In reality, which is the more effective combat round?

[akphule]

Modern Battlefield Issues

Several key issues about the reality of the modern battlefield have not be addressed. While high volume fire and maneuver is absolutely a part of modern doctrine it does NOT address a very real primary threat our forces are dealing with on a daily basis, the VBIED.

Much of our work in Iraq (and to a lessor extent Afghanistan) involves urban patrol and checkpoints. A primary threat is vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIED). Now having worked in those environments I have come to realize how ineffectual the 5.56 is (particualrly from M4 barrel lengths) in engaging a vehicle. When carrying my issued M4 for checkpoint work or motorcade work I was only comfortable when I had heavy sniper (50 cal) or medium/heavy machine gun (30 call/50 cal) machinegun over watch in order to stop an aggressive vehicle from getting close enough to detonate.

For small unit tactics involving fire and maneuver I do find the logistics advantage of the smaller cartridge very compelling. In addition, the M4 makes for a nice CQB tool for building entry. In most scenarios fire, maneuver, and radio communications to heavy weapons are the preferred method for reducing an enemy behind heavy cover (concrete walls, earthen barriers, tunnels, etc.). Due to the brief engagement time available when under an aggressive VBIED attack those options rarely come into play.

In summary, a small unit (6-12 men) with semi-automatic 30 cal weapons are much more effective at immediately disabling an aggressive vehicle than the equivalent number utilizing 5.56mm weapons. Also, for those that have the opportunity to test it I recommend shooting shooting an abandoned car with 5.56mm weapons in M4 barrel lengths and full m16 barrel lengths as well as 30 cal rifles. As much as I prefer to carry a M4 package I realize I am giving up a lot in terms of destructive capability.

As always, your mileage may very.

For reference my speciality is not infantry work but rather high risk exucutive.

-AKPHULE

 

[Tony Williams]

I've read an account by one person in Iraq who had freedom of choice over weapons, and carried a .458 SOCOM. It demonstrated remarkable effectiveness in stopping vehicles at checkpoints (it could break the engine block) and anybody hit by it, centre mass, was out - period.

Despite the heavy recoil and much smaller ammo capacity, this user stated he would certainly choose it over a 5.56mm when his own life was on the line. I'm not suggesting that it would make a good replacement for the 5.56mm, but it's food for thought...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Metapotent]

Swings and roundabouts...And their velocity doesn't drop off THAT fast. I have just re-read the stats from HK and they state that the 4.6mm will penentrate the CRISAT target out to 300m - which is enough to deal with 90% of all fire-fights (a figure obtained through analysing experience in 20th century wars). The 5.7mm is at least as good. For longer distances, you would of course keep the 7.62x51 for GPMGs and DMR/sniper rifles.

The velocity in 5.7 drops off enough that the point blank range is only 100yds... The battle zero for my m16 gives me pointblank range of 225 meters. I can hit torso targets at 400yds by aiming at the head, and anything closer than that I can aim just about dead-on. That is a benefit of the 5.56 over the 5.7x28. Much flatter shooting.

i agree with roadwild if the 223 is so wounderful why is the top brass pushing for change? and a change away from the nato round?

First of all it is mostly just special forces groups that are pushing to replace the 5.56 NATO. Secondly, the US military is constantly developing and testing possible replacement cartridges to advance the military in the future and many of these research and developement programs are advocated by zealous high ranking officials. This doesn't mean that the 5.56 needs to be replaced as the standard infantry round right now. It just means that the US military is evolving and that our military leaders are doing things to make sure that in the FUTURE our military will remain at the top of their game.

Take this for example...High ranking military leaders are pushing for the quick replacement of the F15 by the F22 Raptor..but does this mean that the F15 is ceasing to do its job and is ineffective nowadays? Absolutely not. The F15 is still getting the job done very well, its still the most effective and battle-proven air-dominance fighter in the world, and is exponentially more advanced than the fighters of any of our potentional adversaries.

This is the situation with the 5.56. It is doing its job just well and is still at the top of its game for its intended purpose (which isn't to drop with one shot, in fact practical round could do this consistenly). The 5.56 is still a superior round.

 

[OrvilleYertleson]

Remember, this is just my unqualified opinion:

Most of the people who frequent forums such as these are not your typical "Joe." You guys may benefit from a larger caliber weapon, but I feel that the average soldier would accumulate many of the bad habits associated with inexperienced high-power rifle shooters...horrible flinches (like the FBI going to 10mm), etc. and would be less effective than with the easy-shooting 5.56. If the Army were willing to take the time and money to teach soldiers real marksmanship then a higher-caliber platform would be a real option.

Until then I don't think it would be a good idea for the military as a whole to switch over.

 

[HorseSoldier]

i agree with roadwild if the 223 is so wounderful why is the top brass pushing for change?

Um, they're not.

6.8mm Rem SPC was trialled in the field by USASOC and dropped from consideration as a replacement round. The consensus was that 6.8mm did not do a sufficiently better job than 5.56mm to warrant the complications a replacement entailed.

Current work on the next generation of US military small arms (or at least the kinetic energy portion, if the OICW idea ever pans out) is looking at a caseless or CTA 62 grain 5.56mm round. There's very little enthusiasm up at the powers that be level for something besides 5.56mm, and not much more down at the troop level (at least in my neck of the army) -- most of the complaints about 5.56mm and/or the M16/M4 come from folks who have never served or who got shafted back in SE Asia with the whole initial issue problems back in the mid to late 60s.

you are right in saying that not every deer goes down when hit with a 06, but if you have a poor shot on a insurgent, will he be able to carry on the fight if hit by the 06?

There were guys during WW2 who stayed in the fight after being wounded by 30-06, .303, 7.92 Mauser, etc. There's no realistic small arms round where that won't happen from time to time. I'll agree that a torso hit with a 30-06 is going to hit harder and be more likely to put a guy down than a lighter, lower energy round -- but it comes with a cost, like I said before, with things like a smaller basic load of ammo, slower engagement times, etc.

Personally, I believe the key to winning a gun fight is being the guy who hits the other guy the firstest and the mostest (to paraphrase Nathan Bedford Forest). I'd prefer 5.56mm to 30-06 in this respect (or other lighter alternatives like 7.62x39), if I'm shooting at guys inside 400 meters or so, but most especially inside 100 meters.

at one time i was told the 5.56 was better because it had a higher chance of wounding. instead of a kill from the higher caliber rounds. they thought this way you take 3 people out of combat. one injured and two to care for them. looks good on paper, but injured people heal to kill another day.

Urban myth. Kind of like the claim that .50 cal is illegal to shoot at combatants on the battlefield, but you can shoot at their equipment, like canteens and LBE.

I was told both of those in basic training, myself, but have since learned both are false.

 

[blackguns]

I think everyone would agree that both rounds have a place on the battlefield. You can't hump as much .30 cal as 5.56 but you can't hit as hard or as far with 5.56 as you can with .30.

So....why not design a way to use both based on need. A modular system or the ability to assign weapons based on mission.

If I'm in an urban environment where I patrol daily and go back to my FOB at night I want a rifle that will put somebody DOWN NOW. I also want to be able to deal with light concealment and cover. I want to carry as much weapon as I can.

If I'm doing a lot of humping around and pretty much living out of a ruck I want to be able to carry all the ammo I can.

Everything about weapons is a compromise in some way. You can either compromise a little of evey aspect or you can maintain the logistics to get the right tools to the shooters when needed.

They pulled the m14's back into service as DMR's for a reason. 5.56 wasn't doing every job as well as it could be done. Some units have the ability to pick from a wide range of weapons because they know that one tool isn't enough. Why should we mistakenly think that one round will do every job perfectly?

 

[HorseSoldier]

So....why not design a way to use both based on need. A modular system or the ability to assign weapons based on mission.

Notionally, we could start doing this tomorrow with the M16/M4 family of weapons, which can transition from 5.56mm to the more recent intermediates like 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC and on to the monsters like .50 Beowulf.

But, it would be a logistical nightmare, even if the US military were to settle on, say, three rounds like 5.56mm, 6.8 SPC and .50 Beowulf.

In practice, however, it should be noted that this is already done by some units, sort of. I've not heard about guys trying that system with a golf bag full of different calibers, but a lot of units are going downrange these days with multiple 5.56mm upper receivers to tailor barrel length and other features to the mission at hand.

 

[Desperado]

I said .30-06, but theres never a guarentee on how someone or something will react when hit. Ive heard of a 120 lbs. woman take 4 .45s to the chest and running 120 yards before she fell and died, then Ive heard about .22s killing people.

 

[vmfrantz]

if the 223 or even if the 06 went up against bodyarmor equal to ours how would the do in penatration? is this a reason of moving to another caliber?

 

[Metapotent]

if the 223 or even if the 06 went up against bodyarmor equal to ours how would the do in penatration? is this a reason of moving to another caliber?

The 5.56/.223 SS109 round is pretty good against body armor, its more effective than regular .30-06/.308 ball I believe. I think I remember seeing a test on paper that showed that the Nato SS109 and US m855 could penetrate Level III body armor at 200m. I also am pretty sure that the 5.56 can penetrate a kevlar helmet at ranges further than a 7.62 Nato (.308) can, which would mean it could probably do better than the .30-06 as well.

 

[Drewrw]

Of course, the heavier and bigger bullet will win--with the present bullet design being used.

Not necessarily, a lot more is involved in determining which is better than just " well it is bigger!!" We are past the cave man era. :banghead:

 

[johnsonrlp]

"which is the more effective combat round?" Which is the best meat seasoning?

The fact is the Army employs people who have never shot, much less seen real guns before, and people who aren't capable of placing rapid .30 cals on target.

In my unit we have this guy (we'll call him frankie) who's about 6'6" and around 300 pounds, pure muscle, and several others in the same range. And we have this girl (who we'll call sandy) about 5' none and maybe 100 pounds, and more like her. Frankie can carry an M2 .50 cal and deploy it with no help, I don't know if he could clear rooms with it, but at a checkpoint he's priceless. Sandy can clear a building with her M4 faster than anyone else in the unit, she's fast, accurate, and deadly. Frankie comes in a couple places behind her with his M4. They both shoot thirty out of thirty for qual out to 300 meters. Frankie shot an M14 once, said it hurt, wouldn't shoot it again.

We need 5.56 in the Army. We also need .308, .50, 20mm, 30mm, a couple different 40mm's, 155mm, etc... Saying the entire Army should be issued 30'06 is rediculous. You could then say everybody only needs one gun in their house. Heck, if the Army can get by on the 30'06 then nobody needs anything but a .270, good luck during dove season.

The M1 Garand was a great firearm and it has it's place, but it'll sit patiently whilst I clear my house with my 870.

If you're still not convinced, find a range with a building you can go through and clear with hostiles and friendlies. Go through it with a 5.56 and a 30'06 of your choice, then grab a handfull of highschool juniors from, say...Boston, and have them run through it.

 

[johnsonrlp]

Almost forgot my analogy, 5.56 is salt, goes on pretty much everything, if that doesn't work hit it with some tabasco.

 

[Tony Williams]

Metapotent said:

The velocity in 5.7 drops off enough that the point blank range is only 100yds... The battle zero for my m16 gives me pointblank range of 225 meters. I can hit torso targets at 400yds by aiming at the head, and anything closer than that I can aim just about dead-on. That is a benefit of the 5.56 over the 5.7x28. Much flatter shooting.

Do you have ballistic tables for the 5.7 or 4.6? I've not seen those published anywhere.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Medusa]

Depends on the application, for long range precision fire the 7.62x51 is better, for short range work (that is mostly the case) the 5.56x45 is better. It's a, for example, G3A3 with 100 rounds vs M16A2 with 240 rounds (having same weight - 16.2 pounds, 7.35 kg).

Since I had the pleasure of shooting AK4 in full-auto, I could comment that it is pretty hard to control, and to use in close encounters. For longer range work, it's more than adequate. But unless it's a mounted weapon or precision rifle, I prefer 5.56 over 7.62. As said, both have their roles, supplementing eachother, so its apples vs oranges.

Oh, 5.7x28 mm and 4.6x30 mm are meant to be personal defence weapons calibre, not assault rifle calibre. And why not discuss the 4.73x33 mm caseless? It's hard hitting ammo and for the same weight (16.2 pounds) you can get the rifle and 510 rounds.

 

[Metapotent]

Quote:
The velocity in 5.7 drops off enough that the point blank range is only 100yds... The battle zero for my m16 gives me pointblank range of 225 meters. I can hit torso targets at 400yds by aiming at the head, and anything closer than that I can aim just about dead-on. That is a benefit of the 5.56 over the 5.7x28. Much flatter shooting.


Do you have ballistic tables for the 5.7 or 4.6? I've not seen those published anywhere.

Ballistics for the 5.7x28mm, both a 50 and 100yd zero through an FN PS90 Go Here and Here. The 55gr SS193 projectile is the armor penetrator and is represented by the Brown line, and you can see that it has a less than great trajectory. Yet the other rounds with superior ballistics are not armor-penetrators.

That may not seem that bad, but its maximum point-blank range is pretty low compared to both a 5.56 and a 7.62 NATO and even a 7.62x39 Commie. The bullet-drop isn't horrible with the 5.7 but mixed with its relative inaccuracy (compared to rifles), its extremely light bullet weight of 20-30gr on average, and very low velocity with 55gr projectiles... it just absolutely would not function as an infantry weapon. It is only useful in special operations, law enforcement...etc…

Also, even compared to the 5.56x45, the 5.7x28 isn't very effective in terminal performance past about 50m, but its recommended to be used at less than that (i.e. from one side of the room to the other side is where it is effective).

Now, according to most sources the 4.6x30mm is less effective than the 5.7, therefore neither are appropriate potential infantry rounds.

The methods and doctrine of modern war doesn't ONLY emphasize light ammo with light recoil to have fire superiority through higher volume of fire, The process of deciding on the most effective round is a balancing act between adequate terminal performance, high accuracy, volume of fire, adequate range, light weight, low recoil, and economic AND logistical viability ( In modern military doctrine the emphasis on logistic efficiency is second only to intelligence, and maneuver is 3rd, and actual combat power is 4th in the line of importance). When all of these factors are considered, the 5.56 NATO is superior to all competitors in my opinion, as well as in the opinion of countless experts, from countless countries.

The majority of people who criticize the 5.56 are people who are not experts, or who have not been educated on the full spectrum of capabilities a round must possess to be effective in the 21st century battlefield. The majority of people who criticize the 5.56 just think that knock-down power is the only thing that matters ignoring the fact that a high-power round does nothing for the grunts on the ground when they run out of ammo! Then there’s people who think that high volume of fire is everything while they disregard adequate accuracy/power/and range.

But such thinking just stems from the inability of those individuals to see the larger picture of a war, the inability to see that war is a complex and coordinated effort, not just a shoot-out, not just killing before you are killed. The goal of a modern western military is to outperform the opposing military in every aspect, the 5.56 is a byproduct of such thinking.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Ballistics for the 5.7x28mm, both a 50 and 100yd zero through an FN PS90 Go Here and Here. The 55gr SS193 projectile is the armor penetrator and is represented by the Brown line, and you can see that it has a less than great trajectory. Yet the other rounds with superior ballistics are not armor-penetrators.

SS190 is the armor piercing round, SS193 is a subsonic round with about 1/3 the muzzle energy of SS190. Trajectory for the SS190 round is not shown on the graphs, but going by the bullet weights listed elsewhere in the Wikipedia article it is probably closest to the best shown -- the green line on the graph (SS195) -- though a little worse (SS190 weighs 32 grains, per the article, while 195 weighs 28 grains).

Trajectory and performance are still nothing to brag on compared to an assault rifle round, in any case.

 

[Jackal]

I personally think that the .243 should be our current assult rifle caliber. It bridges the gap perfectly between .223 and .308. Less recoil than .308, much more long range power over .223 yet still in a short, light weight round.

 

[good things]

Big vs. small

I think what applies to this question is "what round with what weapon are YOU able to hit the targets consistently over time?"
Going to the range I thought I would like the bigger rounds, only to find out I couldn't schlep the weapon (DMS FN) as the days wore on.
What worked for me was to start out with the lighter rounds .223 and work up to the heavier .308/30-06. Then with the experience of the weapon and round size over 1,000 shots (not all in one day), a better determination was made as what was best for me.
I discovered that lighter was better in my case as I could hit more targets at various ranges over a longer range of time more consistently.
So, get out a shoot a bunch to answer this question for yourself.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I personally think that the .243 should be our current assult rifle caliber. It bridges the gap perfectly between .223 and .308. Less recoil than .308, much more long range power over .223 yet still in a short, light weight round.

Except it isn't lightweight. The bullet may be lighter; but the complete cartridge weighs almost as much as .308. If you are only going to get 20 rounds for 1lb of ammo, might as well carry the .308 and be done with it.

 

[johnsonrlp]

Yeah, well, we probably should have gotten the .276 a long time ago. And we should probably be getting the 6.8 soon. But it's gun people versus money people, and they'll probably win. So why doesn't my unit have any money?</rant>

 

[lycanthrope]

It's a trade off.

Shoot a 3 gun match with a 30-06 and then the 5.56. The difference in speed and being able to engage more targets faster gives the edge to most people with the 5.56. Until you try it, I think people underestimate how much faster the AR 5.56 platform really is.

And.....I know several soldiers who never shot a rifle before basic training. Any amount fo recoil just intimidated them. Good training can help that, but are they going to always get it?

 

[Drewrw]

It's a trade off.

Shoot a 3 gun match with a 30-06 and then the 5.56. The difference in speed and being able to engage more targets faster gives the edge to most people with the 5.56. Until you try it, I think people underestimate how much faster the AR 5.56 platform really is.

And.....I know several soldiers who never shot a rifle before basic training. Any amount fo recoil just intimidated them. Good training can help that, but are they going to always get it?

Very good point. The 5.56 is very underestimated and in a lot of ways it's a better round.

 

[innerpiece9]

I would trust a 30-06 as a one shot stop over a 5.56..

if yer hunting.....

not accepting weapon platforms based on folks opinion is pure stupidity... what, you gonna clear yer house with a Rem 700 bolt action 30-06, 22 inch barrel, deer hunting scope? if you get more votes for a 30-06? or how about you room-clear with a BAR....
what about yer neighbors, what about yer family, Dogs. where will the bullet go after it exits the target....?

The 5.56 is by FAR, more aplicable per situation, and universal, for HD.

not recognizing a weapon platform-per caliber, is about as ignorant as asking "which is a better man stopper, 30-06 or 5.56?"
do you use a hammer to remove a screw?

a tool for the job, fastly and adhearintly applies to the use of firearms..

ip9.

 

[JNewell]

armor-penetrators

Not sure what's meant by this reference but M855, the 62 gr green tip, should not be mistaken as "armor piercing."