Its a good thing that the US Military is getting rid of the M14 ????

K31 said:

WTF?

Click to expand...

K31 said:

WTF?

Click to expand...

DaemonAssassin said:

Oh boy, now you done it.



Yea... About that.

That depends on the bullet that you use and the distances you are shooting.

A 556 62gr penetrator (M855/SS109) will punch though a barrier and neutralize the target that is taking cover, within a specific distance. But it will have around 1200 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. The bullet is designed for that specific application.

A standard 150gr in a 308 has roughly 2200 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle and it translates to lethality downrange, but it does not have a steel core or a steel tip to penetrate hard barriers. If you look at a 308 AP round, it has the ability to punch though barriers, with greater efficiency than a 556, at longer ranges.

What you are doing is trying to compare apples to turnips with your line of thinking. If you look at it from the reloading standpoint, with velocities and energy at the muzzle, you will be able to see that with the right bullet, a 308 is actually a superior caliber for longer range engagements, against targets that are behind cover. You can't look at the 556 and say it is better because of ____. You are operating on the velocity of the bullet, but not looking at how much energy it retains as it goes down range, as distance from the muzzle increases. The kinetic force, imparted on impact is the key to the whole issue.

Click to expand...

JHE1956 said:

I think what he was trying to say was that the M2 carbine (or an M1 Carbine converted to M2 standards -- which a large percentage in Korea were) on full auto was hard to control on full auto and thus a large percentage of shots missed their targets. Having never fired a Carbine on full auto0, I can't comment on the control issue (although my dad carried on in Korea and I seem to remember him saying that he rarely used it on full auto, except against the Chinese "human wave" attacks at Chosin), but the comment fails to address the actual stopping power of the Carbine round.

I'm a big fan of the carbine, and think it gets unfairly maligned. The problem with the carbine was that it was never intended to be a standard infantry service rifle, but rather a self defense weapon more powerful than a pistol for those troops who would not normally carry a rifle. My dad was a commo sergeant/RTO, carrying an SCR-300 radio on his back -- someone not normally issued an M1 (although he did carry one at Inchon and Seoul -- his company [division recon] was tasked as a supernumerary rifle company attached to one of the infantry regiments at the time).

The Carbine's failure in Korea can be attributed to four things (1), being asked to do what it was not designed or intended for (see above) (2) the extra dense cold air during Korea winter (Chosin was the coldest conditions American soldiers/Marines have ever fought in) had an impact on bullet velocity (3) the carbine's gas system was not as efficient as the Garand's or BARs in the cold conditions (although the Garand had problems as well and often had to be operated as a straight pull bolt action) (4) the padded winter clothing worn by the CCF, combined with bamboo body armor that many wore under their coats.

Click to expand...

mopar92 said:

https://looserounds.com/2013/01/30/...ent-since-well-not-as-often-as-you-may-think/

That's standard M80, there's a series of articles on it. Simply put when you compare apples to apples, (M855 to M80) or (M995 (?) to .308 AP) there simply isn't a huge performance differential.

I will say again and will say until I die if you are using 5.56 ball ammo (M193/M855) for defensive purposes you are an idiot. There's much better purpose built bullets. Shooting through walls, intermediate barriers, and vehicles will require less ammo than the 5.56 but it's not enough of a performance gain to make even* financial sense to use it.


*Common sense trumps financial sense but some people refuse to believe.

Click to expand...

DaemonAssassin said:

I think the argument is for combat situations, not home defense. The military is somewhat limited in their ammo choices, under the Hague Accords, even though we never signed it. As a civilian, we have access to such a wide range of ammo it isn't even funny.

I was looking at it as the military and why they use the caliber they do in a combat zone.

Click to expand...