I have not been following this thread. Have more important things to do than make my head hurt trying to figure it out.

But why do the rangers have 18" barrels for one. And two, why do they have twice the amount of ammo as their counter parts in your scenario?

I revised it to 16" for the ARs.

The barrel lengths dictated serve to impose a mild size and weight disadvantage on the AR10s.

The ammo weights are equal. That being said, I should revise it as well, to impose a similar weight penalty on the AR10s' ammo. Thanks for checking it out!

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
It's becoming apparent that I am in over my head.

I know this is a multi-faceted question, but i am gonna send it anyway...

I'll use the Ranger platoon previously mentioned. If a platoon of US Army Rangers fought a copy of itself... One platoon is equipped with 16" AR15s, fully equipped with all the add-ons to include silencers, and toting 210 rounds per man. The other is equipped with 14.5" AR10s, equipped the same way, but with only 105 rounds per man. Every practical battle circumstance is present during the fight: CQB, engagements out to 600M, cover, night time, personal armor, urban, rural, etc.

In your, and anyone else who's reading this', opinion, which side has the advantage?

If it makes you feel better, I went looking for a report that could help and wound up reading one written by multiple Doctorates using statistical analysis and I realized I was in over my head. And that we spend a lot of taxpayer money in really crazy ways. I've also spent a lot of time and in some cases money to get access to some of the information.

As for your other question, by going platoon level you add too many variables, and the rifles wouldn't be the discriminator.

To give you a straighter answer, if I was fighting myself in a LSCO environment and one of me had an M4A1 with LVPO with basic load and the other had a M110A1 with basic load (optics, etc.), for most of it I'd give the advantage to the M4A1. The M110A1 would take the lead if I could get standoff and take longer distance shots. The reason being is that I shoot better with 5.56mm.

Sure, for me since mag. cap. on an AR10 is 20 or 25 rds. So it would be either 140 or 150. I would call it a push. I would most likely pick the AR10 if I had to pick one. Due to bullet weight. But due to ammo quan. It is pretty much a push imho.

I think the fact that you're willing to accept the increase in weapon size/weight says something for the AR10 (and .308).

I am assuming that by "push" you mean tie.

If I am understanding your response correctly, you'd consider it a tie, even considering the extra size and weight of the weapon itself, and the reduced ammo load of the AR10.

Yes, basically due to the damage a .30 cal projectile can do compared to a .22cal.
Both are lethal, I understand that.

For me, going to the range and shooting 5-7.62 rds at a 50 yd. target then 8 .223 at the same target. The answer is easy.

And I get that proves little other than convinces me every time.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:


In your, and anyone else who's reading this', opinion, which side has the advantage?

The battle being fought here seems to be WW2 Europe, and not any of the conflicts this century. In WW2 Belgium, the 50/50 split has the advantage. In everything this century, the modern Marine rifle company has the advantage.

These days, most 600-700 yard problems are solved either by the platoon sniper, heavy machine gunner, grenadier, or air support from the MAGTAF. The days of their guys on a skirmish line trading rounds with our guys at extended distance and the problem not being solved by drone support, a spooky gunship, or apaches/ Super Cobras are all but over. Caliber wars are simply an attempt to solve problems that rarely exist.

Fancy units have unlimited budgets and a lot of latitude. They do way more mission sets than just hostage rescue. But yet they seem to follow the same pattern. HK416s, with a big bore problem solver mixed in.

As we approach June 28th, would 7.62 rifles made the difference in Operation Red Wings? Where would it make a difference?

As a side note, my son is a newly minted HOG. As soon as he graduated 2nd MARDIV scout/sniper school, he was immediately sent to the six week school to call in air support/ naval gunfire. That really speaks volumes of the modern Marine rifle companies goals.

quote:

The battle being fought here seems to be WW2 Europe

More or less. The question at hand is: is a weapon chambered for 7.62x51 a better all-around infantry rifle than one that fires 5.56x45? We'd need the all-around circumstances of a full-scale conflict to determine the answer.

quote:

HK416s, with a big bore problem solver mixed in

Is the big bore a sniper or assault configuration? I don't mean in the units you associated that approach with; I mean what might be the preferred universal approach?

quote:

would 7.62 rifles made the difference in Operation Red Wings?

My knowledge of that operation is limited to whatever I gleaned from the movie and the Wikipedia article. That being said, I'd guess the only way 7.62 would have made a difference is if it was being fired from a belt-fed with a sufficient supply of ammo.

quote:

I shoot better with 5.56mm

I think that can be said for anyone. But, it's just another one of the tradeoffs.

A friend and I did a little shooting yesterday, using the LE901 I assembled. The target was a five inch circle at seven yards. The drills were one and three rounds from the "patrol" posture (gun held diagonally across your chest, as if walking, with no impending threat of contact). My times with my 5.56 rifle were 1.15 and 1.85.

Time for the one-shot, with the .308, was thirteen percent slower. Time for the three-shot was ten percent slower.

Both rifles used an Eotech. Bringing the longer/heavier weapon to bear takes more time. Managing the stouter recoil takes more time. This is only one comparative test, and one that doesn't play to the 7.62's strengths. I still think it did pretty good.

Another couple notes: The .308 rifle's weight becomes most noticeable when you find yourself one-handing it. If you take your support hand off the gun, you quickly realize how much heavier it is. The gun was pretty darn quiet, with the 16" barrel and the AAC SDN6. It wasn't as quiet as my 11.5" 5.56 with the OCM5 (nothing really is), but it was just as quiet as my buddy's 11.5" with a Gemtech HALO. His setup is pretty darn quiet, and that HALO's form factor is very similar to the SDN6; I even think it's a couple ounces heavier than the .30 silencer on the 901. Granted our range setting is in a densely wooded area. If we were on an open flat range, the sound impressions may be different.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

I shoot better with 5.56mm

I think that can be said for anyone. But, it's just another one of the tradeoffs.

A friend and I did a little shooting yesterday, using the LE901 I assembled. The target was a five inch circle at seven yards. The drills were one and three rounds from the "patrol" posture (gun held diagonally across your chest, as if walking, with no impending threat of contact). My times with my 5.56 rifle were 1.15 and 1.85.

Time for the one-shot, with the .308, was thirteen percent slower. Time for the three-shot was ten percent slower.

Both rifles used an Eotech. Bringing the longer/heavier weapon to bear takes more time. Managing the stouter recoil takes more time. This is only one comparative test, and one that doesn't play to the 7.62's strengths. I still think it did pretty good.

Another couple notes: The .308 rifle's weight becomes most noticeable when you find yourself one-handing it. If you take your support hand off the gun, you quickly realize how much heavier it is. The gun was pretty darn quiet, with the 16" barrel and the AAC SDN6. It wasn't as quiet as my 11.5" 5.56 with the OCM5 (nothing really is), but it was just as quiet as my buddy's 11.5" with a Gemtech HALO. His setup is pretty darn quiet, and that HALO's form factor is very similar to the SDN6; I even think it's a couple ounces heavier than the .30 silencer on the 901. Granted our range setting is in a densely wooded area. If we were on an open flat range, the sound impressions may be different.

Great

Now ask yourself,in your mind how much gain in lethality is required to compensate for the difference in time? Also factor in someone shooting at you with the intent to kill.

There's still far too little information to form an opinion. I think the time difference is minimal, and could likely be reduced with more time getting used to the larger rifles handling and recoil.

I set out to do something to start gathering real-world comparative feedback. It's only a small start, but it's something more than hypothesis. I am glad that I have a rifle that is suitable and able-to-be-equipped for the modern battle rifle role. If funds allowed, I'd certainly be eager to try to assemble a more ideal configuration, to further the experiment.

5.56 shall continue to reign supreme, as the modern world's fighting rifle caliber. Lighter weight and higher capacity trumps power, for the infantryman on the modern battlefield. For now.

As another twist to this, the .308 bullpup is viable. Guns like the Tavor and, to a lesser extent, the RFB remove some of the size/bulk factor of the .308 battle rifle. The flip side is that bullpups are known to not play as well with add-ons, which are a big part of the modern rifle concept.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
There's still far too little information to form an opinion. I think the time difference is minimal, and could likely be reduced with more time getting used to the larger rifles handling and recoil.

I set out to do something to start gathering real-world comparative feedback. It's only a small start, but it's something more than hypothesis. I am glad that I have a rifle that is suitable and able-to-be-equipped for the modern battle rifle role. If funds allowed, I'd certainly be eager to try to assemble a more ideal configuration, to further the experiment.

5.56 shall continue to reign supreme, as the modern world's fighting rifle caliber. Lighter weight and higher capacity trumps power, for the infantryman on the modern battlefield. For now.

As another twist to this, the .308 bullpup is viable. Guns like the Tavor and, to a lesser extent, the RDB remove some of the size/bulk factor of the .308 battle rifle. The flip side is that bullpups are known to not play as well with add-ons, which are a big part of the modern rifle concept.

There is plenty of information. You just have to know where to look. See if you can acess DTIC. Also take a look at Glen Dean's article "On Small Caliber Lethality: 5.56mm Performance in Close Quarters Battle" and his article the "Pursuit of Lethality.". Neither will answer all of your questions as alot of the test data and criteria remain un released, but Dean references alot of the results. Dr Gary Roberts' writing is also interesting, but more towards LE then .mil. But alot of the data cross pollinates. A number of folks with significantly more access, info and resources have theorized and tested 5.56mm vs 7.62 Nato for general purpose. Interestingly enough, we are where we are (could be a clue). Now if NGSW was delivering what had been briefed, it could be a different conversation.

I would also worry less about caliber and more about requirements, capabilities, trade offs, logistics and operational considerations/mission requirement.

As for bullpup, I don't think that is as big of a deal as you might think it is. Watching both France and England, Two of the bigger proponents of bullpups and their recent acquisition decisions, plus what happened with the bullpup NGSW, I don't think you'll see anyone adopting a .308 bullpup as a general issue rifle.

Bullpup isn't necessarily bad, we've made a lot of advances that negate it's negatives. Maybe if we go with an electrically fired caseless round Bullpup would win.

I again recommending going back and reading JLJones' posts. He's giving you alot of good and important info.

and a random link Hmm

This message has been edited. Last edited by: CD228,

I don't have any answers here, but let me throw another wrench into this. What about lightweight AR-Style .308 platforms like the POF or Ruger SFAR? I got to handle a 16" and 20" SFAR side by side at the LGS yesterday, and it has me intrigued. Honestly the 20" gun wasn't much heavier than the 16", and offers a rifle-length gas system in addition to the ballistic advantages of the longer barrel. Both guns were on-par weight wise with a similarly set-up AR-15.

I'm not sure I need it, but I kinda want to try it.

RDB is 5.56

RFB is .308

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RichardC,

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
I don't have any answers here, but let me throw another wrench into this. What about lightweight AR-Style .308 platforms like the POF or Ruger SFAR? I got to handle a 16" and 20" SFAR side by side at the LGS yesterday, and it has me intrigued. Honestly the 20" gun wasn't much heavier than the 16", and offers a rifle-length gas system in addition to the ballistic advantages of the longer barrel. Both guns were on-par weight wise with a similarly set-up AR-15.

I'm not sure I need it, but I kinda want to try it.

It' an interesting concept, how does it compare to a SCAR-H?

While it addresses weapon weight, it doesn't address the ammo weight/capacity/UBL issue. It also doesn't change the lethality/armor piecing piece.

It could be a nice hunting rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
I don't have any answers here, but let me throw another wrench into this. What about lightweight AR-Style .308 platforms like the POF or Ruger SFAR? I got to handle a 16" and 20" SFAR side by side at the LGS yesterday, and it has me intrigued. Honestly the 20" gun wasn't much heavier than the 16", and offers a rifle-length gas system in addition to the ballistic advantages of the longer barrel. Both guns were on-par weight wise with a similarly set-up AR-15.

I'm not sure I need it, but I kinda want to try it.

I picked up an SFAR for a lot of the reasons covered by the OP. I’ve had it to the range once and have only fired it suppressed. I changed out the handguard so the gas switch was hard to access with the suppressor mounted so I couldn’t change the settings to cycle reliably. I just had a Riflespeed gas control installed so it will be easy to adjust now but have yet to get more time at the range. I hope this will be reliable, otherwise I will build a light .308 bolt rifle.

Little late to the party, have been watching and initially I wanted to say 6.8SPC loaded to SPC2 specs would be my choice. The one caveat that gets me is ammo cost is no matter, then I think I’d go .223/5.56 with real good modern ammo, it’d be hard to beat. I guess depending on use like has been discussed, but the OP relates it to a general use GI rifle so using against soft squishy humans and modern ammo, I’d take the 5.56 in SBRs and 16” rifles. By modern ammo I’m talking about ammo that doesn’t depend on higher speeds to get the ammo to fragment and tumble like old standard 55gr FMJ 5.56 shit. Can get a nice 60something grain copper round that holds together at high velocities and still reliably expands at low velocities.

ETA: If I could only keep one of my AR’s (5.56 x2, .300blk, 6.8SPC, .308) as a do-it-all rifle, it’d be my 6.8SPC.

So I can't speak to various studies, but only my own experience with both platforms.

For ME, it's really no contest - I'll take an AR15 every time. I can shoot an AR15 faster, more accurately and with faster follow up than an AR10. The fact that it's also less weight I have to carry, mags have a greater capacity and ammo is lighter are just added benefits.

The only circumstances I'd want an AR10 is if I was shooting out beyond 600 yards. But in that situation my preference would be for a solid bolt gun.

Honestly, for 95% of the situations I can foresee where I'd actually have to defend myself a 14.5" AR15 with a 1x6 scope would be my do it all choice.

If I can have multiple guns I'll take an 11.5" AR15 with a red dot, maybe a 14.5" with a 4x scope and a bolt gun, probably in 6.5CM, Not much use for an AR10.

I shot a SASS clone at Blue Steel Ranch extensively and feel that it was a good compromise rifle but I’m with Hounddog on this one. With a good 77gr, you can get up to 600m at the edge of being transonic and get solid torso hits; my Mk12Mod0 does that all day. I have little need for a 308 unless pushing past 600 and then I’ll probably go for a bolt gun in 6.5 cm before I reach for the 308. I thinned out my safe quite a bit for medical stuff but I kept an 11.5” and my 18” Mk12Mod0.

As for bullpups, they’re cool for working from a vehicle but they don’t do anything an 11.5” can’t do (except avoid a stamp/brace). I’m also not a fan of the trigger (because you are pushing an op rod, and only one op rod on the NATO stocked AUG), so you really don’t see them ever used as a precision rifle. (The AUG shines as an LMG, though.)

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

5.56 has an undeniable edge on the civilian side of things: it's half the price. 7.62 is a daunting endeavor, for a civilian shooter. Ammo stockpiling is twice as spendy; training is twice as spendy.

Why is 7.62 a daunting endeavor for a civilian shooter?