Tactical Arms - Scar H (Part 2 of 2)

Larry Vickers, co-host of Tactical Arms TV Show with Chief Monty Leclair (US Navy SEAL Sniper) on The Scar H (Part 2 of 2)
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJOhOUNIZeI (Part 1)

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Tactical
• Arms
• FN
• Scar
• Heavy
• 7.62
• 308
• Larry
• Vickers
• co-host
• TV
• Show
• Aimpoint
• T1
• Micro
• Eotech
• M4
• AR15
• AK
• Eagle
• Blue
• Force
• Gear
• Swarovsky
• Surefire
• Ubergroup
• Suunto
• Vltor
• Tango
• Down
• Daniel
• Defense
• Schmidt
• Bender
• SSR
• Sniper

[RaderizDorret]

(from previous comment) Considering how most people are poor marksmen, they should focus more on training than launching the biggest, baddest bullet. After all, the effectiveness of a miss is precisely zero.

[RaderizDorret]

The whole 5.56 vs 7.63 debate boils down to this: what do you want to do with it? 7.62 does have an advantage in terms of terminal performance at longer ranges and through barriers, but at the cost of heavier weight and recoil. The 5.56 is much more controllable, can carry more than double the load by weight compared to 7.62 and can do its job out to 600 if the shooter knows what he's doing (which he has to when you're talking about extended ranges). (cont)

[RaderizDorret]

@Plazma360 If 5.56 was "designed to wound/injure" then I guess it's defective since has killed a metric fuckton of people. Hell, early 5.56 was more deadly than early 7.62 Soviet because although the 7.62 did better against barriers, the actual wounds it left generally weren't that impressive. See Martin Fackler's writings on his experience as a medic in the miiltary for further details.

[RaderizDorret]

@DongHands84 I'm sure the Army and Marine designated marksmen who have confirmed kills out to 600+ yards with 5.56 would beg the differ regarding how effective that round is at longer ranges...

[albr00700]

@RaderizDorret you are right, firearms havn't evolved much since 400 years, but i think the concept now is at it s limits, now we can just make those principles lighter, easier to clean and to build and more reliable, thats all. The real evolution for me will be on the munition side, these havn't evolove since 400 years at all (oh yes from round they became cylindrical, but that s all +-.

[GUNS4MIKE1234]

@Plazma360 well thats where your wrong the last military force we fought that even had medics was WW2 maybe vietnam maybe even then most leave there friends to die and accept that they gave there life for there god and there country or they are to drugged to realize anyone has been shot.

[GUNS4MIKE1234]

@willbiltam08 That still is pritty common idk why you think a long range weapon helps unless you mean afganistan where you have to make long range shots I think we just need to accept that both are amazing and do the job they need to do and not get rid of eather concept.

[willbiltam08]

@Plazma360 ...which is how you end a firefight against an army (20th century warfare), not how you eliminate an insurgency (21st century warfare)

[Plazma360]

@DongHands84 i think the original concept of the assault rifle was that most engagements don't happen over 400 yards. hence it makes more sense to make a lighter, shorter gun with a larger capacity and less recoil. if you have guys at longer range or in good cover you probably need a more specialised weapon like a gpmg or GL

[DongHands84]

@Plazma360 Too bad the 5.56 is terrible for shooting through cover and only has an effective range against personnel of about 300 yards due to the loss of energy. I'd rather have a confirmed kill then an injured soldier that has a possibility of returning to the fight. I would rather have the 7.62 and not need the extra power and barrier penetration than have the 5.56 and need more.