7.62mm Rifle to REPLACE M4 Carbine

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • myhightechsec

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 15, 2016
    649
    18
    The Region

    Goodcat

    From a place you cannot see…
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    151   0   0
    Jan 13, 2009
    3,382
    83
    New Pal
    So they are moving to 7.62 because the 5.56 is unable to pierce some body armor. The 7.62x51 also cannot pierce the body armor. Either round, properly designed can. So why are they switching again?
     

    Goodcat

    From a place you cannot see…
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    151   0   0
    Jan 13, 2009
    3,382
    83
    New Pal
    Maybe we never have should have left the 30-06 behind....

    Seems like FN already addressed this with 5.7 x 28 mm.

    Ya, but then people would say our soldiers wear panties to match the cute little 5.7
     

    singlesix

    Grandmaster
    Industry Partner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    May 13, 2008
    7,197
    27
    Indianapolis, In
    Ya, but then people would say our soldiers wear panties to match the cute little 5.7
    Is a bad thing?

    israeli_defense_force_girls_gone_wild_640_34.jpg
     

    Patriot3

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 11, 2012
    155
    28
    Kokomo
    I am not sure how to take this information. Although I love my ar15 family of firearms, I love my scar 17 and m1a more. So my bias is excited, but practically I don't see the need for a switch.
     

    halfmileharry

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    65   0   0
    Dec 2, 2010
    11,450
    99
    South of Indy
    I like the format but not the caliber. It's always been lacking for long distance knock down power.
    I went for a long time despising the M16. The AR was worse in my mind. 40+ years later it's turned into a good dependable weapon.
    The round just needs to be a bit.. uh... "More"
     

    LarryC

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 18, 2012
    2,418
    63
    Frankfort
    I collect and shoot firearms, have a couple of Ar's in 5.56 and an LR-308. I also have Garand's and a M1 carbine, along with many other foreign WW2 battle rifles like the AK, SK, Mosin's, SVD-40, Mauser's, Enfield's etc.

    If a SHTF situation occurred, one of the LAST firearms I would depend on is the AR in 5.56. To my thinking it is a very ineffective round at ranges past 100 yards, subject to large drifts in wind, very poor barrier penetration and poor wound characteristics.

    I have read and seen reports of our troops carrying a captured SKS along with their Ar for defense against Afghan and Iraq fighters due to the fact the AK 7.62 X 39 has greater effective range and barrier penetration ability. The Ar was / is pretty well suited for close combat fighting in the Vietnam environment, where encounters were fairly close quarters, but in my opinion it is like carrying a 25 cal or .380 for self defense.

    As to body armor penetration a .308 round WILL penetrate most armor unless the person is protected with steel or ceramic plates. It certainly has the ability to penetrate most common buildings and small trees etc. where the 5.56 does not. Personally, I hope the military does change to a more lethal round as I want our hero's to have the most effective fighting tools available in the world.

    I pay taxes and have for over 60 years, a few things I don't ***** about are military expenses and costs for Firemen and EMP equipment and / or personnel or police protective gear.
     

    kawtech87

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    44   0   0
    Nov 17, 2011
    7,100
    113
    Martinsville
    If a SHTF situation occurred, one of the LAST firearms I would depend on is the AR in 5.56. To my thinking it is a very ineffective round at ranges past 100 yards, subject to large drifts in wind, very poor barrier penetration and poor wound characteristics

    Not to be contrary but I have to ask, Why not? With the AR being arguably THE MOST prolific rifle in the US why would you not rely on one in SHTF? Parts, ammo, mags readily available. Easily serviced by anyone who is slightly mechanically inclined almost no end in sight in popularity of the American shooter. I get it, I'm not a huge AR guy either in fact I have a 5 to 1 AK to AR ratio in my collection. But I wouldn't take an AK as a primary weapon in true SHTF. For the opposite reason, if you have ever installed any accessories onto an AK you know they have a wide range of what is considered "in spec" and often times lots of fitting is required. ARs are built to much more stringent specs and if I break an extractor or a bolt head I can scavenge one from any Battlefield pick up AR. But there is no guarantee anything from a WASR will fit in my Arsenal SAM. Especially in the US market quality of AK style rifles often very wildly. The WASR again for example, one could go 10,000 rounds with no notable failures another can't run a full mag through.

    As to the Army replacing the 5.56mm I'd be interested to see if the rise in popularity of.300 Blackout will be a factor. It would only require a change of barrels to get similar ballistics to 7.62x39 out of existing rifles.
     
    Last edited:

    singlesix

    Grandmaster
    Industry Partner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    May 13, 2008
    7,197
    27
    Indianapolis, In
    If a SHTF situation occurred, one of the LAST firearms I would depend on is the AR in 5.56. To my thinking it is a very ineffective round at ranges past 100 yards, subject to large drifts in wind, very poor barrier penetration and poor wound characteristics.

    According to Winchester Ballistic App in 10 mile crosswind .223 drifts 2.63 inches and the .308 drifts 2.43 inches, 64gr and 150gr bullets at 500 yards, so .20 inches difference is "large drift"?
     

    natdscott

    User Unknown
    Trainer Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 20, 2015
    2,797
    113
    .
    If a SHTF situation occurred, one of the LAST firearms I would depend on is the AR in 5.56. To my thinking it is a very ineffective round at ranges past 100 yards, subject to large drifts in wind, very poor barrier penetration and poor wound characteristics.

    I don't entirely disagree with your logic, but your 100 yard limit is a bit unrealistic. That, or naive to the more modern types of ammo available.

    I grant you, a .22 is still a .22, but if you had a better chance to observe the effects of heavy load .223 at 300 yards, or even further, your opinion of the round might be changed for the better.

    Is it ever going to be a medium-weight medium-capacity contender to something like a 6.5-08, .308, etc.? No.

    But neither is your quoted 7.62x39. Not even a semblance of the same thing.

    -Nate
     

    Fordtough25

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 99.1%
    110   1   0
    Apr 14, 2010
    6,898
    63
    Jefferson County
    I would imagine shot placement matters more than caliber in almost every instance, sometimes you might have to put 2 or 3 rounds in a good spot depending. 5.56 is lighter than 7.62, more rounds on person, yikes I sound like a post Korean war sales brochure! Lol
     

    halfmileharry

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    65   0   0
    Dec 2, 2010
    11,450
    99
    South of Indy
    I don't entirely disagree with your logic, but your 100 yard limit is a bit unrealistic. That, or naive to the more modern types of ammo available.

    I grant you, a .22 is still a .22, but if you had a better chance to observe the effects of heavy load .223 at 300 yards, or even further, your opinion of the round might be changed for the better.

    Is it ever going to be a medium-weight medium-capacity contender to something like a 6.5-08, .308, etc.? No.

    But neither is your quoted 7.62x39. Not even a semblance of the same thing.

    -Nate

    I'm tickled pink the modern ammo is more practical. By the same thinking I have zero issues if OUR military can utilize better weapons than the M16/M4. IF it's better and does it's job better than why would any of us be against a better military issue weapon?
     

    natdscott

    User Unknown
    Trainer Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 20, 2015
    2,797
    113
    .
    And if you're in Mozambique in about 1969...

    -Nate
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom