Printable View
which is a better cartridge?
yes yes.. I know.... depends on application.
so, lets see here..
base your vote on the last 100 years of military use.
after you vote, I might suggest you take a look at this interesting article.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1986/MVT.htm
I went with the 7.62, I know, I know. :roll:
There are just certain fact's that one just cannot get around. The article confirmed this.
Well we one two wars with the 30/06. We didn't do as well after that. It is apparent that the 7.62 in the hands of a trained marksman is far superior to the 5.56. (Of course we don't seem to be teaching marksmanship like we used to either.) Sgt. York did real well with a bolt action 30/06. And the Garand was good enough for a truly global conflict.
During WWII we had most of our inventory eating 30/06. The Garand, the BAR, the .30 machine gun. And we taught marksmanship - one shot, one kill - to everyone. The 30/06 delivers that kind of power and accuracy. I doubt we'll see the /06 in the inventory again.
The 5.56 is a comprimise. It works okay, but the current trend in the military community seems to be leading back to the 7.62.
I went with 7.62, but I'd rather not be hit by either of them :D
762 all the way.....
that round goes thru the tree that the enemy is hiding behind!
7.62 HAnds down for barrier penetration
7.62 for shots over 300 yds
5.56 for Mout and CQB
5.56 is lighter....carry more ammo without hurting yourself
And now we have the 6.8 x 43...a compromise!
9 votes is all we have so far?
C"mon people!
7.62, even if it means reducing ammo availablility by 1/2. The psychological disadvantage of having one's cover being breached could change the outcome........ or at least, get a quick change of situation.
plus battlefield pickup would be easier with 7.62 than with 5.56......
hoping you mean 7.62x51 Nato not 7.62x39 commy-bloc.