.223 versus .308

[Baphomet 0]

I've been always wondering about these two types of assault rifles and the immediate pros and cons that contrast one another.

I have a general understanding about why .308 assault rifles seemed to have gone the way of the dinosaur. However I'd like to know the truth about the real performance differences between the .223 and .308 assault rifles.

The three I'm most interested in would be the M14, the FN-FAL and the HK G3 assault rifle.

The most immediate benefit I can see that .223 assault rifles have over their .308 counterpart is controllability. That's been a staple for all the articles I've read about these .308 assault rifles. Does this necessarily say anything about the accuracy of these rifles in general? With all the problems of their full auto fire rate aside?

Do .223 assault rifles gain only a  perceived benefit in accuracy because .308 assault rifles are harder to control? I'd personally like to know. Hopefully with someone who has experience. Do the .308 battle rifles in semi auto fire suffer from a lower effective range or is it the inverse?

I know the M21 is essentially a match grade M14, and they're supposed to be fairly competent when it comes to hitting targets at a long range. What of the other two? The FAL and G3? Do they still have a viable role as an assault rifle with the advent of lower caliber, more easily controlled .223 battle rifles we commonly hear about these days?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

First things first - METRIC SYSTEM

The advantage of 5.56mm over 7.65mm is that

a) you can carry a lot more

b) wounds soldiers, thus taxing their supplies more

c) i can imagine that targeting is easier

*waits for denoir et. al. to provide us mortals with some real-life information*

[Baphomet 0]

Is it not 7.62?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Is it not 7.62?

.308 is equivalent to 7.62mm. I think there is a 7.65mm round, but I've never heard of an assault rifle that fired it.

Quote[/b] ]Does this necessarily say anything about the accuracy of these rifles in general? With all the problems of their full auto fire rate aside?

Accuracy? I don't think so. In my personal experience, 7.62 rifles are more accurate than 5.56 rifles (Of course, ammo quality plays a part here too).

Quote[/b] ]Do the .308 battle rifles in semi auto fire suffer from a lower effective range or is it the inverse?

The inverse. 7.62 rounds have a significantly longer range than 5.56 rounds. You can make up some of the difference with scopes, but AFAIK, in rifle form, 7.62 is effective out to ~800 meters and 5.56 is effective out to ~600 meters.

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]The inverse. .308mm rounds have a significantly longer range than 5.56mm rounds.

Personally I had surmised this to be true myself. However I wondered if the overall weight of the bullet which can be around 150 grain could possibly be a limiting factor in distance despite the fact that it seems they have much more propellant. This versus a 5.56mm round that weighs in at about 55 grain.

This image was somewhat the basis of this doubt as it seems both the 5.56mm round and the 7.62 could conceivably contain a similar amount of propellant when you compare their size and weight. The 5.56 and the 7.62 rounds of course being on the right hand side of the image respectively.

The other is a 7.62x39 round. Which surprisingly enough looks slightly bigger than the other 7.62 round. I have later discovered that it's caliber is something like .311 for some reason. Still I guess that's something for another discussion.

[shinRaiden 0]

Why do you have to messing around with whats not broke? .223 and .308 it is.

The problem is that you can't restrict yourself to just shell diameter, what's that shell made out of, what kind of cartridge, and what kind of powder load backs it up? You could even take a .223 round, stick it in a sabot casing, and stuff it in a 8-inch howitzer.

[Baphomet 0]

I understand this. However I don't know the designations for your standard military 5.56x45 or 7.62x51 rounds.

[Jezz 0]

i think russian asualt rife rounds are 7.62(ak-47/akm) and 5.45(ak-74/aek/an-94)

as for wounding i can understand the whole bigger picture of wounding the guy and using up more resources but personaly i would rather kill the guy with the first round and not have him trying to fire back at me wounded.

i think 7.62 is the more acurate of the two over range as most sniper rilfes tend to use that i cant think of a sniper rifle that uses 5.56/5.45 though there probably is one

[madmedic 0]

The doctrine of the U.S. military USED to stress the use of full calibre rounds, and emphasize marksmanship.

30-06, 7.62x51, ect.

The 5.56 was developed after a study seemed to indicate that most kills were being scored at ranges much shorter than the full power rounds were capable of.

7.62x51 (.308) is a very accurate round, and is still used by snipers, hunters, and high power competition shooters.

It is also still used for machineguns (M240, M134, ect)

The AR15 (M16) was developed to use an intermediate round (55 grain 5.56)

That round was lighter, with less recoil, and quite accurate.

A bonus was the fact that the high velocity of the 5.56 round would cause it to fragment when it hit flesh at velocities of at least 2800 fps.

It caused INCREDIBLE wounds when it fragmented.

When the M249 SAW was introduced, a 62 grain 5.56 round was developed for it (to give it a little more penetration ability)

The military then adopted this 62 grain round for use in ALL of its 5.56 weapons.

The 62 grain round does not fragment as easily, and does not maintain the velocity required to fragment out as far as the 55 grain round does.

In addition to this...A trend toward shorter barrels (The M-4) lowered the velocity (the shorter the barrel...the slower the muzzle velocity)

This problem was illustrated in Somalia...the 62 grain bullets would go right through the enemy, sometimes requiring multiple shots to drop him.

There are some myths about the 5.56 round that are fairly comon:

It was NOT designed to "wound" instead of kill.

It is NOT "molten" when it leaves the muzzle.

It does NOT "tumble" in flight (unless something is wrong)

It does NOT "explode"...it fragments (under the proper conditions)

Basically...The 7.62x51 is effective out to longer ranges, and provides greater penetration of cover.

Both are accurate, but the heavier rounds will not be effected as much by wind as lighter ones.

The 5.56 round is lighter, and more ammo can be carried.

It performs well, when used within its capabilities (which is not always practical in battle)

The debate over 5.56 vs 7.62 NATO has been going on for ages.

I personally own both, and enjoy shooting both.

Which one I would want to take into battle, would depend on what the conditions of the battle field would be, and who the enemy would be.

Consider this:

In many U.S. states, .223 ammo is not legal for deer hunting because of the possibility of wounding the animal, and condemning it to a long agonizing death.

308, on the other hand...is a VERY popular deer hunting round.

[Baphomet 0]

Fascinating. There are a lot of facts and points I wasn't aware of.  I'm a bit curious about this statement however.

Quote[/b] ]The 5.56 was developed after a study seemed to indicate that most kills were being scored at ranges much shorter than the full power rounds were capable of.

Would this imply that the heavier caliber rifles were less accurate or less efficient at closer ranges? By efficiency I'd be referring to lower firing rate and increased recoil. Thus generating less hits/kills by the average shooter?

Personally I've fired a .308 once and it was much more than I was used to firing a .22. So to be honest my lack of experience with that big gun had me fire much more off the mark than I would have with a smaller bolt action .22.

I had no real world perspective on the advantages of the 7.62x51 round as I simply wasn't accustomed to firing it. I was easily more accurate with the .22 at the ranges I was firing at. Which was a decidedly shorter range than what a .308 might be used for.

I was less under the impression that a good hunting rifle or sniper rifle couldn't send a .308 to it's intended distance from far away. However what of semi auto battle rifles? Like the FAL or G3? Does anyone know if they suffered in performance as compared to their bolt action counterparts?

[bonko the sane 2]

during the Angola war my father and uncle used G3's (the old HK model) which is 7.62 and it packed one mean punch, but still they prefered to "borrough" the AK47's (7.62 as well) from dead guerrilas as it was perfect for jungle warfare and it didnt jam in harsh environments, its not only the round that counts the weapon count a lot, especially in combat situations.

[madmedic 0]

Fascinating. There are a lot of facts and points I wasn't aware of.  I'm a bit curious about this statement however.

Quote[/b] ]The 5.56 was developed after a study seemed to indicate that most kills were being scored at ranges much shorter than the full power rounds were capable of.

Would this imply that the heavier caliber rifles were less accurate or less efficient at closer ranges? By efficiency I'd be referring to lower firing rate and increased recoil. Thus generating less hits/kills by the average shooter?

Personally I've fired a .308 once and it was much more than I was used to firing a .22. So to be honest my lack of experience with that big gun had me shooting a lot more wildly than I would have with a smaller bolt action .22.

I had no real world perspective on the advantages of the 7.62x51 round as I simply wasn't accustomed to firing it. I was easily more accurate with the .22 at the ranges I was firing at. Which was a decidedly shorter range than what a .308 might be used for.

I was less under the impression that a good hunting rifle or sniper rifle couldn't send a .308 to it's intended distance from far away. However what of semi auto battle rifles? Like the FAL or G3? Does anyone know if they suffered in performance as compared to their bolt action counterparts?

No, I should have been clearer...

I did not mean the 7.62 rounds were not capable of close range shooting, but it was not neccessary to have a full power round for those distances.

(or so the study said)

[madmedic 0]

during the Angola war my father and uncle used G3's (the old HK model) which is 7.62 and it packed one mean punch, but still they prefered to "borrough" the AK47's (7.62 as well) from dead guerrilas as it was perfect for jungle warfare and it didnt jam in harsh environments, its not only the round that counts the weapon count a lot, especially in combat situations.

Your fathers G3 was 7.62 NATO (7.62x51)...the AKs were 7.62 SOVIET (7.62x39)

[madmedic 0]

I was less under the impression that a good hunting rifle or sniper rifle couldn't send a .308 to it's intended distance from far away. However what of semi auto battle rifles? Like the FAL or G3? Does anyone know if they suffered in performance as compared to their bolt action counterparts?

In general...semi auto rifles are not normally as accurate as a bolt gun.

There are; however, very accurate semi auto rifles.

The G3s, FALs, M14s were all excellent rifles...some still in use around the world.

The trend away from them was mainly based on the weight factor, and also on the difficulty of automatic fire.

[Ares1978 0]

First things first - METRIC SYSTEM    

The advantage of 5.56mm over 7.65mm is that

a) you can carry a lot more

b) wounds soldiers, thus taxing their supplies more

c) i can imagine that targeting is easier

*waits for denoir et. al. to provide us mortals with some real-life information*

a. True.

b. Depends on how you use it. I would like to see some facts that support the idea that the caliber itself is the reason and not the way it is used. The popular Spray & Pray "tactic" tends to wound but also wastes a lot of ammunition, nullifying many of the benefits of point A.

c. In a way, yes. A light 7.62 rifle is pretty violent towards the shooter compared to a 5.56 and that has a certain pychological effect on the shooter. A relatively inexperienced shooter will make instinctive mistakes. Fortunately, it can be corrected with training.

[stgn 39]

You should also consider that 5.56 is much easier on the gun than a 7.62. I recently read that an M16 is a stronger rifle than the G3 because of the difference in caliber.

STGN

[Ares1978 0]

It depends on the rifle design, some designs are stronger than others.

[stgn 39]

It depends on the rifle design, some designs are stronger than others.

Year but you still need a stronger gun for 7.62.

STGN

[Ares1978 0]

Year but you still need a stronger gun for 7.62.

True, but I fail to see your point.

Of course you make the rifle strong enough for the cartridge it is supposed to use and of course there are limits to how strong you can make the rifle without making it unreasonably heavy and expensive. But like I said, it depends on the design whether or not one rifle is stronger than another.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]I recently read that an M16 is a stronger rifle than the G3 because of the difference in caliber.

How are you defining "stronger"? Do you mean "less likely to malfunction"?

[Baphomet 0]

I was thinking he meant the wear and tear factor. However I'd think that would primarily concern the firing mechanism and the barrel. Unless he's simply talking about how easily it can be manhandled without it breaking or what have you.

[stgn 39]

I was thinking he meant the wear and tear factor. However I'd think that would primarily concern the firing mechanism and the barrel.

yes

STGN

[Ares1978 0]

I was thinking he meant the wear and tear factor. However I'd think that would primarily concern the firing mechanism and the barrel.

That's how I understood it.

Barrel wear is a much trickier subject, but I think the 7.62 has the upper hand.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

First things first - METRIC SYSTEM    

The advantage of 5.56mm over 7.65mm is that

a) you can carry a lot more

b) wounds soldiers, thus taxing their supplies more

c) i can imagine that targeting is easier

er, 7.62mm

But yeah, I agree with points a & b, but the primary reason the U.S. switched from 7.62mm to 5.56mm was to be able to carry more ammo.

Also, the effective range of 7.62mm is better than that of 5.56mm.

Taking the first shot with iron sights guarantees pretty much the same accuracy on weapons with the same sight-rail length and trajectory "flatness", as the effects of recoil probably won't be felt until the round has left the barrel. (Can you flinch faster than a bullet can leave a barrel? If so, you could be catching bullets with a frying pan.) I believe that the 7.62mm's trajectory is flatter at longer ranges than the 5.56mm.

Either chambering results in general ineffectiveness when firing on full auto at anything beyond 150 meters, maybe. The debate, then, is about how accurate they are when firing that first shot, and anyone with basic rifle marksmanship training should be able to put the first shot on their target if it is within the rifle's effective range.