I'm actually thinking about selling this package at the moment...
Stuka's post about the POF in 7.62 got me on a rampage, and I happened to trip across one... Household six (aka my wife... "Six" is typically part of the call sign for the commander in the military) put her foot down and said one has to go, before another can come in... She's been righteous in being supportive with getting my start up off the ground, so I'm not inclined to argue.

 

Get it! Get it! Get it!

Then write up a review and I can send it to my wife to show her why we "need" this rifle.

 

I think the 556 is such an anemic round that is best suited for varmint and paper punching...granted yes, I wouldn't want to get hit by one. I personally prefer something with a larger transfer of energy to ensure a higher probability of termination.

 

I'll take the 556, or 545 up in close and personal any day. Certainly not at range.

The damage done by those rounds in close is catastrophic, which is why even the Russians went to that round. Sure a 762 would rip a cinder block to shreds, but it failed to do a lot of damage to a body.

 

Having never shot anyone with either round, I was just wondering why 762 is being used again now in Iraq, and why your post about that gun fight in Iraq where the terrorist was shot 3, 4 times with 556 and kept on going.

So when do 762 becomes useful, and 556 becomes not so useful? And vice versa.

Just wondering.

 

Very valid questions.

One of the primary reasons for 762 being so widely used is because it is so, extremely available; and it will work in a lot of weapons. You can't go wrong with a 762, no matter what.

But since we're not being shot at, we have the luxury of splitting hairs.
While the 762 carry's more mass and inertia, it is those variables that create the other side of the sword. A 762 round may punch straight through a target, missing anything critical.

A 556, or 545, will not punch through; it will hit and start tumbling inside, shredding internal organs.

Now... Shooting someone with a 556, who is hopped up on some kind of dope may not drop him; because the round got in and shredded things up, instead of lopping off a limb. A 762 can tear away a limb, or bone, making the doped up fighter drop. He may live however. But therein lies the discussion that he is wounded, and if his buddies give a damn, it'll take a couple of them to haul him off.

The discussion is very circular. Frankly, in close quarters, I'll take the 556, and all the extra ammo I can carry.

My last gig in the Army gave me the opportunity to carry an AK, both 47, and 74 models. And naturally, we had to stay current on our own weapons; so I was able to definitively feel the difference in how much ammo I could carry.

All of that lovely theoretical discussion said, I'll take what I can get when the SHTF.

 

EO-Tech is my choice after using Aimpoints and ACOGs. The Aimpoint has a tiny field of view (even the Reflex models) IMO and ACOGs are more specialized. If I were going to Afghanistan, I'd take a 4x32 ACOG over the EO-Tech. In Iraq, EO-Tech makes more sense (and for my civilian needs). It works w/NODs, it works after submersion, it can take a beating (ACOG can too). I love them. The only downsides are the cost and they're a little bulky.

As for the 7.62 vs. 5.56 debate, again depends on the need. All around, I'd go with 5.56 just because it's easy to lug tons of ammo, easy recovery between shots, etc. It's all shot placement... Ballistically, again, in Afghanistan I'd take an SR-25/HK417/SCAR-H with an ACOG or US Optics 1-4x46mm. Greater ranges and all that. Within 200m, I'll go with the M4 variant (416, etc.) and an EO-Tech w/MK 262 77gr rounds. Better terminal ballistics.

Really it's all moot when you consider that 9 out of 10 times it's a matter of general proficiency whether it be an MP5 or an M14. If you hit what you're aiming at, you'll win.

 

I have 110 grain 762 hollow points for my Scout at home, wouldn't the hollow point make sure that the perp gets the maximum energy absorption?

On that note, is it because that you guys are not allowed to use hollow point which makes 556 better up to 200m because it tumbles versus a 762 hollow point in 200m which sounds pretty scary on the receiving end?

Would a 762 hollow point do the job of shattering bones and causing hydrostatic shock versus 762 FMJ that you guys have to use?

And why not use large caliber hollow point for cqb?

As you can tell, I am no army guy, and would appreciate your insight.

One other thing, one of my staff who used to be in the army told me that have gone to single and 3 burst only on the M16, why?

 

Hollow point rounds are a bit specialized as far as getting the rounds out to the guys on the ground. Manufacturers are having a hard time keeping up with fmj rounds as it is. And I do not think that there is a significant amount of difference in damage done frankly.

Like Chris said, its is all about weapons proficiency. And that also speaks to the doctrine behind AK's and M4/M16. Soviet Bloc tactics don't rely on a significant amount of proficiency on the behalf of their troops. They are taught to spray a lot of big, readily available rounds, via human wave attack down range. Some Soviet and Chi-com muzzle breaks are even designed to help the spray of rounds.

US doctrine places a priority on marksmanship, and shot placement. Hence a round that is not intended to be sprayed, but placed effectively in a manner that will do max damage. US doctrine quite literally is built upon a volunteer, professional soldier that will work to maintain proficiency, and use his own mind to assist in mission accomplishment. A massive amount of empowerment is done at the non-commissioned officer level (that 20 year old sergeant). That sounds ambiguous, but it is an expectation of our military and it is unique.

That leads to the switches that were placed on some of our weapons, limiting bursts to three rounds, or semi auto. The reality is that this goes back to the emphasis on marksmanship. Fully automatic fire is only good for suppressing fire, it is not accurate. Which incidentally, the M4 series and older M16 variants are actually good at suppressing fire out to roughly 600 meters for grazing fire. The 556 M249 is a squad based automatic rifle that will tear anything up out to 800 meters. And because it is 556, there is a lot of ammo to be had, and carried. The limitation of shots fired is intended to keep the emphasis placed upon marksmanship.

 

Thanks for the edumacation.

I still want that POF P308.