>dicklet copium
It replaced it because of logistics and weight. Also because soi nu-males who couldn't handle the recoil of full power cartridges were becoming a thing. Nothing more.
>It replaced it because of logistics and weight.
Doctrine too. Most combat happens at close ranges, so the bigger cartridge wasn't needed, and you can lay down a lot more suppressing fire with 223 than you can with 308.
True, the age of battle rifles was simply over. How this translates into .223 "outperforming" .308 is beyond me. It's simple physics >big boolet nearly going as fast as smol boolet does more damage
>the age of battle rifles was simply over.
Legit question: then why is the Army interested in giving all their dudes a battle rifle? Is it due to advances in scope tech that enables the common soldier to shoot accurately at range?
That's a fantastic question. It all depends how things shake out. It's possible we'll have to re-learn the lessons of the M14. It's possible we'll stick with an improved M4A1 with a fire control system on top. It's also possible he's wrong. We don't know yet.
Close quarters combat. Caliber does matter. Especially if the enemy has body armor. Honestly though, it's probably just a contractor boondoggle. They don't even trust the average grunt with bullets so why not just give them Aks with 7.62 and save yourself the money? For Spec Ops dudes, I would imagine it gives them a few more options other than modified M4s and 556.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Larry Vickers has said the same thing about tossing AKs out to the grunts.
>then why is the Army interested in giving all their dudes a battle rifle? Is it due to advances in scope tech that enables the common soldier to shoot accurately at range?
Unironically, it is explicitly this, plus handheld drones at the squad level, IVAS/ATAK, thermal/low-light fusion NVGs, and all sorts of other tech advancements that give the individual, squad and platoon situational awareness and engagement capabilities far beyond current doctrine. Technology dictates doctrine, and that's why the M14 didn't work, on top of the fact the Army thought it could replace both M1s, the Thompson, the grease gun, and the BAR with one rifle. Iron sight effective range, line of sight engagement, the naked eye alone, and primitive communication systems limited the effectiveness of the Battle Rifle and thats why the intermediate cartridge has been so dominant. 7.62 didn't do enough over 5.56 at the time so it didn't and doesn't (outside of the Army's new equipment and doctrine) make sense. It's like developing GPS guided artillery rounds in the 1950s despite GPS not existing until the 90s.
They are probably thinking of the 556 vice the 223. Same amount of cartridge pressure with a smaller projectile which should perform accurately at slightly greater distance depending on the round and deliver enough pressure on target at 500 yards to be lethal. But weight and logistics was the larger factor and as other people have stated. I'd take 308 any day though.
Wtf is wrong with Americans?
They make up all these silly freedom units which are not compatible and make no sense. And then when they design something with them, they can't even make it a proper round number. No, it has to be 0,308 freedom units.
Why bother having measurements in the first place? They might as well call it one winchester or whatever.
at least my mom took me to NASCAR
Your dads a truck driver?
could be
TEMPO TEMPO TEMPO
<3 Godfather
The .223 replaced the .308 because it was superior in combat
>dicklet copium
It replaced it because of logistics and weight. Also because soi nu-males who couldn't handle the recoil of full power cartridges were becoming a thing. Nothing more.
>The overweight fatty trying to cope.
Don't you have some deer to over penetrate?
Suck my nuts, noguns Black person.
Depends on the barrel length, but generally yes.
>It replaced it because of logistics and weight.
Doctrine too. Most combat happens at close ranges, so the bigger cartridge wasn't needed, and you can lay down a lot more suppressing fire with 223 than you can with 308.
True, the age of battle rifles was simply over. How this translates into .223 "outperforming" .308 is beyond me. It's simple physics
>big boolet nearly going as fast as smol boolet does more damage
>the age of battle rifles was simply over.
Legit question: then why is the Army interested in giving all their dudes a battle rifle? Is it due to advances in scope tech that enables the common soldier to shoot accurately at range?
That's a fantastic question. It all depends how things shake out. It's possible we'll have to re-learn the lessons of the M14. It's possible we'll stick with an improved M4A1 with a fire control system on top. It's also possible he's wrong. We don't know yet.
Close quarters combat. Caliber does matter. Especially if the enemy has body armor. Honestly though, it's probably just a contractor boondoggle. They don't even trust the average grunt with bullets so why not just give them Aks with 7.62 and save yourself the money? For Spec Ops dudes, I would imagine it gives them a few more options other than modified M4s and 556.
Larry Vickers has said the same thing about tossing AKs out to the grunts.
>then why is the Army interested in giving all their dudes a battle rifle? Is it due to advances in scope tech that enables the common soldier to shoot accurately at range?
Unironically, it is explicitly this, plus handheld drones at the squad level, IVAS/ATAK, thermal/low-light fusion NVGs, and all sorts of other tech advancements that give the individual, squad and platoon situational awareness and engagement capabilities far beyond current doctrine. Technology dictates doctrine, and that's why the M14 didn't work, on top of the fact the Army thought it could replace both M1s, the Thompson, the grease gun, and the BAR with one rifle. Iron sight effective range, line of sight engagement, the naked eye alone, and primitive communication systems limited the effectiveness of the Battle Rifle and thats why the intermediate cartridge has been so dominant. 7.62 didn't do enough over 5.56 at the time so it didn't and doesn't (outside of the Army's new equipment and doctrine) make sense. It's like developing GPS guided artillery rounds in the 1950s despite GPS not existing until the 90s.
They are probably thinking of the 556 vice the 223. Same amount of cartridge pressure with a smaller projectile which should perform accurately at slightly greater distance depending on the round and deliver enough pressure on target at 500 yards to be lethal. But weight and logistics was the larger factor and as other people have stated. I'd take 308 any day though.
is .308 louder than .223?
>Right: The guy in her DM's
>Right: The guy you hire for her 'experience' gift on special occasions
Wtf is wrong with Americans?
They make up all these silly freedom units which are not compatible and make no sense. And then when they design something with them, they can't even make it a proper round number. No, it has to be 0,308 freedom units.
Why bother having measurements in the first place? They might as well call it one winchester or whatever.
Yes, as opposed to 5.56mm and 7.62mm, right?
Jesus frick I hate summer on this board, lurk moar.