why did the military adopt the 5.56?

whitetailwoodsarcher said:
i am woundering why the military stoped carrying the 7.62x51 and started carying the 5.56x45? from what i have read on the interwebs it was because of weight. troops can carry twice as much ammo. but the 7.62 has alot more range and power. i am just woundering what the advantages of the 5.56 over the 7.62.
thanks.
Click to expand...

They changed it because they noticed most combat was being had within 300m, which means you don't need the over power and distance you get with the 7.62x51 all the time. Cost comes down, so the military now gets twice the amount of ammo for around the same price, guns are lighter, you can carry more ammo. Also, with adoption of pretty much having full auto on all military carbines now, the 5.56 is much more manageable and controllable on full auto.

They still used 7.62x51 for most of their Sniper rifles, as well as larger calibers :D

It makes sense to change things up like this.

Also, why is this in the sporting arms section?
 
How about a 6x45-90g?
you give up very little in practice and definitely gain in performance for the intended purpose.
it still works with the intended or chosen platform (m-16).
I question this decision as well, considering the other choices out there and comparing to what the enemy is using (7.62x39).
I guess it was "run what you brung" at the trials of the day. Choose what is adequate from what was presented.
 
snoopycda said:
I question this decision as well, considering the other choices out there and comparing to what the enemy is using (7.62x39).
I guess it was "run what you brung" at the trials of the day.
Click to expand...

7.62X39 has a drop of 36" at 300 meters, which is absolutely ####ing horrific!
Add to the fact that the M43 projectile is often criticized for lack of lethality {pass-throughs} and is the most common round out there, I don't see an advantage over M855 except in barrier penetration.

I wouldn't care to stand in front of either!:)
 
A lot of different responses here... I can tell you that in basic training I was taught that the 5.56 was used in order to wound... If you shoot one soldier it takes two more to haul him off the battlefield... This is also why center of mass technique is used...

I am also confused as to why this is in sporting arms...lol
 
that video is so fos it's not even funny= moreover, he's not using the rifle PROPERLY; it's CANTED towards the 16 which was CLEARLY an inferior system- ONLY IN THE A2 configuration did the m16 begin to play in the same theatre as the 14
c'mon- FULL AUTO OFF-HAND?- WITHOUT THE SHOULDER REST UP?- of course you're going to miss
might as well have BEEN AT NIGHT with a wind blowing- THE LMG version( the a1) of the 14 REQUIRED you to be down in the dirt, bipod extended , shoulder rest up, left hand tucked into the butt stock, and exerting about 35 POUNDS of pressure on the bipod leaning forward
 
Superbrad said:
A lot of different responses here... I can tell you that in basic training I was taught that the 5.56 was used in order to wound... If you shoot one soldier it takes two more to haul him off the battlefield... This is also why center of mass technique is used...

I am also confused as to why this is in sporting arms...lol
Click to expand...

It's a wonder Canadian Forces in Afghanistan don't see more action, what bad guy would be scared of an enemy force out to simply wound them! ;)
I'm not disputing that you were told that in basic...but do you honestly believe it?
Do you subscribe to the theory that a solid "center of mass" poke with a 5.56 wouldn't be lethal?

As for the wrong forum comment I agree 100%.
 
I can tell you that in basic training I was taught...
Click to expand...

And I can tell you to take most of what you were taught in basic, and for that matter on any other CF course with a huge grain of salt ;)
 
bearkilr said:
You typed one answer..........unintentionally. :D

Wounded soldiers require far more effort and manpower to take care of than dead ones. The 223 is a great "wounder".
Click to expand...

Right, the problem being too many wounded live to fight again. I remember when the 5.56 was introduced they talked about the devistating wound from only a arm hit. Trouble is the wound is not that devistating.
 
Sun_and_Steel_77 said:
It's a wonder Canadian Forces in Afghanistan don't see more action, what bad guy would be scared of an enemy force out to simply wound them! ;)
I'm not disputing that you were told that in basic...but do you honestly believe it?
Do you subscribe to the theory that a solid "center of mass" poke with a 5.56 wouldn't be lethal?

As for the wrong forum comment I agree 100%.
Click to expand...

Do I believe the best way to kill a person is to use something better than a 5.56 yes.... do I believe there are more lethal places to shoot someone than center of mass?.... yes.... try the heart, the head etc.... center of mass on a cdn forces training target would be the equivalent of gut shooting a deer...

As for why they use the 5.56 in an attempt to be non lethal... dunno... likely because NATO told them they have to.... but that's pure speculation on my part....

.223 is still my favprite round to shoot....lol.... thank you your majesty... :)
 
You are taught to shoot at the centre of the visible mass of the target because that gives you the best prospect of hitting it. The lethality of gut shots, and even arm shots with the 5.56mm is much, much higher than the lethality of missed head shots with the 7.62mm. If a wounded enemy continues to shoot back, his performance is at least degraded and you have a better chance of getting a second hit with a 5.56mm than if you missed him the first time with a 7.62mm.
 
and that falls to the old doctrine of spray and pray vs accuracy- and the going from f/a ( where you empty the mag) to BURST (3 shot) trigger control- the us army et cetera found out they were MISSING just as much on F/A as what they were with the old 30 calibers- the solution was to adopt the 3 short burst-
 
t-star said:
and that falls to the old doctrine of spray and pray vs accuracy- and the going from f/a ( where you empty the mag) to BURST (3 shot) trigger control- the us army et cetera found out they were MISSING just as much on F/A as what they were with the old 30 calibers- the solution was to adopt the 3 short burst-
Click to expand...

I am assuming you have no military experience... our military never advocates full auto until it is called for.... I have fired full auto... highly overrated... and if an enemy was charging me from anything over 30 yards I would rather take 1 controlled shot then spray and pray....they don't put those 4 figure scopes atop a c7 for nothing.....
 
Do third world militants pick up their wounded? Guess who's hospital look after them?

The wounded theory is a perpetual myth. Think about it. Soldiers are trained to shoot centre of mass, whether that be a torso, or just a sandal poking out behind a wall. Be sure that someone wearing pajamas hit in the centre of the torso is no better off with 5.56 than a 7.62.

Unlike deer hunting, a wounding hit is better than nothing. ;)
 
bisonhd said:
Do third world militants pick up their wounded? Guess who's hospital look after them?

The wounded theory is a perpetual myth. Think about it. Soldiers are trained to shoot centre of mass, whether that be a torso, or just a sandal poking out behind a wall. Be sure that someone wearing pajamas hit in the centre of the torso is no better off with 5.56 than a 7.62.

Unlike deer hunting, a wounding hit is better than nothing. ;)
Click to expand...

The biggest myth is not the wounded theory... it's the us agauinst you 100 men vs. 100 men on the battlefield theory... wars just aren't fought that way anymore...
 
Superbrad said:
I am assuming you have no military experience... our military never advocates full auto until it is called for.... I have fired full auto... highly overrated... and if an enemy was charging me from anything over 30 yards I would rather take 1 controlled shot then spray and pray....they don't put those 4 figure scopes atop a c7 for nothing.....
Click to expand...

you'd be ASSUMING wrong- i fall into those with "rather extensive" military experience- indeed, i ADVOCATE the SINGLE SHOT to head, esp the brainstem , jugular or cardiod artery- but that's done in a VERY advanced class and not taught to your average usgi- and for that you don't use the "mouse gun"
oh, and "our" military has a VERY different philosphy from the americans regarding full auto usage- you REALLY should educate yourself on the difference between the two
 
Superbrad said:
The biggest myth is not the wounded theory... it's the us agauinst you 100 men vs. 100 men on the battlefield theory... wars just aren't fought that way anymore...
Click to expand...

So do you have any actual experience in combat with the 5.56 or 7.62, or at the end of the day are you just another one of us with an opinion?
Regardless of tactics taught etc. I would imagine in training you shoot at targets, correct?

I can only imagine how slighted I would feel if I was a member of the armed forces and expected to engage an enemy force with a small-arm incapable of destroying them.
Oh well...back to my game of Call of Duty! :p
 
For a soldier in combat bullet effectiveness equals death. That is ALL that matters to him.....ideally all 30 rd. mags would equal 30 deaths. However it doesn't work that way due to a million variables.

In CQB inside about 300 yds not much "effective" difference in 223 or 308.

Oh yea, a wounded enemy is a live functioning able to shoot enemy.

Anyway, more ammo can be carried and what individual wants to jump out of a plane with a long heavy rifle and the ammo to support it.

That is why the really short barreled ARs were first developed for SpecOps in the late 1960s

Cheers

PS why is this in this thread?
 
Last edited:
Sun_and_Steel_77 said:
So do you have any actual experience in combat with the 5.56 or 7.62, or at the end of the day are you just another one of us with an opinion?
Regardless of tactics taught etc. I would imagine in training you shoot at targets, correct?

I can only imagine how slighted I would feel if I was a member of the armed forces and expected to engage an enemy force with a small-arm incapable of destroying them.
Oh well...back to my game of Call of Duty! :p
Click to expand...

I did 3 tours.... that is all I have to say.... I can honestly also say that I have never had to kill or shoot at anyone... I know that on CGN that makes me less of a person but I will tell you that I am happy for it as I have spent several hours consolng or councelling my friends that did.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom