Another millitary rejects 5.56 for general issue. - Page 2 - M14 Forum

M14 Forum


Another millitary rejects 5.56 for general issue.

This is a discussion on Another millitary rejects 5.56 for general issue. within the Foreign forums, part of the Gun Forum category; From my observations travelling "south of the border" and seeing the small arms used by those units, the appearance is definitely on the rough side ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Foreign

38Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old December 18th, 2016, 09:31 AM   #16
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: South Charleston, WV
Posts: 2,362
From my observations travelling "south of the border" and seeing the small arms used by those units, the appearance is definitely on the rough side and question their maintenance practices. Just because they are nasty looking does not mean they won't function but I would not be interested in any of those arms, rode hard and put away wet as they say. JMO

Instructor is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 18th, 2016, 10:20 AM   #17
Squad Leader
 
Jay Jacobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canton, GA
Posts: 263
No offense intended to anyone

But I've never been a fan of the 5.56 mm round nor do I own a single weapon chambered for it

Thanks from nf1e, j_reb, oldflyboy and 2 others
Jay Jacobs is offline  
Old December 18th, 2016, 10:29 AM   #18
Old Salt
 
Douglas Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southeast
Posts: 1,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike in pa View Post
Around a decade ago there were para FAL parts kits being sold on the FAL files board. They came in minus the barrels since Argentina considers the barrel the MG.
Mike I think that was our own firearms agency that banned the barreled cut up receivers.

Thanks from NATOBTHP
Douglas Haig is offline  
 
Old December 18th, 2016, 11:07 AM   #19
Old Salt
 
valken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Left coast
Posts: 1,431

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Jacobs View Post
No offense intended to anyone

But I've never been a fan of the 5.56 mm round nor do I own a single weapon chambered for it
I think we all should own at least one. If the world went to the dogs tomorrow it would be one more option I have. 90% of my rifles are 30 cal. I keep a few in 5.56 cause everyone and there cousin, except you of course, will have 5.56. Not to mention the Mrs. wouldn't be able to carry, shoot any of my 30 cals. but the 6 pound AR not that much of a problem for her. Just some food for thought

Thanks from donmor53, NORKALNIMROD and pariah
valken is offline  
Old December 18th, 2016, 12:31 PM   #20
Grunt
 
Spectre the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Флорида
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by valken View Post
I think we all should own at least one. If the world went to the dogs tomorrow it would be one more option I have. 90% of my rifles are 30 cal. I keep a few in 5.56 cause everyone and there cousin, except you of course, will have 5.56. Not to mention the Mrs. wouldn't be able to carry, shoot any of my 30 cals. but the 6 pound AR not that much of a problem for her. Just some food for thought
I agree. I think 7.62x51 is the way to go in general, but the 5.56, especially in an AR-15, is good to have here. For a third rifle option, an AKM given the economics of stashing them and ammo away, so may having them, and their close range effectiveness.
Not everyone can effectively wrangle an M14, or an AR10 for that matter.

Thanks from valken
Spectre the Engineer is offline  
Old December 18th, 2016, 01:26 PM   #21
Banned Camp
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 42
I looked up NATO 5.56 recently and found a chart worth considering in any .308 vs 5.56 comparison. Fourteen 20 round M-14 mags gives you 280 rounds at a weight of 9.52 kg. Thirty three 30 round mags of 5.56 gives you 660 rounds at a weight of 9.9 kg. If I was going hunting I would choose the .308 but if I was going into combat I would prefer the greater load out of the 5.56.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56◊45mm_NATO

true canadian is offline  
Old December 18th, 2016, 02:40 PM   #22
Old Salt
 
Douglas Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southeast
Posts: 1,876
True Canadian, remember that the M16 varieties have a 3 shot burst. Someone more up to date would have to chime in but I'll bet that switch is on most of the time. That will reduce the 660 rounds to 220.

Douglas Haig is offline  
Old December 18th, 2016, 07:12 PM   #23
Platoon Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 512
My only question for this discussion is when will the ARX 200 come to the US? From what I know of the ARX series, it may be ugly, but is a capable little rifle.

village16 is offline  
Old December 18th, 2016, 07:32 PM   #24
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Haig View Post
True Canadian, remember that the M16 varieties have a 3 shot burst. Someone more up to date would have to chime in but I'll bet that switch is on most of the time. That will reduce the 660 rounds to 220.
The M4A1 which is the current standard, has semi-auto and full auto capability. The 3 shot burst is no longer in favor.

My first pop-up rifle match taught me a couple of lessons. Even though I had been trained on the M16 rifle, I still preferred a rifle based on the M14 design. Accordingly, I showed up with my M1A rifle with NM sights to my first pop-up match. I was one of only a few folks using that weapon. Most used AR variants with optics. I quickly understood why. Next match, I showed up with an M4A1 with optics (a Leupold Mark AR Mod 1 scope). My scores have improved tremendously using that weapon. The shorter weapon is much better for quickly engaging targets at various angles and ranges. Also, optics are much better for quick target acquisition.

Originally, the 5.56mm cartridge did not have sufficient accuracy at extended ranges and had insufficient lethality at range. The Mk 262 ammo is capable of repeated hits on E type targets out to 800m. The lethality has also improved. I do not consider the 5.56mm cartridge to be the best solution for longer range encounters but it is more than capable of holding its own at ranges up to 800m if the shooter does his part.

Rick

Thanks from missilegeek and Douglas Haig
rickgman is offline  
Old December 19th, 2016, 08:59 AM   #25
Squad Leader
 
Jay Jacobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canton, GA
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by valken View Post
I think we all should own at least one. If the world went to the dogs tomorrow it would be one more option I have. 90% of my rifles are 30 cal. I keep a few in 5.56 cause everyone and there cousin, except you of course, will have 5.56. Not to mention the Mrs. wouldn't be able to carry, shoot any of my 30 cals. but the 6 pound AR not that much of a problem for her. Just some food for thought
An excellent point of course

Something chambered for 7.62 x 39 might be a good idea as well

For everyone but me, of course :)

Thanks from valken

Last edited by Jay Jacobs; December 19th, 2016 at 04:17 PM.
Jay Jacobs is offline  
Old December 19th, 2016, 11:16 AM   #26
Snappin In
 
Sisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 33
If you have been to Argentina, you would see why. Long open distances predominate. Need something for battle situations > 300 meters.

Sisco is offline  
Old December 19th, 2016, 03:54 PM   #27
Automatic Rifleman
 
DoobyDoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 151
7.62 vs 5.56 maybe I am over simplifying, but for a military's decision, Isn't it basically if they intend to directly engage the infantry, or if they intend to draw out, hold off, and drop something on the bad guy's head ?

I won't pretend to know Argentina, but I would bet they have less artillery and air support per soldier than the 5.56 countries do.

DoobyDoo is offline  
Old December 19th, 2016, 05:31 PM   #28
Squad Leader
 
CharlieLima's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Far Northern Nevada
Posts: 282
I believe we had this discussion of 5.56 shooters calling in support from indirect fire and air support vs troops with 7.62 before.
V/R, CL

CharlieLima is offline  
Old December 19th, 2016, 05:41 PM   #29
Rifleman
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Mass.
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Haig View Post
True Canadian, remember that the M16 varieties have a 3 shot burst. Someone more up to date would have to chime in but I'll bet that switch is on most of the time. That will reduce the 660 rounds to 220.
Basic combat load is 210 rounds of 5.56
While the M4 A1 ( Full auto ) is being phased in I have yet to see one in person. Other than screwing off I have also found a three shot burst to be of limited application. The first round goes where you intended the second is close but the third is off target.

I'll take a semi auto only like the L1A1 or a semi/full auto like the M4 A1 but, given the choice I would leave a three shot burst at home

Thanks from Douglas Haig
buckley94thmp is offline  
Old December 19th, 2016, 07:07 PM   #30
Snappin In
 
Sisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 33
The Argentine FN-FALs are selective fire. During the Falkland/Malvina war, British soldiers would switch from their semi auto only FN FALs to the captured Argentine ones for that reason. Grass is always greener, I guess. Surprised Argentina can afford anything the way their economy is.

Sisco is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Foreign

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trigger issue help? ConsciousDissent The M14 49 August 19th, 2013 08:28 AM
Thomas Jeffersons words thomastred Gun Rights 0 May 4th, 2009 04:18 PM
WTK: "Standard" 5.56 mm cartridge issue for 1980s/1990s M16A2 Different Ammunition 13 December 1st, 2007 11:30 PM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List