5.56, 6.8, 308 rifle ammo test

www.armedresponsetraining.com
5.56, 6.8, 308 rifle ammo test

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• 5.56
• 6.8
• 308
• rifle
• ammo
• test

[MrTieDye]

That was great!

Now let's get our troops on our border and continue that testing!

[MrGatoMan1]

Its impressive what a bullet will do to a water filled container but it isnt accurate when testing round effectiveness against organic tissue. Ballistics media is much better for that.

[edgybob1]

When I go against water jugs attacking, I want the .308! : )

Great video.

[LarryHarveyMusic]

Why does EVErything ON THE INTERNET TURN INTO A PISSING MATCH? I'm trying to decide which AR to buy 6.8 or .308. Will be used for target and hunting. I was so sure of getting a Stag L5 in 6.8 I started buying ammo. Then got a Saiga 12 and now having thoughts of a 308. Anyone seen a comparison anywhere? Thanks.

[budmaster555666]

@MrGatoMan1 really !!!!!!!

[HunterHornet]

testing should be done with full metal jacket for all.

[Mainsail76]

@usarmycaptainamerica I don't concede any point. How can I concede a point that I didn't bring up. Did I ever bring up the topic of 5.56 vs. Nato 7.62? Was I debating that issue? Read my original post. After that, read my first response to your response. After that, read my third response. If you can't figure it out, I can't help you. You brought up the myth of "wound not kill" twice, and now you want me to concede on a topic that I didn't bring up? Again, read my first post.

[usarmycaptainamerica]

@Mainsail76 -- A 5.56 can be lethal but again is far less than lethal in contrast to the round it replaced do you conced that point or not?

[usarmycaptainamerica]

@Mainsail76 --I don't have official documentation in my back pocket, sorry.

It has been stated by other Soldiers other than myself.

Macamera pushed for the adoption of the round, it was a radical departure from anything in the history of the country and as I said its lack of wounding in contrast to the 7.62x51 was well known.

Do you honestly think that the 5.56 rounds is anywhere close to the 7.62 in regards to wounding?

[Mainsail76]

@usarmycaptainamerica Can you provide OFFICIAL military documentation stating that the 5.56 was designed to wound and not kill? A link would be ok. The "wound not kill" issue is a myth. No weapons designer would ever develop a combat weapon that's main function is to NOT kill the enemy. That's absurd, and it would be a criminal action to send soldiers into combat with a less than lethal weapon designed to be as much. You might not like the round, but it's not designed to be less than lethal.

[usarmycaptainamerica]

@Mainsail76-- You said each caliber is potentialy lethal, and I agree. However the 5.56 was designed for the American military NOT TO KILL but more so to injure, period.

The Russians did not design the 7.62x39 to kill prairie dogs it was designed to kill people. After man shootings in Iraq and Afghanistan with multiple hits from a 5.56 round with poor terminal ballistics the military is looking to go to a more lethal caliber and reliable rifle.

[usarmycaptainamerica]

@Mainsail76-- First and foremost shot placement is EVERYTHING. Next in line would be penetration does the bullet go deep enough to hit vital organs. #rd would be exansion if any in the case of the 5.56 the bullet yaws to the extreme and furthers damage.

The bullet however because it is so light during Vietnam tended to get caught up and its trajectory easily altered by vegetation, the 7,62x39 would punch through foliage and even tree trunks.