I fully understand 5.56 NATO (corrected from 5.62)

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
Chas.
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Home of the Vols

I fully understand 5.56 NATO (corrected from 5.62)

Post by Chas. »

Went to the range today to shoot my favorite caliber - .45-70. This is not the first time I've drawn these conclusions, but the first time I've posted them. After shooting about 10 rounds, my barrel was so hot I couldn't hold my hand on it. After 20 rounds, I think you could have lit a cigarette on it and I let it cool. In addition, 100-200 rounds is HEAVY, when you carry it a while. I only had to tote it from the parking lot and couldn't imagine carrying it all day. Soldiers of the late 1800s were much the man. 5.56 certainly makes a lot more sense.
Last edited by Chas. on Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Terry Murbach
Shootist
Posts: 1682
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: BLACK HILLS, DAKOTA TERRITORY

Re: I fully understand 5.62 NATO

Post by Terry Murbach »

5.62 NATO ????
RIDE, SHOOT STRAIGHT, AND SPEAK THE TRUTH
243dave
Levergunner 1.0
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: Mooresville, NC

Re: I fully understand 5.62 NATO

Post by 243dave »

I think you mean 7.62 or 5.56 NATO. Either one without a doubt would be easier to carry than 45-70. The thing about about the light rounds is that just means the soldier carries more of them so the load is not lighter. The soldiers today carry more weight than ever. Body armour, night vision, and communication equipment is stuff the soldiers of old didn't have to pack.
Chas.
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Home of the Vols

Re: I fully understand 5.56 NATO (corrected from 5.62)

Post by Chas. »

Sorry, I've corrected the OP. I don't think in metric very well.
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 32135
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: I fully understand 5.56 NATO (corrected from 5.62)

Post by AJMD429 »

Nothin' wrong with 5.56/.223 - it's kind of the ".32-20 of bottleneck rounds" - light weight ammo, light recoil, very accurate, and powerful enough to do much of what needs doing.

It happened that circumstances gave us funny-looking 'plastic' semiauto rifles about the same time the .223 blossomed, but there are blued-steel-and-wood ones like Ruger's Mini-14 that is hard to criticize vs. the M-1A so many of us revere. Again, the cartridge shouldn't be blamed for the funny-looking guns they make for it, nor for the 'wounding the enemy is better than killing him' strategy the military came out with that goes along with having an easier-for-the-novice-to-learn low-recoil round.

Yeah, in a real "battle", a soldier who knows how to use a .308 would have some edge vs. a .223, and with a bear after me instead of a coyote, I'm sure I'd want a .444 or .45-70, instead of a .32-20, but for most stuff, the .223's and .32-20's of the world do just fine.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
Post Reply