308 v 223 v 30-06 v 243 v 7.62x39 v 5.45x39

[mp510]

5.45mm won't make much of a sniper rifle round

East Germany had a 5.45x39 sniper rifle. Apparentely not very good but they did exist. They were sold as surplus in the USA in the mid-90's.
http://www.shelfspace.com/~c-r-ffl/archives/199603/msg00037.html

Short article explains former designation and use (anti-terror units of the
MfS in airport service), some technical details (rear-locking turnbolt
action with four lugs, hammer-forged barrel), trigger is known for
breaking off easily in service (as a former GDR sniper told the author);
group sizes at 100 metres (bench-rested, 4x32 factory-installed scope):
12 cms with Russian military ammo, 7,5 and 4 cms with GDR issue ammo of
Koenigswartha manufacture (mercury fulminate primers, as usual with GDR
small arms cartridges).

 

[High Planes Drifter]

Well, I guess I'll start by eliminating some of the non contenders first. No reason to look at .30-06 for a military round scince 7.62 Nato is pretty much identical in ballistics with 165 gr. bullets. I wouldnt consider .243 scince it weighs just about the same as .308. IIRC, military 5.45 ammo is still being produced with corrosive powder(?), if it werent for that I'd consider it.

That leaves 7.62x39, 5.56Nato, and 7.62Nato. Of the three I'd pick 5.56 for general issue. Its light, its effective at urban combat ranges, light recoiling, and flat shooting enough to be effective in a designated marksman role. Certainly nothing wrong with 7.62Nato, but for fast and furious fighting at close distance, I'd rather a small, light, handy little carbine like the M4. I cant see chambering a carbine that small in 7.62Nato, and I think 5.56 is a better carbine round than 7.62x39.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Why do people assume that merely because you have 150 percent more ammo you can't use aimed fire? Nothing stops you from using deliberate aimed fire whether you use .308 or .223.

Shots over 300yds? You can look at military records going back to WWI and see that small arms engagements beyond 100m are rare and beyond 300 are freakishly rare.

Finally, you have to consider costs. If you have 1,000 troops with a basic load of 210 rounds, you aren't just talking new rifles. You are talking more material to make a single cartridge, new trucks to carry the same amount of ammo, new C130s to carry the trucks, and new personnel to operate all that equipment.

That is a significant amount of expense for a round that isn't that much more effective than the intermediate rounds that replaced it (and even less effective using ball ammo at the ranges where most combat occurs).

 

[Eyesac]

All Militarys should have exactly what they have now.

Personally I would choose .556 for MY military (or something very close to it).

 

[GTSteve03]

7.62x39

Twice the mass of 5.56 without substantial increase in recoil leads to better barrier penetration and larger wound channels. Current 5.56 62-gr penetrator rounds do NOT fragment well, leaving tiny wound tracks.

Yes it has a rainbow trajectory when shooting over 200yds but then again as has been pointed out many times already, most firefights take place inside 100yds, anything past that is generally taken care of with MGs and arty.

 

[normal]

I think that all wars should be fought with paintball guns! If you get hit, you have to go back home.

Actually, I'm liking the 6.8 SPC from what I have seen on them. They have the accuracy and distance of the 5.56 and the punch of a 7.62x39. That makes for a great combination.

 

[Tony Williams]

Jim Watson said: I think the British .280 family of the 1950s had a lot going for it. More range than the 8x33 or 7.62x39 seen in German and Soviet use, less recoil and weight than .303 or .308. Probably the first 7x43 version would do fine, later marks were just souped up to try to catch US interest, but we were set on the .308/7.62 so as to maintain .30-06 ballistics.

I don't think the complicated EM-1 and EM-2 bullpups were the best platform, how about a scaled down FAL, Tony?

I agree that the 7x43 offered a good compromise between decent range and hitting power on the one hand, and compact size/light recoil on the other - better than any of the rounds currently in service (although arguably the 6.5mm Grendel is better still).

The whole point of the EM-1 and EM-2 bullpup designs was to make a gun which was very compact for CQB, and could therefore replace the SMG as well as the rifle. It was a carefully thought-out package, which appeared to work very well.

FN did of course make a traditional selective-fire gun around the 7x43 - the FAL was a scaled-up version of it! It would undoubtedly have been excellent, but not as compact for CQB - or for jumping in and out of vehicles and helos. Judging by the emphasis the US Army is putting on the M4 these days, compactness seems to be important.

 

[kcmarine]

Well, there is no magic bullet (pun intended). Each round has it's niche. However, if I were forced to supply an entire army with ONE caliber, it would have to be either the .243 or the 7.62 Soviet. Both are relatively intermediate rounds, and both have good knock- down power. The .243 round might be a bit heavy on the recoil side, but today's firearm and cartridge technologies might be able to overcome that. And there has to be something that has kept the 7.62 round popular all of these years.

I've always thought that we should start looking outside the box for ammunition possibilities. Heck, maybe the military should take a look at the 7.62x 39. Seems to work pretty well for everyone else.

 

[PercyShelley]

Does anyone have ballistics figures for the caseless cartridge the G11 fired? I'd be curious to know.

 

[Tony Williams]

The G11's 4.7x33 round fired a 52 grain bullet at 3.050 fps.

 

[OneShot!]

Ak47 7.62x39

Sniper's choice- I can understand .308, but general issue I have to go with 7.62x39 the Ak47 round. They are just very reliable, and moderate recoild compare to heavy .308 rifles, yet perfectly powered.

My Second choice would be .243 for it flat trajectory.

 

[Art Eatman]

OneShot!, trouble is, you're ignoring US military doctrine--which is the main determinant. Then, add Bartholomew's comments...

Art

 

[yokel]

I'll have to confess that the good 'ol .30-06 is a sentimental favorite of mine.
http://www.rickard.karoo.net/Pictures/Okinawa09.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...iers.jpg/800px-Warkorea_American_Soldiers.jpg

 

[Rokman]

I fall in with the 6.8x43 crowd. The Futureweapons guy sure made the 6.8 look good compared to the 5.56x45.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

I have to go with the 7.62x39. Since most firefights are within 100 yards, 7.62x39 is ideal. This round has significantly more knockdown power than the 5.56, the recoil is not severe, the weight increase over 5.56 would be marginal, the 7.62x39 has a lot more punch. I've never been impressed with the 5.56, I've heard reports out of Iraq of the soldiers wanting something more powerful, like the 6.8 spc. If your inside of 150 yards, the 7.62x39 is pretty flat shooting.

 

[nemoaz]

There have been proposal for .243

I'm not aware of there ever being a proposal for a .243 military weapon. And certainly no Army has ever used it despite it being in existence for many decades. 6mm carbine is not .243.

 

[High Planes Drifter]

I'll have to confess that the good 'ol .30-06 is a sentimental favorite of mine

The .30-06 is an outstanding cartridge compared to any cartridge in any time period, and will live forever as a cartridge that served its country perfectly through 2 world wars, and a host of other conflicts. Hell, the round is still in service today in some third world countries. Pretty much every American even remotely farmiliar with guns has a soft spot for the old warhorse. And it has earned its place as "Americas' Round".

That being said, as a military round, shooting 165gr. bullets, the 7.62Nato matches it pretty much exactly while providing a faster cyclic rate in auto weapons, and lighter wieght, due to shorter case length. Niether work well as a carbine round for fast, furious "close in" fighting IMO. They work better as machine gun rounds nowadays.

 

[4fingermick]

Love the 223, hunt with it a lot, didn't get to use it in the army, only ever used the 7.62Nato. Love them both. If I had to carry all my ammo and resupply was patchy, I'd lean towards the 5.56. If re sup was easy, the 7.62.

The new 6.8 round they are kicking about sounds like a good thing. We aussies used to neck 223s up to 243 which made a lovely round.