Originally Posted by
Failure2Stop
In my experience, outside close range, single hits are far more common than multiple hits, especially with partial and running targets. I like putting as much damage into the threat as possible with each opportunity. That doesn't mean that I find no value in 5.56, just that past a certain range and with barriers in play, I find that the performance of 7.62 is worth the weight (to an extent, of course).
Here in this case I suspect you're far more correct. I came from such a super-pogue job description that in firefights I was still glued to the radio as job A, and the rest of the time took shit from the grunts we were attached to that I was a waste of a good shot. This partially pervades my mindset, along with the idea that I'd rather be moving and have more equipment oriented towards nighttime capability and gear set up for preventing and patching holes and give up a bit of that barrier/single hit performance potential to have a platform with more rounds and something I can afford to train on more. The biggest difference there is limited training opportunities and being able to afford enough ammo to drill and stockpile, whereas you have enough trigger time to probably skunk me running some ghetto 338RSAUM platform to my running a dialed 556 setup in an apples to apples shoot.
Different armor types will have different vulnerabilities, but it is rare that common 7.62 will achieve penetration where 5.56 will not.
The M993 works great on vehicles, but I personally find that I prefer it over any other ammunition in the 240, even in the conventional role, as it gives better performance for MG related tasks. Pretty much completely irrelevant to the conversation, but hey, I like machineguns.
Concur completely, but there is definitely enough application for me of a barrier blind (Mk317 clone type) round to run either match or barrier blind as go-to loads and whatever cheap FMJ for training. Again, lacking the depth/budget to work out better answers to ammo, I'm basically pigeonholing myself into simple options on the 308 front
I agree to an extent.
I think that 5.56 most shines in the 11.5-12.5 format, if the expectation is for a "200 meter and in" application.
No 7.62 will be as light, maneuverable, and shootable in that size.
No matter how light you get, you are still shooting 7.62, and for usable performance there is a price.
Mostly agreed, with the exception being that a 14.5ish 7.62 with a dedicated can is pretty much the equivalent of a 16" 7.62 out to 500 meters. This is partially due to 7.62 not being as tightly tied to velocity for good terminal performance.
Agreed (caveat of specific application 14.5 7.62 as above); best size for 7.62 semi-auto is 16-18, favoring 16.
Handloading/quality ammunition and top quality barrels probably do bring 14.5" into the picture, especially with a suppressed setup even past that range, but for a true general purpose carbine (and more practical lighter optics) I can absolutely see an application for a 14.5" .308 setup. Aside from some of the reported accuracy gains in SCAR-17's when shortening barrels, the SBR'd 308 setups are mostly impractical; the point I was looking to make is that a 12.5" .308 is equivalent in OAL/weight/feel to a pinned 14.5" 300BLK setup and eerily similar in terms of terminal performance.
I am looking to do something with .260 in an 18"-20" barrel, but it isn't going to be any time soon.
This is the one thing that has me constantly re-evaluating if the LMT MWS offering is still the answer I should be looking at - being able to swap a 20" 6.5CM batch barrel onto the same platform as my kitted out 16" setup is so appealing, I'm not sure if I can keep looking past that setup
Gotcha.
Taking specialty ammo out of the equation, the faster 5.56 is more abusive to steel the steel face.
I break steel with 7.62 mostly from tipping the targets over, wrecking resetting and mounting points, and knocking chunks out near the edge.
Most damage happens inside 300 meters.
It's a bit of a net energy per unit of surface area problem, but the above comment that any armor able to defeat one is liable to defeat the other absolutely applies, and that for most application this aspect of it is basically moot.