5.56 or 7.62 ??

[7idl]

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

[Marlin]

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.

[bbadmin]

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.

[Gun Shot]

I went with 7.62, but I'd rather not be hit by either of them

[AK47 Ranger]

762 all the way.....

that round goes thru the tree that the enemy is hiding behind!

[Obiwan]

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!

[7idl]

9 votes is all we have so far?

C"mon people!

[GunDog]

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.

[AK47 Ranger]

plus battlefield pickup would be easier with 7.62 than with 5.56......

[Jacobite]

hoping you mean 7.62x51 Nato not 7.62x39 commy-bloc.