|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 5, 2009, 06:23 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
|
Suppressive fire and the 5.56 for civilian defense
I have been pondering the popularity of 5.56mm rifles for civilian defensive and "SHTF" scenarios. While the rifles are bound to be adequate for the majority of defensive situations a civilian is going to find themselves in, I can't help but wonder how many are confused about the tactics likely to be employed in these scenarios, esp with regard to cover or suppressive fire.
Consider that the 5.56x45 makes it as a combat round due to the tactics and military doctrine that it is employed with and the support that is available--none of which is applicable or available to civilian defense or social disorder. The round's greatest advantages are in many cases barely even appreciable to civilian use. For example, the low weight of ammo and of rifles so chambered allowing more ammo to be carried. And the low recoil impulse allowing greater controllability on full auto. The chances of a civilian being put in a position where he/she is actively patrolling a dangerous area on foot are virtually non-existent. In nearly any conceivable situation, by the time things are escalated to violence, the average civilian is probably better off posting up in a defensible position. The amount of ammo and to a certain extent, even the weapon weight is almost completely irrelevant, as ammo can be stockpiled in doors, and the practical differences between an 8 pound 5.56 and a 12 pound 7.62 is hardly worth noting to any decently fit adult. Furthermore, the tactics employed with the round on the battlefield are 100% completely inapplicable to civilian defensive strategy. First of all, these tactics involve multiple trained operators getting on line with a hostile contact and suppressing it. Once the contact has been suppressed, one unit flanks the position while the other continues to suppress it. A single person can not provide effective suppressive fire and move. These tactics are ineffective with only one person. Likewise, civilians are unlikely to have the weapons and equipment necessary to be truly effective in this role. In the military, the FN M249 Squad Automatic Weapon provides somewhere around 70% of the fire team's firepower and is the primary weapon used to suppress the enemy. However, even with a small group of properly trained people, say you and some buddies from the Army, the tactics still have no use in civilian applications. As a civilian, you are, one way or another, going to be held accountable for every single round that you fire. Barring the apocalypse, and a complete breakdown of government on all levels, suppressive fire is reckless, irresponsible, and both legally and morally unjustifiable. It's not collateral damage in the civilian world. It's murder. Finally, the success of the 5.56 as a modern infantry cartridge relies heavily on the presence of heavier support weapons, which, again, are unlikely to be present in any civilian scenario. Civilians aren't going to have access to M2BHs, Mk 19s, M240B/G, M203s, or to Strikers and Cobra gunships. As a civilian, nearly all entertain-able scenarios are going to rely on sound, applicable tactics and planning. While this may vary depending on your location and the exact situation, most are going to require you make the most with what you got, and get more done with less. This is why I am an advocate of 7.62mm rifles for civilian defense. They give the civilian more bang for the buck. And since all the reasons for the 7.62 being eclipsed as a standard issue infantry round are largely or completely inapplicable to civilian defense, a 7.62mm rifle like the FAL or M1A, or even a good bolt action, makes a lot more sense for the majority of civilians. A 168 gr OTM or Hornady TAP is going to provide better terminal ballistics at all ranges than any 5.56 load. This means it is much more likely to disable a hostile target with fewer rounds. Fewer rounds, especially when aimed, means less chance of harming an innocent 3rd party. The 7.62, so loaded for such an effect, is also going to be more effective at disabling vehicles or personnel with body armor. Basically, a good 7.62mm rifle represents the largest amount of firepower, of bang for the buck, available to the civilian. It can provide 70% of the tissue damage done by a 12 gauge buckshot load up close and it can provide nearly twice the effective range of 5.56mm rifles.
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK." ~Dave R. |
January 5, 2009, 08:06 PM | #2 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 23, 2008
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 411
|
you're right, a .308 kicks ass and a 5.56 doesnt.
|
January 5, 2009, 08:08 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 7, 2006
Posts: 161
|
Excellent post, very interesting. also might want to add that the "sporting" calibers are also less menecing to the uninformed public eye. 7.62, 30-06, 7.62x54 ... ect are highly effective rounds for deliberate aimed fire as well as being available in a number of quality affordable rifles. plus the added benefit of cheap military surplus ammo make them excellent choices. great post, I agree 100%
|
January 5, 2009, 08:12 PM | #4 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
January 5, 2009, 08:29 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 8, 2001
Location: North Central Florida & Miami
Posts: 3,208
|
a way 'over thought and over analyzed' post.
An AR is a dandy defensive rifle for us regular guys.
__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.".........Ronald Reagan |
January 5, 2009, 08:31 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
|
When instances of civilian defensive use of the 5.56 coupled with reports of failure perform begin to mount up, something unlikely to happen, this MAY be a concern. Emphasis on the word "may." Until then it seems to be a re-packaging of the largely academic 7.62 vs. 5.56 debate.
__________________
Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective |
January 5, 2009, 09:31 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 19, 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 250
|
Interesting post, I agree with most of it, yet, I don't think any one has loosened their grip on their black rifles . And realistically in a "SHTF" scenario, there are worst firearms one could find him/herself stuck with right?
|
January 5, 2009, 09:55 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2006
Location: Pueblo, Colorado
Posts: 2,664
|
what about people fleeing the area on foot rather than staying put? an AR15 would be a lot easier to pack into the hills.
although since this situation is very unlikely, a 12ga would make more sense
__________________
I don't collect guns, I accumulate them. Last edited by bigghoss; January 5, 2009 at 10:01 PM. |
January 6, 2009, 12:09 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
I'll agree that round for round 7.62Nato wins. The OP did overlook a few things, like availability, cost, and the fact that low recoil improves follow-up speed.
|
January 6, 2009, 06:27 AM | #10 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2000
Location: Tarheel
Posts: 199
|
Quote:
.223 or .308 I always grab the .223 if I think I need a rifle out back. If the crap really did hit the fan, although self protection is important, as a society we'll have more important things to try to figure out. Heck, things THAT bad, probably hard to beat a nice pistol. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
slow is fast |
|||
January 6, 2009, 10:45 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 589
|
Having humped 7.62 and 5.56 rifles and ammo in combat, I can say that both systems have their pluses and minuses. What makes the different rounds really work well is shot placement and the tactics behind their uses. Tactics in this situation includes timing of engagements, shot placement and shooting distances. Tactics are based more on common sense rather than the military versus civilian mindset and larger firepower support services. After all, many of us who are or were military originally came out of the civilian tactical arena first. So both groups are more or less interlocked by personnel and technology. The OP also fails to take into consideration the newer technology involving the newer 6.5 Grendel systems and the 6.8 SPC systems. Then you have the new factors involving the 7.62 X 39 firearms too. So while the 7.62 NATO ammo is good, it is quickly being overshadowed by newer technology. When one looks at the 6.5 Grendel ammo and rifles, one is very curious as to why that round is not being used to replace both the 5.56 and the 7.62 NATO ammo. The factors involving prohibiting the 6.5 Grendel are cost and licensing challenges which are obvious if you research it a little. But, given time, the 6.5 Grendel may eventually win out as it already has proponents in place singing its praises. Then there is the brand new 6 millimeter family of rifles and ammunition which is just starting to surface for possible military and civilian use. Sure the 7.62 NATO is good but eventually time, training and technology will dictate to us who shoot what is good and what is not.
|
January 6, 2009, 10:52 AM | #12 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
|
|
January 6, 2009, 12:02 PM | #13 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: Spartanburg, SC
Posts: 2,933
|
To quote a line from "Porky's":
"Grab anything that shoots, boys, and come on." Last edited by Keltyke; January 6, 2009 at 03:03 PM. |
January 6, 2009, 12:59 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 6, 2008
Posts: 181
|
I think your post has some merit and I agree with some of the points. My military experience was mainly with A1's and 5.56, so my opinion is biased. The main reason I've stuck with .223/5.56 as a civilian is pretty simple: cost. Now that Uncle Sam isn't supplying me with ammo I've found that I can shoot more for the same money with 5.56, and at this stage of my life that's very important.
I was impressed with what the M60 could do though - what's considered cover against 5.56 is sometimes only concealment to the 7.62 round... In a real SHTF situation you should probably be escaping and evading instead of trying to use supressive fires, but that's just me. |
January 6, 2009, 01:18 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2008
Location: West by God Virginia
Posts: 109
|
I don't see suppressive fire being of use. You would have to have a squad with you to suppress fire while you move,then you suppress while they move.
Whatever rifle is used,a person will need to fire accurate shots,then move,take cover and fire again until the escape/evasion is successful. If you have more than one eg. yourself, then the EE will be easier to accomplish. The trick to using your rifle,is to be able to shoot it well enough to avoid being in close range of your adversary,eg. less than 200 meters..if you can stay 300 meters away from the enemy,and bring accurate fire from there,you will be much more likely to escape,or even eliminate the opposing force. That is why I prefer a .30 caliber round. My personal choice is the .308 in the M1-A, but that is just the rifle I'm used too,and know it's capabilities.The thing is to know your weapon,what ever you are using,and be able to shoot accurately to 500 meters. My feeling is if you are in pistol range of the enemy,something has gone dreadfully wrong.. |
January 6, 2009, 01:38 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 29, 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,391
|
Actually, I thought he said "Grab anything that kills..." (pronounced keels)
Umm... what is suppressive fire? Isn't that just pretty much spray and pray firing? I mean this is an odd doctorine to come from a nation of marksmen. If anything, it would be cool to have a calico .22lr mounted to an AR like an M203 so just in case you have to throw a lot of lead at an area. Why? Well, it makes the MG noise to keep their heads down, and .22lr is easy to carry.
__________________
How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? |
January 6, 2009, 01:43 PM | #17 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
What sort of civilian situation calls for suppressive fire from a rifle? (or any gun for that matter.)
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
January 6, 2009, 01:55 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2008
Location: West by God Virginia
Posts: 109
|
Peetza,I guess that is what I was trying to say...
|
January 6, 2009, 09:48 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 10, 2007
Location: Racoon City
Posts: 934
|
Quote:
Frankly, if we feel the need to teach these tactics to anyone, it ought to be US civilians. |
|
January 7, 2009, 11:44 AM | #20 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
January 7, 2009, 12:53 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 28, 2000
Posts: 4,055
|
Completely pointless waste of time to argue about the two.
For defensive purposes: 1) have a gun 2) know how to use it 3) if possible, have a long gun Tactics and marksmanship are far more important to the outcome than any difference in the terminal ballistics of one rifle caliber versus another. |
January 7, 2009, 10:52 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 10, 2007
Location: Racoon City
Posts: 934
|
Quote:
|
|
January 8, 2009, 12:25 AM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Lancaster Co, PA
Posts: 2,311
|
Quote:
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws--that's insane!" - Penn Jillette |
|
January 8, 2009, 01:51 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Location: Fort Wayne Ind.
Posts: 866
|
Quote:
uh...........darn........ wish I had known that sooner. anybody want to buy any Strikers or a Cobra gunship? |
|
January 8, 2009, 01:54 PM | #25 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|