|
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.
|