Post yfw you realized 5.56 was an overhyped meme round that everyone

The only point of 5.56 is that each soldier can carry more rounds, that's why it caught on when autofire-capable rifles became standard infantry equipment.

>>33201494
We just need to go towards a 30-30 lever action rounds

>>33201494
It was briefly good due to >>33201783
and then body armor caught up with it, imo. No shame in it, M16, you had a good run.

>>33201783

>but muh weight

re-read the post

Isn't Russia moving to 5.45x39? saying that intermediate rounds aren't relevant is a bit asinine

aren't the average engagement distances in Afghanistan like 300yds?

>>33201838

5.45 has been around since the Warsaw Pact, they wanted to make their own Proletariat-approved copy of the American 5.56 because memes.

7.62x39 IS an intermediate round, debil.

File: 6f2832c27080730f241a25d036fbed03.jpg (282KB, 489x726px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 489x726px

>>33201494
>the difference in weight is negligible
I want to believe OP, but I'm afraid that you can carry almost double the amount of 5.56 than you can 7.62x39.
I agree that it's a all around better round though, especially if you live in wooded areas. More open areas when you can see 500meters, then yea, you might want an AR. But for 300meters and under, I'll take 7.62.

>>33201838
5.45 also has 10/10 terminal ballistics.

File: 635x48mm.jpg (81KB, 403x786px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 403x786px

Were they on to something here?

>>33201494
>Rifleman doesn't engage beyond 100 yards.
Guess how I know you've never been to Afghanistan.
You've never served and you're never going to serve so why do you care about this so much?And by your logic even if the rifle man is engaging at less than one hundred yards the .30 vs .223 argument doesn't matter cause in my own theatre expirence guys shot in the face with either round still fucking die

>>33201494
>velocity doesn't do shit to make the round more effective
Ek = ½mv2
What's next, you're gonna tell us that sabots are useless?

File: 1442160353477[1].gif (1016KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 320x240px

>>33201494
That whole post.

tis whole thread.

> being this dumb.

>>33201494
>Bigger hole = more killing potential

Thats why I always said, every army should change to shotgun slugs now

File: SPEER GOLDDOT 64GR.jpg (1MB, 1280x3366px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x3366px

I'll leave this here.
*leave the thread

File: STO_Capt_Barry_Crawford_Afghanistan.jpg (42KB, 384x512px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 384x512px

>>33201494
I've heard this floated before but never really verified - but was part of the reason why 5.56 became so ubiquitous after WWII partly because most infantry were no longer engaging armored combatants and proper military personnel, but rather engagements switched to fighting mostly unarmored insurgents and basically just villagers with vintage AKs?

Korea, Lebanon, Vietnam, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Syria? Not exactly heavily armored personnel, which would mean having more ammo on-hand would be strategically advantageous. I disagree with your statement that the weight difference between 7.62 sand 5.56 is negligible, and because 90% of the time infantry are just spraying suppressing fire this seems like a logical (and cost effective) choice.

Not that I wouldn't be happy as hell to carry a SCAR-H.

>>33204064
The first widely used bulletproof vests for infantry didn't come about until the late 60s with ubiquitous use not appearing until the 80s. There weren't any "heavily armored personnel" until relatively recently.

>>33204064
Vietnam - jungle terain.

>>33201820
?

Modern body armor can stop 30 cal