5.56 too small?

7.62 too Heavy!

There is always a good reason to have more firepower.....but there is also a good reason to go lighter. You can carry a lot more 5.56 than you can 7.62.......so that is why sections routinely include both right now.
 
Here we go. The 5.56 too small and the 9mm too small debates have been going on for years. Is the 45ACP a better manstopper than 9mm? Yes. Is a 7.62x51 or 7.62x39 a better stopper than 5.56? At some of the ranges they're talking about? Yes. 5.56 came into play because it's a great round under 600 yards and very effective under 300. It's lighter and thus like some have said, you can carry a lot more ammo. A loaded 5.56mm gun is better than an empty Browning M2.

The issue encountered in Afghanistan, is that because of a lot of the open desert, some engagments are taking place at distances that are beyond the effective capabilities of the 5.56 round. I think what's needed is a change in tactics in mixing up units so they're carrying both 5.56 and 7.62x51 rifles. Having a marksmen within each unit on patrols that take you into open desert would solve part of the problem. Close air support is always a thing too.
 
Any single standard will be a compromise.

Is it just me or is a lot of the 5.56 wounding capability really a critique of ball ammunition?

5.56 is pretty good to blast away at short range with large volumes of light projectiles to keep them pinned while you set up your secondary attack. It's a pretty good solution for that situation.
Air strike, artillery, GPMG, mortars, grenades, grenade launchers, armour etc.

If you want to have the ideal weapon for the situation, that's what special forces are for, it just isn't reasonable to train every soldier and have a 9mm submachinegun, and .338 lapua rifle and then supply all those different guns and ammuntion for them.

Interesting that they're simultaneously debating getting rid of the M249 because it is too big and buly for short range engagements, yet they want something bigger than 5.56 for longer range effectiveness.

I am also not sure which would be more effective at containing the enemy at 300-600m I don't think a low volume 7.62 fire is much more effective than high volumes of 5.56. I wouldn't stand in front of either, and I'd place my odds of avoiding bullets on their number, not their size.
I would expect that bigger bullets sound scarrier, but being in front of full auto, even 5.56 isn't the most comforting situation either.
 
Big debates on service forums over here too, most seem resigned to waiting for Uncle sam to make a move then we can all follow. That is until the latest uninformed new boy spouts of about some mate of his who put 5 rounds from the A2 into Terry and he didnt go down. No evidence as usual just bar chatter in the Naafi!
 
ehntr said:
There is always a good reason to have more firepower.....but there is also a good reason to go lighter. You can carry a lot more 5.56 than you can 7.62.......so that is why sections routinely include both right now.
Click to expand...

It also take alot more resources to tend to a wounded soldier than a dead one. Military's would rather wound the enemy than kill them.
 
I think one of the biggest problems with the 5.56 is that it was intended to wound, which it does quite well againts normal targets. But when the target is jacked up on narcotics its a different story.

Pain isn't on the high priority list for them. It going to take more rounds to stop a target in its tracks say, when they are high on Kemp or Opium.

The whole "Wound one man, take 2-3 more out of the fight" implies that they are going to actually applying first and are going to be trying to drag the man out. Pretty sure they aren't I havent heard to many "Heroic" stories of the Taliban saving lives of fallen comrades.

But hey, who knows?
 
i dont buy the wounded man myth b/c a wounded man can still shoot back. ask any soldier if they want their target wounded or dead. Nato allies went with this chambering b/c they felt standardisation was more important than finding an ideal round. i I wonder if the 6.8 will catch on.
 
Yehen said:
Here we go. The 5.56 too small and the 9mm too small debates have been going on for years. Is the 45ACP a better manstopper than 9mm? Yes. Is a 7.62x51 or 7.62x39 a better stopper than 5.56? At some of the ranges they're talking about? Yes. 5.56 came into play because it's a great round under 600 yards and very effective under 300. It's lighter and thus like some have said, you can carry a lot more ammo. A loaded 5.56mm gun is better than an empty Browning M2.

The issue encountered in Afghanistan, is that because of a lot of the open desert, some engagments are taking place at distances that are beyond the effective capabilities of the 5.56 round. I think what's needed is a change in tactics in mixing up units so they're carrying both 5.56 and 7.62x51 rifles. Having a marksmen within each unit on patrols that take you into open desert would solve part of the problem. Close air support is always a thing too.
Click to expand...

The problem with a DMR rifle is that now you have a new weapons system, and another weapons type in an infantry section. That complicates training and logistics. I think the posibility exists to reintroduce the 7.62mm round into a rifle once more, howerver, it needs to be done properly. It would be expensive, but if your combat arms soldiers went to the range every month, fired a few hundred rounds, and were taught properly to employ the rifle and cartridge out to 500M, they may infact be more effective then if equiped with 5.56mm weapons. Of course the weapons and ammunition are heavier, but our accesstors carried even heavier weapons, with hundreds of rounds too.
 
canuckont said:
I think one of the biggest problems with the 5.56 is that it was intended to wound, which it does quite well againts normal targets. But when the target is jacked up on narcotics its a different story.

Pain isn't on the high priority list for them. It going to take more rounds to stop a target in its tracks say, when they are high on Kemp or Opium.

The whole "Wound one man, take 2-3 more out of the fight" implies that they are going to actually applying first and are going to be trying to drag the man out. Pretty sure they aren't I havent heard to many "Heroic" stories of the Taliban saving lives of fallen comrades.

But hey, who knows?
Click to expand...

This "wounding" thing has been proven to be a urban myth over and over and if you would have read the article, it discusses that. 5.56 within its limitations does get the job done, just takes a lot of it at times. It is a round that has its limitations, namely power and penetration. 7.62x51 also has limitations, namely enough power to make full auto more difficult and also the weight of the cartridges. Going to a 14.5" barrel with the 5.56 made the gun very portable, but dramatically reduced the range at which the yawing effect mentioned in the article occurs.

I served with an FNC1 in hand. Thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Still do. A modified version to cut back the weapon weight would be fantastic (DSA 16" barrelled version???).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom