Ducati Monster Forum

Kitchen Sink => No Moto Content => Topic started by: Sinister on January 15, 2009, 02:41:53 PM

Title: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Sinister on January 15, 2009, 02:41:53 PM
"I'm tired of shooting people and not have them die..." - Anonymous Operator in SW Asia, speaking on the 5.56

Semi-auto, 30-rd mag, compatible with various add-on/weapons systems, capable inside of 750-m, also handy close in...What are your thoughts? 
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Grampa on January 15, 2009, 03:54:40 PM
switch to spoons
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: lethe on January 15, 2009, 04:02:35 PM
Quote from: bobspapa on January 15, 2009, 03:54:40 PM
switch to spoons
I use ladles.
A man with a ladle commands respect.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: zarn02 on January 15, 2009, 04:15:25 PM
ah, yes...

punk vs. metal

ford vs. chevy

ginger vs. mary ann

5.56 vs. 7.62

these are the conflicts which define us.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Grampa on January 15, 2009, 05:27:18 PM
Mary Ann


nuf said
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Sinister on January 15, 2009, 05:29:04 PM
Motherf'ing peacenik bastards. [bang]




Come on, you cannot negotiate with zombies. [laugh]

Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: lethe on January 15, 2009, 05:30:54 PM
Quote from: Sinister on January 15, 2009, 05:29:04 PM
Motherf'ing peacenik bastards. [bang]




Come on, you cannot negotiate with zombies. [laugh]


While not opposed to firearms, I prefer sharp things.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: mitt on January 15, 2009, 05:39:49 PM
Quote from: Sinister on January 15, 2009, 02:41:53 PM
"I'm tired of shooting people and not have them die..." -

+1

mitt
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ute on January 15, 2009, 05:42:35 PM
remember you can always cut a mans heart out with a spoon
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on January 15, 2009, 05:43:44 PM
Quote from: ute on January 15, 2009, 05:42:35 PM
remember you can always cut a mans heart out with a spoon
but then there is the chance you'll have to look him in the eye
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: lethe on January 15, 2009, 05:49:04 PM
Quote from: just another painter on January 15, 2009, 05:43:44 PM
but then there is the chance you'll have to look him in the eye
Long distance relationships are never as satisfying however short they may be.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on January 15, 2009, 05:52:39 PM
Quote from: lethe on January 15, 2009, 05:49:04 PM
Long distance relationships are never as satisfying however short they may be.
That was kind of my point. :P
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Mother on January 15, 2009, 05:56:51 PM
Never should have moved away from the .06
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Supero100 on January 15, 2009, 06:23:29 PM
9mm +p is enough


what?


I'm surprised someone hasn't said "shot placement" yet



how about:

Mall Ninja (http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/) vs Real Ultimate Power (http://www.realultimatepower.net/)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: vaclav on January 15, 2009, 06:35:13 PM
(http://www.madogre.com/images/45truth.jpg)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Sinister on January 15, 2009, 06:40:55 PM
Quote from: Supero100 on January 15, 2009, 06:23:29 PM
9mm +p is enough


5.56 & 7.62 are rifle rounds, hero.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rev. Millertime on January 15, 2009, 07:01:55 PM
Quote from: just another painter on January 15, 2009, 05:43:44 PM
but then there is the chance you'll have to look him in the eye

Ahh, the old "you use a gun because you are spineless" argument.   [roll]



Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Supero100 on January 15, 2009, 07:11:00 PM
Quote from: Sinister on January 15, 2009, 06:40:55 PM
5.56 & 7.62 are rifle rounds, hero.


Indeed

That line, like every other line in that post

Was a joke

:P
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on January 15, 2009, 07:16:44 PM
Quote from: Rev. Millertime on January 15, 2009, 07:01:55 PM
Ahh, the old "you use a gun because you are spineless" argument.   [roll]




Lighten up dude...

we were goofing about spoons and ladles.

What's up?

Toes cold?    ;D
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: He Man on January 15, 2009, 08:28:29 PM
have you checked that intermediate round the SPC. I think its 6.3mm or something.

If were talking recreation, and were talking .308 not the soviet AK 39mm round, the choice is obvious, but .308 is $$
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rev. Millertime on January 15, 2009, 11:52:01 PM
Quote from: just another painter on January 15, 2009, 07:16:44 PM
Lighten up dude...

we were goofing about spoons and ladles.

What's up?

Toes cold?    ;D

I know ... just f'n with ya.

Toes aren't cold, but my trigger finger is.   Gawdamn -22 right now... better than the -31 this morning.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Big Troubled Bear on January 16, 2009, 12:16:58 AM
During the Angolan war the both sides lost and they both used both rounds :o
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Holden on January 16, 2009, 05:10:23 AM
Problem is in the bullet, not the cartridge. Start using hollow points... [evil]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Slag on January 16, 2009, 05:58:02 AM
I like them both.  Black Hills in 175 for the .308 for me  [thumbsup]  My Accuracy International is a big fan of it  ;D

Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 16, 2009, 06:09:18 AM
6.8 SPC supposedly has 80% of the stopping power and 50% of the recoil of a .308.  At least according to the Stag Arms catalog.

Damn, ammo is expensive now.

Just got the parts I need to finish my M4 style rifle build in 5.56.  Cant wait to see how it fares at the range compared to the LAR8.  Cant wait to look that bullseye, in the eye.   [roll]


Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Sinister on January 16, 2009, 07:44:29 AM
Quote from: He Man on January 15, 2009, 08:28:29 PM
have you checked that intermediate round the SPC. I think its 6.3mm or something.

I haven't done much reading on the SPC round, other than to hear that people like it.  My issue would be availability of ammo.  I like the idea of being able to get access to mass amounts of NATO-issue ammo.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rameses on January 16, 2009, 08:38:47 AM
Quote from: rgramjet on January 16, 2009, 06:09:18 AM
Just got the parts I need to finish my M4 style rifle build in 5.56.




Was that you that posted several months ago about the Stag group buy minus the lower receiver on AR15.com?
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 16, 2009, 11:21:23 AM
Quote from: Sinister on January 16, 2009, 07:44:29 AM
I haven't done much reading on the SPC round, other than to hear that people like it.  My issue would be availability of ammo.  I like the idea of being able to get access to mass amounts of NATO-issue ammo.

Im with you.  I also have a huge problem with shelling out 40-50 cents per round.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 16, 2009, 11:24:45 AM
Quote from: Rameses on January 16, 2009, 08:38:47 AM


Was that you that posted several months ago about the Stag group buy minus the lower receiver on AR15.com?

Yes, I ordered November 11 and it got here yesterday.  Current wait is in the 20-25 week neighborhood.  GB ended Jan 10th.  I think he's putting together another after the SHOT Show with a slight price increase.

Everything seems to be mating up perfectly. Stripped DPMS lower, Stag everything else.  Gotsta buy a couple punches so I can put it together this weekend.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rameses on January 16, 2009, 11:40:41 AM
Quote from: rgramjet on January 16, 2009, 11:24:45 AM
Yes, I ordered November 11 and it got here yesterday.  Current wait is in the 20-25 week neighborhood.  GB ended Jan 10th.  I think he's putting together another after the SHOT Show with a slight price increase.

Everything seems to be mating up perfectly. Stripped DPMS lower, Stag everything else.  Gotsta buy a couple punches so I can put it together this weekend.


Thanks for posting that back then.  I meant to thank you then, but that section went the way of the dodo and I couldn't remember who it was that mentioned it.

I ordered mine back in December, but the wait was already to the 20-25 week mark when I got to it, so I still have quite a while.

I picked up a RRA lower off gunbroker.com a couple of weeks ago for a pretty good price, so I'm all ready for it when it arrives.   ;D
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 16, 2009, 12:04:38 PM
Nice, I love RR stuff!   [thumbsup]

Did you get a stripped lower or did it come assembled?  Ideally I wanted the rifle to be from a single manufacturer but I got too good a deal at a gun show in MD on the stripped DPMS lower.  Just saw a built lower assembly from RR for $450!!  Saw them at a gun show six months ago for $250.

Felt funny to fill out all the paperwork then wait 8 days just to pick up an innocuous looking piece of metal.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 16, 2009, 12:05:17 PM
Which Stag did you get?  The 2H?
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rameses on January 16, 2009, 12:20:05 PM
Yeah, just got the 2H.

And yeah, the receiver's stripped.

I too thought about keeping everything Stag, but the deal was good on the RRA.

I might pick up a Stag lower if I can find a good deal on one by the time the kit gets here though.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: acalles on January 16, 2009, 12:53:54 PM
Quote from: Rameses on January 16, 2009, 12:20:05 PM
Yeah, just got the 2H.

And yeah, the receiver's stripped.

I too thought about keeping everything Stag, but the deal was good on the RRA.

I might pick up a Stag lower if I can find a good deal on one by the time the kit gets here though.

I'm thinking of building a stag lower and RRA EOP varmint upper in .223 wylde. If I don't it'll be to save up for a M1A with a sage EBR stock.

Almost bought a bushmaster .450... till I figured the cost of ammo in  :o

Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Mother on January 16, 2009, 02:21:21 PM
Quote from: acalles on January 16, 2009, 12:53:54 PM
I'm thinking of building a stag lower and RRA EOP varmint upper in .223 wylde. If I don't it'll be to save up for a M1A with a sage EBR stock.

Almost bought a bushmaster .450... till I figured the cost of ammo in  :o




Ugh

maybe do it in reverse

RRA Wylde chambers are great if you never put a reload in it

or a round that isn't perfectly polished to a high luster

Ask The Plumber (http://ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3858)

We used to take the stinger out of my trailer hitch and beat on the charging handle

He returned it to RRA and they said nothing was wrong

but it locks up if you use any reloaded round



Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: He Man on January 16, 2009, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: Sinister on January 16, 2009, 07:44:29 AM
I haven't done much reading on the SPC round, other than to hear that people like it.  My issue would be availability of ammo.  I like the idea of being able to get access to mass amounts of NATO-issue ammo.

Thats kind of a different issue though. NATO issue ammo is cheap and you can buy surplus of it and shoot it for pennies a round. it wouldnt be for anything but recreation because it probably isnt that accurate. If your shooting for home defense, your not buying surplus, your buying high quality ammo, in that case a gun shop will more than likely have 6.8 SPC and if they dont, they can always special order it for you.

If we're talking about a doomsday scenario, yea you want easily available ammo which is .223 or .308. But theres always the option of having more than 1 gun, unless you live in one of those gun nazi states.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 16, 2009, 02:33:21 PM
I live in a "Gun Nazi" state and it sucks.

Check Milsurp ammo prices lately?  .223 is running $.20-.45 per round.  .308 is $.40 per round, and thats per thousand!  You can do a little better on the steel cased junk thats out there.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 16, 2009, 02:35:22 PM
Of course, as soon as I type that I find this!  Dont know anything about PMP Ammo,,,,

http://www.centuryarms.com/pmp.htm (http://www.centuryarms.com/pmp.htm)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: He Man on January 16, 2009, 02:40:40 PM
Quote from: rgramjet on January 16, 2009, 02:35:22 PM
Of course, as soon as I type that I find this!  Dont know anything about PMP Ammo,,,,

http://www.centuryarms.com/pmp.htm (http://www.centuryarms.com/pmp.htm)

THats exactly what i was buying in florida, south african surplus. i think i paid about not too much over $100 for 2000 rounds this was about 2 years ago though.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 16, 2009, 02:44:47 PM
Yes, ammo prices have skyrocketed.  Most places are sold out of the decent stuff.

140 round battle packs are running between $65-85.  Ive seen them even higher at the local gun gouger, I mean shop...
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: acalles on January 16, 2009, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: Mother on January 16, 2009, 02:21:21 PM

Ugh

maybe do it in reverse

RRA Wylde chambers are great if you never put a reload in it

or a round that isn't perfectly polished to a high luster

Ask The Plumber (http://ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3858)

We used to take the stinger out of my trailer hitch and beat on the charging handle

He returned it to RRA and they said nothing was wrong

but it locks up if you use any reloaded round

really?

I' had been advised that the wylde chamber was the way to go. Supposedly bettery accuracy on bulk and surplus ammo. I hadn't heard of any problems with them. I was planning on reloading as well.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Mother on January 16, 2009, 03:22:00 PM
Quote from: acalles on January 16, 2009, 02:55:07 PM
really?

I' had been advised that the wylde chamber was the way to go. Supposedly bettery accuracy on bulk and surplus ammo. I hadn't heard of any problems with them. I was planning on reloading as well.

keep in mind that this is a single rifle experience

but

the reason I lost confidence in RRA is that after the rifle was returned, inspected, and given a clean bill of health

we took it out to the range and the very first round I put in it jammed up



Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on January 16, 2009, 05:15:24 PM
Quote from: Mother on January 16, 2009, 03:22:00 PM
<snip> and given a clean bill of health

we took it out to the range and the very first round I put in it jammed up




Doc was wrong.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 16, 2009, 08:38:52 PM
Just finished assembling the DPMS lower.  Took about 45 minutes taking my time and not using any of the recommended tools (roll punches etc).  Im very happy with the results and cant wait to break this thing in!
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 17, 2009, 04:46:35 PM
Put about 100 rounds of Winchester hollow points through the M4.  So far so good, not a single hang up! Recoil is very manageable compared to the .308.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on January 17, 2009, 09:45:58 PM
Shot placement.

Hit a guy in the eyeball with .22 short and lets see what he does.

Most of our guys, God bless them, are not riflemen anymore, they are just shooters.  40 years ago, most conscripts had experience with firearms, but nowadays the military volunteers have very little.  Often, when they are issued a training M16 is it the first gun they've ever handled.

You simply cannot teach proper shooting to a person in the span of boot camp, along with everything else.  If they all came into the military knowing how to handle a rifle, you'd probably have enough time to teach good shooting technique.  The best we can do is teach safety, maintenance and some basic shooting, and show them the nifty burst setting so they can have 3 chances to hit something.

Bear in mind that 7.62 (and especially ought six) was issued at a time when most of our service was coming into the military with some experience.  Even the boys from New York City had rifle teams in Manhattan (yes!).  That's all gone now, as is the useful knowledge with it.

6.8 is a fine round, as is 7.62 as is 5.56.  But at the end of the argument, if you can hit them in the eye, they don't stand up and yell "HAHA THAT WAS ONLY 5.56 YOU PUSSY!"

When we switched from the M14 to the M16, it wasn't just an ammo switch, it was a tactics change -- we didn't have a military of riflemen who could shoot well, so we fielded large numbers of guys with "Spray and pray" capabilities.

Yes, 5.56 produces a smaller wound channel than 7.62, which is evident when you are a bad shot and can only hit CBM.  Unfortunatley, merely going back to 7.62 won't fix this problem since ammo capacities are smaller on the M14 (or FAL or G3) magazines and ruck loads will just be heavier.

Teach our boys to shoot like Hathcock and you'll see less complaints about whatever round we are using.

Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Mother on January 17, 2009, 10:32:48 PM
that suprised me, I am one of the least gun oriented people in my group of family and friends. I got my first rifle when I was 12. I am a fair shot but they are outstanding riflemen and hunters. I can't imagine boot being the first experience with a rifle
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Kopfjäger on January 17, 2009, 10:54:07 PM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on January 17, 2009, 09:45:58 PM
Shot placement.

Hit a guy in the eyeball with .22 short and lets see what he does.

Most of our guys, God bless them, are not riflemen anymore, they are just shooters.  40 years ago, most conscripts had experience with firearms, but nowadays the military volunteers have very little.  Often, when they are issued a training M16 is it the first gun they've ever handled.

You simply cannot teach proper shooting to a person in the span of boot camp, along with everything else.  If they all came into the military knowing how to handle a rifle, you'd probably have enough time to teach good shooting technique.  The best we can do is teach safety, maintenance and some basic shooting, and show them the nifty burst setting so they can have 3 chances to hit something.

Bear in mind that 7.62 (and especially ought six) was issued at a time when most of our service was coming into the military with some experience.  Even the boys from New York City had rifle teams in Manhattan (yes!).  That's all gone now, as is the useful knowledge with it.

6.8 is a fine round, as is 7.62 as is 5.56.  But at the end of the argument, if you can hit them in the eye, they don't stand up and yell "HAHA THAT WAS ONLY 5.56 YOU PUSSY!"

When we switched from the M14 to the M16, it wasn't just an ammo switch, it was a tactics change -- we didn't have a military of riflemen who could shoot well, so we fielded large numbers of guys with "Spray and pray" capabilities.

Yes, 5.56 produces a smaller wound channel than 7.62, which is evident when you are a bad shot and can only hit CBM.  Unfortunatley, merely going back to 7.62 won't fix this problem since ammo capacities are smaller on the M14 (or FAL or G3) magazines and ruck loads will just be heavier.

Teach our boys to shoot like Hathcock and you'll see less complaints about whatever round we are using.



Ummm, we don't teach headshots on the SOF side of the house. I know this because it is one of my jobs.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on January 18, 2009, 08:57:14 AM
Quote from: Mother on January 17, 2009, 10:32:48 PM
that suprised me, I am one of the least gun oriented people in my group of family and friends. I got my first rifle when I was 12. I am a fair shot but they are outstanding riflemen and hunters. I can't imagine boot being the first experience with a riflec

I didn't mean every single kid in boot had never touched a rifle, rather a much much higher proportion than in times past.  The NY Times had a story about military training a few years ago and in one paragraph interview with an older drill sergeant he refers to this -- that all forces have seen a decline in the number of firearm-experienced recruits and have had to change their training (in the last 30-40 years) as a result. 

Quote from: kopfjager on January 17, 2009, 10:54:07 PM
Ummm, we don't teach headshots on the SOF side of the house. I know this because it is one of my jobs.

I never claimed we did...

Just for the record, I did not say that EVERY serviceman today is a shitty shooter.  We have plenty of skilled marksmen and DMs.  However, among the NON-DMs, the average shooting ability is much lower than it was in the last generation.   This is due to changes in the population (Fewer hunters, more urbanization, anti-gun politics and policies).

My high school had a shooting range in the basement.  We used to come to school with our .22 rifles in the car, put them in a locker at the beginning of the day, and after school we would have rifle team practice.

Not any more.  The rifle range is now storage.

Justice Antinon Scalia talked about taking his rifle on the subway to school for shooting practice (http://volokh.com/posts/1141061437.shtml) -- going into Manhattan.  50 years ago, kids in NYC could use a shooting range at their school, but now they'd spend 2-5 years in the pen for doing that.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on January 18, 2009, 01:11:10 PM
Lots of things are different than they were 50 years ago.

Some for the better and some not.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Popeye the Sailor on January 18, 2009, 01:12:51 PM
I can shoot the fleas off a dogs back at 500 yards.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on January 18, 2009, 01:15:23 PM
Quote from: ducpainter on January 18, 2009, 01:11:10 PM
Lots of things are different than they were 50 years ago.

Some for the better and some not.

Sure, but we are talking about 5.56 vs 7.62 here, and I suggested some reasons for the migration.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on January 18, 2009, 02:16:10 PM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on January 18, 2009, 01:15:23 PM
Sure, but we are talking about 5.56 vs 7.62 here, and I suggested some reasons for the migration.
...and I even agree with some of the things you suggested.

I was just commenting.

Hard to respond in many other ways without getting political.

Don't be so defensive. ;)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 18, 2009, 02:38:18 PM
A good offense is the best defense.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on January 18, 2009, 02:42:00 PM
Is being offensive a good defense?   [laugh]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 18, 2009, 02:43:02 PM
Always!    [thumbsup]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on January 18, 2009, 02:45:53 PM
I would disagree, but c'est la vie.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on January 18, 2009, 04:02:21 PM
Quote from: ducpainter on January 18, 2009, 02:45:53 PM
I would disagree, but c'est la vie.

being disagreeable is very offensive!
Quote from: ducpainter on January 18, 2009, 02:16:10 PM
...and I even agree with some of the things you suggested.

I was just commenting.

Hard to respond in many other ways without getting political.

Don't be so defensive. ;)

but there really wasn't any politics in my comments.  i merely observed that the number of men in the US who have shooting experience prior to going into the military has decreased and posited that a factor in the change of rifle tactics is partly due to that.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Kopfjäger on January 18, 2009, 04:28:29 PM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on January 18, 2009, 04:02:21 PMi merely observed that the number of men in the US who have shooting experience prior to going into the military has decreased and posited that a factor in the change of rifle tactics is partly due to that.


So you are saying the reason the US Military went from the 7.62 to the 5.56 was due to less shooting experience by recruits?
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: He Man on January 18, 2009, 04:42:05 PM
How can this get political? Its just ammo!

There was a story...not sure if it was true or not. but there was a investigation on Marines commiting executions because of the number of head shots found. The truth was, the terrorist were only exposing their heads and the Marines had nothing else to shoot at.

I like the idea of the story, no idea if its true or not. but you can defintely learn how to shoot in the 13 weeks of bootcamp without ever touching a gun. Your a good blank canvas to teach and have no bad habbits. Frequent qualifications with guns and rifle training is what keeps you sharp and betters your shooting skills. Besides, any infantry unit will be taught how to shoot properly and the US invests A LOT of money into the training of its Soldiers. Its the non infantry jobs that doesnt get to sharpen their rifle skills often.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Holden on January 18, 2009, 04:53:56 PM
Quote from: He Man on January 18, 2009, 04:42:05 PM
How can this get political? Its just ammo!

Geneva convention w/r/t fully jacketed rounds. :-X
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on January 18, 2009, 05:49:52 PM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on January 18, 2009, 08:57:14 AM
<snip>
Just for the record, I did not say that EVERY serviceman today is a shitty shooter.  We have plenty of skilled marksmen and DMs.  However, among the NON-DMs, the average shooting ability is much lower than it was in the last generation.   This is due to changes in the population (Fewer hunters, more urbanization, anti-gun politics and policies).

<snip>
Ya almost had me till there....
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on January 18, 2009, 06:38:49 PM
Quote from: kopfjager on January 18, 2009, 04:28:29 PM

So you are saying the reason the US Military went from the 7.62 to the 5.56 was due to less shooting experience by recruits?c

nope, i am not saying the reason the US Military went from the 7.62 to the 5.56 was due to less shooting experience by recuits.

Quote from: ducpainter on January 18, 2009, 05:49:52 PM
Ya almost had me till there....

it wasn't meant to be a political comment, i should have said "anti-gun laws and policies"..  For instance, the "Safe Schools Act" which prohibited firearms within 500 (?) feet of a school (this provision was struck down by the USSC as being overbroad under the Commerce Clause)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on January 18, 2009, 06:46:32 PM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on January 18, 2009, 06:38:49 PM
nope, i am not saying the reason the US Military went from the 7.62 to the 5.56 was due to less shooting experience by recuits.

it wasn't meant to be a political comment, i should have said "anti-gun laws and policies"..  For instance, the "Safe Schools Act" which prohibited firearms within 500 (?) feet of a school (this provision was struck down by the USSC as being overbroad under the Commerce Clause)
I really can't comment on the USSC decision...

because I can't do it without getting political...for the sake of argument, the US legal code shall be considered political in this forum...

and neither can you. ;)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Sinister on January 18, 2009, 07:38:19 PM
Trouble follows me everywhere. [bang] [laugh]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Oldfisti on January 18, 2009, 07:47:21 PM
Quote from: Sinister on January 18, 2009, 07:38:19 PM
Trouble follows me everywhere. [bang] [laugh]


He hasn't posted in this thread yet, but who knows?         [cheeky]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on January 18, 2009, 08:25:58 PM
Quote from: ducpainter on January 18, 2009, 06:46:32 PM
I really can't comment on the USSC decision...

because I can't do it without getting political...for the sake of argument, the US legal code shall be considered political in this forum...

and neither can you. ;)


so commenting on Federal law on any topic is a problem here?  wow...   [roll]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: He Man on January 19, 2009, 01:05:40 AM
yup anything with the word federal  and law is political.

the both of them together in  1 sentence spells XXX.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on January 19, 2009, 04:43:35 AM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on January 18, 2009, 08:25:58 PM
so commenting on Federal law on any topic is a problem here?  wow...   [roll]
No.

You're getting dramatic.

Comment all you want.

The discussion that follows will become political and you know it...it's inevitable.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Big Troubled Bear on January 19, 2009, 05:06:05 AM
The political situation in Zimbabwe sucks and they use 7.62 [thumbsup]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: acalles on January 19, 2009, 08:12:19 AM
When compaired to the 7.62x39, the 5.56 was supposed to have better stopping power and greater capacity, with eugene stoner's origional intent.

I had read a few articles about the origional design of the 5.56. It was to be used in a slow twist bbl, that left the bullet on the edge of stabiliztion causing it to tumble violently on impact. but the military change the twist to get better accuracy, which reduced the tumbling and stopping power.
I remember reading an article about how they also change to a inferior powder, that cause the jamming issues early on..
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on January 19, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Quote from: ducpainter on January 19, 2009, 04:43:35 AM
No.

You're getting dramatic.

Comment all you want.

The discussion that follows will become political and you know it...it's inevitable.


meh...
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: DRKWNG on January 19, 2009, 11:52:53 AM
Quote from: He Man on January 19, 2009, 01:05:40 AM
yup anything with the word federal  and law is political.

the both of them together in  1 sentence spells XXX.

So that is how porn came about?
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 19, 2009, 11:57:18 AM
Porn you are allowed to talk about.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Popeye the Sailor on January 19, 2009, 12:00:21 PM
Quote from: DRKWNG on January 19, 2009, 11:52:53 AM
So that is how porn came about?

Of course. Telling me getting f*cked doesn't come to mind when you think of that combination?
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: lethe on January 19, 2009, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: MrIncredible on January 19, 2009, 12:00:21 PM
Of course. Telling me getting f*cked doesn't come to mind when you think of that combination?
or strange bedfellows.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on January 19, 2009, 12:05:28 PM
Quote from: acalles on January 19, 2009, 08:12:19 AM
When compaired to the 7.62x39, the 5.56 was supposed to have better stopping power and greater capacity, with eugene stoner's origional intent.

I had read a few articles about the origional design of the 5.56. It was to be used in a slow twist bbl, that left the bullet on the edge of stabiliztion causing it to tumble violently on impact. but the military change the twist to get better accuracy, which reduced the tumbling and stopping power.
I remember reading an article about how they also change to a inferior powder, that cause the jamming issues early on..
compared to the 7.62x39 or the 7.62x51?

stoner specified a specific type of powder, which in testing, gave great performance and reduced cleaning intervals.  military brass chose to use a different powder which was older and dirtier and caused fouling much quicker, which led to jamming and other problems in the field.

the twist was changed because a different projectile was adopted -- the belgian SS109, which required a faster twist.  the projectiles spun faster and more accurately, but overpenetration is always going to be an issue with a fully jacketed bullet, regardless of the caliber.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on January 21, 2009, 11:17:36 AM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on January 19, 2009, 12:05:28 PM
compared to the 7.62x39 or the 7.62x51?

stoner specified a specific type of powder, which in testing, gave great performance and reduced cleaning intervals.  military brass chose to use a different powder which was older and dirtier and caused fouling much quicker, which led to jamming and other problems in the field.

Could this be why my LAR HATES South African 7.62??  One clip and it doesnt eject.....
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on January 21, 2009, 03:07:26 PM
Quote from: rgramjet on January 21, 2009, 11:17:36 AM
Could this be why my LAR HATES South African 7.62??  One clip and it doesnt eject.....

Probably not.  I believe the South African stuff is manufactured to nato specs, but it's possible they put some catgut in there.

try a chamber brush.  the best kind are the M14 type which fits into the chamber and turn it with a cleaning rod with the ratchet base.

but you never know.  i have an old import SVD that simply will not digest Albanian 7.62x54 well.  after 2-3 rounds, the cases freeze in the chamber.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rameses on February 02, 2009, 09:00:21 PM



Check out what the UPS guy brought me today!!   [evil]






(https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3002/3249016185_cfe242b8fc_b.jpg)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 02, 2009, 09:04:30 PM
i didn't know UPS delivered bikes!!
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Sinister on February 02, 2009, 10:26:58 PM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on February 02, 2009, 09:04:30 PM
i didn't know UPS delivered bikes!!

I know.  My first thought was, "this is a gun thread, why is he posting a picture of his bike?"  Then, I saw the rifle.  Nice, dude. [thumbsup]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rameses on February 09, 2009, 12:32:45 AM


[evil]


Yep.  It works.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRjeocJEXhk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRjeocJEXhk)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 09, 2009, 10:31:57 AM
Quote from: Rameses on February 09, 2009, 12:32:45 AM

[evil]


Yep.  It works.

try putting your upper body forward of your waist. 
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on February 09, 2009, 11:17:27 AM
That sounds like a Stag Arms AR!  I am experiencing 30 round mag envy....friggin 20 round max commie state that I live it!

Next class, Bump Firing 101!
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 09, 2009, 11:22:26 AM
Quote from: rgramjet on February 09, 2009, 11:17:27 AM
That sounds like a Stag Arms AR!  I am experiencing 30 round mag envy....friggin 20 round max commie state that I live it!

Next class, Bump Firing 101!

i have buttloads of 30rd mags (broght a ton of orlites back with me, not realizing.. uh..yeh).. but i prefer the 20 rders as they are easier to field when you are on your belly.  try it, drop and fire.   your rifle LOS has to be about 6-7 " above the ground, which means your HEAD is above that! 

with a shorter mag, you have better head coverage.

of course, the Beta C mag is about the same bottom length as a 20 rder, but ... much bigger cap.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Kopfjäger on February 09, 2009, 11:29:38 AM
Quote from: Rameses on February 09, 2009, 12:32:45 AM

[evil]


Yep.  It works.


Whom ever taught you how to shoot a carbine like that should get slapped.  [roll]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on February 09, 2009, 11:30:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMoIocLvPSA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMoIocLvPSA)

I hear the 20 rounders have less feed problems.  I have been toying with the idea of a Beta mag......hmmmm (20) 30 rounders or 1 Beta C??  Gun shows next weekend here I come!
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on February 09, 2009, 11:30:55 AM
Some of us have to teach ourselves....
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 09, 2009, 12:19:06 PM
Quote from: rgramjet on February 09, 2009, 11:30:08 AM
I hear the 20 rounders have less feed problems.  I have been toying with the idea of a Beta mag......hmmmm (20) 30 rounders or 1 Beta C??  Gun shows next weekend here I come!

probably not significantly fewer, the STANAG mag has been fielded long enough to work the kinks out.  more likely, there are so many aftermarket makers that ppl run into some bad ones more often.  HK makes a 'high reliability' version of the STANAG magazine but they run about 40-50 each. 

the israeli orlites are compliant even tho only the israelis use them.  self lubricating, nearly indestructible.  you can find them cheap, but all are 30 rd.  no feed problems in my experience.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: jdubbs32584 on February 09, 2009, 12:50:30 PM
Quote from: kopfjager on February 09, 2009, 11:29:38 AM
Whom ever taught you how to shoot a carbine like that should get slapped.  [roll]

[roll]

Quote from: rgramjet on February 09, 2009, 11:30:55 AM
Some of us have to teach ourselves....

Exactly. You could be like ducatizzzz (i.e. constructive) and make suggestions instead of....
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Kopfjäger on February 09, 2009, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: JBubble on February 09, 2009, 12:50:30 PM
[roll]

Exactly. You could be like ducatizzzz (i.e. constructive) and make suggestions instead of....


I have offered plenty of times in the past, thank you.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: jdubbs32584 on February 09, 2009, 01:25:42 PM
Quote from: kopfjager on February 09, 2009, 01:24:23 PM

I have offered plenty of times in the past, thank you.

[roll]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rameses on February 09, 2009, 02:07:32 PM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on February 09, 2009, 10:31:57 AM
try putting your upper body forward of your waist. 


Will do.  Thank you.

Any other advice?




Quote from: kopfjager on February 09, 2009, 11:29:38 AM
Whom ever taught you how to shoot a carbine like that should get slapped.  [roll]


Whomever taught you that "whom ever" is two words should be slapped too.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rameses on February 09, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
Quote from: rgramjet on February 09, 2009, 11:17:27 AM
That sounds like a Stag Arms AR!  I am experiencing 30 round mag envy....friggin 20 round max commie state that I live it!



Bushmaster.  I'm still waiting on the Stag.   [thumbsup]




Quote from: ducatizzzz on February 09, 2009, 12:19:06 PM
HK makes a 'high reliability' version of the STANAG magazine but they run about 40-50 each. 




I picked up 10 of the HK mags in good used condition recently for 220 shipped.  I was pretty happy about that find.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 09, 2009, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: Rameses on February 09, 2009, 02:07:32 PM

Will do.  Thank you.

Any other advice?

Not much.  try different ammo.  What is the barrel twist on your rifle?  That will determine a good bit of performance issues and what weight you should us.  you won't hurt the rifle using the "wrong" ammo, but it will not perform optimally.

shooting stance is a huge part of accuracy, preventing battle fatigue and a few other things.  there are plenty of online resources on it, AR15.com is a big one.  plenty of helpful folks there.  plenty of dicks too.

have you learned to take it down?  that's the second thing everyone needs to learn.  once you learn to do it, practice and it will become easy and if you ever have repairs (i.e. the extractor can break sometimes the firing pin can too) you can do it yourself.   there are plenty of good guides on the AR/M16.. global security has the DoD official one online:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/index.html (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/index.html)

Quote from: Rameses on February 09, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
I picked up 10 of the HK mags in good used condition recently for 220 shipped.  I was pretty happy about that find.

That's not bad for them used. 
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rameses on February 09, 2009, 02:48:19 PM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on February 09, 2009, 02:31:28 PM
Not much.  try different ammo.  What is the barrel twist on your rifle?  That will determine a good bit of performance issues and what weight you should us.  you won't hurt the rifle using the "wrong" ammo, but it will not perform optimally.

shooting stance is a huge part of accuracy, preventing battle fatigue and a few other things.  there are plenty of online resources on it, AR15.com is a big one.  plenty of helpful folks there.  plenty of dicks too.

have you learned to take it down?  that's the second thing everyone needs to learn.  once you learn to do it, practice and it will become easy and if you ever have repairs (i.e. the extractor can break sometimes the firing pin can too) you can do it yourself.   there are plenty of good guides on the AR/M16.. global security has the DoD official one online:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/index.html (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/index.html)



It's 1/9.  I put some various 62gr and 55gr rounds through it yesterday.  All of it did well.

I can break it down with no problem.  Disassembling, assembling, and fixing things has always come naturally for me.  Plus I had a week between when I got it and when I got to fire it for the first time, so I spent plenty of time familiarizing myself with it.  I'll keep practicing though.

I've spent a little time on AR15.com, but I'll definitely look at it more closely now. 

And that DoD guide looks pretty useful.  Thank you!

Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 09, 2009, 03:24:56 PM
Quote from: Rameses on February 09, 2009, 02:48:19 PM
I've spent a little time on AR15.com, but I'll definitely look at it more closely now. 

And that DoD guide looks pretty useful.  Thank you!

ARF also has a bunch of home-written manuals online, i think they are better than the DoD one
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rameses on February 09, 2009, 03:54:04 PM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on February 09, 2009, 03:24:56 PM
ARF also has a bunch of home-written manuals online, i think they are better than the DoD one


Cool, I'll check them out.

Thanks man.   [thumbsup]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rev. Millertime on February 09, 2009, 04:39:05 PM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on February 09, 2009, 02:31:28 PM
there are plenty of good guides on the AR/M16.. global security has the DoD official one online:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/index.html (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/index.html)

I have that as a PDF.  If anyone wants it, pm me your email!
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Jobu on February 09, 2009, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: kopfjager on February 09, 2009, 11:29:38 AM
Whom ever taught you how to shoot a carbine like that should get slapped.  [roll]

Whomever taught you to be a dick should get.............  well, they did a pretty good job.

I shot with him yesterday along with some other guys.  None of us have any military training or basic AR training, so I guess their isn't anyone to slap.

That being said, I did notice his form wasn't correct when I watched the video.  Like a handgun, "nose over toes."  We were more worried about firing an assault rifle for the first time than form.  Too bad I didn't take any videos of myself so I could what I needed to work on.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 05:11:13 AM
Does this thread need locking?

Kent...

no one is calling names but you.

Do you catch my drift?
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 10, 2009, 06:07:36 AM
Quote from: Jobu on February 09, 2009, 10:05:56 PM
We were more worried about firing an assault rifle for the first time than form.  Too bad I didn't take any videos of myself so I could what I needed to work on.

Assault rifle?  That was a full auto AR?

Videos are the best.  Most ppl just do them from the side, i have found from side and BACK is useful too. 
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: cyrus buelton on February 10, 2009, 07:00:59 AM
Quote from: Jobu on February 09, 2009, 10:05:56 PM
  We were more worried about firing an assault rifle for the first time than form. 


He doesn't own an "assault rifle"


Assault Rifle's have selector switch (semi, 3rnd, auto, etc)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Sinister on February 10, 2009, 07:30:52 AM
Assault rifles are scary...
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 07:32:29 AM
Quote from: Sinister on February 10, 2009, 07:30:52 AM
Assault rifles are scary...
So are you.... :-* ;D
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Sinister on February 10, 2009, 08:42:41 AM
Quote from: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 07:32:29 AM
So are you.... :-* ;D

Me?  I'm a cuddly teddy bear, man...granted, with lots of guns, paranoia, and an alleged anger problem...but cuddly nonetheless.  [cheeky]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: cyrus buelton on February 10, 2009, 10:17:03 AM
G is just jealous that he doesn't have a cool assault rifle that shoots 5.56 or 7.62
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 10, 2009, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: Sinister on February 10, 2009, 08:42:41 AM
Me?  I'm a cuddly teddy bear, man...granted, with lots of guns, paranoia, and an alleged anger problem...but cuddly nonetheless.  [cheeky]

Cure-all

(http://store.sunsweet.com/merchant2/graphics/00000004/273.jpg)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on February 10, 2009, 10:28:52 AM
Quote from: Sinister on February 10, 2009, 08:42:41 AM
Me?  I'm a cuddly teddy bear, man...granted, with lots of guns, paranoia, and an alleged anger problem...but cuddly nonetheless.  [cheeky]

Define "problem"...
Quote from: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 07:32:29 AM
So are you.... :-* ;D

Hey, wheres the "Report Moderator" button at!!??    ;D



Quote from: Jobu on February 09, 2009, 10:05:56 PM

That being said, I did notice his form wasn't correct when I watched the video.  Like a handgun, "nose over toes."  We were more worried about firing an assault rifle  for the first time than form.  Too bad I didn't take any videos of myself so I could what I needed to work on.

Rule #1.  NEVER, under any circumstances, call it an "assault rifle".  First reason is, its not one.  Second reason is it blurs the line of the un/undereducated and feeds the anti-gun political machine.   [thumbsup]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 10:31:42 AM
Quote from: rgramjet on February 10, 2009, 10:28:52 AM

Hey, wheres the "Report Moderator" button at!!??    ;D




Bottom of every page bro... ;)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: TiAvenger on February 10, 2009, 10:34:20 AM
Quote from: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 10:31:42 AM
Bottom of every page bro... ;)

Bro?  Really?

Nate in his younger days?
(http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper985/stills/433a27494d3dc-28-1.jpg)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on February 10, 2009, 10:37:19 AM
Quote from: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 10:31:42 AM
Bottom of every page bro... ;)

Is there a Moderator Morderator?     ;D
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 10:38:11 AM
Quote from: Court-Jester on February 10, 2009, 10:34:20 AM
Bro?  Really?

Nate in his younger days?
(http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper985/stills/433a27494d3dc-28-1.jpg)
My hair was longer...

and I wouldn't wear a baseball hat if my life depended on it.

Quote from: rgramjet on February 10, 2009, 10:37:19 AM
Is there a Moderator Morderator? 
That would be me.

Sucks doesn't it. [laugh]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on February 10, 2009, 10:42:53 AM
Blast!
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: cyrus buelton on February 10, 2009, 10:45:18 AM
IIRC, Nate did have his collar "popped" when I met him in Boston a few years ago
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 10, 2009, 10:45:18 AM
IIRC, Nate did have his collar "popped" when I met him in Boston a few years ago
That's probably because it was a fleece and it was fuggin cold....
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: cyrus buelton on February 10, 2009, 11:35:45 AM
Quote from: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 10:59:30 AM
That's probably because it was a fleece and it was fuggin cold....

Nope, it was not cold.

You had a pink shirt on, with a popped collar.



Zltful had on a purple one

[laugh] [laugh]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: rgramjet on February 10, 2009, 12:21:43 PM
How did we get from black rifle calibers to "Guys in touch with their feminine side"?? 

Go start a popped collar and long hair thread, buncha hippies!
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: TiAvenger on February 10, 2009, 12:33:55 PM
Quote from: rgramjet on February 10, 2009, 12:21:43 PM
How did we get from black rifle calibers to "Guys in touch with their feminine side"?? 

Go start a popped collar and long hair thread, buncha hippies!

The use of the word "bro"
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 12:37:59 PM
Quote from: rgramjet on February 10, 2009, 12:21:43 PM
How did we get from black rifle calibers to "Guys in touch with their feminine side"?? 

Go start a popped collar and long hair thread, buncha hippies!
In true DMF fashion...

this thread has been jacked.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 10, 2009, 11:35:45 AM
Nope, it was not cold.

You had a pink shirt on, with a popped collar.



Zltful had on a purple one

[laugh] [laugh]
We were trying to coordinate with your skirt
Quote from: Court-Jester on February 10, 2009, 12:33:55 PM
The use of the word "bro"

The word...man

needs a rest.

Kumbaya... [beer]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: TiAvenger on February 10, 2009, 12:39:16 PM
Quote from: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 12:37:59 PM
In true DMF fashion...

this thread has been jacked.We were trying to coordinate with your skirtThe word...man

needs a rest.

Kumbaya... [beer]

Ok dude-guy-bro.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: cyrus buelton on February 10, 2009, 12:42:43 PM
Quote from: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 12:37:59 PM
.We were trying to coordinate with your skirtThe word...man


Most know those as Kilts.........

[roll]


[moto]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on February 10, 2009, 12:49:44 PM
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 10, 2009, 12:42:43 PM

Most know those as Kilts.........

[roll]


[moto]
[laugh]
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 10, 2009, 02:41:47 PM
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 10, 2009, 12:42:43 PM

Most know those as Kilts.........

yes, but yours had "CATHOLIC SCHOOL GIRL SKIRT" on the package when you got it.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Mother on February 10, 2009, 09:29:44 PM
ok ok back to the topic.

I get the "not calling it an assault rifle" thing, but what do you call it? they aren't all carbines. would you call the full length versions semi automatic rifles? the AR-15 sorta make the beast with two backss that idea up doesn't it?
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Mother on February 10, 2009, 09:34:39 PM
and wasn't the AR-15 first built by Colt? why do the gun forums say AR stands for "Armalite" who's got the poop on the AR-15 Hx?
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Jobu on February 10, 2009, 09:41:14 PM
Quote from: Mother on February 10, 2009, 09:34:39 PM
and wasn't the AR-15 first built by Colt? why do the gun forums say AR stands for "Armalite" who's got the poop on the AR-15 Hx?

Because Armalite made the original AR-15.  Then Colt sort of took over with the production of the M-16 and now the M-4.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Mother on February 10, 2009, 09:50:17 PM
I thought Eugene Stoner developed the AR-15 for Colt as a lightweight version of the AR-10 where did Armalite come into the picture? did Stoner sub them or did he work for them?
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rameses on February 10, 2009, 10:07:47 PM
Quote from: Mother on February 10, 2009, 09:50:17 PM
I thought Eugene Stoner developed the AR-15 for Colt as a lightweight version of the AR-10 where did Armalite come into the picture? did Stoner sub them or did he work for them?



Stoner worked for ArmaLite.  He left them in 1961 to work as a consultant for Colt after the rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 were sold to them in 1959.

Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 11, 2009, 06:40:41 AM
Quote from: Jobu on February 10, 2009, 09:41:14 PM
Because Armalite made the original AR-15.  Then Colt sort of took over with the production of the M-16 and now the M-4.

Colt's DoD contract began winding down in the late 80's and FN (FN USA) won the contract to build M16 and M4 rifles (as well as a few others).

"M16" and "M4" are DoD designations of a GI model rifle, Colt doesn't own that name.  Colt made the M16 SP1 originally, but that was their "AR-15" with full auto.

Armalite is the original maker of the AR rifles.. AR stands for Armalite Rifle

Belgian rifles.
Italian pistols (beretta makes the M9 pistol)
German SOF pistol and smgs (HK makes the USP and MP-5, i don't know the DoD designation on those)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: kutter on February 11, 2009, 07:31:16 AM
In an effort to get back on topic, silly I know, I would submit that the two different rounds are suitable for different things. While there can certainly be some overlap, the .308 has a much longer effective range than a .223. I have both, but my .308 is a built up Thompson Encore, with handloads I get about 3/4 MOA out to about 400 hundred yards. I have not tried beyond that since I have not found a range longer than that yet. My .223 is a Sig 556, it has iron sights on it right now, I am waiting to put the new Burris 3X tactical sight on it and see what it is capable of. I am not currently using handloads on it and have only shot it out to about 100yds and I get about 1 1/2 MOA on it. I know that the .223 is capable of 400 yard shots but it bleeds so much energy out that far and a semi-auto rifle sacrifices accuracy that when the apocalypse comes I will reach out and touch them with the .308 until they get within 200 yds then switch to the .223.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Sinister on February 11, 2009, 08:28:37 AM
^^^^ Navy SEALS are using a 5.56-chambered SPR as a "light" sniper rifle and taking targets out to 600+ meters.  Sniper rifles chambered in .308 are commonly taking targets at 1,000+ meters. 
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: cyrus buelton on February 11, 2009, 10:10:14 AM
The Delta guys used to carrry a CAR-15, what is the difference between that and the AR-15/M16/etc
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Sinister on February 11, 2009, 10:38:15 AM
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 11, 2009, 10:10:14 AM
The Delta guys used to carrry a CAR-15, what is the difference between that and the AR-15/M16/etc

Does 'C' stand for 'carbine'?  I thought that AR-15 was just a civilian moniker for the military's M16.  Dunno.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: cyrus buelton on February 11, 2009, 11:04:35 AM
Quote from: Sinister on February 11, 2009, 10:38:15 AM
Does 'C' stand for 'carbine'?  I thought that AR-15 was just a civilian moniker for the military's M16.  Dunno.

Colt
Assault
Rifle

CAR

Apparently Colt wanted to separate themselves from Armalite and re-named their gun.

After some research, the CAR-15 is commonly referred to the name for the 14.5in barreled M4 Commando
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Sinister on February 11, 2009, 11:11:51 AM
More invaluable useless information, that I must not live without.  Thanks!
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 11, 2009, 05:40:55 PM
Colt made a shitload of variations of the AR platform over the years. 

The M4 also comes in a version known as the Commando.  The "standard" GI version M4 has a 14" barrel and contoured for an M203 launcher, whereas the Commando has an 11.5" barrel and no contour, and uses the same CAR buttstock.  It is absurdly short.

They also have a 9mm version just called the "9mm SMG" (wow, original) with a 10.5" barrel.  Those were commissioned by the NRC, I *believe* but I cannot be sure.

I find the 9mm version to be a waste of space.  They used the same long bolt, mag well and lower and re-sized it all for 9mm.  The MP5 or almost any purpose built SMG is superior.  Plus, they still used the direct gas system of the AR, which for pistol ammo MIGHT be cleaner (faster burn) but you still ahve the same problems.




Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Kopfjäger on February 12, 2009, 12:11:20 AM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on February 11, 2009, 05:40:55 PM

The M4 also comes in a version known as the Commando.  The "standard" GI version M4 has a 14" barrel and contoured for an M203 launcher,









14.5 genius



An M4A1 with SOPMOD package, including Rail Interface System (RIS), flip-up rear sight and Trijicon ACOG 4x.
Type Assault rifle
Place of origin  United States
Service history
In service 1994â€"present
Used by See Users
Wars War in Afghanistan (2001â€"present), War in Iraq (2003-present)
Production history
Manufacturer Colt Defense
Produced 1994â€"present
Variants M4A1, CQBR
Specifications
Weight 5.9 lb (2.7 kg) empty
6.9 lb (3.1 kg) with 30 rounds
Length 33 in (838 mm) (stock extended)
29.8 in (757 mm) (stock retracted)
Barrel length 14.5 in (368 mm)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cartridge 5.56x45mm NATO
Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt
Rate of fire 700â€"950 round/min cyclic
Muzzle velocity 2,900 ft/s (884 m/s)
Feed system 30 round box magazine or other STANAG Magazines
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Rameses on February 12, 2009, 12:38:16 AM
Quote from: kopfjager on February 12, 2009, 12:11:20 AM

14.5 genius



Nice.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducpainter on February 12, 2009, 05:45:31 AM
can't you kids get along?
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 12, 2009, 05:57:43 AM
Quote from: kopfjager on February 12, 2009, 12:11:20 AM

14.5 genius

yes, i left off the 0.5, was there anything else wrong with what i said?

the way you talk to folks around here, i guess a half inch means a lot to you.

lighten up francis
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Sinister on February 12, 2009, 08:08:42 AM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on February 12, 2009, 05:57:43 AM
i guess a half inch means a lot to you.

It's all he's got, dude.   [laugh]

[leo]Sorry officer, the joke was just sitting there.  I had to take it.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: CowboyBeebop on February 12, 2009, 09:39:31 AM
Quote from: kopfjager on February 12, 2009, 12:11:20 AM

14.5 genius


Why so grumpy? 
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: ducatiz on February 15, 2009, 08:33:34 AM
Quote from: kopfjager on February 14, 2009, 05:41:03 PM
This is my Team


i heard this was your team:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfuaUTH9Y4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfuaUTH9Y4)
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: cyrus buelton on February 15, 2009, 08:46:47 AM
 [laugh] [laugh] [laugh]

I watched the A-Team a few weeks ago when I was off work.


It is amazing how much automatic gun fire goes down, but yet nobody gets killed.

Also, each episode has a minimum of 4 vehicles that get launched of the "one sided ramp" so it flips over.
Title: Re: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Post by: Statler on February 15, 2009, 09:18:52 AM
if anyone wants to discuss the actual topic thread here shoot me a pm and I'll be happy to unlock this.