.223 over the .308 ....WHY???....?

Question

Why did the militaries all over the world use the 5.56 or .223 over the 7.62 or .308??? Where infact the latter of the two is more powerful....

Answer 1

reasons cited are:
lighter ammo means the trooper can carry more of it.
most fighting is done at under 400 yards.
It is easier for green troops to master as it has less recoil, thus less time in training.
The truth: ,308 is by far the better round.
better penetration, better range better stopping power.
We know know that fighting can still take place at any range, not just close like in the jungles of Viet Nam.
No one gun/calibur is affective in all situations. But the .308 is better in most.
The .223 is a decent round if used with in it's limitaitons and with proper ammo. but is still inferior to the .308
This is what happens when policticians get involved in the military. They have been trying to "fix" the .223 since it was first introduced. It was originally released with a barrel twist of 1 in 14" and the unstable 55 grain bullet traveling in excess of 3300 fps made a traumatic wound as it tumbled when striking flesh or bone. Then, they wanted it to be more accurate at longer range and went to a 1 in 10" twist. A little more stable, but still very effective. Then they went to a 1 in 9" twist for even more accuracy at longer range.. Suddenly the bullet didn't perform as well in producing wounds. So they went to a heavier bullet . this gave better penetration at longer range, but no improvement on wound performance. In fact, just the opposite. Then they shortened the bbl on the m16 to the current m4 and lost more performance. Reports of hits on bad guys show that they keep on fighting till hit multiple times. The easy and correct answer is to return to the m16 20" bbl and 1 in 10 twist. Or better yet, go back to the .308 which is what eugene stoner first designed the weapon to fire. Instead, we are seeing the military spend millions trying to develop a "new" cartridge like the 6mm which is really just a .308 short. Politics, tax payer money and waste.

Answer 2

Neither is a particularly good choice, but both were more or less crammed down the throats of NATO by the US.
The story of Stoner's selling of the AR15 is pretty well known.
7.62x51 is too much cartridge, uncontrollable on full-auto from a rifle.
5.56 is too little for any stopping ability.
The Brits in the past did a considerable amount of research on the proper compromise for a general-use military round. Had WW I not intervened, they'd have moved to a 7mm cartridge. After WW II, they developed a modern round, also about 7mm, that came close to the theoretical ideal but the US Army wouldn't have any of it. Too light. Then they reversed and really did go too light. Now there's the 6.5 SPC, which is all the cartridge that can fit into an AR 15 platform, and it's almost back to the 7mm round developed by the folks at Enfield in the late 40's. It would be best to make a new rifle a little bigger than AR15 but smaller than AR10 chambered for the old British cartridge, but that would be frightfully expensive, we'd have to bully everybody else yet again, and the difference would be fairly small, so the military have wasted tax money trying to jump ahead a generation or two with new developments, only to find on at least two occasions that firearms technology is about as far progressed as it's going to get without some unforseen breakthrough.

Answer 3

the U.S. army uses the .223 in the M-16. this isn't good enough, but neither is the .308. the .223 is too small, the .308 is too big. the .223 is lighter on the shoulder, and the army can carry more ammo in the .223 caliber. the M-16 is a semi auto rifle, so the .223 is lighter on the shoulder when you go through the clip. the .308 has higher recoil, so less people want to shoot it as much.

live in western PA, and damn proud of it <((((><

Answer 4

I have been wondering the same thing for a long time. If you think about it, in WWII, the standard U.S cartridges were the 30-06 in the M1 Garand, and the .30 Carbine in the M1 Carbine. And they had the Colt M1911 as their sidearm, which fired the huge .45 ACP. But now we have, as you have mentioned, .223's and 9mm's for sidearms. They changed the cartridges because the military said that it was overkill on a man, and had excessive recoil for many infantry soldiers In the two World Wars. I still think they should go back to the older, more powerful weapons.

Answer 5

Actually the breakdown of who is using what is a bit more involved than 5.56 and 7.62.

Many African nations use the .308, while many Mideast nations like the 7.62 x 39.

Western nations like the 5.56.

That is a real rough breakdown.

Try this site: www.janes.com

They produce a lot of information about the arms of the world.

Answer 6

people who call themselves "snipers" and are not interior the protection tension are relatively basically "fags". do no longer say 'tacticool' the two... Please. I even have an AR that i take advantage of to seek with and there is no longer something 'tactical' approximately it. the nicely-known civilian does not actually purchase and AR to apply while monitoring down a drug cartel or on a challenge to rid the international of terrorists. The purchase it for 4 attainable motives. to seek with, to aim shoot with, to apply in game capturing competitions or using fact they are idiots and picture that in the event that they very own a black gun then ther could be Rambo. to respond to your question... confident, the .308 is an astounding cartridge. The .223 is nonetheless too. yet you could't relatively evaluate the two. would you utilize a .308 to seek prairie canines? particular, you could desire to. in spite of the undeniable fact that it would be pointless. to handle your project with ammo being quite close... i do no longer care if it would in basic terms save me .50 cents in line with case of ammo. situations are no longer undemanding and money is tight. additionally, i'm an AR nut. as quickly as I outfitted my first AR, i for my section had to construct a .308 AR-10. in spite of the undeniable fact that, the stripped decrease MSRP replace into $2 hundred better than the .223 AR-15 stripped decrease. all the different aspects have been additionally proportionally extra high priced too. And, to tell you the fact, i've got on no account shot a wild hog with my .223 that ran any farther than 20 feet. Why? using fact i do no longer place self belief in a extensive high quality to kill what i'm searching. I place self belief in my understanding as a shooter. adequate mentioned. i'm no longer knocking the .308 via any potential. it relatively is a hoss. yet you could't evaluate the two calibers. They have been the two designed with 2 thoroughly diverse aims in techniques.

Answer 7

When the emphasis shifted from tactics (make every shot count) to firepower, (spray and pray) it was necessary to go to something lighter. The 5.56 wins hands down. Note also in a battle situation, it doesn't matter what country you are from, you can share ammo with your buddy. Many soldiers in Vietnam used AK47s because every victory you get one and enough ammo to last a month. If it got dirty, throw it in the river and get another.
Note also, police departments are going to the same lengths.
More shots don't equate to more wins.
When I was in the army, the 8 shot M1 rifle was standard and the standard sidearm was the 1911A1 US Army also 8 rounds.
For self defense purposes, if it makes you feel better to have a weapon with 47 rounds in it, by all means carry it. However, if you can't hit the target no amount of ammo will help.

Answer 8

This goes back to rule number one; FOLLOW THE MONEY. The 223 (5.56mm) is 22 caliber 50 to 60 grain slug with no range whatsoever; but in the follow the money line it is cheap and burns a lot of ammo. Also, warfare anymore is close range encounters so the mindset seems to be "fill the air with lead". During world war one people lined up in trenches and shot at each other at ranges of a thousand yards or so; world war two brought us mobile warfare so the weapons grew shorter; today seems to be total chaos so they make the weapons out of plastic and use bullets that are only good for gopher shooting; go figure. I still like to shoot my long barrel Mauser and my Garand at thousand yard targets; of course here in wide open montana we have nothing but vast distances to cover.

Answer 9

There is no doubt the 308 is the best choice in comparing it to the 223 caliber for effectiveness in delivering lethal hits on an individual*... The M-14 is superior and dependable in this category*.. My personal choice is the 308 for obvious reasons stated*...

Answer 10

As H said it was changed over because wounding a soldier is more effective than killing him. But this only works when you fight an actual army. When you fight an insurgency this practice is useless. There is no main infrastructure to be crippled and often the enemy will not stop fighting until they are dead. Now the Army has some 25,000 M-14s in active use. Most are DMRs but there are some still being used by infantry. I think that most of the near future military engagements will be similar situations to Iraq, enemy wise. I would like to see a different caliber being used. Replacing the M16 would be expensive, but replacing the 5,56 uppers with 7,62 or 6,5 Grendel uppers would be much easier and less expensive.