Some down under stuff

[martins8589]

There was a report done some time ago about the effectiveness of the 5.56 against certain hard & soft targets in Afghanistan and in the words of the soldiers that used the weapon including the 9mm they felt the round wanting as there were cases of multiple hits on enemy combatants and not putting them down. It also lacked penetration on the mud huts according to this report what the soldiers felt was the 7.62 Nato round was adequate for the job the 45ACP was a better choice than the 9mm the 50 BMG was still the Ma Deuce of the battle field in their opinion.

If clerks and cooks have to grab a rifle then the front is in dire straights sort of like the Ardennes in WWII

I didn't say it was the best Infantry weapon. And sure 7.62 had the penetration/kill shock factor as well. I am sure you have used both.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[CINDERS]

and in the words of the soldiers

#12 These are the people who made the comments not me on that report I was only paraphrasing what was said by them in that report which is from the people at the sharp end it will carry more weight if the brass is listening than some back room boffin playing with their slide rule that the 5.56 blows arms off and puts them down with hydraulic shock (ala Vietnam conflict). Besides I personally did not say anything belittling the 5.56!!!!!

As a clarification to #10 it was U.S troops that the survey/report was compiled by not Australian troops, sorry I omitted that which may have caused a tad of confusion.