just curious,. how come the US military didn't use the .308 win?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The truth of the matter is, it's the shooter. In WWI, they used fewer rounds and got more kills; 1903 Springfield & 1917 Enfield. In WWII they averaged a few more round per enemy killed; enter the M1 Garand & M1 carbine. Skip Korea (same weapons, only some carbines on full auto). Vietnam. Many rounds per enemy killed: M16 (for the most part). It is all a matter of training, fire discipline, and marksmanship. As long as we don't select & train marksmen for combat, the weapon is not going to make a difference. You take a skilled shooter, train him in the proper tactics, and you get results. It is the very premise for the utilization of snipers. Missing fast with the 5.56 and carrying lots of ammo for it is not the answer. Taking a G.I. and telling him he is going to die if he misses the enemy when he shoots at them, and MUST hit them on the first shot, is motivational, and would get better results than having a vest full of 30 round mags. A soldier carries more rounds on patrol than the number of enemy they will kill in an entire tour, or war, for that matter. Where is the logic? If a soldier ever considered NOT getting resupplied he would sue guard and make good use of each shot. We spoil our kids, we spoil ourselves, and we spoil the training of our soldiers. We owe them the truth, to save themselves and their fellow soldiers. Make every round count.
 
Exactly, a man with a decent sight can make the M4 hit a 5 gal bucket at 1/4 mile with boring regularity. That is ample to make any enemy we have consider sticking their head up.
 
I agree with a lot of the posts.
Another thing to remember:
.308/5.56, either is fine but you also have to recall that you have much more at play than just the rifle. Artillery, close air support, and armor just to name a few. Even the mighty .50 mews compared to a 500lb-er.
 
Can't compare WWII tactics to todays. kill ratio per shot especially.

Today we can put a string of covering fire into a sweet spot to keep the enemy down, or catch a dummy that walks into it. Like a death funnel. The bullets don't actually allways need to hit anybody.

Sometimes you only need to fill the air with lead until your flanking groups are in position.
 
The bottom line is money. 1- The M14 is more expensive to produce. 2- you can carry more 5.56 than you can carry 7.62's. 3- the M14 is good out to about 800 yds. Most conflicts are under 300 yds. 4- The M4 is better for urban warfair than the M14. The M14 is still better for snipers. 5- The M16 & M4 have a big weight advanage over the M14.
 
Because the Army resists change.

Having adopted the 30-06 in 1903, gone through WW1, and even though their own internal research and development proved the 30-06 had more power than needed, the Army discarded the 276 Pederson and retained the 30-06.

WWII showed that the 30-06 was too long and needed to be replaced, so the Army replaced the 30-06 with a 30-06 short. The 308. This was not the best decision, but that is what they wanted.

It took the Office of Secretary of Defense to force the Army to use the .223. It was not voluntary, it was difficult, and it was not a even a good decision. But the .223 became the Army round.

The Army got itself in this position by not adopting the best solution, the 276 Pederson when the time was correct to do so. Now it has possibly one of the worst answers with the .223. However, the Army is familiar with the .223, their leaders have never used anything else, and they won't change unless forced to by higher authority.

The Army likes what is has, wants something better but only a little different, and totally rejects Revolutionary change.

That is just the way they are.
 
Can you imagine how effective our guys could be if they acted like they couldn't shoot, or were pinned down, instead of always laying a barrage of fire down? Maybe bait the enemy into ASSAULTING their position and then picking them off with single shots? It's been done so many times in different wars past, that just because we have the firepower, we use it. I'm not saying you never use suppressive fire, but you have to admit, we overdo it. I predict that the Middle East will beat the US by a war of economic attrition. It is probably costing us about $100,000 per enemy kill as it stands, and we really can't afford that. One shot, one kill is a philosophy that stands the test of economics. AND, it's not a bad battle plan, either.
 
SharpsDressedMan said:
The truth of the matter is, it's the shooter. In WWI, they used fewer rounds and got more kills; 1903 Springfield & 1917 Enfield. In WWII they averaged a few more round per enemy killed; enter the M1 Garand & M1 carbine. Skip Korea (same weapons, only some carbines on full auto). Vietnam. Many rounds per enemy killed: M16 (for the most part). It is all a matter of training, fire discipline, and marksmanship. As long as we don't select & train marksmen for combat, the weapon is not going to make a difference. You take a skilled shooter, train him in the proper tactics, and you get results. It is the very premise for the utilization of snipers. Missing fast with the 5.56 and carrying lots of ammo for it is not the answer. Taking a G.I. and telling him he is going to die if he misses the enemy when he shoots at them, and MUST hit them on the first shot, is motivational, and would get better results than having a vest full of 30 round mags. A soldier carries more rounds on patrol than the number of enemy they will kill in an entire tour, or war, for that matter. Where is the logic? If a soldier ever considered NOT getting resupplied he would sue guard and make good use of each shot. We spoil our kids, we spoil ourselves, and we spoil the training of our soldiers. We owe them the truth, to save themselves and their fellow soldiers. Make every round count.
Click to expand...
While there is an element of truth to this, I don't think this "Our soldiers can't shoot for sh1t" idea is entirely accurate...a few of them might even take offense to that ;) While there will always be some that can't, the training is not *that* bad these days.

As has been pointed out, its pretty much impossible to compare today's counter insurgency operations with WW1 static battle.

Before you completely condemn the use of suppressive fire (while waiting for an Apache to come in and finish the job, for instance), you have to have a look at the casualty rate of our own troops too - much lower than those earlier conflicts. The tactics in use today have a lot to do with minimizing our casualties - and I think that's a preferable scenario even if it comes at the cost of firing more rounds.

As stated, I do agree that individual marksmanship is very important - but there is a bigger picture at play here.
 
"The .308 Winchester hit the market before the military adopted the 7.62X51, not by long but it was a civilian round before it went military"

Dagger Dog, what you say is essentially correct, however, the 7.62x51 was the culmination of about 10 years of military experimentation. The .308 was introduced to the civilian market a year or two before the Nato adoption of the 7.62, but it was a child of the military process that created the 7.62 Nato. They are twins from the same MILITARY mother, but the .308 left the nest first. Therefore, as I said, a military round that went commercial.

Added: Winchester was granted permission by the Office of the Chief of Ordnance to standardize the 7.62/.308 cartridge for commercial use. Without this, the .308 WIN would not exist.
 
Last edited:
+1 on the 'soldiers can't shoot" thing being offensive and wrong. Keep in mind also that wasting 10 million rounds of rifle ammo is still cheaper than wasting 25 soldiers that are worth their weight in money, training, and equipment.
 
My comments on marksmanship were certainly not intended as an insult. My intent was to point out that line units that are expected to find the enemy and if ordered to engage them should have more enhanced training than those in the rear.
I would suggest that combat troops should get additional ammo and time on the live range shooting at 600 - distances so they can understand the potential of their weapon and learn the discipline of slow accurate fire as a supplement to suppressive fire or close quarters combat shooting.
The rest of the army can use simulators and pass the ammo on to those who can really benefit from it.
 
We managed to beat the Japanese and German soldiers while carrying heavy rifles and 30 caliber ammo. We got our asses kicked and had to leave Vietnam in disgrace using 5.56. Is there a lesson here?
 
We managed to beat the Japanese and German soldiers while carrying heavy rifles and 30 caliber ammo. We got our asses kicked and had to leave Vietnam in disgrace using 5.56. Is there a lesson here?
Click to expand...
Yes, we have a weak citizen and political stomach for finishing things that are distasteful and it has little to do with our soldiers and their equipment. You forgot Korea.
The wars ongoing may have the same outcome as we are taking our eyes off the ball.
 
How much ammo can a soldier / crate / truck / plane /helicopter carry of each ammo? The military would rather bring more rounds to the party.
 
We got our asses kicked and had to leave Vietnam in disgrace using 5.56. Is there a lesson here?
Click to expand...
Yes there is.
And it had nothing at all whatsoever to do with the caliber of the rifles we used.

WWII was run by Generals who knew how to win wars.
Vietnam was run by Politicians who had never served in the military for the most part.

Simple as that!

We are seeing the same thing going on right now today in the middle east.
You can't call a cease-fire every time the BG's with an RPG's run into a mosque to hide behind a bunch of clerics, women, and children.

WWII? We would have smoked them all.
Vietnam & today? We withdraw and fight them again another day.

IMO: If our politicians & generals don't have the stomach to Smoke them all when we take fire from them, we shouldn't be there in the first place.

rc
 
From all the information I have read this is how it appears.

1.) Most battlefield engagements happen at 300 yards and under.

2.) The most common rifle bullet the U.S. military uses right now is the 62 grain M885 FMJ in 5.56 caliber.

3.) There are complaints from afield where bullets are not performing as desired in some situations.

4.) Problem is compounded by so many M4's in circulation. Not to say the M16 doesn't have a problem also, but the range at which the ammo fails in the M16 is a greater range than that of the M4 .

This is of course a simplified version of the problem at hand. Now lets look at a possible solution that would not only cost far less than replacing existing rifles, it would also cost less than retrofitting different caliber barrels onto existing rifles.

Use better ammo, it's as simple as that. Now for some possible reasons why this hasn't happened yet.

1.) It is seen as cost prohibitive vs. possible benefit.

2.) They (DoD) already have a plan in the works for a different rifle with a higher caliber. (Not likely)

3.) They (DoD) already have a plan in the works for a barrel retrofit onto existing rifles to achieve a higher caliber. (Not likely)

At the rate we are going with more possible conflicts in the near future, there is a serious problem with discounting this as a non issue or not seeing the benefit vs possible costs involved.
 
No 556 should fail under 300yds and failure needs to be better defined. I still say that a properly sighted/scoped M4 will be very effective past 500 if the shooter is trained and allowed range time to learn and gain confidence in his and the guns ability.

Is a better weapon/caliber needed? Certainly
Will what ever they choose please everybody? No

The enemy our soldiers face today don't typically wear armor but in the future they very well might. What ever comes next needs to be a huge step greater than what we now have to be effective far into the future and the baby steps using the existing platform will make little long term difference. The cost changing barrels and associated equipment would be better spent on honest R&D to get a much better weapon than what is now available.
 
Water Man, I've never shot a man at 500yds but I know I can hit a target that size.
One that has no armor will be out of the fight in most cases. What are you saying the bullets bounce off or the weapon is incapable of hitting the mark??
The rest of that quote has some conditions for your cherry picked one to be true.
 
Just out of curiosity, how much energy does a round from an M4 actually have at 500 yards? I've seen data for long barrel varmint rifles in .223 that show a few hundred ft. lbs. remaining, but not for the carbine.

The military as a whole seems determined to keep preparing for the war it wishes it could fight. Some kind of high-tech, heavily armored WWIII with stealth fighters and rules of warfare. It's resistant to preparing for the wars it's actually fighting. So it clings to AP rounds, Hague restrictions and reliance on airstrikes rather than shifting to softpoint rounds in a more powerful chambering. The doctrine should focus on killing people, to put it bluntly. Not taking objectives, destroying strong points or neutralizing armor.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DMK
  • Locked
Why slightly different civilian versions of 7.62 and 5.56 NATO?
Replies
10
Views
838
Jim K
J
F
  • Locked
Why so much $$$ for semi .308 rifles?
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
scythefwd
S
jahwarrior
  • Locked
.308 or .223?
Replies
18
Views
1K
Soybomb
S
S
  • Locked
Is .308 win a military caliber?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
T
  • Locked
Some questions on building a "scout rifle," - 6.8 SPC questions
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Old Trapper
O
Back
Top