Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 10,327
- Points
- 1,160
An oldie but still useful training film
http://www.realmilitaryflix.com/public/401.cfm
http://www.realmilitaryflix.com/public/401.cfm
Weapon effect WWII
- Thread starter Colin Parkinson
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Bear in mind this comes from a 70's dinosaur. But we use .223 as opposed to 308 or .303 why!?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
It's all about effectiveness at range, and viability on automatic fire.
.303 is effective beyond 1000m. Definitely a choice for a sniper weapon, but the ridiculous muzzle energy out of a .303 weapon makes it all but impractical for a personal weapon with automatic fire.
7.62mm (.308 as you called it) is effective to several hundred meters (I've heard up to but not beyond 1000). We use 7.62mm in general purpose machine guns, as they are either mounted or fired from a supported position. In personal weapons, note that the FN-FAL (aka, C1, C2), the C1 had no auto-fire, but the C2 did, as the C2 was designed to be fired in a supported position. 7.62mm is just not viable for a personal weapon with automatic fire.
5.56mm (.223) on the other hand, trades off muzzle energy, though the smaller projectile gives it a higher impulse. 5.56mm rounds are effective to a few hundred meters, making them practical for short to medium range engagements. 5.56mm weapons are more controllable under automatic fire, so in a pinch, a soldier can spray-and-pray a few rounds down range using an assault rifle with some accuracy, without having to worry about accidentally turning their air support into Swiss cheese.
.303 is effective beyond 1000m. Definitely a choice for a sniper weapon, but the ridiculous muzzle energy out of a .303 weapon makes it all but impractical for a personal weapon with automatic fire.
7.62mm (.308 as you called it) is effective to several hundred meters (I've heard up to but not beyond 1000). We use 7.62mm in general purpose machine guns, as they are either mounted or fired from a supported position. In personal weapons, note that the FN-FAL (aka, C1, C2), the C1 had no auto-fire, but the C2 did, as the C2 was designed to be fired in a supported position. 7.62mm is just not viable for a personal weapon with automatic fire.
5.56mm (.223) on the other hand, trades off muzzle energy, though the smaller projectile gives it a higher impulse. 5.56mm rounds are effective to a few hundred meters, making them practical for short to medium range engagements. 5.56mm weapons are more controllable under automatic fire, so in a pinch, a soldier can spray-and-pray a few rounds down range using an assault rifle with some accuracy, without having to worry about accidentally turning their air support into Swiss cheese.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 10,327
- Points
- 1,160
The US has brought back the M14 as a Squad marksman weapon, with other .308 replacements being considered. The abilty to chew through cover and reach out with the MV was found to be needed, the BG often were using 7.62x54 which clearly will impact your life. I would like to think that the miltary will keep enough of both to be able to customize the force for the mission, but that would require forward thinking, something large organizations have difficulty with.
M
MG34
Guest
Support weapons are used to "chew through cover" the rifleman's weapon is intended to provide security for the support weapons to allow them to do the killing. There is no requirement for the 5.56mm round to chew through anything but body armor and flesh.
Similar threads
