6.8 SPC vs 7.62NATO vs 5.56NATO

[Shek]

7.62mm and 5.56mm in the lethal zone do the trick!

http://192.156.19.109/marinelink/mcn...0?opendocument

[Johnekgun]

7.62mm and 5.56mm in the lethal zone do the trick!

http://192.156.19.109/marinelink/mcn...0?opendocument

OORAH

[Shek]

Using none-standard firearm in the Army and Marines is a COURT MARTIAL offense.

The MNF-I website is down, so I can't post the link now, but this is a true statement. POWs are not authorized under General Order 1, which means that this is a general court martial offense.

[bonehead]

Actually the 7.62x51 NATO was the "new round."

US army realized the 30-06 was far too powerful for infantry work so they scaled down the round. Winchester had a 270 (or 240? can't remember) ready for the Army. But the brass wanted a 30 cal round, so they just trimmed the 30-06 and came up with the 308 Winchester, 7.62x51 NATO.

Incidentally, the .270 cal round just happened to be around 6.8mm

You lost me. I was lead to believe we used the 7.62X51(Korea) before the switch to 5.56, and many wanted their old rifles back post haste (VietNam era). So how is the 7.62X51 the new round?
My gripe was that as a nation we tend to rest upon our laurals too much as we delude ourselves into thinking we have the ultimate whatever while other countries are investing in the R&D and coming out with some fine improvements. The auto industry being a fine example.

There aint nothing wrong with the .270. Great ballistics and devastating to the flesh and bone.

[bonehead]

The Grendel and SPC round both seem to have very similar ballistic characteristics of the 7.62X39 round. This can't be an accident. The old Bloc round can really be destructive within its envelope so can the M-16 round. It cruises through cinder block with enough energy to kill after it passes through both sides. I"ve seen that happen. Its not the 7.62MM NATO though.This seems to be the same old argument I've heard and had with "old guys" over beers and shots forever. Bigger is better versus smaller and faster is better. We hear it in conversations relating to .45 and 9 MM comparisons. It is in the end apples and oranges. The Grunts that bring the fight to the enemy use what we give them.

If memory serves, the 6.8 ballistics is closer to the 5.56, but packs more energy down range. This equates to very little transition ie training when changing from the .556 to the 6.8 as the points of impact are very close and the recoil differences are slight. Empty a mag and you are good to go.

Grunts have little choice but to use what we give them. It is our responsibility to give them the best there is to offer because substandard equipment means more lives will be lost on the battlefield.

[troung]

You lost me. I was lead to believe we used the 7.62X51(Korea) before the switch to 5.56, and many wanted their old rifles back post haste (VietNam era). So how is the 7.62X51 the new round?

Ummm.... I doubt many soldiers wanted their M-1 Garands back for service in Indochina... ;)

[leib10]

You lost me. I was lead to believe we used the 7.62X51(Korea) before the switch to 5.56, and many wanted their old rifles back post haste (VietNam era). So how is the 7.62X51 the new round?
My gripe was that as a nation we tend to rest upon our laurals too much as we delude ourselves into thinking we have the ultimate whatever while other countries are investing in the R&D and coming out with some fine improvements. The auto industry being a fine example.

There aint nothing wrong with the .270. Great ballistics and devastating to the flesh and bone.

You're right about that. Most the small arms we use are of foreign design (excluding the M16 and .50 BMG and a few other ones I might not be thinking of). We seem to be kinda lagging behind fine foreign gunmakers like HK and FN. Both companies have weapons designed by them in our arsenal. Both our LMG and GPMG are designed by FN (as is the SCAR) and the MK. 23 SOCOM pistol is designed by HK, and it's possible that we will upgrade our M16's to the HK416, or replace them entirely with the XM8 (although that seems to have fallen through).

[Johnekgun]

You lost me. I was lead to believe we used the 7.62X51(Korea) before the switch to 5.56, and many wanted their old rifles back post haste (VietNam era). So how is the 7.62X51 the new round?
My gripe was that as a nation we tend to rest upon our laurals too much as we delude ourselves into thinking we have the ultimate whatever while other countries are investing in the R&D and coming out with some fine improvements. The auto industry being a fine example.

There aint nothing wrong with the .270. Great ballistics and devastating to the flesh and bone.

If by"( Korea ) " you mean the Korean war ( early fifties) there were no 7.62 MM NATO caliber weapons around yet to be issued to American troops. They used entirely WW2 era weapons.

[Johnekgun]

If memory serves, the 6.8 ballistics is closer to the 5.56, but packs more energy down range. This equates to very little transition ie training when changing from the .556 to the 6.8 as the points of impact are very close and the recoil differences are slight. Empty a mag and you are good to go.

Grunts have little choice but to use what we give them. It is our responsibility to give them the best there is to offer because substandard equipment means more lives will be lost on the battlefield.

My source for ballistic comparison is the book " Assault Rifle " by Maxim Popenker and Anthony G.Williams

[Shek]

The MNF-I website is down, so I can't post the link now, but this is a true statement. POWs are not authorized under General Order 1, which means that this is a general court martial offense.

Here's the link - http://www.mnf-iraq.com/regulations/go1a.pdf

Read the very first prohibited activity:

2. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES: a. Purchase, possession, use or sale of privately owned firearms, ammunition, explosives, or the introduction of these items into the USCENTCOM AOR.

[bonehead]

What a sniper needs has no bearing on the line infantry. A successful sniper rifle requires a level range and accuracy unneeded in an assualt rifle and "stopping power" has as much to do with it as my foot.

I was not asking about rifles. I was asking about the caliber of choice. If the 5.56 is such a lethal round, is it or is it not the round snipers use, or do they pick something else.? I know lots of people who say, "when I get behind the wheel is is a Lincoln town car, Mercedes, Porche, etc, or nothing. Escorts and Yugos are good enough for all the other drivers.

[bonehead]

My source for ballistic comparison is the book " Assault Rifle " by Maxim Popenker and Anthony G.Williams

I don't have the book. What I did find was some numbers from the remington site. They do not list the 5.56 so I had to use the .223. I chose the boat tail hollow point match for the .223 and the 6.8. the 7.62x39 was not offered in that style so I chose the pointed soft point as it was the only style that offered long range trajectories. If you look at the long range trajectories it is clear that the 6.8 is closer to the .223.
.223 is 69 grains
6.8 is 115 grains

[Shek]

I was not asking about rifles. I was asking about the caliber of choice. If the 5.56 is such a lethal round, is it or is it not the round snipers use, or do they pick something else.? I know lots of people who say, "when I get behind the wheel is is a Lincoln town car, Mercedes, Porche, etc, or nothing. Escorts and Yugos are good enough for all the other drivers.

This is comparing apples and oranges. Snipers have a different doctrinal requirement than rifleman, primarily having to be capable of accuracy at greater distances. The trajectory of 5.56mm performs just fine in contributing to accuracy at the doctrinal distance for rifleman. Likewise, when the mission calls for greater distance for snipers, they bump up from 7.62mm to .50cal. Both 5.56mm and 7.62mm are lethal when placed in the lethal zone - for .50cal, the sweet spot is the entire body.

[Johnekgun]

I don't have the book. What I did find was some numbers from the remington site. They do not list the 5.56 so I had to use the .223. I chose the boat tail hollow point match for the .223 and the 6.8. the 7.62x39 was not offered in that style so I chose the pointed soft point as it was the only style that offered long range trajectories. If you look at the long range trajectories it is clear that the 6.8 is closer to the .223.
.223 is 69 grains
6.8 is 115 grains

Thanks for the link Bonehead. After perusing it for some time with calculator in hand I can see how many would think they are similar in envelope. However IMO just the rate of trajectory alone seperates them and puts it 6.8 MM back in the 7.62X39 class. Has I compareed the 115 gr ballistics I could'nt help but notice that the new Chinese issue round(6.45X48 MM) is almost identical in performance to the SPC round while the Chinese issued 5.8X42 MM mirrors the 5.45X 39 MM in velocity and trajectory. As you probably know the 5.45 MM Russian round was intended to be lethal in all the ways the 5.56 MM round turned out to be accidentaly lethal. I am refering to key holing in particular. you have to see these wounds to truly appreciate them. Short barreled M-16s are notorious for creating these wounds as are the 20 inch barreled M16s at longer ranges whenshooting through vegetation. But I digress. I saw your data and understand how you can come to the conclusion that you have. We will simply have to agree to disagree on this one Bonehead. There are presently about 23 ( give or take 1 ) "new" assault rifle rounds being tested in six different countries. We as a species love to tweak things and make them faster and we hope better ( or slower in some cases).

There was a trend recently for "big city" SWAT teams to have 5.56 MM sniper rifles. It seemed to fizzle out. 7.62 MM NATO still seems like the sniper round of choice. It seems like I've read an article or two lately about the .338 Lapua round now being on the wish list of long range shooters everywhere. The .300 Win Mag has appearently lost its favor in the wake of the Lapuas ballistics. I hope this is not too off topic.

[bonehead]

This is comparing apples and oranges. Snipers have a different doctrinal requirement than rifleman, primarily having to be capable of accuracy at greater distances. The trajectory of 5.56mm performs just fine in contributing to accuracy at the doctrinal distance for rifleman. Likewise, when the mission calls for greater distance for snipers, they bump up from 7.62mm to .50cal. Both 5.56mm and 7.62mm are lethal when placed in the lethal zone - for .50cal, the sweet spot is the entire body.

Do I need to start a whole new thread or can we step out of the box for a minute. What are the calibers that snipers generally use.?