Okay I recognize that these cartridges have been made to work by the people who used them. I also recognize the grunts basically make do with what they get.
From what I understand there are two types of stops, really. One of them involves a serious psychological component. The other is to actually physically take them down. This basically works like a hydraulics system in that the bigger and more numerous the holes the faster they go down. Perhaps in more relevant terminology the more tissue damage, trauma, and overall messing up their insides the faster and more reliably they go down. This is of course supposing you’re not lucky enough to nail certain critical systems that take them down pretty much instantly.
One of the doctrine ideas commonly associated with the 5.56x45mm is a statement about it taking several soldiers to carry a wounded soldier. This always sounded more like one of those nice rationalizations that sounds good in theory, but doesn’t really work out in the real world to me. An injured soldier is still capable of shooting back, dead men aren’t. Plus the longer it takes an enemy to go down, the longer they have to hurt your soldiers. Not to mention you’d think that seeing their buddies get blown away would be more effective in demoralization of the enemy, and thus encouraging them to surrender or otherwise cease to be a threat which is in many ways better then killing them. Additionally shouldn’t you be assuming you’re taking territory in which case there’s a decent chance that injured soldier actually just became your problem and thus is tying up your troops and medical personnel?
So basically I’m asking about people on this boards opinion on the relative capabilities of the 6.8X45 SPC, 5.56x45mm, and 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges and their associated rifles as a general rifle cartridge. As in equipping an army with mass produced rifles in one of these catridges. Most people here probably already know about the below, and thus I’m actually looking more to check whether I have it right then make an impression.
The 7.62x51mm or 7.62 NATO was in many ways the last battle rifle cartridge. The concept of a battle rifle as opposed to an assault rifle being that of the ability to kill out to like 500 yards as opposed to 200 yards. This results in larger heavier cartridges, which require more training due to more significant recoil and gives fewer, albeit more potent, rounds per unit weight. Meanwhile the assault rifle concept shoots for a round that is sufficient to do the necessary job. It’s noteworthy that apparently special forces types have purchased new DS Arms FALs recently.
The 5.56x45mm is a round that has received much derision from various sources on its effectiveness. Some of its defenders however make any of the complaints look tame. Trying to imply a smaller cartridge with less muzzle energy, has more muzzle energy is flat out stupid.
One of the problems associated with this cartridge, is an idea of a need for a rifleman to have a rifle that’s highly controllable firing full auto. If they really need to have full auto with penetration capability they should be using a PDW type weapon, as they should already have a squad machine gunner. In general however full auto fire is something to be discouraged, especially if you’re cutting training time, as spray and pray is bad in many, many ways. Besides only hits count.
It has ultimately proved to be to a certain point sufficient, although incidents of an excessive number of rounds being necessary, a lack of ability to hit targets behind light cover, and otherwise serves as reminders of on just what level “sufficient” is placed at for this cartridge.
The 6.8 SPC is basically a 5.56 with a bigger bullet in a caliber known for its high ballistic coefficient. This is presently a special forces cartridge, but a bigger bullet should result in more actual tissue damage, which you’d think would help alleviate some of the issues with the 5.56x45mm.
It is is far more noteworthy that in most nations elite units were the first to adopt 5.56mm rifles while regular units still issued battle rifles.Meanwhile the assault rifle concept shoots for a round that is sufficient to do the necessary job. It’s noteworthy that apparently special forces types have purchased new DS Arms FALs recently.
Economics has prevented the battle rifle holdouts from issuing assault rifles to line infantry.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
What about the 6.5mm Grendel?
When I've read anything one way or the other it tended to indicate the opposite. Source and more importantly for what reasons? This had better not be adopting M-4s for CQB capability, 'to keep up with Jones,' or going from old internal magazine battle rifles to modern magazine fed rifles. So they ran vanguard in switching from HKs and FALs to 5.56 because?Originally Posted by troung
Smaller/lighter rifles, less recoil, allowing the rifleman to carry more bullets and so forth, sex appeal... the advatages of a 5.56mm assault rifle over a 7.62mm MBR... people started to do that as soon as the AR-15 came online...
Turkey for example issues 7.62mm G-3s to line units and SOF/Commandos use the M-4 and before that issued the M-16A1. The SAS in the Falklands issued the M-16 while in Borneo issued the AR-15. Norway's SOF issue the M-4A1 while the regular infantry use the upgraded G-3 only for the reason of saving money and delaying a replacement. Argentina issues the M-16A2 for elite units and the FN-FAL for regular units. El Salavador replaced G-3s with the M-16.
Indonesian SOF lead the move towards the 5.56mm bullet in their military and issued AR-15s back in Borneo while regular infantry often used BM-59s. Greek SOF issue M-4/M-4A1s while the regular units are still waiting for a G-3 replacement and so forth. Oh yeah and Germany has been replacing its G-3s with the G-36. Nepal is getting as many INSAS and M-16A2s as they can with the plan to hand off FALs to militia units.
So these nations moved to replace 7.62mm MBR as the standard infantry arm and the ones that have not finished the transition it is a reason of money and not anything wrong with the 5.56mm bullet.
This more or less leaves off the people who moved from the M-1 Garand, M-1/M-2 Carbines and BAR to the M-16A1.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
I think it's irrelevant.
A lethal zone hit with any of the three WILL kill you.
A lethal zone hit with any of the three MAY put you down immediately, or it may put you down 30 seconds, or it may put you down in a minute or two.
So if they all do the same thing wrt APERS(anti-personnel) performance, then they should be judged on other merits.
Based on the merits of low recoil, large ammunition count, ease of training, required weapon size, and relative good accuracy the US and NATO have chosen the 5.56mm.
Based on those criteria it is a very sound selection.
7.62x51 and 6.8 are both better penetrators with better inherent accuracy potential and generally better downrange performance, but both cost the user in the categories the 5.56 excels at.
So IMO, you ask what it is that you want out of a round BESIDES just being lethal, and you go from there.
Which means that the servicemen and lawmen that according to the latest Guns and Ammo are causing such high demand for 7.62mm rifles that Armalite, Springfield Armory, and DS Arms are all having to expand to meet demand are having to put up with all that and changing midgame for: greater penetration and effectiveness. Not to mention apparently there are reports of them trying to buy M-14s back from Lithuania according to Guns and Ammo, in addition to the refurbishment of the 40,000 M-14s that survived the Clinton administration.
So in your book going to something that's easier to lug around and shoot is more noteworthy then people having to go back to something that's a bigger pain in the butt to use because of performance issues with the 5.56. Sure that makes a lot of sense.Talk about being asinine.
Plus before DSA came out with their shorter gas piston its not like there really were carbine 7.62NATO rifles to compete with the already developed M-4 which itself is about in the performance range of a PDW, which weights much less and as does its ammo. 10 inch barrels make for a lot of wasted powder. Of course, the M-4 has proved to usually be sufficient so why wouldn't they transfer over? Not to mention you forgot to mention that the 5.56 makes the penny pinchers much happier, and the rifles you mention after long periods of use are surprise, surprise wearing out.
The main reasons I've read for going back are two fold. First they're finding issues as a DSA engineer put it more or less with their rifles shooting the car, instead of the bad guy hiding behind the car. Second the present overstabilized and AP rounds have an anooying habit of just icepicking the guys, and even if the 7.62 did the same thing it would make a hole 1.88 times bigger, which means 188 rounds 5.56 ~ 100 rounds 7.62 in terms of making icepick holes. The 6.8 basically uses the same rifles the 5.56 does, is presently up in the air, even if it may not actually go anywhere, and apparently is comparable in terms of effectiveness with the 7.62.
Unless you're trying to outright dismiss such studies as that which led to the adoption of the 45 caliber pistol, and the simple logic I already laid out, that's at best a tautology. I prefer to go with the conclusive results of actual testing on animals, and the obvious logic behind it. One test is worth one thousand expert opinions as they say.
America also supplied the Philippines with thousands of M-14s. Yet it is not an attempt to replace the issue M-16A1/M-16E1 but more to work as a DM. The Philippine Marines are in fact planning to totally replace the M-14 with the 5.56mm MSSR and a 7.62mm bolt action rifle when money can be found.Not to mention apparently there are reports of them trying to buy M-14s back from Lithuania according to Guns and Ammo, in addition to the refurbishment of the 40,000 M-14s that survived the Clinton administration.
And tests were run by the different nations which moved towards a 5.56mm system. And often it was elite units overseas (in combat situations) which picked them up first followed by the rest of these armies. From England to Indonesia elite units generally lead things off. And Indonesia is in fact one of the first if not the first nation to employ the AR-15 in combat. So if the systems had been found so lacking an unable to kill then it doesn't to a genius to figure they would not have been adapted by other units.I prefer to go with the conclusive results of actual testing on animals, and the obvious logic behind it. One test is worth one thousand expert opinions as they say.
So which nations have dropped 5.56mm rifles and moved back to the 7.62mm? The holdouts are delaying moving to the 5.56mm as an economic issue rather then fear the 5.56mm cannot kill.Which means that the servicemen and lawmen that according to the latest Guns and Ammo are causing such high demand for 7.62mm rifles that Armalite, Springfield Armory, and DS Arms are all having to expand to meet demand are having to put up with all that and changing midgame for greater penetration and effectiveness.
Not mine the people who adopted the systems. More ammunition, easier to carry and easier to shoot are very important things in favor of the systems. I personally know several veterans from the war in Laos and they also say it was easier mentally to pull the trigger of an M-16 then an M-1, something no test of course would show.So in your book going to something that's easier to lug around and shoot is more noteworthy then people having to go back to something that's a bigger pain in the butt to use because of performance issues with the 5.56. Sure that makes a lot of sense. Talk about being asinine.
Thousands and thousands of people have been killed by 5.56mm bullets fired from different 5.56mm systems. From the Plain of Jars to El Salvador the bullet has been the tool to kill many thousands of people.
And a quick note not every 5.56mm bullet is coming out of the barrel of the M-4A1 carbine.
In my very short life I have had enough bullets put in the wrong place (me) to tell you its not the bullet but where it gets put which decides the actual effect... whether someone drops dead, lays down bleeding to death, lays down moaning, doesn't notice it, or just gets angry... depends on where they get hit...
==
Of course at the end of the day one takes what they get handed...
Last edited by troung; 11 May 06, at 05:57.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Wow, you misquote a reference the old test that led to the original adoption of the 45 by the US, utterly miss the point, and conduct a strawman that I'm claiming the 5.56 is utterly inneffective. What's next, I say I prefer synthetic fruniture so now I'm accusing all wood furniture of being more fragile then thin glass? I've already iterated this point so I'm not going to expond on the entire thing a third time, as if your reading comphrension is so poor you couldn't have picked it up already it isn't worth the post space.
If you’re just going to throw out rhetoric and ignore what I'm saying, I guess I'm going to have to throw a wrench into your gears you aren’t going to be able to truly remove with mere standard rhetoric. That's in some ways a specialty of mine.
[Ammo]
A 10:1 kill ratio is considered really good, and even the Battle of Black Sea only came to like a 50:1 kill ratio and a good number of those weren’t killed by riflemen.
So let’s crunch some numbers. I’m going to declare 3 with a deviation of 2 to be enough rounds to kill an enemy soldier with 7.62. Rational being that a double tap, and safety shot should be sufficient to take someone down with a very good factor of safety. I’m going to use 120 rounds broken up into one 20 round magazine in the gun and five on person.
Therefore this load out will get me:
At best: 120 kills
Median: 40 kills
At worst: 24 kills
One thing to remember is in the Battle of Black Sea the guys who were stranded did get resupplied therefore even at our defined reasonable worst case it’s still up there at 48 kills. Plus I’m quoting kill ratios, not the ratios of people killed by each individual soldier. Add to this I’ve never read about the modern battle rifles having a problem with running out of ammo, and I have to ask what’s wrong with that amount of ammo? Especially as you have grenades and probably a sidearm besides. Not to mention above certain odds attrition is just going to end up killing your foot soldiers regardless of whether they have 200 or a 1,000 rounds.
Being able to hit the enemy, and actually shooting at the enemy is a training issue. If anything cutting the number of rounds, and making full auto not a really valid option, should tend to make someone actually do what they need to do. People who are used to just having one round tend to not miss. Giving them highly controllable full auto and like 200 rounds should encourage them to spray and pray to little effect, and lead to needlessly high levels of friendly fire and collateral damage. Besides one has dedicated Squad Automatic Weapon operators so it’s not like they lose the capability if every rifleman isn’t able to flip that selector all the way.
[Full-Auto]
As a matter of fact I’ve only read about a few semi-worthwhile rationales for using full-auto:
1) Suppression fire rationale: The belief that wildly spraying bullets around will make people duck behind cover on the off chance they’ll get hit.
-From what I’ve read a firm that specializes in these things thinks highly of an automatic shotgun (AA-12 to be specific) for dealing with the jungle ambush to great effect. The spread pattern allowed them to reliably nail the targets in the simulated drills unlike the low probability with M-16s or rifles in general for that matter.
2) The sub-machinegun rationale: In CQB situations range is no longer being your friend, therefore it’s a lot more important the bad guy goes down fast and reliably. One approach to this is to turn the bad guy into a pin cushion, which is in the greater scheme of things probably a lot less efficient then a head shot, which would actually drop the bad guy just about instantaneously.
3) Holding a chokepoint: In other words taking out a bunch of people that have grouped themselves close together. A rifle unlike a dedicated machinegun though can’t keep at this kind of thing for extended time periods.
[Weight]
A full sized Uzi is about the same weightwise as a military para FAL was, and DSA has used modern materials to reduce weight with their FALs. Both the FAL and Uzi were great successes both in terms of actual performance of the gun in its myriad of uses, and in terms of the market share. As a matter of fact the Austrian Jagdkampf for example stuck with the StG58 until 1994-5 despite the adoption of the AUG in 1977. This is because it was well liked by the troops, and they liked its ability to shoot through trucks and light cover, in addition to offing AKM armed troops at long range. The US Marine Corp also held out with their M-14s for a long time as I understand it, and the M-14 has never truly left service. The Black Hawk Down novel even shows one of the Deltas going from thinking what hot **** his “high tech” 5.56 is, to how utterly crappy the ammo was, to a certain level of grudging respect to one of the Deltas who was packing a M-14. This being the case, and the capability of DSA carbines, I dare say your case for a 7.62NATO rifle being too heavy is on a rather weak foundation.
[Individual rounds]
A full powered battle rifle cartridge gives you the ability to engage targets at longer ranges then those a assault rifle squad can. Apparently the Jagdkampf actually managed to pull this off, so it is a factor. Plus it has the ability to penetrate light cover and armor. Apparently Hornady has actually come out with a round dubbed TAP that actually can avoid issues with over penetration in urban environments. Of course, that round might violate certain treaties that the ideally fragmenting 5.56 does in spirit if not legally. On the other hand you can always cut down on power as long as it’ll still feed, but you can’t increase power beyond specs.
Not to mention you create a form of virtual attrition in that any vehicle not armor rated for 7.62NATO ball is now vulnerable to every rifleman, and any not rated for 7.62 AP is vulnerable to any riflemen issued that. Thus meaning they have to make the vehicle heavier or tie up more assets to protect their vehicular assets from even simple riflemen. Assault Rifles, and especially the 5.56, are really only design oriented for engaging other foot soldiers according to my understanding. Therefore a full power round can be considered more versatile.
The true move to the mediocre varmit round was started by a politician and a lot of its adoption is “Keeping up with the Jones” in one form or another. Besides which, seems as how 5.56 rifles tend to cost less on average then 7.62 if they want to change but can’t it’s because their military budget is simply to anemic to buy new rifles. Considering the 5.56 is cheaper is most if not all aspects, the reason for the desire to move would seem readily apparent and based around the politicians. Not to mention weapon adoption test usually are rigged, like the adoption of the Berettas by the US being really meant to get a base in Italy of all places.
Gee, and here i was basing my opinion on my actual 1st hand experiences in battle.
Silly me.
Perhaps in the future i can forget about what actually happens to people when they're shot and instead focus on what 4 LEGGED animals do when shot...cause as we know, wild animals are America's #1 threat in the world today....
There is no advantadge in using .45ACP "hardball" over 9mm "Q" ball. In fact, the 9mm ball is superior in nearly every way.
And what the FUNK is "tautology"? WAB has seen a LOT of arm-chair generals in it's day........very few however, have been as delusional as you.
Last edited by Bill; 15 May 06, at 23:25.
A tautology is a logical fallacy, basically it's statement that's technically true, but says nothing of substance/leaves out important details. Rhetoric is analogous. The point was that all the bullets they tested killed the animal, the study had to do with the speed and reliability in doing so. I'm not here to argue 9mm vs 40 S&W vs 45 ACP although I see that debate as analogious in some respects.
In this case can a 5.56 take someone down when shot in the appropriate area? Yes, that however doesn't mean it's some God's gift to man where people magically go down with one shot as if struck by a lightning bolt even under ideal conditions. By shooting them again you are introducing more trauma, etc. which you can sort of equivalently do with one more powerful round. To simply go effectively go "there's no appreciable difference because they all to some degree work" is going to extreme black and white fallacy approach. This isn't a on-off, black-white thing it's basically a measure of a rate. A rate which is basically a function of tissue trauma, etc. You can kill someone with 22 LR, and plenty have things have been killed by it, that doesn't mean the power and capability of more powerful rounds is somehow irrelevant in considering terminal performance.
The phrase you should be using would be diminishing marginal return, and within assault rifle ranges, and ignoring penetration issues there is a degree of that. It doesn't mean they're equal though.
EDIT: I knew I should have left off the comment about controlled testing. Way to prone to giving the wrong impression.
Last edited by FOG3; 16 May 06, at 00:00.
Forget 'diminishing marginal return', there is just no evidence whatsoever to suggest that in FMJ form the 7.62x51 NATO round is any better wrt "instantaneous incapacitation"- ie, 'stopping power'- or for that matter even as good- than the 5.56x45mm NATO round.
And vice-versa.
The problem arises from the fact that the key issue at play is survival drive in the TARGET.
There have been guys that have been wounded by dozens of artillery fragments, several major caliber gunshots, HMG fire, undetonated rifle grenades or RPGs, had legs blown off, whatever........that still kept fighting. Guys have been ran through with bayonets, and swords, and daggers, and spears, and arrows, and still kept coming.
As long as we've been in the business of killing each other, some of us have shown a remarkable ability to ignore all forms of external trauma for several minutes...in some cases even hours. Some of these men even lived to tell their tales.
The simple fact is that if a man has that kind of survival drive no one one man-portable weapon will ever work "reliably", and conversely, if the target lacks that sort of survival drive, almost ANY round will work.
Grown men have been shot in the foot by .22 short fire or clipped in the ankle by .25ACP fire, and fallen to the ground screaming like a biitch.
What can we ask of a cartridge?
1) that it always go bang-
2) that it fly straight and have a nice, flat trajectory.
3) that it have long range
3) that it have good penetration in a variety of medium
4) that it have light recoil
5) that the ammunition be compact and light(as well as the weapons that fire the round)
6) that it have the ability to reliably cause fatal wounds in the anticipated target(in this case- us).
The M855/SS109 5.56x45mm/M16A4 package does all those things reasonably well, and for a 'general issue' weapon(meaning large numbers of relatively poorly trained rear echelon and comparatively weak female troops will have to use it), it is about as close to ideal as we're ever likely to get.
On top of that, about 1-2% of all battlefield casualties are typically even caused by small arms fire, and the vast majority of that is probably in reality caused by snipers....so this whole issue is in effect much adieu about nothing.
You want to VASTLY increase the lethality of our troops, invent a better artillery shell or fuze or something. Cause it's artillery fragments that historically cause 85% of all casualties in war.
Stopping power is a myth, and you guys watch too many movies.
I've seen a fairly large number of people that were shot by 5.56 in my life. They all had one thing in common.
They were all dead.
Last edited by Bill; 16 May 06, at 00:36.
We're buying M-14s is for squad designated marksman. Why? Because they have slightly more range and we can kit them out very similar to M-24s, meaning that all the sniper training is almost directly transferrable and that the company snipers can run courses for the company's SDMs. You use the same match rounds, collect DOPE the same way, the only difference is that you'll have a larger MOA and have different tactics since you are employed within a squad as a squad/platoon asset as opposed to being employed independently as a company/battalion asset.
EDIT: I never stated the bottomline conclusion - the movement to the M-14 is not an en masse movement to 7.62mm, but rather a very limited fielding to fill a needed role that didn't have a weapon to meet the desired capabilities.
I would also point out that the M4 and 5.56mm has received very good remarks on its performance thus far in OIF in all the AARs that I have seen, with only an occasional urban legend, second hand email that disparages its performance.
Last edited by Shek; 16 May 06, at 03:20.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Thank you, but cut the baseless accusations.
If you really want to push it part of that's because ideally a 5.56 fragments, while a 7.62 ball round performs more like the 5.56 overstabilized rounds when they mess up. Of course, apparently Hornady has figured out how to make a fragmenting 110 grain 7.62 NATO round that'll apparently penetrate less then 10 inches of ballistic gelatin, while still being a full power round and being able to go through auto glass, and supposedly has been used by special forces. This would kind of indicate it could pass treaty legality. This would be the apples to apples comparison, instead of the usual apples to oranges in regards to bullet design comparison between the two rounds in military use.
The reason for the question is to a certain extent all three are in the race to replace the M16. HK's 416 is being tested in both 5.56 and 6.8, the HK 417 is a _new_ 7.62 rifle based on the same design. So if you want to declare everyone behind the 6.8 incompetant idiots, everyone reverting to heavier 7.62 rifles incomptetant idiots, anyone who thinks the 5.56 has performance issues with certain rounds incompetant, and HK engineers foolish for bothering with the 417 fine that's your opinion. I however never said, or for that matter implied, it was inadequate for its designed role beyond mentioning known failings, so lay off.
Whether stopping power is real, hydrostatic shock is real, etc. is something you can dispute with other experts all you want.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: