5.56NATO or 7.63mm

[Grundy]

why do we use 5.56NATO ammo compared to 7.63mm ammo?

[cottage cheese]

why do we use 5.56NATO ammo compared to 7.63mm ammo?

You mean 7.62mm ?

[Repatriated Canuck]

I think it's just a standardizaion issue more than anything else. One plus though is that the 5.56 is lighter so you can carry more of them. Half the time you're shooting at an area rather than shooting at aperson. It keeps them from shooting back. The he who fires more rounds wins idea. For some reason I think I'm going to get ripped apart for that comment.

[Officer of Engineers]

I think it's just a standardizaion issue more than anything else. One plus though is that the 5.56 is lighter so you can carry more of them. Half the time you're shooting at an area rather than shooting at aperson. It keeps them from shooting back. The he who fires more rounds wins idea. For some reason I think I'm going to get ripped apart for that comment.

Yes, you are. We gave you a laser dot site for a reason.

[dave angel]

7.62, though fabulously effective at ripping enormous holes in folk at ridiculous ranges, is rather heavy and the weapons that fire it need to be quite heavy too.

5.56 is nice and light so you can carry more, it also came with the idea that whereas 7.62 would kill you 5.56 would injure you, causing your mates to take you to a RAP instead of charging the enemy and then tying up medics and loggies looking after you. the idea being that if i shoot you with 7.62 you drop dead, if i shoot you with 5.56 you get injured and half your section then drops out of the battle to look after you. effectively i've taken five men out of the battle with one shot.

only problem was that the plan was shi.te. our current enemies don't bother with their wounded and it turns out that 5.56 doesn't quite have the stopping power of 7.62. i doesn't go as far either.

5.56 is believed to have 'bounced off' a soldier in northern ireland when it hit his wet canvas webbing after a 300 yard shot, 7.62 would have ripped his shoulder off.

notice the recent US procurement of a version of the 7.62 FN MAG, i assume they didn't buy it because it weighed more...

[cottage cheese]

why do we use 5.56NATO ammo compared to 7.63mm ammo?

Smaller ammo = lesser material = cheaper = economics = government


Smaller ammo = carry more = have more to shoot

Smaller ammo = lesser power = lesser recoil = controllable = more accurate(generally)

And as to how best to use the excess ammo you have, ask the more experienced folks like M21, officer of engineers etc. :)

If you mean why UK did it, I guess it was in interest of standardization.

[dave angel]

the reason it became the standard NATO round was that the standard round was 7.62 - for SLR/FN FAL/G3 etc..

the americans changed their round from a biggun to a smallen, they have the most ammunition in NATO therefore everyone else changed over to the new calibre. thats the politics and economics, the military reason is in my post above.

[Bill]

5.56x45 FMJ has greater wounding potential than 7.62x51 FMJ.

That's one of the primary reasons. The other is a matter of rds/lb. The biggest one nowadays(co ed military) is recoil.

[JBodnar39]

5.56x45 FMJ has greater wounding potential than 7.62x51 FMJ.

That's one of the primary reasons. The other is a matter of rds/lb. The biggest one nowadays(co ed military) is recoil.

SNIPER:

I have heard from a couple of sources that the US Army has used old M-14's in the 7.62mm in Afghanistan and Iraq because of longer efective range; Iheard one quote that the 101st AB division had them issued out 1 to a squad.

Any truth to that?

[Bill]

Yep, it's completely true.

The M-14/M-21/M-25 is in as widespread use now as at any point since it's 'retirement' in the mid 60s.

[bonehead]

The continuing widespread use of the 7.62x51 even after its "retirement" 40 years ago says that the round is still effective and the .223 leaves alot to be desired. A wounded enemy can still shoot back and the greater range of the .762x51 (matched with people who can shoot) is far more effective in wide open spaces. I wonder how widespread the .223 will be used ten years after it gets "retired." It is however,a good cheap round that is highly accurate and will always be a good choice for target practice.

The AR-15 types I have shot, shimmy rather than recoil. Kind of like shooting a spring loaded BB gun. (but louder) The M-14s recoil really isn't bad at all and I could easily shoot it, or my SA-58 all day long without any ill effects (except to my pocket book) I carry my SA-58 for hunting all the time. Yes, that is in the woods, up and down valleys, hills and mountains. Not road shooting or sitting in a stand. I do not need to carry much ammo though, because I know that when I hit something, it is not going far. (if at all)

[Bluesman]

Personally, I think the idea is sound: I like the 'carry more bullets, fight longer' concept, and as far as the wounding/stopping/killing thang goes, I think it's just as likely for the 'lightly wonded by super-fast round and continuing to fight' as it is for him to go down with a wound that ties up (and demoralizes) his mates.

Really, the only reason a bigger bullet is better is for the times that it's going to have to penetrate something: body armor, walls, car doors, whatever. Oh, and longer ranges, of course. I admit that those situations come up often enough to actually WANT that big round sometimes, but that's why we have that capability built into the squad.

But if everybody in the squad is winchester, that squad is screwed COMPLETELY, and low ammo loadouts mean you get screwed in a lot more situations than those rare times when you really need every grunt to have the big bore rifle. See what I mean? It's a balancing act, sure, but I think the odds that the squad needs more ammo is WAY higher than when the support weapons can't deal with the situation of needed penetration and/or range.

Plus, I like the idea of the jihadi being gut-shot by the itty-bitty but fast bullet and kickin' around in the dust where his a$$h0le buddies can see him, and we get a chance to squeeze him before we throw his dumb, crippled, pathetic ass in the camps. He didn't go to Paradise; he's going to HELL, and what a demotivator is THAT to all his pals? Being an object of pity as you crap into a bag for the rest of your wasted life isn't what this guy had in mind; he wanted a glorious death with all the virgins on the other side, not to be scorned as a loser that can't even carry himself to the welfare office in his later years.

Our enemies don't wear body armor, so THAT is not a factor. Our guys usually engage with rifles at relatively tight ranges, so THAT is not a factor. Our ammo won't fit their weapons, and THAT is a Good Thang. For the war we need to win in Iraq, I think we have excellent weapons, and good doctrine that fits those weapons. (But the doctrine needs to be continuously looked at; it's GOOD, but not GREAT.)

[Officer of Engineers]

My favourite quote about this is always my RSM.

"Who cares, son? You're not paying for it."

At the end of the day, you use what you get issued and you learn to live (and fight) with it, warts and all.

[bonehead]

The idea of those bastards suffering is attractive and satisfying, yet I believe that as long as they are alive they will breed nothing but hatred and will kill one of our boys at a later date if given any opportunity at all. (Here comes the next suicide bomber in a wheelchair). After all, this guy has nothing to lose, and his wounds only encourage him to end it all in a "glorious" manner. Besides, it would really piss me off to blow my tax dollars on his health and welfare when the war is over. I say kill the bastard now while we have the chance. We all know where he is REALLY going when he gives up his last breath.


To be honest, I'd hate to be the one who is deciding what our next rifle/caliber will be. It is easy to base the decision on past experience, but we really do not know where, or how the battle will be fought 10 years from now.

The doctrine has too many changing variables to ever be great for any lenth of time. We could easily be doing far worse though.

I take issue with the "who cares, son? Your not paying for it." quote. when we send inferior weapons/supplies/tactics to the battlefield, the soldiers DO pay for it; With their lives. Your second quote is right on. A soldiers mission is to do the job that is given while using the tools and materials at hand.

[Bill]

The M-16A4/M-4A1 is fine for an infantry rifle. Not ideal IMO, but more than adequate, and FAR better than the AK-74.