Comments: Links

Since you brought up the 5.56 vs. 7.62, I must ask, have you seen the pictures of the marine who took 7 hits from a .311 caliber rifle at close range and was able to walk (with some assistance). If an enemy soldier took 7 hits from our poodle shootin' varmint rifle and limped away, the champions of the .30'd be screamin' about it until Babs Boxer joins the G.O.A..
As I've said, I'm all for upgrading our service cartridge and/or rifle, but not with anything firing a M-80Ball projectile and certainly nothing firing a glorified submachinegun round, such as the M-43 7.62x39 Soviet cartridge.
Jasen

Posted by Jasen at January 31, 2005 04:24 PM

For lighter loads, it will shoot .454 Cassul ... lighter? Sheeeeee-it.

I remember when shooting a few cylinders of .44 Magnum would make the .357 seem downright pleasant. Nice to know we now have similar cartridges relative to the .44 Mag.

Posted by jed at January 31, 2005 07:10 PM

Jasen,
Yeppers I saw it. & if someone was decrying the 5.56 because of hits to a limb then I wouldn't say they were spot on.

However from what I understand the hits were from a 7.62x39 - not exactly a high powered round - & they were all in the leg. If they were all torso shots & it wasn't just an isolated incident then I'd start to question my damn self.

But the 5.56 seems to not stop people adequately when multiple torso hits are employed. I haven't seen anything about anyone not recontemplating their goals when hit by a .30+ bullet - even a 7.62x39.

(identity proving statement) I doubt anyone would be limping away after taking hits from a Garand. :)

I have a post up about arming a squad. I'd be interested in any thoughts you have on my choices.

For the record, I'd settle for going back to the 7.62x51, but I wouldn't be happy if the cartridge didn't rhyme with dirty sought pics. :D

Posted by Publicola at February 1, 2005 06:21 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?