Skip to comments.
5.56 NATO versus 7.62 NATO
YouTube ^
| Unknown
| The Military Channel
Posted on 03/11/2008 6:36:34 AM PDT by LSUfan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
1
posted on
03/11/2008 6:36:35 AM PDT
by
LSUfan
To: LSUfan
---so??
--any of the .338 or even long-action .30's make the .308 look puny--
2
posted on
03/11/2008 6:39:34 AM PDT
by
rellimpank
(--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
To: LSUfan
That’s Mack from Future Weapons, which is on the Discovery Channel, not the Military Channel. There’s a Discovery Channel “bug” in the corner of the video. I watch it as treadmill fodder.
3
posted on
03/11/2008 6:40:07 AM PDT
by
FreedomPoster
(Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
To: LSUfan
4
posted on
03/11/2008 6:40:39 AM PDT
by
Red Badger
( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
To: FreedomPoster
Military Channel is owned by Discovery Channel and it was shown on the Military Channel
5
posted on
03/11/2008 6:41:38 AM PDT
by
LSUfan
To: rellimpank
Hmmm...how many belt-fed automatic weapons and military assault rifles are chambered for .338 Lapua?
6
posted on
03/11/2008 6:43:19 AM PDT
by
LSUfan
To: Red Badger
Your first equation is only vaguely related to small-arm ammunition performance.
Your second equation would be relevant iff we were discussing nuclear weapons.
7
posted on
03/11/2008 6:45:26 AM PDT
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: LSUfan
I’m currently on the 5.56 bandwagon until I can afford an AR-10.
8
posted on
03/11/2008 6:46:36 AM PDT
by
ßuddaßudd
(7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona....)
To: LSUfan
Dump the Mattel.
better of with at least some sort of 7.62 or bigger.....
9
posted on
03/11/2008 6:48:02 AM PDT
by
Vaquero
(" an armed society is a polite society" Heinlein "MOLON LABE!" Leonidas of Sparta)
To: LSUfan
We used to carry the M-60 machine gun, which fired a 7.62 round. And before that, from WW1 through to Vietnam, the military used the .30/7.62 round for all rifles. So, it looks like it’s “Back to the Future”.
To: LSUfan
Hmmm...how many belt-fed automatic weapons and military assault rifles are chambered for .338 Lapua?The correct answer to this question is, "not enough."
11
posted on
03/11/2008 6:50:20 AM PDT
by
P8riot
(I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
To: Vaquero
Actually, the 6.8 SPC has a lot going for it in the AR/M16/M4 platform. A true .270 that still is applicable in the AR form.
Historically, when we have to fight the jihadists, we find our individual soldier weaponry lacking in stopping power and effectiveness. The Phillipine Insurrection comes to mind. It brought us into the modern era of .45 ACP, and 30-06 eventually.
12
posted on
03/11/2008 6:53:07 AM PDT
by
Pistolshot
(Remember, no matter how bad your life is, someone is watching and enjoying your suffering.)
To: LSUfan
I was always a fan of the M-14 and would have preferred that over an M-16. The M-16 was lighter and easier to control in full auto, but it lacks knockdown power and effective range for desert warfare. Most of my duty involved sitting behind sandbags and defending a fixed point, so the weight of the rifle wasn’t a factor. I wanted a cartridge that could reach out 300-400 yards and knock someone down before they could shoot at me.
13
posted on
03/11/2008 6:59:49 AM PDT
by
mbynack
(Retired USAF SMSgt)
To: Pistolshot
Yes the .38 revolvers would not stop a hopped up Moro terrorist during the Phillipine insurrection.
I never had any use for McNamara’s M-16, especially with the bumbling way they presented it not in conjunction with Stoners specifications. Anyway his original design was for the AR-10 in .308 a much better weapon...but if combined weight both weapon and ammo and close quarters fighting is the issue, you cant beat an AK in 7.62X39.
14
posted on
03/11/2008 7:03:28 AM PDT
by
Vaquero
(" an armed society is a polite society" Heinlein "MOLON LABE!" Leonidas of Sparta)
To: LSUfan
15
posted on
03/11/2008 7:03:42 AM PDT
by
MacDorcha
(Arm yourself!)
To: LSUfan
I was in Vietnam at the time the Marine Corps phased out the M-14 and adopted the M-16. For several months, each infantry squad retained one M-14 for long-range shooting (squad sniper). Ammo was not a problem because the M-60 machine-gun required 7.62 so the sniper was resupplied from the gun section's ammo.
As it turned out the M-16 had a longer effective range than what was advertised but the M-14 could definitely reach out farther and do more visible damage. This was with open sights.
The first M-16's we got had many problems. The most common problem I encountered was that the extractor would break the lip on the shell and the brass would remain in the chamber. The shell had to be removed with a cleaning rod down the barrel. I also believed that the gas system leaked on this first batch of rifles.
16
posted on
03/11/2008 7:07:26 AM PDT
by
Brad from Tennessee
("A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.")
To: FreedomPoster
Future Weapons plays on both and both are have the same ownership.
17
posted on
03/11/2008 7:09:07 AM PDT
by
mad_as_he$$
(John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
To: MacDorcha
Yeah, I've seen that. Not much good at rifle ranges, but CQB, it's very effective.
These are making a nice comeback in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are some nice lightweight AR type stocks to put them in. It's also my latest addition to the safe.
18
posted on
03/11/2008 7:09:38 AM PDT
by
Pistolshot
(Remember, no matter how bad your life is, someone is watching and enjoying your suffering.)
To: mbynack
The M-4 is a lighter -16. Current fielding has most rifles at burst and semi selections only.
My understanding is the AR-15 system is capable of being retro-fitted with any mixture of specialized “uppers” to the trigger system requiring little more than a barrel change and a slip of a fresh magazine to go from 5.56 to 7.62 (or .22, .45, and even 50 caliber!)
And if you want “knockdown” out of a 5.56, lessen the barrel twist. Increase range? Tighten it.
Though to get both range and knockdown, yes, you need a bigger shot.
It must be noted however, that the majority of the fighting over there is door-to-door and range is much less important that weight and volume.
19
posted on
03/11/2008 7:12:56 AM PDT
by
MacDorcha
(Arm yourself!)
To: LSUfan

"Jack, look at this. The back half is all solid propellant. Valves for directional control ... look, it's all electronic." "You've heard of a bullet that has your name on it. Well, this one really does. And you can program it to go after a specific person." "What's the signature?" "I don't know, man. I've tried everything..." "It's a heat seeking missile... Everyone's body has a unique heat pattern...This is your body's heat pattern and this is mine." http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1037
20
posted on
03/11/2008 7:15:13 AM PDT
by
Eye of Unk
(The world WILL be cleaner, safer and more productive without Islam.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson