The British on the 5.56 caliber
- Thread starter nathan
- Start date
- Status
mljdeckard
Member
Minnmooney,
AGAIN, NEITHER of them are effective if they don't HIT. I would rather train my soldiers to put three 5.56 rounds center mass than ONE round from an M-14. I have a soldier who weighed 95 lbs on her last PT test. And don't even TRY to say she shouldn't be in the army, she is among the very best in the world at what she does and has personally prevented Americans from coming to harm.
Heavy, long range fire in the hands of rank and file soldiers is mostly a waste of resources. Training rank and file soldiers to shoot 800 yards is a waste of TIME. THEY WON'T EVER USE IT.
AGAIN, NEITHER of them are effective if they don't HIT. I would rather train my soldiers to put three 5.56 rounds center mass than ONE round from an M-14. I have a soldier who weighed 95 lbs on her last PT test. And don't even TRY to say she shouldn't be in the army, she is among the very best in the world at what she does and has personally prevented Americans from coming to harm.
Heavy, long range fire in the hands of rank and file soldiers is mostly a waste of resources. Training rank and file soldiers to shoot 800 yards is a waste of TIME. THEY WON'T EVER USE IT.
"I was squadded with a Vietnam veteran who told me of an ambush he set up. He was in a prone slung position. He fired two rounds into the chest of a AK47 carrying VC. The distance was under 15 yards.
He said the VC tossed his AK away and ran away. Probably never stopped till he got to Hanoi."
I know you said it was hearsay, but I find that REALLY hard to believe. As Nathan said, the rounds might have been stopped or deflected by mags, but that's kinda doubtful too.
He said the VC tossed his AK away and ran away. Probably never stopped till he got to Hanoi."
I know you said it was hearsay, but I find that REALLY hard to believe. As Nathan said, the rounds might have been stopped or deflected by mags, but that's kinda doubtful too.
mljdeckard
Member
There are absolutely no guarantees of any kind with any bullet fired from any weapon. EVER.
LRS_Ranger
Member
I've been a longtime viewer, but I finally decided to join and throw in my 0.02..
I carried (for 98% of the time) an M4 with issued greentip, during my time in Iraq. I never really felt underarmed with this. Most of the time we were in villages, or in conditions that I felt I could bring down the enemy with my M4. If we were going somewhere that we needed a bit more range, we always had the M14, M24, or in extreme cases, we could always hump the Barrett. For CQB, I could have brought a 12 guage, and while some people did, I never felt that it was worth all the extra trouble to haul around an extra weapons system. If my team had had nothing but M4's, I would have not been too happy, but being able to select the weapon for the mission was really the key. As long as the squad has a designated marksman or 2 with a 14 and some glass, I don't feel that there is any problem with our current weapon system. I saw a lot of people that didn't shoot too good, and the 5.56 made it easier for them to shoot than the 7.62. Just my opinion tho...
I carried (for 98% of the time) an M4 with issued greentip, during my time in Iraq. I never really felt underarmed with this. Most of the time we were in villages, or in conditions that I felt I could bring down the enemy with my M4. If we were going somewhere that we needed a bit more range, we always had the M14, M24, or in extreme cases, we could always hump the Barrett. For CQB, I could have brought a 12 guage, and while some people did, I never felt that it was worth all the extra trouble to haul around an extra weapons system. If my team had had nothing but M4's, I would have not been too happy, but being able to select the weapon for the mission was really the key. As long as the squad has a designated marksman or 2 with a 14 and some glass, I don't feel that there is any problem with our current weapon system. I saw a lot of people that didn't shoot too good, and the 5.56 made it easier for them to shoot than the 7.62. Just my opinion tho...
MinnMooney
Member
post #27 :
Again, Your point?
Are you saying that the AR-15 will hit the target more frequently? I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you think that the AR-15 is more accurate than an M1 or an AR-10 just say so instead of talking in inuendos and cutsie buzz sayings.
I can hit a man-sized target as easily with my AR-15, Rem. 700 .270 Win., my Springfield M1 or an AR-10 at 100, 300 or 600 meters. In battle conditions, I'll choose any of the above EXCEPT the AR-15.
My AR-15 is reserved for prairie dogs and plinking. Even coyotes are given the .22-250 or .243 treatment if I believe I'll be shooting at 150+ meters.
Again, Your point?
Are you saying that the AR-15 will hit the target more frequently? I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you think that the AR-15 is more accurate than an M1 or an AR-10 just say so instead of talking in inuendos and cutsie buzz sayings.
I can hit a man-sized target as easily with my AR-15, Rem. 700 .270 Win., my Springfield M1 or an AR-10 at 100, 300 or 600 meters. In battle conditions, I'll choose any of the above EXCEPT the AR-15.
My AR-15 is reserved for prairie dogs and plinking. Even coyotes are given the .22-250 or .243 treatment if I believe I'll be shooting at 150+ meters.
mljdeckard
Member
No, I'm saying that more soldiers can shoot an M-16 more accurately with less time training on the range than an M-14 or M-1 Garand. It's lighter, more ergonomic, and easier for more soldiers to manipulate. You probably aren't a 95 lb E-4 with no prior experience with firearms.
Fosbery
Member
MinnMooney said:
Most? Where are you getting most from? And why should we believe them? Soldiers will always over-estimate both their own accuracy and the frequency with which they engage genuine targets, under estimate the time it takes a bullet to reach its target, perceive the time between pulling the trigger and the target falling to the floor to be longer than it is in reality, and exaggerate. Even when bodies are recovered, it's often the case that more than one guy was shooting at the recently deceased. Even when there is only one shooter, it's normal in combat for soldiers to fire off several rounds before the target has had a chance to fall; soldiers don't take a "fire one round - is he still standing? If so, fire another round and repeat," approach to combat. It's not evidence, it's hearsay.
I'm going to go out on a limb and hazard that you've never been in combat.
99% of what comes out the front of your weapon hits nothing but dirt, brick, concrete, sand, and a bit of air on the way in. 95% of what comes out the front of your weapon is being aimed in a direction, like "that building over there," "that treeline," or "that way *broad hand sweep*" not at a target, like "that man with a gun looking right at me." 95% of those that get killed die from something other than getting shot with a rifle. Nobody really knows who killed 90% those that get killed with rifle bullets. Hitting somebody with a rifle and knowing you hit them for certain (not just guessing or wishful thinking) is not common for ordinary soldiers.
The stopping power of rifles has an influence close to zero on how much ammunition soldiers expend.
Consider what you're saying. Suppose 7.62mm would mean a combat load of 200 rounds instead of 300 (10x20rnd mags instead of 10x30rnd mags), which, as you claim, is the same thing because soldiers would need to use 1/3 less ammunition due to the increased stopping power. Or in other words, currently, for every 300 rounds a soldier fires, at least 200 of them are hitting an enemy (100 unnecessary rounds that the 7.62mm would negate, plus at least 100 necessary rounds, since you need to hit someone to begin with in order for there to be subsequent rounds) and kills 100 enemies. If this were the case, US forces would be killing six hundred million enemy soldiers each year from rifle fire alone.
Onward Allusion
Member
I know quite a few old-timers who had fought in the Vietnam War and every one of them have stated that would rather use an AK or even a M14. FWIW.
fireman 9731
Member
Dear God, what is the world coming to!? It doesn't matter if they will ever use it. If they can hit a man a 800 yards they will for sure be able to hit one at 100! Its basic riflemanship and marksmanship skills. What does the army teach anymore? Just suppressive fire? or how about somebody just shoot the bad guy with one well placed shot instead of spraying tax dollars at a sand dune?
If the 5.56 NATO is Gods gift to shooting then why do so many issues come up with it?
mljdeckard
Member
Range time is money. The biggest single difference between Marine training and rifle training is how much time they spend on the range during basic training. And the Marines only train to 500 meters. And no, I don't want my soldiers engaging targets 800 meters away. I want our infantry escorts to hose it with the 240. That's what it's for. When you are nominated Secretary of Defense, you can tell TRADOC everything they are doing wrong and fix it. (Good luck.)
If 5.56 is so flawed, why do so many nations use it, adopt rifles that use STANAG magazines, and why did Russia start using the 5.45x39 round?
If 5.56 is so flawed, why do so many nations use it, adopt rifles that use STANAG magazines, and why did Russia start using the 5.45x39 round?
alright guys...these threads get somewhat redundant but not because of the argument between the calibers...get shot with a high powered rifle and tell me which one it was.. As has been stated many times, I would rather have the greater supply of ammunition. IF you aim your rifle fire, your target will go down. If you spray your rifle fire, well, not making a huge difference... oh.. other than the MUCH lower recoil of the M-16 platform as compared to even the AK.
AND PLEASE stop making comparisons to the M-16's of Vietnam... NOT THE SAME WEAPON nowadays.. nobody disputes the fact that those guns were rushed into combat without complete testing IN VIETNAM... those issues have since been corrected.
AND PLEASE stop making comparisons to the M-16's of Vietnam... NOT THE SAME WEAPON nowadays.. nobody disputes the fact that those guns were rushed into combat without complete testing IN VIETNAM... those issues have since been corrected.
C-grunt
Member
First of all, where are all these guys who have had to shoot a bad guy 3 or 4 times center mass to drop him? I never had to, my platoon mates never had to, the SF group on my FOB never had to, my brother in law (Marine) never had to, none of his platoon mates had to either. Ive never talked to one of these guys either.
But I have heard several uncles neighbors son who is a scout sniper stories.
I have two combat tours in Iraq as an infantryman. The invasion in 03 and all of 05. I have shot 5 bad guys with the 5.56 that I know I hit, I was the only one shooting at, and have shot at dozens more where I am unsure of hits and/or others are shooting too. 4 of them died right were they stood. The last was dragged away alive by his buddies. But that was my fault as I misjudged the distance with my shot from my DMR and hit him in the lower abdomen/groin area. All of them but one was hit with a single round to the upper chest or head (excluding gut shot guy). One guy did take 3 or 4 rounds but I was shooting a SAW, doesnt really have a semi option.
I was in a mechanized unit, 3rd Infantry Division, so we had the Bradleys. I saw several people shot with the 7.62 NATO round as well. You really couldnt tell the difference in the wounds. Usually you had to look for the casings to find out what got a guy.
Fosbery is correct in saying that much of combat is shooting at locations like a building or woodline. Plus many Soldiers really arent very good shots past about 200 meters. Also many of them will claim hits on crazy shots. A bad guy will sprint across a street 400 meters down the road. A guy will shoot at him a couple times and then claim "I got him" even though he guy didnt drop. This same guy probably barely qualifies back at home too.
Many soldiers will save their ammo from the 300 yard targets at the qual range so they have more for the misses of the closer ones.
Plus you can take an expert marksman and he wont shoot very good in combat. Load up 70-80 lbs of gear, hike around for a couple hours and then try to make a shot 200 meters away at a guy who probably isnt just standing there, from an awkward position and tell me how well our expert marksman does. Nowhere near what he does back at base.
But I have heard several uncles neighbors son who is a scout sniper stories.
I have two combat tours in Iraq as an infantryman. The invasion in 03 and all of 05. I have shot 5 bad guys with the 5.56 that I know I hit, I was the only one shooting at, and have shot at dozens more where I am unsure of hits and/or others are shooting too. 4 of them died right were they stood. The last was dragged away alive by his buddies. But that was my fault as I misjudged the distance with my shot from my DMR and hit him in the lower abdomen/groin area. All of them but one was hit with a single round to the upper chest or head (excluding gut shot guy). One guy did take 3 or 4 rounds but I was shooting a SAW, doesnt really have a semi option.
I was in a mechanized unit, 3rd Infantry Division, so we had the Bradleys. I saw several people shot with the 7.62 NATO round as well. You really couldnt tell the difference in the wounds. Usually you had to look for the casings to find out what got a guy.
Fosbery is correct in saying that much of combat is shooting at locations like a building or woodline. Plus many Soldiers really arent very good shots past about 200 meters. Also many of them will claim hits on crazy shots. A bad guy will sprint across a street 400 meters down the road. A guy will shoot at him a couple times and then claim "I got him" even though he guy didnt drop. This same guy probably barely qualifies back at home too.
Many soldiers will save their ammo from the 300 yard targets at the qual range so they have more for the misses of the closer ones.
Plus you can take an expert marksman and he wont shoot very good in combat. Load up 70-80 lbs of gear, hike around for a couple hours and then try to make a shot 200 meters away at a guy who probably isnt just standing there, from an awkward position and tell me how well our expert marksman does. Nowhere near what he does back at base.
BHP FAN
Member
To take the weight argument further,a pack of 500 Daisy BB's weigh MUCH less than 300 .223...
LOL, do you really think I am going to shoot a .308 once at a BG and then move on to the next BG? Hell no, I am going to put 3-4 shots in that BG no matter if I have 5.56 or 7.62x51 I won't stop shooting till he stops shooting. We are trained to shoot to stop a threat, not shoot the threat once wait and see if it stops.
seeker_two
Member
The 5.56 NATO round is a very effective sub-machine gun round...it just doesn't cut it as a battle rifle round.
Maybe something with .260Rem/.270Win ballistics would be a good compromise b/t the 5.56 NATO & 7.62 NATO....
Maybe something with .260Rem/.270Win ballistics would be a good compromise b/t the 5.56 NATO & 7.62 NATO....
Tim the student
Member
I think 5.56 blows, even with multiple COM hits. Sometimes it will drop them after 2 COM hits, sometimes it won't after 5 COM hits.
And yes, I did witness it, and yes, they were COM hits.
And yes, I did witness it, and yes, they were COM hits.
No matter what caliber the gun is, a person can keep fighting unless they suffer damage to the brain, spine, a blood vessel large enough to instantly make their blood pressure plummet (aorta, vena cavas, jugular), or heart. A tough guy shot in the lung still has another lung. He can't fight that effectively, but he still can fight. Heck there's even stories of people have fought through being shot in the heart and lived.
PublicRelations
Member
I wonder if 7.62 and 5.56 have equal killing capacity after they have passed through a barrier such as a car door, window, wall, etc...
You know what I wish? I wish we could have a thread about the 5.56 where the only people allowed to post were soldiers or LEO that have actually killed a man with 5.56.
All others are just blowing smoke. It gets tedious.
I hunt deer. I know what works on a deer because guess what? I have killed a bunch of em.
Dont talk about what works or what doesnt on a man unless you have killed a bunch of em.
It just gets tedious. You picks you gun and you takes your chances. If you are in the military you use what they give you.
Why do we have to hash this over so much?
You dont like the AR-15? great go spend 2 grand on a m14. its ONLY 2 grand! we live in a county where we pay 50 grand for a car. This is not a big issue people.
All others are just blowing smoke. It gets tedious.
I hunt deer. I know what works on a deer because guess what? I have killed a bunch of em.
Dont talk about what works or what doesnt on a man unless you have killed a bunch of em.
It just gets tedious. You picks you gun and you takes your chances. If you are in the military you use what they give you.
Why do we have to hash this over so much?
You dont like the AR-15? great go spend 2 grand on a m14. its ONLY 2 grand! we live in a county where we pay 50 grand for a car. This is not a big issue people.
So 5.56mm < 7.62mm in "stopping power"? Wow I learn something new everyday. 
Anyone surprised that the "trigger pullers" of any nation would feel better putting a bigger caliber into the enemy?
Logistics = 5.56mm
"Stopping Power" = 7.62mm
There is a place for both of them in current military use IMO.
Anyone surprised that the "trigger pullers" of any nation would feel better putting a bigger caliber into the enemy?
Logistics = 5.56mm
"Stopping Power" = 7.62mm
There is a place for both of them in current military use IMO.
Here was the other forum's discussion.
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/ge...oldiers-claim-5-56-nato-round-inadequate.html
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/ge...oldiers-claim-5-56-nato-round-inadequate.html
RedLion
Member
The grass is always greener.....
Btw, at 500 yards, a M118 is going about 1700 fps....at 800 yards, its 1400....how much "stopping power" does that have? Keep in mind that's a .308 specifically designed for long range shooting... a M80 will be worse yet.
When the British switched from the .577 to the .303 there were complaints that the .303 didn't kill as well as the old .577. Maybe we should just go back to that cartridge because some people thought it was better.....
Btw, at 500 yards, a M118 is going about 1700 fps....at 800 yards, its 1400....how much "stopping power" does that have? Keep in mind that's a .308 specifically designed for long range shooting... a M80 will be worse yet.
When the British switched from the .577 to the .303 there were complaints that the .303 didn't kill as well as the old .577. Maybe we should just go back to that cartridge because some people thought it was better.....
Gungnir
Member
Well guys since this has been discussed here before...
Here's a discussion about Blackwater fighting in Najaf getting hits at about 600m with an 5.56mm using MK262.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=237351
Here's a refreshed link to the Vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y2Z8aJDq0s&feature=player_embedded
I think the thing that people are failing to realize is. This is not hunting, the target is actively trying not to be hit if there even is a definite target and not just a general direction to fire towards. If there are targets they're likely firing back, and you always fire on a target enough to make sure it's not moving regardless of your caliber, you don't have 20-30 seconds to draw a bead on the target either, you're lucky if you have a few seconds with your weapon at the ready and finally you're also not weighted down with 100 lbs of gear and probably off balance. In fact even the video linked is not representative of most engagements.
I agree with both Fosbery and C-Grunt on this, is seems that most people who are saying it doesn't work are internet commandos, even the source of the information is suspect because you rarely know when you've hit your target, you know he fell over and was made dead, but you don't know it was you. We also don't know what the experience of those asked was, were they career, or new recruits, or a multitude of other relevant bits of data like units and missions undertaken.
When you're humping your stuff in and out in most cases (obviously it's mission specific) I'd take more rounds (up to a point I wouldn't be taking BB's) over harder hitting rounds.
Here's a discussion about Blackwater fighting in Najaf getting hits at about 600m with an 5.56mm using MK262.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=237351
Here's a refreshed link to the Vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y2Z8aJDq0s&feature=player_embedded
I think the thing that people are failing to realize is. This is not hunting, the target is actively trying not to be hit if there even is a definite target and not just a general direction to fire towards. If there are targets they're likely firing back, and you always fire on a target enough to make sure it's not moving regardless of your caliber, you don't have 20-30 seconds to draw a bead on the target either, you're lucky if you have a few seconds with your weapon at the ready and finally you're also not weighted down with 100 lbs of gear and probably off balance. In fact even the video linked is not representative of most engagements.
I agree with both Fosbery and C-Grunt on this, is seems that most people who are saying it doesn't work are internet commandos, even the source of the information is suspect because you rarely know when you've hit your target, you know he fell over and was made dead, but you don't know it was you. We also don't know what the experience of those asked was, were they career, or new recruits, or a multitude of other relevant bits of data like units and missions undertaken.
When you're humping your stuff in and out in most cases (obviously it's mission specific) I'd take more rounds (up to a point I wouldn't be taking BB's) over harder hitting rounds.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked