British SAS to go back to 7.62

[Mp7]

good read:

The bullets upgrade – and a new range of rifles designed to fire them – were recommended in a top-secret report on SAS operations in Afghanistan. It called for a return to a ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy and for heavier rounds to be issued to troops. The report’s authors described bloody clashes with Taliban jihadists who managed to ignore their bullet wounds and carry on shooting.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ot-wound-policy-lives-risk.html#ixzz2OZEhpVLK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294631/SAS-use-bigger-bullets-kill-enemy-outright-claiming-shoot-wound-policy-lives-risk.html

 

[kwguy]

Wow, modern journalism. I guess the U.S. military needs to get away from the "shoot to wound" policy as well, huh? That's some goofy writing. The 7.62 certainly isn't replacing the 5.56, at least not in the U.S. military.

The 7.62 has the advantage at longer ranges over the 5.56 (I'm talking about MK262). Within the fragmentation range of 5.56, that round is pretty effective. At longer ranges, the 5.56 round slows down to the point where it does not fragment, so it basically punches a .22 caliber hole through the target.

This is nothing new, and the U.S. always had some 7.62 weapons in use for longer ranges. The Sage EBR and Remington bolt actions spring to mind, in addition to other machine guns. The SCAR-H allows those weapons platforms to be somewhat combined, providing excellent accuracy with lighter weight.

But, with either round, 'shooting to wound' certainly isn't 'policy'.

 

[WardenWolf]

Unfortunately, aside from the SCAR, pretty much all the battle rifles in 7.62x51 are obsolete and / or not made anymore. The FAL, like it or not, does not meet modern accuracy standards and is too heavy. An AR10 variant could fill the void, though.

Afghanistan really demands longer-ranged combat. It's the exception to the rule for modern combat because the battlefields there are anything but modern. They're wide open spaces for the most part.

 

[kwguy]

Exactly. The SCAR-H is just about perfect for modernizing those older 7.62 platforms.

 

[razorback2003]

MOst of the 308 battle rifles are heavy guns. FN FAL's and G3's are big.

AR 223's have great accuracy and are not too heavy to carry.

 

[kwguy]

True, I gotta say, that SCAR-H is pretty nice. Not nearly as heavy as a SAGE EBR. So you have a select fire .308 battle rifle with sniper accuracy, and relatively light weight. A natural evolution and complement to the 5.56 rifles also used.

 

[WardenWolf]

As much as I hate to say it, though, if I were able to choose from any .308 military-style firearm in the world to use in that role, I'd probably choose a modified VEPR .308. Why? It's very lightweight, it's reliable, and it's accurate. And it's pretty easy to accessorize.

 

[herkyguy]

Consideration #1: Weight.

Consideration #2: Weight.

Consideration #3: Weight.

Multiply that factor 10X when you add middle eastern terrain.

I don't see a .308 being standard issue any time soon. perhaps on request or readily available for a designated heavy hitter, but not for every man.

 

[herkyguy]

"The bullets are also lead-free to reduce environmental pollution"

So glad that we, the free world, are concerned enough to prevent lead pollution in a land literally covered in land mines.....

 

[Sapper771]

Consideration #1: Weight.

Consideration #2: Weight.

Consideration #3: Weight.

Multiply that factor 10X when you add middle eastern terrain.

I don't see a .308 being standard issue any time soon. perhaps on request or readily available for a designated heavy hitter, but not for every man.

This^

Considering the standard combat load for a ground guy is close to 80lbs, more weight is not a good idea. Like stated, combine this with the climate (winter: cold, windy , and wet. Summer: 120°F-150°F and windy) and the terrain (open desert flats and mountains).

When we were in Iraq, we requested a M14/M21 for our platoon. They sent us a Barrett M107 .50cal rifle. While a nice weapon, it was nearly useless to us (Infantry).


My recommendation would be to design a 5.56 projectile that is more lethal on soft targets........or openly issue Mk262 to all front line combat units.

 

[jamesbeat]

Sounds to me like they are talking about stopping power not lethality.
I'm sure those Afghan fighters who ignored their bullet wounds would still bleed out. Remember, more people are killed with .22lr than any other round, it just takes longer.

I wonder if there is a reason other than environmental concern for using lead free bullets?
Could it be that they are made from an alloy that weighs less, or that has better wounding characteristics such as yawing more readily?

I think that since we're not fighting against a proper army, all bets should be off. Break out the hollow points and exploding bullets!

 

[-v-]

I think there are multiple reasons for the 5.56 just doesen't have the punch:
1) "I'm *SURE* I hit the guy": A miss with any round will be ineffective at inducing death. I always wonder how many reports of 5.56 inefficiency is due to the guys simply missing their target and thinking they hit it.
2) "Feel No Pain!!!": A fighter hopped up on drugs, which is not uncommon among middle eastern fighters, will not succumb to anything that does not take out the CNS. Think zombies that run and shoot back.
3) "Out of reach" - 5.56 at 600-800 yards will hit the target...with the same force as a .22. Hits are hits, but a 5.5mm hole through someone isn't going to bring them down in a hurry.

 

[Garak]

The "funny" part is that restrictions on bullet technology date back to the 19th century, 1868 if I'm correct, and later in 1899 - days when military conflicts still consisted largely of troops standing in lines on a field and shooting at each other. Maybe, just maybe, in the time of smart bombs, lasers and drones, it should be time to update the ancient conventions.

 

[Greenmachin3]

I think there are multiple reasons for the 5.56 just doesen't have the punch:
1) "I'm *SURE* I hit the guy": A miss with any round will be ineffective at inducing death. I always wonder how many reports of 5.56 inefficiency is due to the guys simply missing their target and thinking they hit it.
2) "Feel No Pain!!!": A fighter hopped up on drugs, which is not uncommon among middle eastern fighters, will not succumb to anything that does not take out the CNS. Think zombies that run and shoot back.
3) "Out of reach" - 5.56 at 600-800 yards will hit the target...with the same force as a .22. Hits are hits, but a 5.5mm hole through someone isn't going to bring them down in a hurry.

I think Amnesty International was looking into the battle of Fallujah because of the number of head and chest shots scored by Marines. Thinking that they might in fact be executions because most of the hits by small arms fire was to the head or upper torso. Turns out the troops on the ground were just making good shots. Keep in mind this was an urban conflict with engagements of less than 200m.

 

[Ehtereon11B]

Consideration #1: Weight.

Consideration #2: Weight.

Consideration #3: Weight.

Multiply that factor 10X when you add mountain terrain.

I don't see a .308 being standard issue any time soon. perhaps on request or readily available for a designated heavy hitter, but not for every man.

Corrected that for you. But yes. Hot and/or elevation drastically effect combat effectiveness and weight allotments. This is why at certain elevations, plate carrier armor is used instead of IOTV or IBA armor. It is only 6 or 7 pounds lighter. But walking on those mountains, you can feel the difference.

 

[Al Thompson]

I think Amnesty International was looking into the battle of Fallujah

Read that somewhere @ 2004/5. IIRC, part of it was the higher numbers of optics used by the good guys.

 

[barnbwt]

"Wounding" ability would be far less of a concern if they'd (we'd) simply dump this dumb pretense of using FMJ out of humanitarian (or is it budget?) concern. It's been proven to be at best a pointless, and at worst dangerous restriction based on ancient technology and outmoded combat chivalry. We already have semi-effective workarounds with tumbling bullets, and we sure aren't training for "wound shots," so why not dispense with the steel jackets at this point? Use the right tool for the job, as we have in pretty much every other facet of war we can think of, regardless of cost.

I also have to question the wisdom of changing from a long-proven ammunition in response to a single conflict. They do this after every major operation, to perfect strategies for the last war. So 223 can't reach across valleys. Who the heck says the next battle won't be to liberate the dense cities of Greece from some tin-pot anti-Euro dictator in 5 years? We learned (once and for all ) back in the 40's that distant engagements are typically rare for infantryman, and are better addressed with dedicated marksman with big-rifles and machinegunners.

I think the big lesson the brass should take from recent conflict is the importance and utility of newly-developed optics technologies, as well as integrated intelligence and communications schemes. That and the need to adequately supply your troops if you intend to win a war (lesson for politicians that they keep unlearning). Our guys have been, if anything, too effective against the other guys in open warfare! (I'm sure we can do even better, though)

It'd be a better use of resources to address the (growing, but now) ridiculous weight we saddle our soldiers with intelligently (which does not mean those stupid robot legs ), and if suppressors began to be deployed as more common equipment to at least try and mitigate battlefield/training noise (seeing as hearing damage is, I believe, no. 1 on veterans' health ailments)

TCB

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

2) "Feel No Pain!!!": A fighter hopped up on drugs, which is not uncommon among middle eastern fighters, will not succumb to anything that does not take out the CNS. Think zombies that run and shoot back.

Reminds me of one guy that Carlos Hathcock killed. Took multiple rounds from his 30-06.

 

[MachIVshooter]

FN FAL's and G3's are big.

In full on rifle form, yes.

But paratrooper models, and alloy reciever FAL or polymer lower G3 are not that heavy and fairly compact.

In stock configuration, my DSA para carbine was 9.97 lbs fully loaded with a 20 rd mag, and only about 2" longer than my 16" AR-15. It's a bit heavier with the scope mount, red dot sight and rail + VFG, but still not that bad:



Biggest issue with the 7.62 rifles is ammo; it's more than double the weight of 5.56.

 

[gunner69]

When I worked with the 1st Royal Australian Regiment (1st RAR) in 1966 in Viet-Nam we carried the Aussie version of the FN-FAL. Heavy as **** to carry, however the zips couldn't hide behind their coconut trees and be safe. Rice paddy dikes were not safe to hide in either. Never witnessed a jam with the FAL the whole time I was there. I LIKE that FAL carbine........

 

[WardenWolf]

The real problem with the FAL, though, besides its weight, is its 2 MOA+ accuracy. In that respect, it's functionally obsolete. It's bested in both weight and accuracy by a VEPR .308, and even more so with more advanced rifles like the SCAR-H. All that extra range isn't very useful if you can't take advantage of it. Additionally, it doesn't take well to sand, as the Israelis learned. They had to redesign the bolt with special cutouts to make it work reliably in their environment, and ultimately replaced it with the Galil .308.

 

[fireside44]

The real problem with the FAL, though, besides its weight, is its 2 MOA+ accuracy. In that respect, it's functionally obsolete.

Which is why it is still in service around the globe and is currently seeing action in Syria.

 

[Girodin]

besides its weight, is its 2 MOA+ accuracy. In that respect, it's functionally obsolete.

With a gun that has 2MOA accuracy one can (assuming the shooting skill is there) pretty consistently make COM shots out to 600 yards. Also its not like 2 MOA is dramatically worse than what a lot of rack grade M4s are going to shoot with issued ammo (particularly with a 4 MOA red dot on it).

BTW I'd love to see the vepr 308 that is going to consistently shoot better than 2MOA with issued ammo.

We may be able to build more accurate guns, for example the scar, but I'd hardly argue the accuracy of a FAL makes it unserviceable.

Considering an M4 probably weighs a bit over 7lbs a 10 lbs gun is, comparatively, very heavy. I know when I get out and do drills with my own roughly 7.5 lbs AR and then get out a roughly 10-12 lbs 7.62x51 (depending on whats mounted on it) I definitively notice the weight. Even more so the more gear I have. As was stated ammo for the 7.62 weighs a lot more. A 20 round loaded Scar 17 mag weighs 4.85 lbs a loaded 30 round aluminim GI 5.56 mag weighs about 2.9 lbs. That is a pretty notable difference.

"Wounding" ability would be far less of a concern if they'd (we'd) simply dump this dumb pretense of using FMJ out of humanitarian (or is it budget?) concern.

Well is for the US arguably a constraint of customary international law. I actually wrote a 50+ page paper on the legality of the US using expanding ammunition. Long and short is that to me there is a very very good argument that in at least certain types of conflicts it could and a plausible argument they could in others. Depending on they type of conflict (International armed conflict vs Non international armed conflict) the laws of war differ. Yes the proscription is somewhat of a historical accident that has its roots in attempting to impede the British as well as bad science and lots of misinformation and hyperbole. However, that alone is not enough to argue against the proscription in terms of international law.

 

[BushyGuy]

5.56 Nato is fine for short and med range, if they us military needs to reach out and toch someone they call in for air support. if they need range they always have a backup plan.

 

[kwguy]

7.62 is a good complement to the 5.56. It's better at longer ranges, and the SCAR allows longer range accuracy. Having both is best.