The 7.62x51 (.308) is the best all around rifle round ever made.

[2k10SS]

From point blank to 1000 yards+. There isnt a better do it all bullet for hunting or combat that can touch the 7.62x51.

[Hartski]

Where i would agree, I'm sure many others will not. Let the caliber wars resume!

[TNGsQ]

first one to post spreadsheets gets banned

[hondaj21857]

7.62 in combat ehhhhh maybe if the dirty insurgent knew how to aim his ak and actully hit something with it

[hondaj21857]

knock on wood

[Hartski]

7.62 in combat ehhhhh maybe if the dirty insurgent knew how to aim his ak and actully hit something with it

We're talking about the 7.62x51, or the .308Win. NOT to be confused with the 7.62x39.

[HairyScandinavian]

LOL I'm not touching this one. In all my life of practical firearms application the 308 has never made it on my want list, and its a pretty damn big list.

[NRAFL]

.505 Gibbs Magnum

[MagnumPeanut82]

No 308, no care

[Darthn3ss]

I just wish M1A's weren't so freaking expensive.

[faisji]

Carried G3 in service.Gotta love the ballistics 15 inches of brick wall no problem but the rifle use to kick like a mule.

[bodybybalco86]

7.62 in combat ehhhhh maybe if the dirty insurgent knew how to aim his ak and actully hit something with it

wut?

[BryantTheBear]

(300) 5.56 > (100) 7.62

[LAWLER89]

Agreed. It's stupid versatile, not too heavy to carry in bulk and accurate.

[bodybybalco86]

(300) 5.56 > (100) 7.62

does the 7.62 really weigh 3x as much as the 5.56?

edit: I think the numbers are closer to 300 vs 150

[BryantTheBear]

does the 7.62 really weigh 3x as much as the 5.56?

edit: I think the numbers are closer to 300 vs 150

im just guesstimating but its not just the weight also the volume, mag capacity, etc.

[An Inconvenient Bro]

love .308's / 7.62 NATO is just an all around badass. M1A's, FNAR's!

Much MUCH better resistance to wind drift than 5.56

[bodybybalco86]

Don't quote me on this as it might be broscience ballistics but I think the 5.56 was designed to wound/kill and the 7.62 was designed to straight out kill and I want to say the reason behind it was a wounded soldier will slow down a platoon more than a dead one. Might have seen that on the history channel but I can't recall.

[An Inconvenient Bro]

Don't quote me on this as it might be broscience ballistics but I think the 5.56 was designed to wound/kill and the 7.62 was designed to straight out kill and I want to say the reason behind it was a wounded soldier will slow down a platoon more than a dead one. Might have seen that on the history channel but I can't recall.

the 5.56 can most certainly be deadly with good ammo (preferably not FMJ).

But it is most obviously not anywhere nearly as powerful as 7.62 - and is far more susceptible to wind drift and overall loss of power at longer distances

[bodybybalco86]

the 5.56 can most certainly be deadly with good ammo (preferably not FMJ).

But it is most obviously not anywhere nearly as powerful as 7.62 - and is far more susceptible to wind drift and overall loss of power at longer distances

I think they were referring to military application, ie geneva convention restricts ammunition to fmj only. Or one of those stupid international treaty thing-a-ma-bob. Either way I wouldn't want to be hit with either.

[An Inconvenient Bro]

.505 Gibbs Magnum

you shootin at people standing behind elephants bro?

[LAWLER89]

Don't quote me on this as it might be broscience ballistics but I think the 5.56 was designed to wound/kill and the 7.62 was designed to straight out kill and I want to say the reason behind it was a wounded soldier will slow down a platoon more than a dead one. Might have seen that on the history channel but I can't recall.

The rhetoric behind wounding enemy combats is such:

For every enemy you kill, the opposition has one less man in the battle.
For every enemy you wound, the opposition loses two or three, as they have to move the wounded man to the rear.

[bodybybalco86]

The rhetoric behind wounding enemy combats is such:

For every enemy you kill, the opposition has one less man in the battle.
For every enemy you wound, the opposition loses two or three, as they have to move the wounded man to the rear.

Yes this, just couldn't put it in words lol

repped

[Onebadgtx]

Great all-purpose round, but there are better rounds for specific applications.

[Hartski]

It goes in a minigun. 'Nuff said

[2k10SS]

(3) 5.56 > (1) 7.62

Does this represent how many bullets it takes to kill?

im just guesstimating but its not just the weight also the volume, mag capacity, etc.

They make 25 rounds mags for the AR10, just saying.





Can your 5.56 do this?



16 shots 16 kills




1312 yards

5:30

[An Inconvenient Bro]

Does this represent how many bullets it takes to kill?




They make 25 rounds mags for the AR10, just saying.





Can your 5.56 do this?



16 shots 16 kills




1312 yards

5:30

556 even attempting repetitive kills at 1300 yards, that's laughable

[Geno]

OP is bored.

[scrubhunter]

Don't quote me on this as it might be broscience ballistics but I think the 5.56 was designed to wound/kill and the 7.62 was designed to straight out kill and I want to say the reason behind it was a wounded soldier will slow down a platoon more than a dead one. Might have seen that on the history channel but I can't recall.

The rhetoric behind wounding enemy combats is such:

For every enemy you kill, the opposition has one less man in the battle.
For every enemy you wound, the opposition loses two or three, as they have to move the wounded man to the rear.

All that BS about the 5.56 being designed to only "wound" is just that... BS. The 5.56 was designed to kill just like any other round. The reason the military went with the 5.56 was because soldiers could carry more rounds for less weight and the weapons were substantially easier to handle on full auto.

[HairyScandinavian]

ITT: OP claims .308 is best every compared to everything and it turns into a .308 vs 5.56 comparison.