Posted on 07/14/2014 2:20:50 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
If I remember correctly, the Miami shoot out bad guys were brought down by a couple of older experienced agents using 38 special revolvers. The ballistics of a HP 38 special and a 9mm HP are not significantly different. What counts is the ability to keep ones cool, in a combat situation. IMO, these two agents would have been just as effective with a 9mm as they were with 38 special. The ability to effectively use a weapon in a live shooting situation is considerably more important than the specific weapon. I do not like the 9mm round FMJ or HP. My preference is the 45 ACP with a HP bullet. Also like a good old S&M model 10 in 38 special.
And there is no way that a 5.56 mm service rifle beats a 7.62 mm service rifle at long ranges. If we're talking handloads and match grade rifles, things may be different but that's not what we're talking about.
The current marine issued M16A4 with issued ammo is going to shoot rings around any issued FN-FAL with NATO ammo all day long. Especially as the FN-FAL was rarely issued with optics and the M16A4 usually is. The ranges where 7.62 is going to be much more effective than an a 5.56 is outside the practical limits of the accuracy of the FN-FAL.
Furthermore, the 7.62 is way more lethal than the 5.56, especially at 300+ yards. There's really no debate about that. That's why the army is exploring various new chamberings.
You are comparing the calibers and not the rifles. The 5.56 was a bureaucratic decision, after all the AR was originally designed in .308. There are much better caliber now than the 5.56 (and .308) that the AR can use.
Accuracy matters but it isn't all that matters in a combat rifle, if it was, our soldiers would be issued bolt action rifles. If I'm going to war, I'm taking the FN FAL every time thank you very much.
Sure there are other considerations. Rate of fire (higher in an AR), controllable high rate of fire (better in an AR), Weight (AR ftw), someone could go on and on what makes a good battle rifle. If you choose an FN-FAL more power to you, it's certainly not the worst choice. Some people would choose the much vaunted (and clearly stolen design) of the Kalashnikov. It takes all kinds.
Personally I don't have the pleasure of being issued a rifle with a happy switch, but I don't have to be content with the limitations of a service rifle either.
Targets don't hide behind barriers. targets don't have to be killed. targets don't shoot back. It has nothing to do with philosophy.
The current marine issued M16A4 with issued ammo is going to shoot rings around any issued FN-FAL with NATO ammo all day long. Especially as the FN-FAL was rarely issued with optics and the M16A4 usually is.
So now you're having to mount $1,000 worth of optics on your rifle to keep up with a 7.62 rifle with open sights. Hardly apples to apples. and, what's more, it is well established that the M855 series of ball ammo has lost most of its lethality at the limits of the M16's effective range. The 7.62, on the other hand, is still well within its lethal range. Then what happens when we put a scope on an FN FAL, or an AR10, or an M1A, or an HK91.
I have never heard anyone complain about the 7.62's lack of stopping power. On the other hand, this seems to be a recurrent theme with the 5.56 mm. The small diameter and FMJ nature of military ball ammo completely hinders the 5.56 mm projectile's ability to inflict devastating wounds at ranges anywhere near the limits of the M16s effective range. If we know that our engagements will be limited to 200 yards or less, and that the enemy will have only light cover, the M16/5.56 mm becomes quite reasonable however. If we know that our engagements will be 300+ yards, the 7.62 is the better choice. If engagements are at 400+ yards and you have an M16 and your enemy has a 7.62 nato rifle, you are outgunned.
You are comparing the calibers and not the rifles. The 5.56 was a bureaucratic decision, after all the AR was originally designed in .308. There are much better caliber now than the 5.56 (and .308) that the AR can use.
I am comparing both actually. But on the subject of ammo choices, there are only two choices presently available and, therefore, worth discussing. Neither cartridge is my favorite but they are the only NATO options we are given to work with so that is what we must compare. My ideal battle rifle would not be chambered for either of those cartridges. If the military ever picks a new round, I'm sure millions of hours will be spent arguing about it and comparing it to every other round in existence.
Sure there are other considerations. Rate of fire (higher in an AR), controllable high rate of fire (better in an AR), Weight (AR ftw), someone could go on and on what makes a good battle rifle.
No rifle is perfect for all battlefields and, therefore, compromise becomes necessary. I'm uncomfortable with the compromises inherent to the M16/5.56 mm round. I own 3 AR15s and an AR10t. I also own an FN FAL and, now, a PTR91. As it stands now, if I had to pick one rifle to bet my life on, there's no doubt in my mind that it would be the FN FAL. It will shoot through trees, houses, cars, etc and still retain enough energy to kill the man hiding behind the barrier.
If i knew my engagements would be less than 200 yards with the occasional 300 yard engagement, i might consider the AR15. I think I would still be more comfortable with the FN FAL however.
Final point.The 7.62 nato M80 ball ammo has the same energy at 1000 yards that the 5.56 mm M855 ball round has at 200 yards.
None of those things have anything to do with a type of rifle but caliber/ammo of said rifle, assuming one can even hit the target of course.
So now you're having to mount $1,000 worth of optics on your rifle to keep up with a 7.62 rifle with open sights. Hardly apples to apples. and, what's more, it is well established that the M855 series of ball ammo has lost most of its lethality at the limits of the M16's effective range. The 7.62, on the other hand, is still well within its lethal range. Then what happens when we put a scope on an FN FAL, or an AR10, or an M1A, or an HK91.
You are the one that wanted to use service rifles as an example. Even with irons the M16A4 will shoot rings around the FN, it's just issued with optics which makes it easier to shoot rings around the FN. The lethal range of the 7.62 is beyond the practical effective range of a typical issue FN-FAL and if one were to put a scope on it and it's still a 3-6 MOA rifle. A AR10 is for all practice purposes a M16 in .308 so you are kinda defeating your argument, regardless, A M16/AR15/AR10 is going to be more accurate than a FN-FAL, M1A, or HK91, regardless of caliber and types of optics.
I'm not going to debate 5.56 vs. 7.62 as it's clear which is superior and it doesn't have much to do with anything. An AR can be made in both after all.
As it stands now, if I had to pick one rifle to bet my life on, there's no doubt in my mind that it would be the FN FAL. It will shoot through trees, houses, cars, etc and still retain enough energy to kill the man hiding behind the barrier.
Your FN-FAL in .308 doesn't do any of those things better than an AR10 or an ar15 in number of calibers.
so what? The AR15/M16 is chambered in a particular caliber, is it not? You act like a rifle chambered in 7.62 is inherently inaccurate when the .308 is known to be one of the more accurate rounds in the world. The sad truth is, it is capable of better accuracy than are most soldiers. I spent 8 years as a rifleman in the US Army. Sounds like you're in too so I think we both know what the maximum effective range of an M16/AR15 is in the real world. .
The lethal range of the 7.62 is beyond the practical effective range of a typical issue FN-FAL and if one were to put a scope on it and it's still a 3-6 MOA rifle. A AR10 is for all practice purposes a M16 in .308 so you are kinda defeating your argument, regardless, A M16/AR15/AR10 is going to be more accurate than a FN-FAL, M1A, or HK91, regardless of caliber and types of optics.
You're still not comparing apples to apples and you're giving way too much credit to the M16 as far as accuracy. An M16 shoots 3-5 MOA even with a scope because GI ball ammo itself is incapable of shooting any better. A service grade M16 shooting service grade ammo is, realistically, a 300 yard rifle. If your 400 yard target is in the open, there's no wind, and you have a full magazine, you may hit him but it's pretty unlikely it will be one shot/one kill. If you do hit him, there's a decreased likelihood of inflicting a fatal wound as evidenced by multiple complaints in Afghanistan. A bench rest shooter with a match grade AR15 shooting match grade reloads will shoot .25 MOA if not better and his projectile will likely fragmentate and cause a devastating wound at 400-500 yards but that's not what we're talking about.
The FAL, on the other hand, with open sites, will put holes in men at 400-600 yards all day long and those men will more than likely die if not treated immediately. that is exactly what it was designed to do. If you put a scope on it, it just gets a little bit easier.
As far as the AR10 goes, I have one. I loved it at first but not so much anymore. It failed me recently and has to redeem itself before I trust it again. Incidentally, with ball ammo it shoots 2-3 inches at 100 yards. With match grade ammo, it does about 1 MOA, maybe a little better.
Your FN-FAL in .308 doesn't do any of those things better than an AR10 or an ar15 in number of calibers.
As I have both an FN FAL and an AR10, I think I'm qualified to say that I think it probably does actually. The AR10 gets fouled up pretty easily.
I haven't had time to fully evaluate my PTR91. I can't wait to do that actually. We'll see what it can do.
The M16 is chambered in 5.56 but doesn't have to be, no reason to judge a rifle based on the decision of bureaucrats. The AR15 is chambered in literally dozens of calibers. I never suggested the 5.56 is inherently more accurate than the .7.62. What I said was that a gas impingement system will always be more mechanically accurate than a piston system.
An M16 shoots 3-5 MOA even with a scope because GI ball ammo itself is incapable of shooting any better. A service grade M16 shooting service grade ammo is, realistically, a 300 yard rifle. If your 400 yard target is in the open, there's no wind, and you have a full magazine, you may hit him but it's pretty unlikely it will be one shot/one kill. If you do hit him, there's a decreased likelihood of inflicting a fatal wound as evidenced by multiple complaints in Afghanistan. A bench rest shooter with a match grade AR15 shooting match grade reloads will shoot .25 MOA if not better and his projectile will likely fragmentate and cause a devastating wound at 400-500 yards but that's not what we're talking about.
M855A1 EBR is absolute shit but again it's bureaucratic boondoggle that has nothing to do with the rifle. The M855 and Mk318 SOST rounds were far superior and half the cost but they had "the evil lead" in them. I get better than 2moa with m855 and M193 btw, and I might do better still if I got glasses. Wait until the M80 ball is replaced with M80A1 and then it will be apples to apples. These BS "green" ammo changes are going to get people killed. Regardless it doesn't change the fact that GI is mechanically more accurate than a piston.
As I have both an FN FAL and an AR10, I think I'm qualified to say that I think it probably does actually. The AR10 gets fouled up pretty easily.
None of the things you mentioned had anything to do with a rifle, but the ammo. When you bring fouling up, virtually any stock AR/M16 is going to be able to fire a thousand round without a hiccup which, while not perfect, is a decent compromise. Gussied up ARs with NP3 coated internals are going to do even better.
That being said, the rifle one feel most confident with is usually the rifle one shoots best.
When I was on active duty in the early to mid 1980's, I doubt there was any at all, unless it was the MP's on post.
In today's environment, especially in the ultra tight low intensity urban environments -- I still dunno! I haven't BT or DT But if I had to clear a house or a tightly closed arena or maybe in a tunnel situation with tight blind corners... And having to keep collateral damage to a minimum, I'd want a weapon very easily maneuverable and selective with M4's backing me up, of course. Especially in very tight confines.
An M1A is capable of outstanding accuracy if that's your thing. And I guess an AK47 is just a worthless POS incapable of killing a soldier with an M16 because it isn't capable of shooting tight little groups like the M16. And again, the typical soldier is incapable of engaging a point target at 500 yards anyways so it's a moot point.
When you bring fouling up, virtually any stock AR/M16 is going to be able to fire a thousand round without a hiccup
when you add sand, dirt, mud, water, grit, lack of cleaning, temperature extremes, etc into the equation, things change.
That being said, the rifle one feel most confident with is usually the rifle one shoots best.
There is no rifle that is immediately perfect for every potential battlefield/enemy combatant. All rifles make compromises. We have to choose which compromises we're comfortable with. In the military, that choice is made for us. My initial point was that, if I had to grab one rifle, it would be my FN FAL over one of my DGI AR15s or the AR10. I am not a soldier, I am a civilian. My requirements are different and dictate entirely different compromises.
Dear Eric,
My mkii is that deep USAF blue color.
My mkiii is a factory coated MARPAT finish!
I own a couple of Czech CZ82s and I absolutely love them. One of them rides my hip almost daily. Great little pistol.
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.