And if 5.56mm never existed?

FOR YOUR INFO;
The first FN rifles that were turned out in Belgium were in 7mm short for Venezuela, I have a box in my junk, sort of a cross between the 7.62x39 and the 7.92x33 but then again we know they don't work....

Interesting enough but some of the first FNs that came to Canada for the Canadian forces for trials were in .280 caliber. Yes I have one.
John
 
Lazerus2000 said:
Personally, I've always considered an AR 15 shorty, to be the close to ideal CQB weapon, but for CQB terminal ballistics, bigger is usually better. In CQB the 7.62 X 39 Russian round has possibly killed more human beans than most other calibers, so this is the standard all others are judged by. An AR 15 in 7.62X39 is possible, but unless you make it to take AK mags, the system is limited to short or unreliable mags.

While I've always coveted an AR 15 in 7.62X39, my personal solution was to build a 16" AR 15 in .300 Whisper. In the books, .300 Whisper loaded with 125 - 130 gr bullets duplicates 7.62X39 ballistics, and when you go up to heavier bullets, the .300 Whisper is far superior at short ranges.

Of course, you could always load heavier .303 British bullets into 7.62X39 cases, and duplicate .300 Whisper ballistics, probably cheaper too.

So maybe we should be looking at a Tavor or some other hi tech bull pup, set up in 7.62X39, as the ultimate future CQB weapon?
of course,
YMMV
[;{)
LAZ 1
Click to expand...
I bet the reason that more people have died from the M43 cartridge has more to do with lack of immediate attention from medical personnel rather than the performance of the cartridge itself. If you get shot by a 9mm at 100yards and don't get immediate medical attention then I bet you would die too...but does that mean all military personnel should be carrying MP5's?

The issue with the 7.62x39mm M43 cartridge is that the bullet doesn't do serious enough damage within the 12 inch mark of penetration compared to smaller faster projectiles. One has then to ask why the Russians themselves dropped the M43 in favour of the M74 instead. The reason is that the bullet does greater damage...nothing else.

The 5.56mm has it's issues but it still does the job better than the M43...so switching backwards to an already obsolete cartridge isn't the way forward in this case.
 
The real issues are cost and the Americans.

The americans will have to lead the way with a new platform before any real caliber change comes along. With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan costing as much as they do the chance of the US changing platforms is pretty minimal.

What I've seen of the Tavor seems quite good but IDK if the west can handle the political ramifications of an Isreali weapon.

Either way I'm sure the Canadian Mil will be slow in changing to any new personal weapon system.
 
M43 isn't necessarily the only option with 7.62x39. A 7.62x39 SP hunting round is devastating. But that Geneva convention thing...
 
cartridge is not the issue. Bullet design is.

The C7A2 is heavy and muzzle heavy and is a ##### to tote due to it's imbalance. It use to be "carry handle at point of balance" but this balance point has shifted forward due to the heavy and thick barrel forward of the front sight.
I hate the rifle and find myself training with it. Such a mistake purchasing the rights to this ground squirrel rifle.
The G3A3 would have been the best option. I feel embarrassed that the CF has this "rifle". The Finnish Sako 95 would have been a good rifle for Canada given our terrain and climate.
 
7.62X39 is great - maybe 20 years ago with armour technology is crap. You need a system that can deliver terminal ballistc and adquate armour penetration for general issue. While SS109 was developed with Russian Armour in mind back in the late 70's for expected technolgy in 80's and 90's, we are going to come back to the same requirement soon when the PLA and other less developed nations finally catch up- and they are catching up. The catridge needs enough velocity to build an effective AP - the Russian and the US have those rounds developed already. The 5.56 can be developed into AP, match round and purely anti-personnel, but the 7.62X39 is at best a WW2 technology that can only do one thing at relatively close range. Most of the front line troops in NATO and many Russians are equiped with hard armour, 7.62 simply cannot cut the mustard in any future conflict.

Simply put, prepare for the future, not for the past. Peopel gonna whine again in 10 years down the road when they fight the iranian or PLA( or maybe russian again.....), and they figured out their magic stopping power 7.62X39 simply cannot be developed into something that could slice through ceramic plates or even the level 3A soft armour underneath.
 
Last edited:
Teapot said:
cartridge is not the issue. Bullet design is.

The C7A2 is heavy and muzzle heavy and is a ##### to tote due to it's imbalance. It use to be "carry handle at point of balance" but this balance point has shifted forward due to the heavy and thick barrel forward of the front sight.
I hate the rifle and find myself training with it. Such a mistake purchasing the rights to this ground squirrel rifle.
The G3A3 would have been the best option. I feel embarrassed that the CF has this "rifle". The Finnish Sako 95 would have been a good rifle for Canada given our terrain and climate.
Click to expand...

The C7A2 balance shift was caused by putting a light weight collapsible stock and carbine receiver extension on to a 20 inch barreled rifle, along with the idiotic Triad rail mounted on the gas block.
The G3A3 is a good rifle...maybe 20yrs ago if you think the C7A2 is unwieldy pick up a G3,even worse with a collapsible stock. The Sako has some features going for it,too bad it isn't being made anymore, nor will it in the future if Finnish politics remain the same. The problem with the Sako is that it's just another Ak, a fancy one yes,but an AK with all the problems that entails (poor accuracy,poor ergonomics,etc).It can be chambered in 5.56mm but why bother when the C7A2 etc are already mass produced and are proven.
The day of the battle rifle is gone folks, get over it,the 7.62x39mm cartridge is outdated and a poor performer on anything but an unarmored target (then not so much).
 
Reaper said:
The day of the battle rifle is gone folks, get over it,the 7.62x39mm cartridge is outdated and a poor performer on anything but an unarmored target (then not so much).
Click to expand...

Well said. As I sit here in Baghdad, the M4/M16 series is doing just fine. People seem to forget that soldiers fight in teams with lots of different weapons that cover off a range of requirements and capablities. There is no universal rifle that does everything, and there likely never will be. For doing the business right now, an M4 with a laser pointer, flashlight and the operator with a AN/PVS-14 gives an impressive capablity in urban warfare. The machineguns and support weapons allow you to reach out when needed. Much of this discussion is gun mag stuff and does not reflect realities....just percieved realities. What one person needs when they are by themselves is completely different from what an platoon of lads needs. There is a difference...

Cheers

Jeff
 
maple_leaf_eh said:
The SA80 was not 5.56 initially.
Click to expand...

The SA80 was originally developed based on the experimental UK designed 4.85 x 49 mm round (offered for adoption as the NATO standard). After the NATO standardization of the US 5.56mm, the SA80 was redesigned for the NATO round and then subsequently adopted for service by the UK forces.

Wikipedia,, the font of all knowledge,,
 
4.85x49mm British

cartontr.jpg

cartonball.jpg

eigen_485.jpg
 
EM-2 a new self loading rifle (SLR) that was chambered to fire a rimless .280 round (7x43mm)


em2.jpg




but it could'nt handle the larger 7.62x51 when the US pushed that as teh new NATO ammo so the brits ended up with the FN L1A1.

Also interesting that the original trial FN's were chambered in the smaller rounds
 
Last edited:
KevinB beat me to it. I was about to post his famous quote " no one I've shot with it complained"

Oh well. respect what those with their noses in the dirt and tails in the wind have to say.

I offer no other opinion following NavyShooters line. Anything I say only has sway in the world of the quiet target range with one way fire.
 
Responding to the original question of what if...
If the US(read Col. Rene Studler) had been a bit more open minded about the British .270/.280 round, NATO would likely have used the British round and the FN FAL rifle would likely have become the NATO standard rifle.(as it mostly was)
If that had been the case, the .222 Rem would have remained a good varmint cartridge, and the .223 Rem would never have been developed.(at least not as a military round)
Mr Stoner may well have gone on to develop his AR10, but in the .280 chambering.
The good Colonel was most likely the one man who had the most impact on small arms and munitions development in the period from 1945 to his retirement in the 50's. And because of his bias for the American developed round, changed the course of NATO history for the worse.(just my opinion;))
 
Question to those who are on the two way fire range. Would you welcome a more powerfull cartridge, or new platform, given the choice or would you prefer to keep your AR ? Please state the motivations behind your choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom