View Full Version : Which AR caliber?
Singlestack Wonder
03-03-08, 15:54
If you had to choose one AR rifle caliber, which one would it be and why?
My choice is .308
I just love .30 cal. firearms.
And I got lots of .308 ammo.
6.8 mm--it offers the optimal combination of terminal performance and function in 16" and under carbines for both duty and hunting use, while still fitting in the AR15 platform.
Until I get a better taste of the 6.5 and 6.8 kool-aid, I'd keep mine in 5.56 for a general-use weapon and be satisfied.
For overall AR use, I'll stick with 5.56. I do have a couple of .45 ACP ARs that are nice guns, but they're really different animals. Once I have enough mileage on them to feel comfortable with their reliability, though, I may make one a primary HD gun. We'll see.
for the ar platform I like the 5.56, other calibers are great but the 5.56 is the one most likely be general purpose.
If I had to choose one caliber: Hunting, 600 yards and beyond, CQB, stopping power---> a 19.5" Barrel 6.5 Grendel AR.
Ammo is hard enough to get in volume with the 5.56.... let alone the wildcat rounds.
I just stay on the beaten path, and stick with the 5.56 for ammo and mag availability.
You can get .223 and/or 5.56 anywhere.
Lots of loads to suit any purpose.
9mm is cheap to shoot and you can find it any where
I'll take 5.56 for price and availability, Alex. And 9mm for the pistols.
Failure2Stop
03-05-08, 07:32
I went with 5.56 due to ease of volume purchase only. I would have gone with 6.8 if it was closer to 5.56 in availability.
decodeddiesel
03-05-08, 11:37
5.56 as the cartridge is never going to go away and if I'm really hard up I can go into a wally world and buy a box.
556. Why? Much better choice for CQB than 308 and can kill a man out past 300M's. It is also cheaper and easier to find than any of the other cartridges listed.
C4
Is the 556 better than 308 for CQB due to less collateral damage?
Is the 556 better than 308 for CQB due to less collateral damage?
Yes.
C4
6.8mm SPC without question.
Stephen
I chose 5.56, although I also have a DPMS .308, in part because of the ready availability of spares. I was put onto a local guy who sells PPU 5.56 for $6.95/20 and PPU .308 for $7.25/20 so I buy some of each when I go in there.
SinnFéinM1911
03-07-08, 08:22
Yes.
C4
Supporting data?
5.56...I can carry more of it and there will be some found along the way...
No matter where I go...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
RogerinTPA
03-07-08, 17:41
5.56mm hands down. It's not going anywhere, readily available everywhere , you can train/shoot more and not cost prohibitive....yet!
20" A2 in 5.56 or even a 20" A1....either one would work great...and iron sights all the way!
HAMMERDROP
03-13-08, 11:47
I had the chance to shoot a couple of magazines full of 6.8 at a range late last year and I was really impressed with it, but my go to choice would be 5.56 since everything I own is geared for that round. But if I tooled up thats the round and gear I'd go to.
Michael
Anyone else see the LWRC 7.62 on Future Weapons with Mack last night? Made me think twice about my .223 choice.
I voted 'Other' as I'd prefer the 6.8 (with the 5.56 a close second).
I'd also choose the 6.8 SPC This is just my preference based on what I like and not on availability or price.
general_purpose
03-15-08, 23:53
If I could have it in any caliber, I'd pick 30.06. Because it shoots through brake disks !:D
5.56--Price of ammo, availibility of ammo, widest choice of parts,
Ridgerunner665
03-22-08, 10:34
5.56...I can carry more of it and there will be some found along the way...
No matter where I go...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
What he said...
As far as sheer preformance for a general pourpose round that can be used for fighting, hunting, target whatever I like the 6.8, but it is so pricey and more scarce so 556 is what I have to go with at the moment, which is why I have both:D
More 5.56.... please
a couple of questions:
1. Has anyone here really seen a soft target with a squarely placed 556 get up and fight? Remember no Bruce Willis memoirs..Nor vicarious mall ninja stories that begin with: "I know a guy", or "I saw a video of", or " I heard from".....
2. Has anyone humped with a combat load of 7.62 ammo?
Its as light as a septic tank at a Mexican restaurant after a sale on menudo.
Comparing the lethality of the 6.8 to the 556 is like comparing the 7mm Mag to a 270. If the shot is well placed the result is the same. Damage (cavitations) may be different but within the confines of the rounds designed ballistics targets go down in a vital area. If they dont then the probability is they were one of the few that could run after a 30.06 direct hit after smokin KJ.
PS. I got this info from the internet site Wikipedia article entitled the Elite Weapons and Tactics of Special Forces Security Operations Group "Mall of America".
http://www.mouseplanet.com/merchandise/SecurityGuard.jpg
More 5.56.... please
a couple of questions:
1. Has anyone here really seen a soft target with a squarely placed 556 get up and fight? Remember no Bruce Willis memoirs..Nor vicarious mall ninja stories that begin with: "I know a guy", or "I saw a video of", or " I heard from".....
2. Has anyone humped with a combat load of 7.62 ammo?
Its as light as a septic tank at a Mexican restaurant after a sale on menudo.
Comparing the lethality of the 6.8 to the 556 is like comparing the 7mm Mag to a 270. If the shot is well placed the result is the same. Damage (cavitations) may be different but within the confines of the rounds designed ballistics targets go down in a vital area. If they dont then the probability is they were one of the few that could run after a 30.06 direct hit after smokin KJ.
PS. I got this info from the internet site Wikipedia article entitled the Elite Weapons and Tactics of Special Forces Security Operations Group "Mall of America".
1. I've seen BG's get hit with a .50 and stay in the fight (took his arm off). I've seen several instances of COM shots with 5.56mm staying "in the fight". I've never seen a CNS hit keep fighting.
2. No.
I respectfully disagree on your comparison of 6.8mm to 5.56mm. The anecdotal and scientific testing do not agree with your hypothesis. You may as well say that all rounds are the same if the shots are placed properly. The only part we agree on is that shot placement is key. If you have a less than ideal shot placement, the 6.8mm is going to cause more damage, blood-loss, etc. leading to a target that is out of the fight faster. 6.8mm is also going to penetrate intermediate barriers better than 5.56mm retaining more of its mass as it impacts on the target.
You do realize that the 6.8mm is more than double the mass of the 5.56mm M855 moving at nearly the same velocity?
Stephen
1. I've seen BG's get hit with a .50 and stay in the fight (took his arm off). I've seen several instances of COM shots with 5.56mm staying "in the fight". I've never seen a CNS hit keep fighting.
2. No.
I respectfully disagree on your comparison of 6.8mm to 5.56mm. The anecdotal and scientific testing do not agree with your hypothesis. You may as well say that all rounds are the same if the shots are placed properly. The only part we agree on is that shot placement is key. If you have a less than ideal shot placement, the 6.8mm is going to cause more damage, blood-loss, etc. leading to a target that is out of the fight faster. 6.8mm is also going to penetrate intermediate barriers better than 5.56mm retaining more of its mass as it impacts on the target.
You do realize that the 6.8mm is more than double the mass of the 5.56mm M855 moving at nearly the same velocity?
Stephen
So, your saying that you have empirical test data in combat of 6.8 hits on targets with one shot stops? Please inform me of your source.
Additionally, I assume you have applied the scientific method of statistical analysis to conclude that the hits on target from 556's that have not been fatal will in fact be conclusively fatal had a 6.8 been used. Please express your factorization. I’m sure that your numbers aren’t a conclusion from the notion that simply bigger, heavier, and faster is better, right? That would be illogical.
Thank you,
Ammo is hard enough to get in volume with the 5.56.... let alone the wildcat rounds.
I just stay on the beaten path, and stick with the 5.56 for ammo and mag availability.
Agreed. Unless you have money to burn 5.56 is the way to go IMO.
bushmasterar15
03-25-08, 02:06
I would choose 5.56 but I'm also looking at the 6.8spc for another build.
So, your saying that you have empirical test data in combat of 6.8 hits on targets with one shot stops? Please inform me of your source.
Additionally, I assume you have applied the scientific method of statistical analysis to conclude that the hits on target from 556's that have not been fatal will in fact be conclusively fatal had a 6.8 been used. Please express your factorization. I’m sure that your numbers aren’t a conclusion from the notion that simply bigger, heavier, and faster is better, right? That would be illogical.
Thank you,
I never said, nor implied, that I could share any combat use information on the 6.8mm.
I used a factorization of 3.457:rolleyes:
I will do my best to find the links to the ballistic testing that have been done to support my statements, but you obviously don't want to believe that the 6.8mm SPC is superior to the 5.56mm NATO for combat use so should I really even bother?
Stephen
It is my understanding that Doc GKR has the 6.8 data to support Stephen's conclusions but it remains classified. If they say 6.8, it is 6.8.
More 5.56.... please
a couple of questions:
1. Has anyone here really seen a soft target with a squarely placed 556 get up and fight? Remember no Bruce Willis memoirs..Nor vicarious mall ninja stories that begin with: "I know a guy", or "I saw a video of", or " I heard from".....
2. Has anyone humped with a combat load of 7.62 ammo?
Its as light as a septic tank at a Mexican restaurant after a sale on menudo.
Comparing the lethality of the 6.8 to the 556 is like comparing the 7mm Mag to a 270. If the shot is well placed the result is the same. Damage (cavitations) may be different but within the confines of the rounds designed ballistics targets go down in a vital area. If they dont then the probability is they were one of the few that could run after a 30.06 direct hit after smokin KJ.
PS. I got this info from the internet site Wikipedia article entitled the Elite Weapons and Tactics of Special Forces Security Operations Group "Mall of America".
1. Yes. I have shot the piss out of people with little results. I have also hit people with what I would consider marginally good shots and had them fall DRT.
2. Yes. That shit is heavy.
5.56.
Now if I had a free 6.8, free mags, and access to buckets of ammo, I might lean that way.
Failure2Stop
03-25-08, 16:43
Anyone else see the. . . (snip) . . . on Future Weapons with Mack last night? Made me think twice about . . . (snip)
Keep in mind that whatever the host currently has in his hands is the coolest, bestest, most awesomest item man has ever created. Ever.
Any choice based on it's presentation by FW is like choosing cutlery based solely on late-night infomercials.
I never said, nor implied, that I could share any combat use information on the 6.8mm.
I used a factorization of 3.457:rolleyes:
I will do my best to find the links to the ballistic testing that have been done to support my statements, but you obviously don't want to believe that the 6.8mm SPC is superior to the 5.56mm NATO for combat use so should I really even bother?
Stephen
Your missing the point. The 6.8 is not revolutionary enough to facilitate a move away from 5.56.
The discussion is on simular grounds to that of comparing a 40S&W to a 9MM.
When you compare the 9mm with recent upgrades in powder, bonding, and grains you have a very formidable stopper. If targets go down from a new 9mm then there really isnt a drammatic push to run out and replace 9mm's with 40S&W.
5.56 has killed alot of vermin.
6.8SPC is a nice concept. I have an entry kit.
But Im not going to drink the coolade because everyone else is.
"A Ferrari F430 is fast. But if it is only allowed to go 60MPH on the road then whats the point"....
Take Care.
Parabellum9x19mm
03-26-08, 16:09
i couldn't deal with not having at least one handgun in 9mm, .40 and .45
that being said, all my ARs are 5.56
Your missing the point. The 6.8 is not revolutionary enough to facilitate a move away from 5.56.
The discussion is on simular grounds to that of comparing a 40S&W to a 9MM.
When you compare the 9mm with recent upgrades in powder, bonding, and grains you have a very formidable stopper. If targets go down from a new 9mm then there really isnt a drammatic push to run out and replace 9mm's with 40S&W.
5.56 has killed alot of vermin.
6.8SPC is a nice concept. I have an entry kit.
But Im not going to drink the coolade because everyone else is.
"A Ferrari F430 is fast. But if it is only allowed to go 60MPH on the road then whats the point"....
Take Care.
I don't think anyone would deny that the .40S&W is more effective at killing people than the 9mm. Good enough is not always good enough and mediocrity is not something that I aspire to. If you sleep well at night thinking that our soldiers have the best combat cartridge they could have then good for you.
.22LR, .32 ACP, .380, and 9mm kill more human beings in the US (and probably the world) than any other caliber. That doesn't make them the best choice for combat use. This is especially the case for our armed forces that are limited, for the most part, to FMJ and occasionally OTM.
Stephen
I don't think anyone would deny that the .40S&W is more effective at killing people than the 9mm. Good enough is not always good enough and mediocrity is not something that I aspire to. If you sleep well at night thinking that our soldiers have the best combat cartridge they could have then good for you.
.22LR, .32 ACP, .380, and 9mm kill more human beings in the US (and probably the world) than any other caliber. That doesn't make them the best choice for combat use. This is especially the case for our armed forces that are limited, for the most part, to FMJ and occasionally OTM.
Stephen
While I generally believe that caliber "wars" are rather stupid, I will comment a little on this.
I personally do NOT believe that 40 is more effective than a 9mm. Truth be told, I pretty much view ALL pistol calibers the same in lethality (less the 10mm). None of them are rifle cartridges. That means shot placement is everything with them.
Now onto the 6.8 VS 556 debate. I have no issue believing that the 6.8 anything is better than M193 or M855. I will even go as far as to say that I believe that the military spending millions of dollars on the conversion is a good idea.
With that said, I believe that there is a much better answer for the here and now while all this mess gets worked out. Letting the Military get away from the 55gr and 62gr ammo and moving them toward a 75gr TAP (T2) or the 77gr MK (MK262) is really the immediate answer I think.
I personally do not believe the 6.8 gives me enough advantage over the two mentioned options to warrant spending all that money to change calibers (YMMV).
C4
While I generally believe that caliber "wars" are rather stupid, I will comment a little on this.
I personally do NOT believe that 40 is more effective than a 9mm. Truth be told, I pretty much view ALL pistol calibers the same in lethality (less the 10mm). None of them are rifle cartridges. That means shot placement is everything with them.
Now onto the 6.8 VS 556 debate. I have no issue believing that the 6.8 anything is better than M193 or M855. I will even go as far as to say that I believe that the military spending millions of dollars on the conversion is a good idea.
With that said, I believe that there is a much better answer for the hear and now while all this mess gets worked out. Letting the Military get away the 55gr and 62gr ammo and moving them toward a 75gr TAP (T2) or the 77gr MK (MK262) is really the immediate answer I think.
I personally do not believe the 6.8 gives me enough advantage over the two mentioned options to warrant spending all that money to change calibers (YMMV).
C4
I'll raise you one more and say that I agree that a 70ish grain 5.56mm cartridge would be a great interim solution. In the long run I would prefer to see the military adopt a new small arm that corrects the deficiencies found in the M4/M16 series and incorporate a new intermediate caliber at that time. I don't care about the cartridge (make it 6.5, 6.8, etc.), I just want improved capability/lethality for our military.
Stephen
I'll raise you one more and say that I agree that a 70ish grain 5.56mm cartridge would be a great interim solution. In the long run I would prefer to see the military adopt a new small arm that corrects the deficiencies found in the M4/M16 series and incorporate a new intermediate caliber at that time. I don't care about the cartridge (make it 6.5, 6.8, etc.), I just want improved capability/lethality for our military.
Stephen
Agree.
C4
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.