low intensity conflict: 5.56x45mm vs 7.62x39mm

[SDDL-UP]

It all comes down to the compromise you are willing to make.

Let's face it - the 5.56x45 was adopted in the 1960's, a nice little round that would allow soldiers to run off a bunch in full auto and still remian somewhat controllable.

Since then - there have been a lot of people that A) want more punch than the 5.56 and B) generally don't see the need for full auto firepower for every soldier anyway.

I like what the 6.8SPC is given the constraints of the current platform, and I think there is little doubt that something better is on the way... someday. It will be larger and more powerful than 5.56 and it will almost surely be a gas piston design.

Full auto? Not a choice for me, so there is little debate about it, I'll take 7.62x39.

 

[goon]

IIRC, the idea behind suppressive fire isn't actually to hit much of anything. All you are really doing is sending lead more than less in the general direction of the enemy. The enemy, upon seeing your muzzle flashes and hearing your bullets impacting around him, will most likely then get a little nervous (I know I would). His aim and courage will then suffer and he is more likely to stop shooting at you or miss you if he continues to shoot. So a higher likelyhood of hitting something during suppressive fire seems like kind of a moot point to me because you aren't actually trying to hit something.
When talking suppressive fire, three rounds of 5.56 will make you duck as fast as three rounds of 7.62 would. The difference is that 5.56 is lighter to carry and that means more cover fire.

 

[Still 2 Many Choices!?]

Quote from goon -"IIRC, the idea behind suppressive fire isn't actually to hit much of anything. All you are really doing is sending lead more than less in the general direction of the enemy. "

Well sir, that would depend on what you are suppressing, imho. If you are suppressing an area, then rounds are still aimed, you just don't know exactly where the enemy is. You still aim at likely spots such as both sides of a tree, bush, or window... If suppressing a point target, you definitely want every single round fired hitting directly into the targets cover, to keep his head down, or possibly degrade the cover to the point that it offers no further shield. I would think that, as a soldier, every time you consiously pull the trigger, you are trying to kill the enemy; even while using suppressive fire. To do otherwise, would be a waiste of a renewable but hard to come-by(atleast in the heat of a pop up battle) resource.. Just my thoughts as non-military, civillian shooter. YMMV.

Still 2 Many Choices!?

 

[elmerfudd]

I think suppressive fire can take different forms. It could be a matter of fixing an enemies position using aimed fire so that heavy weapons can be brought to bear or making them stay under cover while forces advance or retreat or it could be more a matter of firing everything you've got in the enemies general direction such as when reacting to an ambush. It probably all depends on how desperate you are.

 

[goon]

It's been awhile since I was in uniform but I do remember several exercises where we just basically literally sprayed lead in the general direction.
For one of them I remember being told "just hit the ground and fire a burst in the direction that you think the fire is coming from. You don't have to know exactly where for sure, just get low and fire some rounds at it."
Another one was a night fire exercise. We were using flares to illuminate the targets and we were told "For every round left in your magazine you will be doing 50 pushups". By the time I got up to fire the only thing I could see was smoke from the brushfires that tracers had ignited and dust from rounds impacting everywhere. IIRC I had about a minute to fire two full mags with a mag change between them.
I didn't aim at anything because I couldn't see anything. I fired every single round I had as fast as I could, just looking over top of the rifle and pointing it somewhere downrange where the target might have been. When I finished I still had a little time to spare. And as I left the bunker, my drill sergeants congratulated me on my rate of fire and told me that at first they thought I had been using burst (which was positively prohibited for that exercise). My performance was used as an example to the people who had their turn after me as exactly what we were supposed to be doing in that exercise (and anyone who has been through basic will tell you that being used as a good example for anything is pretty rare).
Most of our training emphasized careful aim and hitting what you were shooting at, which is what an M-16 generally excels at. But for the concept of cover fire, we were told that all you really had to do was put so much lead toward the the enemy that he couldn't possibly move toward you without getting shot to peices. The general idea was that when you eventually stopped firing and broke contact to move he would still be huddled behind a rock and hoping that his gonads hadn't been blown off. You didn't actually had to blow said gonads off - you just had to use your weapon to convince the enemy that his advancing toward you would surely result in that. His only chance at survival was to just hide and ride the whole thing out.
It isn't the most efficient thing I have ever been exposed to but not much in the Army is. And new ammunition is much cheaper than new men. Plus, more 5.56 ammo per pound = more suppressive fire.

IMO, if you are shooting at cover that the enemy is hiding behind, that isn't really suppressive fire. That is shooting at a point target in hopes that you somehow will kill the enemy. Suppressive fire may degrade his cover or it may not but the point of it is to keep him from advancing on you or shooting you.

As a civilian, I really can't think of many scenarios where what we were taught about suppressive fire would really come into play. You're responsible for every round fired and every miss is a potential fatality that would be your fault. There isn't any such thing as collateral damage.
In some ways, it seems like using a weapon as a civilian is almost a different concept.

IMO, the best way to win a low intensity conflict is to not get in one. Too many hiding places where people who hate you can just wait for you to walk by and then put holes in you. I just get a mental image of what the Russians did to the Germans at Stalingrad.
The concept as a whole seems like a really bad idea to me regardless of what rifle you are carrying.

BTW - I was a 12B during peacetime. Someone who was/is an 11B during wartime would certainly be able to both of us more about this than I can. I'm just passing on what I was taught.

 

[Oohrah]

Yep, that's why over 300,000 per hit and one reason for shortages of
that caliber! Someone remarked of all the testing of the platform and
caliber before the Nam. Not, there have been at least a half a dozen
modifications and ammo changes to get them to work reasonable well.
Caliber means squat unless you have a way to deliver that doesn't go
down for weather conditions or design malfunctions. I don't buy that
.223 is a do everything round in it's military form. Control expansion
maybe, but still would consider a limited range thing. The Russian
has been around longer and the bullet in it's military form is a better
close to mid range set up. When early overseas duty sent the M16
in to use, the first generations were failures due to stoppage when
ya really didn't want that to happen. Those that could tried to swap
over for carry, SKSs and later AKs that always worked in damp and
humid close up stuff. Should combat ever occur on our shores, there
will be no Geneva Convention. I would consider an accurate reliable
delivery system with expanding bullets over FMJ. Breeching walls
with close to mid range weapons or armor is not a consideration as
a rifleman is to get her done with as few rounds as possible. I would
not care to have surprises with multiple hit bad guys wanting to carry on.
Getting hit with an expanding pretty much takes the fight out. I can
truely say that seldom does the FMJ fragnate. However, an unstable
bullet (early use) tended to tumble when it hit solid. Very inaccurate
as the rifle twist did not match bullet weight and started to have a slight
yaw when leaving the bore. Many factors for reasonble use and reliability

 

[Keith Wheeler]

It seems to me that the real world has shown that historically, since the widespread adoption of the 5.56mm round, in low intensity conflicts those who can afford the M16/5.56mm platform use it; those who can't go with the AK.

Am I wrong?

 

[Evil Monkey]

Look at what I stumbled onto. This should start some further discussion.

I think it's dated 2004 by looking at the URL. So it's not that old.
http://www.defence.gov.au/army/lwsc/AbstractsOnline/AAJournal/2004_S/AAJ_Dec_03_Insights_Andrews.pdf

Apparently, the Russians feel that the larger caliber weapons do provide an advantage in urban combat.

 

[thekomet]

I've never been inthe military, so when I think of urban combat I automatically think of situations I would be involved in, such as a civil war, invasion, or of course TEOTWAWKI. My understanding is that in urban combat one would be engaging the enemy at distances of tens of yards, not hundreds. At 30 or 50 or 100 yards is the 7.62 that much better than 5.56? I would think that at such a close range you might be doing a little more spray-n-pray and so more rounds for the same weight would be a good thing. If power is what you want, why not an AR in 308 and get the superior AR platform with the MUCH superior power of the 308?

 

[elmerfudd]

If you're talking close range, then I wouldn't consider the AR platform to be superior. What the AR does better than just about any other military rifle is accuracy, but since you're talking ranges under 100 yards, that's really not much of an issue. Given those parameters, I'd choose the rock solid reliability of the AK. Now if you were talking 300 yard headshots in the plains or the desert, at that point the AR would have a significant advantage.

I agree with you however that the .308 is a superior SHTF caliber for civilians. Since for the most part we can't own full auto anyway, we're not restricted by the Hague convention and would likely be protecting our homes in the event of a crisis I think the larger cartridge just doesn't have the same disadvantages for us that it does for the military. Without full-auto, controllability of the more powerful cartridge is less of an issue. Without the Hague convention we can go ahead and use more effective expanding bullets and being based in our homes the amount of ammunition we can carry is also less important. It's not like you're a soldier miles away from any resupply. It's just as easy to keep 1000 rounds or .308 in the basement as 1000 rounds of .223.

 

[Evil Monkey]

I agree with you however that the .308 is a superior SHTF caliber for civilians

Well, sort of. You see, SHTF means no law. No law means you could do whatever the hell you want, like turning that AR15 into a select fire if you knew how to.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

IIRC, the idea behind suppressive fire isn't actually to hit much of anything. All you are really doing is sending lead more than less in the general direction of the enemy. The enemy, upon seeing your muzzle flashes and hearing your bullets impacting around him, will most likely then get a little nervous

Don't count on it.

I know a lot of people who think the enemy will turn tail at the sight of their steely gaze and manly jaws -- and who forget the enemy has a steely gaze and manly jaw, too.

Suppressive fire works because the enemy knows if he continues to fire on you, he will be killed. He knows that because every one of his people who tries to fire on you is killed.

Suppressive fire is killing fire, and if it ain't killing, it ain't suppressing.

 

[elmerfudd]

Well, sort of. You see, SHTF means no law. No law means you could do whatever the hell you want, like turning that AR15 into a select fire if you knew how to.

SHTF, means no law, but it doesn't mean things are going to stay that way. Just because there's no law enforcement around during a crisis doesn't mean there won't be thousands of them around afterward and all looking for something to do.

 

[Number 6]

The caliber debate is somewhat useless in the context of low intensity conflict. Each round has its merits and each round has its failings. Like what Jeff has said, the reality is that caliber has almost nothing to do with who wins a war or not. The Maoists in Nepal have been using black powder muskets and improvised explosives up into the 21st century to a modicum success. In Guatemala indigenous groups were able to control large sections of land with M1 Carbines and shotguns against a force with superior technology. Things like scopes, night vision, and medivacs are much more important than if your rifle shoots a particular cartridge. Know you weaponry and create tactics that correspond to your weapons capabilities.

Certainly I have a preference, but when all is said and done it won't really matter.

 

[GRIZ22]

Not quite, small guerrilla units may have simplified or "localized" logistics and may have a much better time supplying troops than huge armies.

This is not so. Guerillas need to depend on what the enemy is using as far as supplies. They lack sufficient personnel to have people dedicated to supply issues. Supply section on the company level and S4 on battalion and above.

Urban combat consumes a lot more ammo than the normal battlefield. Logistics personnel in an organized army have tables to estimate this consumption rate and prepare for it.

Each round has its merits and each round has its failings.

This is true. The secret to success is not what caliber you're using 5.56,7.62x39,6.8,or 7.62 NATO.

Given my choice I'd take the 5.56 in an AR platform. I've used it since 1968 and it worked for me then. I have experienced no issues with a properly mainatined AR. The AK is a good design but I'm not overwhelmed by it as many are.

 

[ArmedBear]

"Low intensity conflict" is a funny term, to me. I know it's official jargon, but this is what it makes me think of...

I picture my city in the midst of a low-intensity conflict. Picture Red Dawn in very slow motion. Every once in a blue moon, a shot is fired. There are soldiers not everywhere, but here and there. In ones and twos, maybe threes.

I'm on the balcony that's connected to my master bedroom, with a few guns and a cooler full of beers. I grab the cell phone and call a couple friends to join in the fun. (I live down the street from several military installations.)

One enemy soldier pops up, wandering around a couple hundred yards away, down the street in the next neighborhood down the hill. Seems like a good job for the scoped .30-06 hunting rifle. Nothing will ever replace nice checkered walnut and polished blue. BANG! Done. I open the bolt and top off the magazine, put the rifle down and take a pull on a nice Boont Amber Ale.

Dirka dirka!

My hunting buddy and his wife show up. Thank God he remembered the cigars. I pop open a beer for him while he unwraps a couple. Our wives go downstairs to water the garden and chat.

Shots fired down the street! A couple of neighbors are running from a couple soldiers. My friend grabs his old Garand, I opt for a Mini-14. BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG! Two more down. More swigs of beer, and we light the cigars. Our wives come upstairs to watch. I hand my wife the Marlin lever gun she likes, and my friend's wife takes his Winchester 94.

Friend's daughter and son-in-law show up with a Kel-Tec and a Mossberg 500 with 00 buck in it. They've got their new puppy, too, and a few cases of microbrew samples (they own a bar). My hunting buddy asks if they have any Buttweiper. They laugh.

Something like that.

 

[Coronach]

I don't think the .223 is a very good sniper round.

But, if I got shot in the head with one, I might change my mind.

Well, your mind would certainly be changed...

Let's face it, the two rounds do kindasorta the same thing, in different ways. One is light so you can carry a lot of ammo, low recoil, shoots with a flat trajectory, and has acceptable terminal effects. The other is heavier, so you can carry less ammo, has more recoil, has a more of a rainbow trajectory, but has better terminal effects. You can go round and round (ha! get it?) debating which is "better" and still not come up with a good answer. They both work.

Mike

 

[ArmedBear]

IMO the reason the 5.56 has a bad rap is because it was introduced in Viet Nam. This was not exactly our finest hour militarily. Not much associated with the Viet Nam War really benefited from the association.

Imagine if we'd have continued to use 7.62x51 in Viet Nam, but introduced 5.56x45 in the late 1980s. After our rather decisive victory in Kuwait, everyone would have been saying, "Man, that new stuff WORKS!" Kuwait wouldn't have done much for the reputation of whatever the Iraqis used, even if it were objectively superior.

Note what Kuwait did for the image of the Humvee (and WW II did for the image of the Jeep). The Vietnam-era M-151 MUTT never got to be a household name, nor did it acquire the legendary status that the Jeep or Humvee enjoy.

 

[LeibstandarteAdH]

low intensity conflict: 5.56x45mm vs 7.62x39mm

5.45x39.5 every time.

 

[diesel83]

I don't think the .223 is a very good sniper round.

But, if I got shot in the head with one, I might change my min

LOL. thank goodness someone has a sense of humor on this board. Thanks WEG.

I think the earlier comment about money is important. .223 takes less space and fewer raw materials. War is a volume business...

 

[FlyPenFly]

I'll use whatever there is most of and is readily available.

I don't see how a 7.62x39 is all that much better terminally than a 5.56. After seeing what a 5.56 does to various targets, I would not want to be hit by one anywhere on my body. I'll be crying like a little baby if not already dead or passed out from shock.

So I'd go with whatever there was most of, and whatever is more accurate, whatever is more light. That would be the 5.56.

If you don't think a 5.56 will stop you, I'll shoot you once and then you can shoot me once with a 7.62x39.

This is all kind of meaningless talk anyway, for an individual, being in excellent shape and having wits about you will matter far far more than choosing between 5.56 or 7.62x39.

 

[trinydex]

It seems to me that the real world has shown that historically, since the widespread adoption of the 5.56mm round, in low intensity conflicts those who can afford the M16/5.56mm platform use it; those who can't go with the AK.

Am I wrong?

what does it mean when countries that can afford the m16 go to the m14?

i'm kind of wondering how there can even be a debate about this... what happened to everyone who says different tool different job. the 7.62 soviet for sure has the job of being a close range rifle round right? or is it just good for nothing at all? because that was the original question...

 

[FlyPenFly]

I don't know about military prices but in the civilian world, the M14 equivalent costs 50% more at least than a quality M16 equivalent.

 

[jonboynumba1]

No magic bullet or caliber out there....life is compromise

I don't know about this combat vs. that combat. I've owned and shot a lot of guns. I've shot and killed a lot of critters. I've butchered them all myself and seen what different bullets at different velocities and ranges do.

Life is compromise. In handguns as a general purpose answer to "what is a really good caliber for a serious handgun" Well...I've gotta say .45 ACP in 230gr....prefferably in a quallity HP. I don't load anything super hot. It's heavy enough it does a good job and it's recoil is light enough in my favorite 5" 1911 it's controllable and fast shooting....yet I also own and carry daily a 9mm 4" Springfield Armory XD (replaced the G19/23 as my favorite budget beater daily carry guns) Why? well it shoots like a house on fire holds a bunch of rounds and it's lighter on my belt and around the shop all day. If I'm not heading to the woods or working around my landlords cattle ect the difference between a .45 and a 9mm is really pretty meaningless. The 9mm with 124gr +P Gold Dot will kill anything under 500 pounds just fine. It wouldn't be my first choice to put a cow down with or handgun hunt with...but then neither in my .45 (though I have done both over the years and with a .460 rowland kit installed took a nice deer this winter) But For "regular or expected work" like that I preffer a .44 mag with a moderate loaded 240gr bullet. But that is not something I'd carry for self deffense (big heavy hard hitting...it would work but fast followups would require going to specials...at which point gee....that's about like a .45 acp which is lighter and holds more rounds huh? See? compromises Up in BIG bear country I'm sure there are those that consider anything lighter than a heavy hard cast .44 mag load just silly. Who knows they may be right (assuming they have worked up to and can shoot a stout .454 or whatever gonzo magnum load they like well enough) In AL. that would be silly...In the right parts of Alaska it might be a good call.

Recently (sat this last weekend) we spent a day doing some long range jug shooting....water filled Tide (ect) jugs 100/200/400-600 yards random placed on a powerline cut-through on the hunting club where we can safey shoot fron one hilltop down and accross to the next hillside accross the creek bottom. It's land we hunt and good practice. Every year we get as many customers and hunters to go as we can. It fosters the yearning for more "toys" (good for business) and gives people an often needed "reallity check" on just what they can and can't do with a hunting rifle at longer ranges.

The store owner (my boss and hunting buddy) and I are very above average shots. We have first rate gear...in my case I have carefully assembled and tested handloads. 500-600 yards is NOT easy....anyone that says it is is full of crap....I don't care if you are a commando marine super sniper...you will miss a lot (even if you miss close...as we did a lot of) Hits are celbrated...hits within the first 6 shots are RARE....hits within the first 10 shots are RARE...most people have no idea what their holdover "really is" they are lucky if they know what it "should be" on paper. Buying a .300 mag does not a 400-500 yard hunter make. I'm a really good shot and 425 is the longest shot I've ever taken on a deer...I missed (no range finder...mis-judged range by 120 yards...hilly terrain can fool you like that even when you know it well) I can print tiny groups at 100-200 yards all day but twice that is more than twice as hard. There are some calibers and rifles that make it better than others....sat. it was nearly impossible to even spot .223 and even my excellent .270 rounds (and we are talking with a tripod mounted Leupold Gold spotting scope and an $1800 swarovski 10x50 binocculars (which are just freakin awsome BTW!!....I'm jealous every time I use them) Yet the bosses 300 (180gr) and my 7 mag (154gr SST) rounds where easy to call and much more stable in even light winds.

Anything lighter at 600 yards seemed a wasted effort that day. Though we did score a few hits with a 20" AR with BDC Colt scope. I've shot 400 yards with nearly usable results with 16" carbines that are awsome out to 200 yards. At 600 yards it's a joke. Heck we shot period and reproduction .45-70 rifles that where awsome out to a couple hundred yards (had we had the ammo I'd have loved to keep going...the most fun we had all day actually) Uzi's AK's AR's Mini-14 SKS's and every possible type of hunting rifles showed up and we shot them all all afternoon. A few years ago second place was a $69 Turk mauser with surpus ammo!! But at 300-400 yards I could nearly knock out a jug every shot....something the comblocks and .223s where having a hard time doing that day! (the draganov 7.62c54R kept jamming and wouldn't shoot for beans) A scoped lowly mini-14 repeatedly tapped jugs to 200-250 yards with ease. But I'd hate to deerhunt at 150 yards with it when my 7 mag or .270 is available. The AK's where easier to spot misses with than the .223's I wouldn't call either one usable past a few hundred yards after seeing what good solid cailbers could do to 600 (roughly 6-6.5 feet holdover with my 7 mag and Larrys .300!! It had to be about 600...the guy with the rangefinder didn't show and nobody else brought theirs...which really made it more interesting-LOL).

So I aint gonna "snipe" with a .223 or AK....I aint gonna deer hunt with em either....but I sure would hate to be in combat with a 7 mag bolt action!! Like Deniro said in the movie "Ronin" it's a toolbox....you pick the right tool for the right job" And even then life is compromise. A .50 Barret would have made easy work of what we thought was long distance shooting with deer rifles. But I'd hate to carry one or clean a deer shot with one (especially with HE or APIT rounds used-LOL) But if I had to put somebody on a roof of an aiport in the sandbox to pull counter-sniper duty I think a couple 50's and some intermediate backup might be just the thing. There is no all purpose answer...however the AR is a very versatile weapon within it's limitations. 7mm-.338 bolt actions of high quallity with the right ammo can do a lot of good to the point where a .50 is a better choice....and every shooter you ask will pick a different one configured differently for different reasons. That's just life...you gotta find what works for you and the situation.

 

[Quickill]

Supposedly the 545 x39 was developed because the Russians saw how the .223 acted when shot at people and the other ballistics of the round

.

The rational I always heard from many varied sources (so it tells me there is at least some weight to this claim) is that the 5.56 was develped as a "wounding" round. That means that you wound one soldier and it takes two to carry him off the battlefiled, as oppossed to you kill him and his buddies just strip his gear and keep fighting.

If a .50 cal or KPV won't get the job done -- and they won't --

Not to hijack, but what do you mean by this? I have seen Iraqi buildings chewed apart by m2's The only time I have not seen them effective is when the gunner was being a jackass and not concentrating fire.