What round would you prefer for our standard issue service rifles other than 5.56 Nato?

Question

I personally would prefer a 7.62 in an AR frame similar to the sniper rifles used by Delta. I know that is highly improbable because of the reduced amount of rounds per mag, but the extra power would be really nice. What is your opinion, and which round that is being researched for the future do you think will be implimented?

Please answer with calibers that are useable in a light service rifle. Not .50. Something like that is too heavy. This Q is for military personell with experience in shooting.

thanks for your service in nam runnin, in relation to your answer, I had 18 M16 mags, but would have settled for 6 with 7.62 b/c you dont have to shoot 3 times to kill 1 hadgi

Answer 1

yep...I have always liked the 7.62 NATO. Only problem as I've said before, in nam I carried 30 full magazines for my M16. That would be a lot of weight to hump with 7.62 ammo. If operations dictated that something like 6-8 magazines were sufficient I'd prefer an M14. Maybe the AK47 ammo would be a good compromise.

P.S. My recruit training was with the M14....after getting issued M16 I always wondered about bayonet fighting with M16...glad I never had to rely on that. Can any recent Marines tell me if they still teach the seidler system for bayonet fighting with the M16?

THANK YOU MCgunner and semper fi. I hear you on the 7.62mm. They always told us that the 5.56mm tumbled which was more damaging to make up the difference but I never saw that in reality. In jungles& lots of brush the M16 has advantages but I would think in more open areas ie desert, that the 7.62 would definately be preferable.

Answer 2

My preference would be for either a 7.62 or .308. Either round has the knock-down, stopping power that is needed and is light enough that you can carry more of them.

I can understand the reasoning for the 5.56 / .223 (as well as the 9mm) being used by the military. The bullets are light, more can be packed into the magazine, and our NATO allies use the same round, which means we can get reloads from our friends / enemies. BUT, I still like the knock-down power.

Answer 3

The .308 would be very effective, it is accurate and powerful. The clip/magazine capacity would be less but the added power would make up for it. The 5.56 will go right through an enemy and if that enemy is high on liquid adrenaline i.e. the insurgents, then they just keep coming at you. The .308 would kill and knock them down within 2 shots, if that. The hard part in warfare now is that now all infantry weapons will have to be assault style because of the urban settings wars are being commonly fought. Assault rifles usually have to fire smaller rounds because of their design and size. Although it is very unlikley and unrealistic I would like to see modern versions of high power rifles like the Garand and M14 be used by soldiers. But in city combat zones like in Iraq these weapons are very unsuitable for that kind of warfare. But If we ever went to war with a country instead of terrorists within a country, I think these kinds of rifles would be far superior to assault weapons.

Answer 4

7.62 it has more stopping power and they are already in stock.
Also you answered one of my questions about the Mississippi state defense force aka militia
I saw that they have a little on msn groups but I thought their might be an official one. I'd like to look into to it since I'll be moving down there. Also they have 30 rd mags for 7.62 rounds.

Answer 5

While I personally prefer more stopping power, like the 7.62 I used to shoot in the M-14, I'll go with the lighter stuff based on the "soldier's load" carrying capacity. Really think the pistol sidearm needs to go back to .45. Semper Fi..

Answer 6

.308 (7.62x51mm) would be my choice.

However, the current 5.56mm NATO (.223 Winchester) we're using is not a bad round in most situations/environments. Even though it fires a small projectile it is very accurate and hits a target with a lot of velocity/energy (just as important as bullet mass in my book) inside 300 meters.

Answer 7

The 5.56 wouldn't be bad if you could use hollow points. I would prefer to use a big slow round, like a 10mm or .45. better knock down power. If I hit someone I don't want them getting back up. .50 cals aren't bad but the over penetration could hit areas you don't want to hit.

Answer 8

I agree with you. 7.62 is a great round. Good range, dependable ballistics, lot's of knock down. I don't know about anything in the works for future implementation. Doesn't mean that it's not in development, I just don't know about it.

Answer 9

6.8 spc seems the only possible change that the army would make at the current point in time. I believe that all efforts should be made to develop a caseless battle rifle however.

Answer 10

50 cal