WITHIN THE FORUM BY THIS TOPIC

So, the topic is:
Why are the U.S. troops still stuck with .223 calibers? In my opinion, regarding the current warfare that is going on, I believe that .308 calibers would be more suitable. They simply generate higher level of energy. Some people say .308 calibers are unsuitable because of relatively stronger recoil; however, in my theory, that is a mere matter of training and the design of the gun. If the military immediately starts putting soldiers through marksmen training with .308 caliber, soldiers would adapt very quickly. Human body and its trainability is often underestimated. Recoil reducing system, currently in use by the Barrett firearm's .50 caliber M82 and M107, would be a greatly appreciated feature. Also, the flash hider's design can have an impact over the gun control, more than average folks think it does. A number of K series guns, currently fielded by the South Korean and part of Indonesian military forces, have 3 to 4 holes each flash hider, into the direction of 1 o'clock - directing generated gas into one specific direction; thus, preventing the notorious barrel rise.
Furthermore, in the Middle East, the troops have met the situation, where their enemies are no longer stopped by .223 calibers - high on religion, pumped up with drugs. Also, on average, .308 calibers tend to feature superior performance, when it comes to range and accuracy.
The difference of the size is eye-searingly clear.
[img width=333 height=500]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/305 ... 25a714.jpg[/img][img width=700 height=477]http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/xml/new ... ts_800.JPG[/img]
.308 caliber's sheer size dwarfs .223 caliber.

What do y'all think?

[Dominum]

There is such a thing as overkill. Remember that most modern combat takes place in urban areas, thus the risk of civilian injuries and deaths increases with larger caliber rounds, as they are more likely to pass through multiple walls, obstacles, bodies, etc. If combat were what it used to be, primarily open country with few civilians in the way, than bigger is better (in most cases), but with the way things are now, civilian casualties just can't be tolerated, even if that means less enemy casualties and more friendly ones (for better or worse, that's just the way wars are fought with the way media coverage is nowadays).

[Vesper]

Ditto. It almost appears as people are now afraid to declare a war. They try to avoid the fact that war is an ugly event, and when civilian casulties occur, they flip out and try to sue whoever is responsible. Well, it is war afterall, and yes, people tend to die during it.. If soldiers cannot effectively locate and get rid of the enemy because they're scared of the public flipping out for civilian casualties, I'm afraid that America is no longer tough enough to go any war.

[ATAT Armorer]

Most urban combat is fought at close ranges up to about 300 meters.  Granted the .223 doesn't have the kenetic energy that the .308 does but it does its job.  Personaly I think we should go smaller.  A sabot round or something of the like would be most effective.  However a full caliber bullet on a short casing would be the best, like KAC 6.8 pdw round or a 6.8 spc.  It would take a lot of money to switch to a .308 rifle and our m4 and m16 still have a few more years in them.

[Tanker]

When it comes down to it, you want a bullet that can slow an enemy down. If the round goes through, it does minimum damage and doesn't slow the OpFor down. .223. tumbles, and doesn't stop somebody like a .45, but is causes the body to move, and it just tears the innards up

[ATAT Armorer]

Tanker is right the .223 round is very unstable and like to tumble around when it hits a body.  The barrels we use now give the bullet too much stability.  We need to go back to the vietnam days of 1 twist in 20.  Now we use the PC 1 in 7.

[Radar]

Well, the Pentagon is currently looking at possible rifle changes.  We will see what happens.  Despite urban fighting, I believe a larger round gets the job done.  Either way, I would not want to be hit by any of them.  ::)

[Bushmaster]

Are they just looking at making the M4 fire a bigger round? I know Barrett makes a rifle just like the M4 that fires a 762. round, I think it is called the M468 or something like that.

[IronChef]

well well well......
after watching much locked and loaded(ammo) and future weapons...this has been a great debate.
the reason the US switched to 5.56 is that a soldier could carry more ammo vs 7.62.
as of now the us needs a round that has more knockdown power than the 5.56. the soviets based their cartridge design on 30-06 rounds....plenty knock down not enough range...and then the soviets downsized...to a smaller similler 5.56 rounds for the 100 series rifles...for the range
you trade off in lethality. i for one is in favor of the larger round be it 7.62 or 6.8. also you have to consider the systems that use them, the m4/16 was designed for high ROF, so i ntheory the more lead down range...the higher rate of success. plus the m4/16 series can take any accesory known to mankind on various mounts. the m14(best us assualt rifle imho) was still based on ww2 design(wood stock, heavy, no mounts for accesories). but the m14 has been taken off the bench and is now the ebr.

so in closing 7.62/6.8 in a modern updated platform...

also armies of the world are limited to full metal jacket round...which also affects the charateristics of the bullet itself.

i watch too muc h tv

[Vesper]

Are they just looking at making the M4 fire a bigger round? I know Barrett makes a rifle just like the M4 that fires a 762. round, I think it is called the M468 or something like that.

Barrett M468 fires 6.8mm caliber. You can see it in its name.

[Bushmaster]

Picky picky, I saw it in future weapons over a year ago . You are hurting my feelings.

[Vesper]

Aw, come on bwooi, let me give you hug! 

[Bushmaster]

NO!!!!!!!!!  >:( 

[Radar]

Good input IronCHef.  Thanks. 

[Billytehbob]

There is such a thing as overkill. Remember that most modern combat takes place in urban areas, thus the risk of civilian injuries and deaths increases with larger caliber rounds, as they are more likely to pass through multiple walls, obstacles, bodies, etc. If combat were what it used to be, primarily open country with few civilians in the way, than bigger is better (in most cases), but with the way things are now, civilian casualties just can't be tolerated, even if that means less enemy casualties and more friendly ones (for better or worse, that's just the way wars are fought with the way media coverage is nowadays).

I wouldn't say it's so much as that, since 5.56x45 can do the same thing as 7.62x51.. er, .223 and .308. It's mainly weight, since you can carry a lot more rounds of .223 than .308, cost, and recoil. You could probably make almost 2 .223 rounds from one .308 in terms of material, and because of the way the AR series bolt travels into a tube with a long spring, recoil is dampened a lot, though the .223 doesn't have as much recoil anyways. So it really wasn't ballistics, but what was believed about the class of rounds the .223 was in at the time, it helped it get into the pick.

If soldiers cannot effectively locate and get rid of the enemy because they're scared of the public flipping out for civilian casualties, I'm afraid that America is no longer tough enough to go any war.

It's also kinda of a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation with the US. The UN and Europe will whine about the fact that we get involved with other countries' issues, but if we don't do anything, they will whine about how we're not doing anything.