Opening the same stinky can of worms

[bjl913]

The classic debate of 7.62 vs 5.56! anybodys thoughts? pretty good artical about it here!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htm

[Gman]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The rounds are different. They both have advantages and disadvantages. Even the 5.56 ammo that doesn't have a penetrator penetrates well. 7.62 carries more energy over a longer range. I like them both. I think the designated marksman role should have a 7.62 that can reach further. Something between a sniper and a rifleman.

[Colorado Osprey]

There is a need for both.
I don't believe that every trooper should be carrying a 7.62 nor should every trooper be carrying a 5.56..... The sad fact is there are many troopers that shouldn't even be in a combat zone with a weapon no matter how gung ho they may be.

If you look at current special units... whatever they may be civi or military, American or foreign, you will see an assortment of weapons or weapons suited to the mission that are different in caliber.... even in the same unit in a single mission.

Now training and availability of these weapons to every unit/individual would be waaay to expensive and exhaustive in resources and time.... so what is the answer?

What was that ratio I saw somewhere.... 250-300,000 rounds fired for each kill in the sandboxes??
Give standard troops an M4 in 5.56... something cheap and light.


Then you have special units where the kill ratio is less than 100 rounds per kill.
Give special units what they need or like... even if it is gold ammo.

There have been solutions to the 5.56 vs 7.62 since its inception.
Ever hear of the 6x45... it is a 5.56 case with a 6mm projectile... 30% more energy on target with a minimum weight increase and same size. The M249 was designed to shoot this round from its conseption. M16/M4's would just take a barrel swap.

Then you have the SPC or the Grendel.... if you start getting that expensive why not just go back up to the 7.62... nothing including much reduced weight gained by either... in fact just less energy.

The Marines were taking so many head shots in the sand box that there was an inquiry to see if it was intentional. The conclusion was that only the heads were being exposed and all the Marines were hitting their targets. All Marines are riflemen 1st.

My summary:
People will complain... about anything
Instead of switching ammo.... money would be better spent of marksmenship training.
I trust in my rifles because I have trained with them and know my capabilities... no matter the caliber.

[bjl913]

Oh I totally hear you osprey! That article was not my opinion, just one way of opening up that can! hehe. I am prior Army('02-'05), and love the AR platform and the 5.56 round. It seems to do a good job at what it was designed to do, and is extremely effective with well placed shots(as almost any round should be, and as any soldier should shoot). I also believe that for medium/longer ranges the 7.62 fills a very important role. The average rifleman is expected to engage targets at a "combat range" or about 300 meters in most confrontations. The 5.56 round does a great job in this niche, and also makes the ammo and weapon loadout alot lighter! the 7.62 however fills the range between "long range sniping", and the prior mentioned 5.56 effectiveness.

Both rounds have there places, and should both be used with the efficiancy and ability available to the modern soldier and marine.

My only suggestion? instead of "replacing" the 5.56 with 7.62, or vise versa, or coming up with one round to replace both, maybe it is time for the 7.62 to go through a small "overhall". maybe experiment with different weights, jacket thicknesses, core materials...

Its one of those arguments that wont end, like Windows vs Mac, and Ford vs Chevy. [Bang]

[Gman]

Its one of those arguments that wont end, like Windows vs Mac, and Ford vs Chevy. [Bang]Not exactly. The answers to those 2 questions are Windows and Chevy.

[al_g]

Not exactly. The answers to those 2 questions are Windows and Chevy.
[Beer]

Of course the real argument out there is vi vs emacs ;)

Overall I don't see a problem with the standard round being the 5.56. Now for marksmen/snipers and maybe even light machine guns something like the 7.62 might be a better choice.

[Ridge]

The 5.56 round is designed to tumble in flight and cause more damage when it hits/enters the poor sap who gets in the way...[Tooth]

[Colorado Osprey]

The 5.56 round is designed to tumble in flight and cause more damage when it hits/enters the poor sap who gets in the way...[Tooth]

I thought it was supposed to tumble at the end of its flight when it hit a soft bodied target?

[Gman]

Yep. If they tumbled in flight you wouldn't be able to hit a barn door. The nose of the bullet is decelerated at impact and the weight at the rear of the bullet still wants to move forward. This causes the bullet to yaw sideways and often it will break at the cannelure and fragment. It really makes a mess of things.

[bjl913]

I thought it was supposed to tumble at the end of its flight when it hit a soft bodied target?

correct. but with the current rounds we have been experiencing over-stabilization and the rounds have not been tumbling, just punching a nice neat hole in one side and out the other.

[Ridge]

correct. but with the current rounds we have been experiencing over-stabilization and the rounds have not been tumbling, just punching a nice neat hole in one side and out the other.

Clearly we must dispose of these as fast as possible so they dont pose a danger to our soldiers...

[jerrymrc]

correct. but with the current rounds we have been experiencing over-stabilization and the rounds have not been tumbling, just punching a nice neat hole in one side and out the other.

And that is why the troops that are there complain. "I shot him 3 times and will not go down" I was in DS and currently work for the Army. I have AR's, Fal's, AK's and a PSL. My issue is the bullet (as has been noted) Load up the patrol troops with 60-65Gr Vmax bullets and the soft targets will not like getting shot even in the arm.

All the damn technology we have in relation to bullets and the troops are limited to FMJ. Speaking of bullets I was loading up some today(7.62x39). Hornaday SP on the left and 123gr V-max on the right. (no longer made, wonder why) You should see what the V-max does to a soft target out to 200 yards.

[Gman]

A lack of yaw doesn't have anything to do with overstabilization. It's due to a lack of velocity. The heavier M855 out of the 14.5" M4 and ranges over 100m is the problem.

Overstabilization is a problem when the bullet doesn't follow a nice ballistic arc and keeps a point up attitude after it should 'nose over' at the top of the arc and be descending.

[John Moses Browning]

correct. but with the current rounds we have been experiencing over-stabilization and the rounds have not been tumbling, just punching a nice neat hole in one side and out the other.

The funny thing is, is that if we simply used soft-point ammunition, this wouldn't be a problem.

[Gman]

Those freakin' Hague Conventions are such a pain in the butt. A Barnes Triple-Shock X-bullet should do the trick.

Using XM193 could help get the velocities back up.

[John Moses Browning]

Those freakin' Hague Conventions are such a pain in the butt. A Barnes Triple-Shock X-bullet should do the trick.



I thought we never signed anything in stone regarding the Hague Conventions, just agreed to abide by it.


Using XM193 could help get the velocities back up.

That, and using longer barrels. Somewhere between 16-20 inches would be a lot better than the 14.5's.

[bjl913]

so lets take this a step further.

What length of barrel, rate of twist, type of bullet(that we can realisticly get away with), weight of bullet, and target velocity should we be looking for to make the 5.56 round last longer with our service, with minimal cost to the military in converting weapons(barrels)?!?!

You would think the DOD has people working on this, and is giving millions towards a budget, but you see where that has taken us. Failed adoptions of rounds that would require total overhauls of current weapons!