why did the military adopt the 5.56?

Watching comabt videos it seems that most of the fire is from a c6 or c9 , and that they aren't really shooting at defined targets as much as shooting at firing points of the enemy. I imagine it be pretty hard to see a guy hiding in some bushes 600m out in a mountain.

No military experience here though, so i don't really know. Maybe NATO knew that the 5.56 is a totally fine deer round, and as such thought it would be good for killing godless heathens as well.
 
Superbrad said:
I did 3 tours.... that is all I have to say...
Click to expand...

You should have just mentioned that in the first place, now your status in this thread is elevated to godlike!
Sorry to hear the 5.56 caused you and your comrades so much grief.
Seriously though, much respect for your service.
 
My ruck got a lot lighter when we made the switch to the C7. The FN's i carried were bagged out. Re-sprung and re-barreled at least three times since the 50's.
Had a C2 break open on me firing from the hip because of a weak latch spring.
We basically followed what the rest of Nato was doing. I found the C7 more accurate than the FN. I was one of the original Small Arms Replacement Program Instructors in my unit and found that the old school troops didn't like the m16 at all. Complaints that it was a terrible drill rifle and too light for bayonette drill. Slashing, smashing, perrys and
the stock wouldn't reach the ground if you were standing at the order and over 6'. Even Women could do our forced marches(2X10's) with it. I had a dinosaur of a WO that actually trained with the Ross rifle and he was one of the first Canadians to drop the new C7 on parade(complained it was too short)lol. The big drop plates we used to shoot at are too heavy for 5.56 to knock over. 7.62 busts up walls and bricks better as well.
Its a good varmit round but a liitle under powered for the large game i hunt.
 
It was explained to me like this...

A single dead enemy represents 1 enemy removed from battle. An injured enemy represents 3 removed from battle. That would be 1 injured & 2 to carry him away. The .556 is far more likely to injure than kill as compared to the 7.62mm counterpart. This is in addition to the fact that a soldier can carry much more .556 ammunition and the smaller round is much less expensive.
 
Superbrad said:
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.....
Click to expand...

Superbrad, thank you for your service and honesty. A few weeks ago I was involved in a bit of a verbal tussle between those whom relish in the doomsday scenario stuff an myself, who am close to many veterans whom spend the rest of their lives forgetting the memories of battle.

As for the .223 versus the 308, I shoot both. At 300 yards, the ballistic trajectory of the 223 and 308 are close. Whallup a coyote at 300 or so yards, and then use a 308. There is a world of difference.

I have never, ever been in battle or used a firearm in self defense or defense of my family (and pray I never have too) but based on my simple hunting knowledge, I would be grabbing for my 308 or 30-06 everytime based on what they do to a deer, black bear and moose.
 
Being a baby boomer of the American persuasion, the Vietnam era was more than evening news. They were called "Rifles from Mattel" at first. Supposedly the big deal was the weight of the ammo and recoil that everyone could handle.

My son spent a few years in the sand with force recon marines and later with blackwater up in northern Iraq. There were a lot of different guns used. Force recon used Springfield 1911pistols in .45ACP with .223 rifles (M4, squad automic weapons and Rem .308 sniper rifles). Blackwater used Glock .40 cal pistols and a lot of Russian long guns. It seems like anything that was slightly different than the regular infantry had their own preferece for firearms. Contractors used the Russian stuff because of availability and price I would suspect.
 
After Korea ,the US army did a study on casualties(sp) .They found the average wound was caused by 55grs. shrapnel size . So why not use that size of bullet.

You can carry more lighter ammo.

Less recoil, better acruracy.

A jungle war.

The 5.56 gives nastier wounds than 7.62, with less killing,so it takes two guys out of action.
 
In both the CF and British forces, the adoption of the 5.56 platforms changed the marksmanship standards upward from the "bad" old 7.62 days.

I was in the CF infantry during the transition, and our old "good" days on the range became "ok" days behind a C7. While I wouldn't want to be hit by either, I guess the best argument could be made for the 5.56 since more trigger-pullers could hit the target more often. The various effects of terminal ballistics are immmaterial if the round doesn't hit anything but dirt.
 
DocB said:
In both the CF and British forces, the adoption of the 5.56 platforms changed the marksmanship standards upward from the "bad" old 7.62 days.

I was in the CF infantry during the transition, and our old "good" days on the range became "ok" days behind a C7. While I wouldn't want to be hit by either, I guess the best argument could be made for the 5.56 since more trigger-pullers could hit the target more often. The various effects of terminal ballistics are immmaterial if the round doesn't hit anything but dirt.
Click to expand...

I trained the first batch of British infantry recruits to start out with 5.56mm and the SA80. We believed the SUSAT* optical sight was also significant, as its forerunner the SUIT** had improved shooting scores on the range with the SLR (L1A1 version of the FN FAL in 7.62) but proved unpopular in the field because the mounting system wasn't very good for holding zero.

Trials had indicated marksmanship would be improved with the new weapon system so the range practises and marksmanship standards for the new weapon system set higher expectations than the SLR and 7.62mm. The first course of new recruits exceeded these higher standards by a good margin. By the end of my posting at the Depot the standards had been revised to require even higher scores and even then the success rate was higher than with the old weapons.

Although the optical sight was credited for much of this improvement, I heard that in the support arms where the SA80 was issued with iron sights only (and as a bullpup it had a shorter sighting plane than the SLR) the recruit depots also reported better overall accuracy, so the lower recoil cartridge was definitely significant.

Before my posting to the Depot, my battalion had an operational tour in Belize, for which we converted to the AR15, and that also bore out that the lighter rifle in 5.56mm improved marksmanship scores.

And as you say, it doesn't take two more enemy combatants to carry away the casualty you missed with a 7.62mm. I liked the FAL, it's a very robust, reliable rifle and that's very reassuring, as is the power of the 7.62mm. But the big picture truth is the 5.56mm in a lighter rifle is better overall.



*SUSAT = Sight Unit, Small Arms, Trilux
**SUIT = Sight Unit, Infantry, Trilux
 
A bean counter realized that the winner of any given engagement is almost always the side that fires off more rounds. The rest is self-explanatory.
 
Wow. 6th page of black rifle topic in hunting and sporting arms forum....pretty good.
As for choice of 5.56. Simple cause it was a NATO agreement. The USA had a significant lead in the nato decision since they were the ones who developed the cartridge and had plenty of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ as well, Eugene Stoner developed the perfect vessel for this cartridge.
My .02 cents
 
downwindtracker2 said:
The 5.56 gives nastier wounds than 7.62, with less killing,so it takes two guys out of action.
Click to expand...

Works on paper but never in history and is a pervasive myth.

Case in point Vietnam as well as the various conflicts the past decade in the Middle east.

Especially if the enemy in question considers it an honor to die in battle for some mythical sky being, or in the case of being marched forth to fight with a bayonet at ones back or a knife at the throats of ones family.
 
the point of wounding is lost if the opposing army doesn't give a sh*t about their wounded; ie the "human wave" tactics- that's a lesson we should have learned in korea, and repeated in viet nam etc- we assumed they'd do the "humanitarian " thing and care for their wounded as we do
 
TheTooner said:
I trained the first batch of British infantry recruits to start out with 5.56mm and the SA80. We believed the SUSAT* optical sight was also significant, as its forerunner the SUIT** had improved shooting scores on the range with the SLR (L1A1 version of the FN FAL in 7.62) but proved unpopular in the field because the mounting system wasn't very good for holding zero.

Trials had indicated marksmanship would be improved with the new weapon system so the range practises and marksmanship standards for the new weapon system set higher expectations than the SLR and 7.62mm. The first course of new recruits exceeded these higher standards by a good margin. By the end of my posting at the Depot the standards had been revised to require even higher scores and even then the success rate was higher than with the old weapons.

Although the optical sight was credited for much of this improvement, I heard that in the support arms where the SA80 was issued with iron sights only (and as a bullpup it had a shorter sighting plane than the SLR) the recruit depots also reported better overall accuracy, so the lower recoil cartridge was definitely significant.

Before my posting to the Depot, my battalion had an operational tour in Belize, for which we converted to the AR15, and that also bore out that the lighter rifle in 5.56mm improved marksmanship scores.

And as you say, it doesn't take two more enemy combatants to carry away the casualty you missed with a 7.62mm. I liked the FAL, it's a very robust, reliable rifle and that's very reassuring, as is the power of the 7.62mm. But the big picture truth is the 5.56mm in a lighter rifle is better overall.
Click to expand...

That's the most informative post in this thread by far, thanks!.
Nice to hear from experienced folks.
 
Just a thought and opinion. The 5.56 is a good wounding round, but if you're not up against "trained" military soldiers isn't it better to have that 7.62 killing round. Hell they have suicide bombers. I'm going to say that is one wounded soldier no body is going to try and save. What about 7.62 causing hydrostatic shock isn't the a factor to consider?

Personally I like the look of the new FAL rifles opposed to the c7s and c8s. The FALs "look" like they handle recoil well for 7.62 and are reliable. But i'll never know sigh....damn restrictions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom