National Gun Forum banner

SEALs use 7.62x51. . . and so should you.

7K views 39 replies 16 participants last post by  Alan R McDaniel Jr 
#1 · (Edited)
So, I've never really been a fan of ARs. I've always thought .556 was just an anemic round for a rifle. I never really could understand why the military uses it. (Well I do. . . but it's for logistics reasons - not the effectiveness of the round.)

So the other day, I was watching some shows about the SEALs and I got to thinking about it. So did a little light research on the topic. Sure enough while SEALs still have and occasionally use M4s. . . they've really moved to the SCAR-H platform with it's 7.62x51 cartridge for primary use.

So my question becomes. . . why is everyone always touting the "lethality" of the .223/.556 round. Sure, it's better than a pistol. . . but if you're going to do a rifle, do it right. Stories from the sandbox are filled with our troops being dismayed over having to shoot enemies 5 or 6 times in order to drop them. If you're going to do that here at home, you might as well use a PCC and get the reduced blast effect.

Of course that doesn't give you a 300+ yard engagement range. . . but for civilian purposes, that's unnecessary. If you want military-grade capability to engage targets at rage. . . go with 7.62x51.

So as blasphemous as it is to say. . . I'm going to say an AR-15 is pretty much a pointless rifle for a civilian to own. . . UNLESS you're ex-military and have a lot of trigger time on one already.

Instead, use a pistol-caliber-carbine for home defense. . . or a rifle chambered in .308 or 7.62x51 if you live in a rural area and want some long-distance engagement capability.

Of course if you just want a rifle to plink with and cheap ammo to go with it. . . well the AR is a solid choice in that regard. I just wish people would stop holding it up as the be-all and end-all of civilian defense rifles.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
And that is what I did!
 
#4 ·
I cried for days after they took my M-14 away from me. I really cried when we were trying to take Hills 881 North and South away from the NVA in March 1967. I got about 17 rounds out of it before I stripped a case and fouled the chamber. Problems with the powder they said. Problems with the bore and chamber they said. My questions was and is ..... If it wasn't fully ready for combat operations what the hell was it doing in Vietnam? Thank you LBJ (D) and Mr MacNamara (D). Oh well. As you might guess I am not a fan of the M-16.
 
#6 · (Edited)
I feel for you, I really do. I joined the Navy right after Viet Nam. In 1977 when i joined up I was only 17 years old. The Mi6's of old are nothing like what they are today. You'd have been best off grabbing the first AK you got from a dead NV and taking the ammo too. AK's aren't as accurate over distance but you can damn well drop one in mud, go back and get it a few hours later and when you squeeze the trigger it still goes bank and just spits the mud out of the barrel.

I hate to think of how many of our guys lives were lost because their weapon didn't work properly. Granted, Viet Nam was a SNAFU to start with. Never let politicians run a war - especially dumbocrats. They damn sure didn't learn a lesson with Korea. If you want to win a war, you let the generals and admirals get the job done.

The M14 was a very fine weapon for war. I'd have rather had an M1 than one of the early M16's in combat. When I joined the Navy and we were getting our first rifle training we didn't even have M16's yet. We were taught with M1's and M14's. It was with those that I qualified as Marksman. I then qualified as pistol marksman also with the Colt 1911. I think it was also very stupid of our military to change to the Beretta 92's 9mm. series. That was almost as stupid as putting the original M16's in our soldiers hands without having them fully functional, reliable and tested.

I still can't believe that our military gave up the 1911 .45 when what they really would have benefited from would have been a double stack mag version of the 1911. The 1911 .45 was designed and created very soon after the Spanish - American war back in the late 1890's. The Marines had .38 pistols and stated that when they shot the enemy, he kept on coming. The 1911 .45 fixed that problem. So, to change to a 9mm is plain stupid. It puts the soldiers right back where they were in 1898. A 9mm bullet is basically the same as a .38 special. A .45 bullet makes a much bigger hole.
 
#5 · (Edited)
So my question becomes. . . why is everyone always touting the "lethality" of the .223/.556 round.
So my question becomes who is this everyone you speak of? I certainly can't speak for everyone but can offer my view and just my view. I do not use a rifle for home defense for me it would be a stupid choice in any caliber. Hell, the longest possible shot in the entire house is likely 30 feet. Kids grown and gone, just my wife and I plus two large dogs. My nightstand has a 1911 .45 ACP with 8 rounds, her's is a little Walther PPK.

While I have several AR15 rifles in 5.56mm and a 5.56 bolt gun I am in the group that just enjoys shooting the things. I sure as hell do not find the round to be some magic great and powerful round. Yes, it will kill things but given a choice for killing things I prefer the 7.62 in my AR10 or bolt gun over the little 223 and really enjoy my M1A being a child of the M14.

When hunting most people choose the gun and cartridge for the game and terrain. I see that as logical for home defense as well. If an AR15 type rifle is all you have then that becomes your home defense weapon of choice, since there is no choice.

So as blasphemous as it is to say. . . I'm going to say an AR-15 is pretty much a pointless rifle for a civilian to own. . . UNLESS you're ex-military and have a lot of trigger time on one already.
I don't see it as "pointless" to own as many people just like myself simply enjoy shooting the things. People tend to own and shoot whatever trips their trigger and for many the AR15 does just that. No shortage of rifles I enjoy shooting more than the AR15 but I also enjoy shooting the AR15. :)

Ron
 
#14 · (Edited)
My my personal home defense options are a Beretta CX4 storm in 9mm with a red dot and 30 round magazine... Or an FNX-45 with a TLR1 and it's lovely 15+1 rounds of .45 ACP.

The Storm is my first choice because I live in an open floor plan loft downtown in our medium sized city. A 15 yard engagement range is definitely a possibility. But I keep the FNX handy also in case I have only a second or two. Honestly, we live behind a locked, steel fire door. So fortunately chances of me ever needing either are slim to none... But it never hurts to be prepared.

Plus, you never know when some kind of Katrina level SHTF scenario could occur. I don't think there's much chance of an apocalyptic type event in my lifetime... But nowadays could easily see a need to be able to fend for yourself for a couple weeks before order is restored. Just look at the various riots we've been seeing. Imagine how quickly things head south if the power grid goes down for a week or two due to Chinese hackers or plain old government incompetence.
 
#12 ·
Personally, I'm quite satisfied with a 7.62x39 on an AR platform. I can still carry lots of CHEAP bullets, make a lot of noise, and anything that hasn't run away by the time I crank out 27 of those rascals will either be well perforated or too much for me to handle. A long range engagement with a self defense plea may be a stretch. My idea of a home, self-defense weapon is a shotgun the number of little holes it can make fast becomes irrelevant to the conversation.

I always liked Jeff Cooper's quote on shotguns. He said, "Engagements involving a shotgun are of of relative short duration".

Alan
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunzilla and Popeye
#13 ·
I also use to think I would never need an AR10 for survival and I agree the shot gun is the way to go. That is why it is on the side of my bed every night.


I must say that a lot of things have happened in the last 6 years to change my opinion of the need for an AR10. No I still do not have it loaded and beside my bed so there is no expectation of use for every day home defense. But I also never thought I would see the current POTUS reelected either.
 
#22 ·
Mine is the exact sound that 12,000,000 crickets would make in a washtub, … all the time.

Alan
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ziggidy
#26 ·
Suppressors are amazing lil' gadgets.
Think I'll be suppressing most of my stuff next year, still waiting on the can for my .308.
Apparently it does alright on a 5.56 too though. I'm not sure if my hearing is that far gone
or if my AR isn't that loud, but it doesn't really bother me to shoot it without earmuffs.
I will say my 12 gauge with the 18.5" barrel literally hurts my ears without muffs.

On a semi-related note, has anybody gotten in any trigger time with the Salvo 12 from SilencerCo?
 
#27 ·
Not everyone uses ball ammo for home defense...A 55gr NBT or 69/77gr SMK will ruin your day. Saying the Ar platform in 223/556 is weak for home defense has no merit. Just for the record, there are thousands of dead terrorists that would disagree with the lethality of the 556 and ball ammo. Just because you shoot a 45/9mm/308/shotgun or whatever guarantees you NOTHING. I dont care what you choose for home defense as long as you choose something. But dont tell me my choice sucks because of something you read on the internet.
 
#28 · (Edited)
Well , shoot anyone enough times and they'll die.

However, most of those dead terrorists died to heavy weapons. If you want to claim dead terrorists as evidence of the effectiveness of your HD weapon, you must be defending your home with an Apache helicopter, an A-10, an Abrams MBT, a .50 cal MG.... Or if worst comes to worst an M240 machine gun.... Which happens to be chambered in 7.62.
 
#29 ·
I don't have any problem using an AR in .223 for home defense. I doubt if the BGs willbe laughing it off as ineffective. My preference for a shotgun are that it is extremely effective in both its visual effect and its terminal effect. AND , probably more importantly these day, when I'm talking to the Police and the lawyer representing the family of the recently deceased BG I will say that I had no choice, being in fear for mone and my family's life, but to use my old double barreled hunting shotgun to stop him as opposed to an AR 15 assault weapon with a high capacity 30 round magazine... That's all.

Alan
 
#30 · (Edited)
Well, if you "Jimminy Cricket" shooters had been using yer Binford 7000 Ear-defender muffs, like was taught in school - had you been in attendance - you might not being the price for yer slothful negligence of personal safety. Unbelievable!

Excuse me now, I heard dog-whistles......from all directions........somewhere......

Oh....P.S..........."why is everyone always touting the "lethality" of the .223/5.56mm round?"

Though I am a .30 caliber rifle advocate, if Osama bin Laden could speak, I'm pretty sure of what he would say about the 5.56mm NATO rounds lethality. Also, I don't own an evil, black rifle. But for those who do and have them for the side role of home defense, you guys aren't bound by Geneva Convention rules, Therefor, hollow-point and exposed lead-tip ammo is allowable. Have you ever seen what these do to coyotes?
 
#32 · (Edited)
I'll have you know that I was in attendance every day, and they'll never prove otherwise. The statute of limitations has long run out on that one!

I've used the 222 Remington, the 223 Remington, and the 222 Remington Magnum to great effect on a lot of different animals. I don't have a single doubt about my ability to place a 55 gr sierra in the exact spot on a white-tailed deer to make it drop in its tracks. They are light on the shoulder and are extremely effective. The only issues I ever had with them was when I was trying to use the wrong bullet for the application.

Now, with that said, I will repeat the experience that caused me to get a 7.62x39 upper for my Colt lower. #3 son and I were banging away at a 1/4 inch steel plate (actually I think it was 5/16). I was using cheap Monarch steel case FMJ 223 from my Bushmaster. He was using cheap Monarch steel case FMJ 7.62x36 from an SKS.

My rounds were making little splatter marks on the steel and his were punching through. So I decided that for my go to ranch rifle, I wanted a 7.62x39. No less controllable than the 223 and more powerful AND Cheaper to shoot.

So, my solution to this problem was to have both.

I also have 308s, 30-06s, and lots of other calibers and cartridges and rifles to shoot them.

I really don't expect to ever have to be in combat and IF that ever happens I'll likely be to old to run or give a $#!^ and will be content to sit on a hill and take pot shots at whoever until they get tired of it.

I really don't expect to ever have to defend my home and hearth from BGs either. Our BGs here just aren't that bad, so the shotgun loaded with something I'd hunt geese with will do the trick.

I would really be a little bit wary of using any kind of rifle for home defense. Something that won't got through walls but could provide the stopping power you would want in those situations would be tough to come up with.


My understanding of why the military chose the 223 was that it was useable on a small carbine action and soldiers could carry lots of ammo. Personally, I like the lots of ammo concept.

As far as lethality goes, well there are exceptions to every rule. I've heard of VC being cut in half by GIs with a strong survival instinct using the 223. I also know a guy who took 4 7.62x39 rounds across his torso and he's still kicking as strong as ever. You just can't be sure of something in every case.

In the hills and jungles of Vietnam and the like, the AR platform and the 223 might be the ticket. Get out in the sand at some longer ranges and something else might be better.

I'm glad I don't have to worry about it other than on an internet forum.


Alan
 
#31 ·
There's a lot of horseshit being spewed on the internet, mostly by those who rarely leave their mother's basement, concerning the 'shortcomings' of the of the 5.56 round. Don't you believe it.

Even back in 'Nam during the 1960s it wasn't the caliber causing problems. A hit from a 5.56 round would put a hurtin' on Charlie, right now. Believe me, I was there for two tours.

Was the M16/M16A1 my first choice for a combat rifle in 'Nam? Nope. But that long M14 barrel got difficult to maneuver in thick vegetation (Springfield, Inc. hadn't invented the Scout yet), it was heavy and its full-auto capability was/is a joke. Plus, it was comforting to pack all that extra ammo without added weight. Ya see? Its what we were issued so we used it and we used it well.

No matter what weapons systems are adopted by the US military there are those who will (for whatever reason) find fault. These complaints are then taken up and embellished on then spread wide and deep by the aforementioned keyboard commandos. Their ignorance seems to be contagious .

Didja know that the M1903 Springfield was badmouthed by Krag-Jorgensen rifle adherents, the M1 Garand was blasted by M1903 supporters, the M14 was denigrated by M1 Garand lovers? Times change. Weapons change. Tactics change. None are perfect and all have teething problems.
 
#33 ·
So my question becomes. . . why is everyone always touting the "lethality" of the .223/.556 round. Sure, it's better than a pistol. . . but if you're going to do a rifle, do it right. Stories from the sandbox are filled with our troops being dismayed over having to shoot enemies 5 or 6 times in order to drop them.
The problem with our troops having to shoot the enemy 5 or 6 times has nothing to do with the rifle or caliber. The problem is with the Hague Convention treaty of 1899, which the United States signed, that forces us to abstain from using "bullets which expand or flatten easilyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet in the human body."; aka, hollow point ammo, soft point ammo, etc.
 
#34 ·
Really, I don't see the downside to shooting ********* 5 or 6 times each…

Alan
 
#36 ·
Except if you only need to shoot a ******* once, you then can shoot 5 or 6 times more ********. Text Font
 
#37 ·
I worked daily around Navy SEALs stationed in Ramadi, Iraq from 2008-2010. All but a few were issued M4s. I never heard any of them complain about the effectiveness of the 5.56 round. Unless you can get daily resupply of ammo you might have a bit of trouble packing a .308 in a war zone. Ammo gets a bit heavy, and SEALs are known for shooting lots of ammo. Great weapon for some missions, the M4 is probably more effective in others. I have a HK91 that I've enjoyed for a lot of years, but if I needed to pack one rifle for defensive purposes, I'm pretty sure I'd go with a short barreled 5.56. But then, I'm not a Navy SEAL.
 
#38 ·
I was doing research on the AR 223 configuration in the wake of Sandy Hook Lawsuit and found that there is a modification you can make - replace the upper receiver and use the .458 SOCOM round. no other changes required. 30 round 223 holds 9 .458, the muzzle velocity is down to suppressible levels. It would meet the Gun banners usual definition of a "civilian" rifle. What I found ironic was that this configuration was developed for house to house clearing in Fallujah when the soldiers were not getting one shot knockdowns with the 223. As I said in my blog, When it comes to close quarters combat - it doesn't matter if your the good guy kicking in the door or the good guy defensing the other side of the door - combat is combat and what works offensively will work defensively as well
 
#40 ·
...the .458 SOCOM round. no other changes required. 30 round 223 holds 9 .458, the muzzle velocity is down to suppressible levels. ...
I guess I've been under a rock. This is intriguing! I am more of a hunter than a house clearer, and since I've been going lighter for some number of years now this may be an interesting addition to my hunting rifles. I've always liked the 35 Rem because of all the things the 458 SOCOM seems to be.

Alan
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top