Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting 223 a bad mistake for the military

No, it's not that hard to do, your right. But it's still far better than Army pop ups.

The Marines do a pretty good job of instruction for those entering the gun club.

There's no denying that controversy exist around the M16 and the 5.56 for the past 45 years.

How clean do the 77's feed from a magazine?

We run 77s all the time in NTIT rattle battle matches... I can dump 40 rounds give or take onto a target at 600 yards in the 50 second time exposure... and I"ve seen 46 hits on that target as a max IIRC or 48.... from a Marine team shooter.....

Almost everyone runs 75 or 77s... and we shoot 20 round mags so there is a delay at a mag change..

SMooth as butter IMHO.

As to the 6.8... to a man.. the folks that we shot with said that IF they felt the need for more power or range, it would be back to the 308 and not simply a jump to a 6.8 or 6.5. I have said before... I don't know if a version of the 308... IE the 7 or 260 might not prove better than the 308 in combat but there would be only one way to find out.... but the 308 is proven... and is still a nato round IIRC, at least the last ball I saw from LC was headstamped such.....that means a lot there... SDM should have an M14 IMHO and the military should get someone to make a run of select fire M14s again for stock and parts... but not full auto.. 2 or 3 shot burst... full auto on an M14 can be about worthless....

And again, no slam on your son, I suspect he actually shoots better than expert but thats the high qual IIRC. But most folks that have issues with the 5.56 and good ammo, just ain't shooting right....

BTW if the average engagement starts at 600-800 M.... 6.8 is not what I"d want either.... thats realm of the 308 plus....

I only mentioned my son as I've seen him send bullets out to 600 meters and he does a pretty good job. He doesn't lack.

This is now more of a "catfight" than a discussion...

That usually happens when Oregon Lawyers make disparaging comments.

If the 5.56mm Nato works so well at 600m plus, why are both the Americans and the Brits equipping designated marksmen with 7.62mm?

I can understand the Americans doing it given the M4 has such a short barrel, but we Brits were using the LSW for that role and even with its 24" barrel, we were still not getting adequate performance at longer ranges with the SS109.

Pete E,

What is the LSW? Is it the same as the M249 FN Minimi?

Sorry about that...Its was the Light Support Weapon. Basically it is a version of the SA80 with a longer barrel and a bipod. It was envisaged as a section light machine gun to replace the 7.62 GPMG (our version of the M240)on a scale of two per 8 man section. Being a fixed barrel weapon it was less than ideal for that role, but given the SA-80's excellent accuracy it was found to be useful in the designated marksman role instead.

The M249 was then introduced to fill the fire support role, again 2 per section. That has been well received by the troops, but many prefer the 7.62mm GPMG for that role.

So, in some Regiments over in Afghanistan, an 8 man infantry section will be armed as follows: 2 GPMG, 2 M249's, 2 LSW, 1 SA80 with grenade launcher, with only one guy armed with a plain SA80 and he may very well be carrying a light anti tank 'muntion or perhaps a 60mm mortor depending on the mission. That would be at the extreme end of things, but I have seen patrols of Para's shown on the TV and they were armed pretty much that way..

In fact its been said that an infantry section from the Para's now carrys more firepower than a platoon of Para's did in the Falklands War...

With the introduction of the new 7.62mm Sharpshooter rifle in place of the LSW, that probably even more true now...

I would think that this is definitely not a conventional war so to speak.... we are geared up for urban type combat, hence no need typically for heavy calibers... short ranges make that work itself out... SDM is basically allowing each force to more or less have its own sniper.

Now I"ll give you this as I"ve said before... if all engagments are mid range or further, 223 is not the answer...

But you mention SS109... thats not the 77bthp that the guys in the field swear did a lot to level the playing field.

Pete E,

Which do you think is a better choice in Afghanistan. The LSW or the 7.62 NATO BREN gun?

I have used the LMG ( the Bren), the GPMG and the LSW, and , I would much prefer the LMG to the LSW.

Even though the LMG fired from an open bolt, it was still remarkable accurate if you kept to 2 or 3 round bursts. The down side is that I don't ever recall seeing optics mounted on it and even the iron sights were offset to work around the top mounted mag.

The really argument comes where you talk about choosing between the LMG and the GPMG. The LPG was considerably lighter than the GPMG and in certain situations a box mag is easier to work with than a belt of ammo flapping about, although that is largely a matter of training.

Once a section fire base goes firm however, the GPMG is king.

Probably the best MG we never got was the TADEN. It was a belt fed development of the Bren and was meant to compliment the EM2...I think it was also chambered for the .280 British.

Anyway, it was essentially a belt fed Bren; the only pictures I have seen show it with spade handles rather than a proper butt stock, but thats quite a minor design change...

Take a look at the video from about 4:10 on...Its an old video, but quite interesting...

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/enfield_video_page.htm

Pete E,

See my previous entries on this thread. I mentioned the .280 British being amother missed opportunity of the US Army to adopt a better cartridge.

I did see that... all down to politics, sadly...

Well, yes... The choice of a lager cartridge than the 7mm Mauser was to be able to stop Cavalry charges. Decisions made by old men left over from the US civil War...

larger calibre than 7mm

They had this all figured out 65 years ago...

The older rounds were intended to give the Infantryman lethal capability to 1000 yds, to fit the model of Napoleonic war that was the common military strategy up through WWI. When WWII came along, the Germans developed the then new and effective concept of Blitzkrieg war.

When they discovered that the battlefield was no longer statically defined, and that engagements were now rapidly moving and mostly less than 300 yards, they found that the older and larger rounds were not ideal. So along came the new AW rounds optimized for encounters less than 300 yd and providing much greater firepower, at the expense of accuracy and range.

So... it should have come as no surprise then, that rounds that were designed with a maximum effective range of 400 yards might tend to fail at 500-800yds...eh... doesn't take a genius...

But anyway...a few years ago I received a few test boxes of experimental 77 gr HPBT bullets from a contractor that were similar in design to the 77SMK, but with a lighter jacket and a cannelure. I was told at that time they were being considered for a defense contract... (this was around the time of the legal decision regarding HP bullets earlier this decade.)

After some testing, these bullets seemed to perform well at all ranges on unarmored targets with excellent lethality, and with much better LR performance. Later, reports coming back from the field from SF claimed that they were very effective during actual live engagements at 700-800 yards. I don't remember the bbl length, they might have had REECE type weapons, but the consensus was that the 77gr round gave those squads a comfortable, extended buffer zone over what the (then) Iraqi troops had, by a factor of two. It is, of course, a combination of terminal effectiveness and accuracy, and the 77gr HP adequately provides both.

Later, I heard the manufacturer did not receive the contract, and I assumed that Sierra won out. Sierra uses a thicker jacket in their version, and the Sierra version might also work well, but I didn't test them.

I got the feeling this issue took a sidestep with the 6.8 which turned out to be a red herring, but considering that the solution was there for the taking at the time, I assumed that the 77gr solution had been adopted.

TC

Having shot some amount of 4 legged game with the 77 bthp from sierra and some with the 75 bthp from hornady...... neither one perform shabby at all

Cartridges have absolutely nothing to do with terminal effect, only bullets do.


I've not killed anyone, but I have lots of friends in that line of work (and a brother who is an AD Army Officer) and they tell me that at long range if you hit them well, they will die. Usually it takes some time. They specifically tell me that most people who think their rounds are ineffective, are actually missing.


Ah, yes the Bear Claw. Good bullet. A better case can be made for failures at short range being an issue than failures at long range, because of the danger involved.


What does that have to do with anything? 7.62N was developed more than sixty years ago and two new loads have been type classified this year. Does that mean it was always obsolete?


I do have a friend. I have several. I have more acquaintances. Some are overseas at the moment, although most are home for now.


Show me an unprepared battlefield that has a range flag, the targets and shooters at the same altitude, and targets three feet wide. Marines can do it on the flat range. Cool. So can my grandfather. This isn't a failing of Marines, they do what has been asked of them well.

Note that currently a lot more emphasis is being placed on teaching Marines to shoot at short range--traditionally a failing of Marine Corps instruction.




If I can outshoot them at 300 yards what is going to happen at six?



Chris Murray is an 18 series Sergeant from 5th Group, for what it is worth. He didn't create the 6.8 for sniping.


Wasn't all that impressed with that article. Some of his technical details even were lacking. I read it the first time it made the rounds of the military dads sewing circle over at AR15.com. Everyone there seemed ready to call their congressman and insist their son be issued an M14.



I have a long list of things I care about. I was looking at it, trying to find where your opinion of me fit in... and I couldn't find it.

That is not what I read on the internet!