why did the military adopt the 5.56?

whitetailwoodsarcher

whitetailwoodsarcher

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
29   0   1
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.
 
They haven't stopped using the 7.62.

They are following NATO specs so that there is interoperability with other NATO countries. There are 2 primary rifle specs

556 for general carry - as stated, lighter and can carry more in a warzone

762 when more power and punch required. Like on longer range rifles
 
You should go to the black rifle section and do a search there. You will find a ton load of information regarding these two calibers. A's post is correct both are still in service.
 
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...

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".
 
A good part of the change had to do with changing tactics - any engagements out further than 300m or so could be dealt with airstrikes and artillery. That kind of support was much more consistent by the Vietnam War than it was in WWII.

With close in fights, being able to put more lead down more quickly was apparently the goal. If you are engaging at 300m, why carry ammo that gets you out to 600m?

Also, look at the service rifle guys are using; it is my understanding that the AR is king, because of the reduced recoil. In close quarters, recoil from the M14 is a handicap. At any rate, better to carry more ammo, suitable for the range of engagement, as opposed to less, heavier ammo which is overkill for the distances involved. That was part of it anyway.
 
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...

I have read that many are finding that a wounded soldier can still shoot back. And many of the bad guys are armed with more powerful older cartridges, such as 30.06, 7.62x54R, 7x57 and even 303 British.

Beside which if you are trained to do less "spray and pray" you don't have to carry as much ammo. :D
 
Lower recoil allows controllable automatic fire

Short answer: 5.56 NATO has 1/4 of the recoil of 7.62 NATO, this allows controllable automatic fire from a lightweight assault rifle.

Alex
 
You are wrong. The M16 has been in service longer and in more successful campaigns than the M1 was. And the M1 was successful.
 
uberkermit explained it very well in post #6.

"Tactics is the art of the logistically feasible."

It is not only that riflemen can carry more of the lighter ammunition, but the whole logistics chain is affected. With smaller, lighter ammunition it is possible to resupply the soldiers with enough ammunition that they can all have selective fire weapons. The rifles are also lighter and more controllable, as mentioned above, so if an army cares to, it can train more soldiers more easily to better levels of marksmanship. Also mentioned above was the realisation from studies of WWII experiences that most infantry engagements were at shorter ranges that didn't require "full power" cartridges.

Although the idea that dealing with your wounded in combat is a burden that can significant reduce fighting effectiveness has been much remarked upon, with an interest in general history and particularly military affairs spanning three decades and including some service as a professional infantry officer, I have never found any credible reports that any army has ever chosen its small arms with the aim of wounding more enemy than they kill.
 
Juster said:
NATO converted to 5.56 because Canada wanted to suck up to the USA.
The USA converted to 5.56due to the success of the M16.
Click to expand...

Read that again Juster. The rest of NATO, ie. Germany, U.K. etc., wanted to accommodate Canada? On such a matter as "Canada wants to suck up to the U.S.A.?"
 
TheTooner said:
Read that again Juster. The rest of NATO, ie. Germany, U.K. etc., wanted to accommodate Canada? On such a matter as "Canada wants to suck up to the U.S.A.?"
Click to expand...
Canada agreed to adopt the British .280 round, but only if the US did, since they knew the US wouldn't. Thus killing the .280.

The main advantage of 5.56 was practical full auto in a light rifle.
The M14 just wasn't doing FA well, and firepower was the big deal at the time. With 50 (or 200) thousand rounds fired per kill in Vietnam (presumably not all in combat), suppressive fire was the basic role of small arms. If you hit something, great.
 
A major concern at the time was The Human Wave Of Godless Communists. People got low on ammo with the M1 in Korea, so more ammo was needed for the Cold War trenches. SMGs used different ammo, which is bad, so the M16 full auto became the SMG. Which tends to leave you low on ammo too.
 
The 14" barreled M4 is one of the major contributors to the argument for lack of terminal performance. The SS109 round is no joke above 2500FPS,but
start neutering the velocity and expect reduced effectiveness with intranet parroting to follow.

I have no affiliation with law enforcement or military, but I have fired countless thousands of .223 rounds with most every different bullet weight and construction available into all sorts of different media,including tissue.
I would never for a minute feel uncomfortable,inadequate or "under-gunned" using the 5.56 out to 300 against the targets we're talking about.

What I always find most strange is that it seems very few folks with actual combat experience come on these forums and claim their service rifle is lacking in stopping-power.
The debate rages on...the intranets :p
 
To the OP, 2 words:

Logistics
Tactics

These I beleive are the 2 most important factors, albeit there are more than this...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom