what does a .223 do that a .308 can't? Why isn't a

you can carry more rounds of .223

it's all about logistics and shiet, nobody cares about mere soldiers except for SOF

223 is more controlable in automatic fire

The average soldier can carry twice as much, it is a flatter shooting round, and will kill people just as good as .308 without the recoil or weight

.223 doesn't kick as hard for those of us with small frames.

>>31063853

SF uses 5.56

Battle rifle is only useful in mountain settings like Afghanistan. Hence SF use CQBRs for most missions even in the mountains.

>>31063836

Carrying more rounds, lighter weapon, and faster follow up shots are about all the reasons.

>>31063836

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge

File: image.jpg (68KB, 500x347px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x347px

Weight, cost, size. .308 is always better, but just because it's better doesn't mean that 5.56 doesn't do what it needs to do. Pic unrelated.
>5.56 still kills people dead

>>31063836
What does a .308 do that a .223 can't?

>>31063836
See >>31064809

Speed

.223 is flat-out the more desirable round against human beings

it's lighter, less recoil while remaining very deadly against human beings

it's the most efficient round for the purpose

personally, I like something like like .300blk or 7.62x39 for the perfect mix of lethality to human and animal alike.

.308 is basically only good for fudds and people who live in non-free states

>>31063875
.223 doesn't kill well at all.

>>31063875
>flatter shooting
smells like bullshit to me

>>31063846
fpbp

>>31063874
except literally nobody uses their rifle in auto mode

>>31064834
actually kill people. it takes 3-4 .223 to actually stop a guy then maybe few more to kill him .308 will kill pretty much everytime with 1 shot

Volume of fire has mattered more than boom per trigger pull for infantry rifles since WWII. Fucking .45ACP Tommy guns beat the hell out of K98s for close quarters work and suppressive fire. .223 has nearly as much range as full sized rifle rounds while still being compact and lightweight enough for spray n pray until you or your designated marksman can line up a shot.

>>31067503
.22 LMGs when

>>31067517
http://thefunnybeaver.com/xm556-microgun-empty-shell-defense/

>>31067489

Maybe in videogames. In reality when 5.56 fragments it will fuck you to death harder than any .308. AP is a different story and both just punch a hole straight through you and don't do much else.

Several posters have already discussed weight and shoot-ability, so I will skip that part.
The reason that rifle cartridges fell out of use outside of speciality roles (GPMGs, DMRs, etc) is because most of the extra power that a rifle round has over an intermediate cartridge is wasted.
Anyone has been downrange and seen both impacts of 5.56 and 7.62x51 at at the same time would tell you that you can not tell which bullet is which until you start to push the range out to 400 or beyond. The impact and sound are nearly identical. If one is to study wound profiles, you will see that 5.56 leads to really grievous wounds in its optimal range envelope, while 7.62x51 has a smaller wound profile than a fragmented 5.56mm round, but 7.62 performs consistently at a far longer range. To use a video game analogy, 5.56 has "low damage" but a high "critical strike" rating, while 7.62 has flat damage.
The vast majority of gunfights do not happen at long distance. While afghanistan presented an outlier due to its mountain terrain, most modern firefights happen at relatively short ranges.
The average infantry weapon does not need a high level of performance past 300 meters.
Rifle rounds are large, weigh more, and harder to shoot. Using a battle rifle means that you are sacrificing a lot of efficiency in order to perform optimally at ranges that are outside the general range envelope that infantry fight in.
Within standard infantry fighting ranges, 5.56mm generally performs *better* than 7.62x51 does in terms of terminal ballistics, because 7.62x51 will frequently over-penetrate. If you look up the issues of over-penetration with 62gr 5.56mm at extremely close ranges, you will see the problem that this presents. 7.62x51 would do it constantly at most of the ranges that infantry fight in.
To boil it down, 7.62x51mm has more power than it needs for most infantry applications. It is an inefficient cartridge because most of its power is wasted at common fighting ranges.

>>31064809
there's no way you get the right eye relief for that acog with that thing

>>31067517
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Bofors_Dynamics_CBJ-MS

>>31067434
>>31067489
Literally a meme. Do some research kid.

A .223 round fragments and causes severe inner injuries when it hits a soft target.
A .308 round just punches right through the target.

>>31063836
Maybe you should read up on the reasoning why militaries around the world ditched .30 caliber full power rifle rounds for intermediate .22 caliber cartridges. It has to do with battle range and weight.

I just wish the box magazines carry more than 20 rounds. I need more boolets. At least 3 more.

>>31067621
this

>>31063886
What kind of a pitiful manlet must you be for the .308 recoil's to pose a serious enough problem?
>>31067538
And because it fragments so easily it can be defeated by the most basic body armor than now even Abdul carries.

>>31067434
Are you high?

>>31067899
https://youtu.be/oMYkEMhPsO8
Ok

>>31063836
>what does a .223 do that a .308 can't?
Be lighter, cheaper, equally accurate, and still kill.

>Why isn't a battle rifle always superior to a AR-15?
When you dont want to carry a rifle thats 3 pounds heavier, AND less ammo

>>31067932
>>31067770
.223 is not designed to kill. It's designed to be effective in a war, which means wounding people and taking them out of the battle, but not killing them necessarily.

>>31068362

That's a myth perpetrated by the retarded. When 5.56 was first introduced it was considered inhumane because the fragmentation wounds were so ludicrously lethal.

>>31067621
/thread

File: maximum hue.jpg (115KB, 550x564px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 550x564px

>>31068362
>people still believe the 'designed to wound' myth

all points for the .223 are valid here but what people are forgetting is nearly all conventional infantry are protected from up to .308 armor piercing bullets around vital organs, in this regard the .308 with nearly twice the kj's of hitting power would outperform the .223 anyway, at least as far as putting a modern solider out of action more consistently

>>31068605

Modern soldiers don't fight modern soldiers though. And they haven't since the 1940s.

>>31068627
Ukraine comes to mind, or iran-iraq war, 6 day war, korean war, indo-pakistani war, gulf war, modern armies have clashed since ww2 my friend and when they do in future it will be with the addition of body armor

>>31068725

Ukraine there hasn't been real fighting between Ukraine and Russia. The only place that would have happened, where Russia seriously dropped in troops, was Crimea. And Ukraine didn't even try, because they knew it was suicide.

The rest, sure there's some Russians wandering around but its mostly rebels and paramilitary guys, not fully equipped Russian and Ukrainian soldiers facing off.

>Iran-Iraq
third worlders fighting third world battles
>6 day war
third worlders trying to fight a first world nation. Curb stomp ensues.
>indo-pakistani war
Third worlders fighting third world battles
>gulf war
They were not a modern army. And look what happened as a result of that. An utter skullfuck of a war. Iraq's military was big and pretty powerful, but NOT modern.
>korean war
Again not two modern armies facing off. The US military was lightyears ahead of the Norks.

Russia isn't going to war with us ever because it'd end in a global nuclear holocaust. Western European nations seem done fighting eachother. That pretty much rules out all modern militaries fighting eachother. It seriously just doesn't happen. We come kinda close, but not the real deal.

File: upotte-2-005d.jpg (59KB, 710x384px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 710x384px

>>31063974
>SF uses 5.56

SF use whatever is optimal for the situation they're going in. Mostly 5.56 is fine but sometimes you need something with a little more punch/reach to it.

>>31068605
Armor will still block 308 plenty. There's also expensive shit like M995.

The real important thing is that in a theoretical conflict between modern powers, small arms aren't doing most of the killing, and are mostly useful to suppress other infantry so that fire support can kill them.