Kalashnikov Dead

[HoreTore]

Anything but urban warfare, and it seems ridiculous to choose 7,62 over 5,56. No?

Given that 90% of the fighting in Norway would take place in, and around, fjords... Well go figure.

Uhm, what? The 7.62 was chosen due to our fjords(or more specifically, our northern wasteland), and the 5.56 is introduced because of its urban abilities.

[Kadagar_AV]

Uhm, what? The 7.62 was chosen due to our fjords(or more specifically, our northern wasteland), and the 5.56 is introduced because of its urban abilities.

So... You are doing it wrong then.

No wonder Sweden trampled you in each and every war.

Only positive with the 7.62 is the penetration in, say, concrete.

If you talk about effect on the human body, 5,56 wins. It also has less recoil and weights less (VERY important if you are an actual soldier).

There is a reason why all modern armies switched to 5.56 from 7.62

[HoreTore]

So... You are doing it wrong then.

No wonder Sweden trampled you in each and every war.

Only positive with the 7.62 is the penetration in, say, concrete.

If you talk about effect on the human body, 5,56 wins. It also has less recoil and weights less (VERY important if you are an actual soldier).

There is a reason why all modern armies switched to 5.56 from 7.62

As Seamus explained above, the 7.62 was introduced all across Nato back in the day, and the last batch of AG3's are from the very early 70's. The battle rifle has a longer range than the assault rifle, while the assault rifle is far less bulky to drag through doors and alleys and such.

Weight and recoil concerns are for girly swedes, not something proper vikings care about.

[Kadagar_AV]

Weight and recoil concerns are for girly swedes, not something proper vikings care about.

I guess that is either a winning or idiotic statement.

Let's just say the jury is out on that one.

[Beskar]

So this is a Swede in action?

[Kadagar_AV]

So this is a Swede in action?

Showing that recoil is a bad thingy isn't REALLY an argument against me here, is it?

The argument from me is more: The viking with less recoil will have a better chance at playing warfare.

See, with 5.56 you can have a assault rifle in one hand, and a two handed ax in the other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kadagar:

Each round represents different concepts/preference.

.30 rounds have a great deal of impact and are designed to kill a human target at range and to knock down any target hit even without a kill. Man-stopper. Assault rifles less so than old-style battle rifles, but still the emphasis is on stopping power.

.223 rounds do not create the same impact on a target, and were originally designed as a "wounding" weapon that would force an enemy to expend resources removing wounded warriors from a battlefield rather than gathering the ammo of a dead comrade and pushing forward.

Both will penetrate cinderblock at combat distances. The 7.62's mass is more destructive, but a human on the other side of the cinderblock still gets hit. Both will punch through small widths of steel. Functionally, penetration with standard rounds is probably a wash. The only real point of advantage for the 5.56 is against soft body armor, where its high speed and narrow hitting area allow it to exceed the tensile strength of the armor fibers slightly more effectively than the 7.62.

For those fjord-fights you allude to, where precision at distance would be of value, the real issues would be barrel length, bullet stability, and optics. A Garand might be better than any assault rifle in such conditions.

Logistically, the 5.56 allows a soldier to carry significantly more ammo and to fire a weapon for which the vast majority of the recoil can be cancelled out. Since most bullets in combat are used as suppressive fire, and a typical human is no less likely to duck when shot at with a 5.56 instead of a 7.62, more ammo is generally a useful idea.