awwhite1012
Member
beacause they dont want to deal with the huge cost of replacing everyones rifle eventually right now even thoughtthe 6.8 only requires a barrel change the 5.56 mags and lower reciever could be kept
If you were a soldier in Iraq and had a choice of combat rounds, 7.62x39 or 5.56?
- Thread starter XD-40 Shooter
- Start date
- Status
Fosbery
Member
If you're missing in a room-to-room engagement it's not because you're using the wrong cartridge, it's because you can't shoot
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The SKS is 7.62x39 and I've never heard any of those stories. Perhaps some of our many veterans here can chime in about whether they have ever seen Dragunovs or SKS rifles being used for DM work and how they got adopted for that role?
I am thinking he was referring to the "dragunov" (which is 7.62x54R) when he said he knows it is not x39. I hope so, anyway.
But this would have to be the first time I've heard of a DM deciding to take an SKS over a M16 or M14.
I can't comment on the Dragunov. I could see why someone may want one-- but I haven't heard anything about our DM's using them either.
-- John
HorseSoldier
Member
Like most of the "US troops love Russian guns" stories floating around on the internet, there were some cases immediately after the invasion of Iraq where some US troops acquired and employed captured SVDs (and possibly Iraqi Tabuks as well). Like the similar use of AKs by troops whose MTOE weapon was a handgun, this reflected troops grabbing something that gave them a capability their issue weapons lacked, as DMRs weren't that widespread then.
My understanding is that guys who did get their hands on Iraqi SVDs were not overly impressed, which is probably more of a testament to Iraqi care and maintenance of their weapons as well as the use of 7.62x54R machinegun ammo (which I'm assuming has some built in dispersion like our MG ammo) instead of the special sniper loads the Russians developed.
Never, ever, ever heard of anyone trying to use an SKS for a DMR. Actually never, ever, ever heard of anyone in the US military picking up an SKS for combat use at all in the current conflict.
Bartholomew Roberts writes:
What type of rifle were you using and how much ammo did you carry?
Mostly the M-16, but also used the M-14, M-60 and AK's. As for ammo, we carried as much as we could.
Take a look at the statistics Guntech posted earlier. A 13 ton difference between 7.62x51 and 5.56 for 1,000,000 rounds. In order to provide the same amount of ammo in theater, you are going to need more cargo planes, more trucks, more helos, more fuel, more logistics guys, etc.
If it saves lives, it's worth it.
.Hovering over active battlefields and kicking out ammo is a lot dicier these days [/B
I have no idea where you ever got that idea, but don't bet on it. In Vietnam hot LZ's were treacherous to say the least. The NVA had automatic weapons, rockets and anti aircraft guns. Many choppers were shot down and crashed and burned.
What type of rifle were you using and how much ammo did you carry?
Mostly the M-16, but also used the M-14, M-60 and AK's. As for ammo, we carried as much as we could.
Take a look at the statistics Guntech posted earlier. A 13 ton difference between 7.62x51 and 5.56 for 1,000,000 rounds. In order to provide the same amount of ammo in theater, you are going to need more cargo planes, more trucks, more helos, more fuel, more logistics guys, etc.
If it saves lives, it's worth it.
.Hovering over active battlefields and kicking out ammo is a lot dicier these days [/B
I have no idea where you ever got that idea, but don't bet on it. In Vietnam hot LZ's were treacherous to say the least. The NVA had automatic weapons, rockets and anti aircraft guns. Many choppers were shot down and crashed and burned.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Which supports the idea for a longer logistical tail in order to carry a heavier round how?
That is a big IF. We don't know that the caliber change would necessarily save lives. Assuming without question that the 7.62x51 is dramatically superior, for every Special Forces guy kicking in doors who is saved by a heavier caliber; you might have the four guys who crashed on the helo trying to deliver that round to him. For that matter, how much ammo did gunships suppressing fire in the LZ expend so that the helo could deliver that ammo to begin with? Because that ammo has to be replaced as well...
Not only that; but the money spent on logistics can't be spent on things like on-station air support, artillery, and other weapons that are dramatically more effective in warfare.
HorseSoldier
Member
Plus, if we were to switch back to 7.62x51, there are very real questions about how many guys would be killed because they needed more than 20 rounds in the gun or who failed to transition to another target (or put a controlled pair into one guy -- .308 ain't a silver bullet and CQB techniques aren't going to change) because his issue weapon is not fast handling enough or due to recoil.
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
If we were to go back to the 7.62x51 round, which we wont, I would like to see something along the lines of a 100-110 grain bullet instead of the usuall 150ish grain bullet. That would make some difference in weight and recoil.
HorseSoldier
Member
SOCOM tested 6.8 SPC in combat, and the data was that it's heavier thump did not represent enough improvement over the 5.56mm round to bother with replacement. The cost of replacing weapons, per se, was never an issue within SOCOM (and 6.8 SPC was never in the works for Big Army anyway), but the loss of logistical commonality was an issue, as was the fact that 5.56mm has a good track record of killing at real world engagement ranges if people can do their job and put the bullets on target. Enhanced lethality at 2-400 meters is nice, but when the average engagement range is about 30 meters, having fewer rounds in the gun and slightly higher recoil for a modest increase in lethality just was not justifiable.
As for conversion, as GunTech noted, you need a bolt, barrel (or just a whole upper) and new magazines. USGI aluminum won't cut it, steel HK's might, I suppose, with a new follower.
Bartholomew Roberts writes:
Which supports the idea for a longer logistical tail in order to carry a heavier round how?
I don't quite understand what you mean by this?
That is a big IF. We don't know that the caliber change would necessarily save lives. Assuming without question that the 7.62x51 is dramatically superior, for every Special Forces guy kicking in doors who is saved by a heavier caliber; you might have the four guys who crashed on the helo trying to deliver that round to him. For that matter, how much ammo did gunships suppressing fire in the LZ expend so that the helo could deliver that ammo to begin with? Because that ammo has to be replaced as well...
Yes it is a big IF. Some of your questions and statements are hypotheticals and somewhat rhetorical in nature. I don't have all the answers, no one does. There are risks in every situation, and no two are the same. Experience is the best teacher, and we learn be our failures or victories. No one can really know the advantages or disadvantages of every tactical move that is made by all the players. They are too fragmented, isolated and varied.
Not only that; but the money spent on logistics can't be spent on things like on-station air support, artillery, and other weapons that are dramatically more effective in warfare.
Here again, each situation is different in and of themselves. There are many variables to be considered before deploying any kind of action. If you have experienced war, you would understand that in many cases the book goes out the window and field expediency takes over. Nothing is cut and dry, and situations and decisions on the battlefield can change in a heart beat.
Which supports the idea for a longer logistical tail in order to carry a heavier round how?
I don't quite understand what you mean by this?
That is a big IF. We don't know that the caliber change would necessarily save lives. Assuming without question that the 7.62x51 is dramatically superior, for every Special Forces guy kicking in doors who is saved by a heavier caliber; you might have the four guys who crashed on the helo trying to deliver that round to him. For that matter, how much ammo did gunships suppressing fire in the LZ expend so that the helo could deliver that ammo to begin with? Because that ammo has to be replaced as well...
Yes it is a big IF. Some of your questions and statements are hypotheticals and somewhat rhetorical in nature. I don't have all the answers, no one does. There are risks in every situation, and no two are the same. Experience is the best teacher, and we learn be our failures or victories. No one can really know the advantages or disadvantages of every tactical move that is made by all the players. They are too fragmented, isolated and varied.
Not only that; but the money spent on logistics can't be spent on things like on-station air support, artillery, and other weapons that are dramatically more effective in warfare.
Here again, each situation is different in and of themselves. There are many variables to be considered before deploying any kind of action. If you have experienced war, you would understand that in many cases the book goes out the window and field expediency takes over. Nothing is cut and dry, and situations and decisions on the battlefield can change in a heart beat.
The platform is probably the limiting factor. I doubt anything that can be squeezed into the M16 magazine is really going to be a radical change for what's already there. It's just trading velocity for weight, adding recoil, etc. As noted previously, it just trading things around.
And, the fact of the matter is that small arms have little impact on warfare. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. The ACR tests of the 1980s showed that even fairly radical changes in the rifle translate into fairly modest improvemts in performance. The army isn't interested in the next rifle. They want the next weapon system. That is the reason for the OICW, OCSW and similar systems. The rifle has reached it peak, and it's time to move on.
Unfortunately, this attitude doesn't take into account the explosion of counter-insurgency warfare, and the big Army is still concentrating its system on fighting another big army.
And, the fact of the matter is that small arms have little impact on warfare. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. The ACR tests of the 1980s showed that even fairly radical changes in the rifle translate into fairly modest improvemts in performance. The army isn't interested in the next rifle. They want the next weapon system. That is the reason for the OICW, OCSW and similar systems. The rifle has reached it peak, and it's time to move on.
Unfortunately, this attitude doesn't take into account the explosion of counter-insurgency warfare, and the big Army is still concentrating its system on fighting another big army.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I meant if helicopters frequently get shot down and you rely on helicopters for resupply, then adopting anything that requires more frequent resupply is not going to be helpful.
Bartholomew Roberts writes:
We don't know if "more frequent resupplies would be needed" One trip, double load, but here again we are getting into hypotheticals.
Perhaps we should let this rest for a time. It's not accomplishing anything constructive. But getting back to my original answer, from my experience as an old worn out combat soldier, I would choose the 7.62x39 over the 5.56 for urban fighting. JMO. From what experience do you base your selection?
We don't know if "more frequent resupplies would be needed" One trip, double load, but here again we are getting into hypotheticals.
Perhaps we should let this rest for a time. It's not accomplishing anything constructive. But getting back to my original answer, from my experience as an old worn out combat soldier, I would choose the 7.62x39 over the 5.56 for urban fighting. JMO. From what experience do you base your selection?
Harley Quinn
Member
It seems more are going for the 7.62 as the thread gets longer and time for more to participate.
I find this very strange considering all the good things that have been mentioned and displayed by GunTech. Along with the facts of the superpower of all munitions that are sold to other countries and built in the US of A would allow others to want an inferior package to the rifleman of our country
GunTech keep up the good work and all the information it is a pleasure to read your information..
HQ
I find this very strange considering all the good things that have been mentioned and displayed by GunTech. Along with the facts of the superpower of all munitions that are sold to other countries and built in the US of A would allow others to want an inferior package to the rifleman of our country
GunTech keep up the good work and all the information it is a pleasure to read your information..
HQ
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well, if a million rounds of 5.56 weighs 13 tons less than a million rounds of 7.62x51, it seems reasonable to me that that you aren't going to cram in 13 tons extra weight without extra vehicles to carry that load. On a personal level, you aren't going to carry the same amount of 7.62x51 as 5.56 either, so you will need to replenish your personal ammo more frequently as well.
I didn't make a selection because I don't think there is enough difference between 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 to argue about it. Training is much more important than caliber selection.
Fosbery
Member
That does assume that ammo consumption is the same, but it should go down with more powerful cartridges as bad guys go down after fewer rounds. Then again, I suspect 99% of infantry rifle fire hits nothing of consequence so you're probably actually closer to the truth.
- Status