The British on the 5.56 caliber

[Fosbery]

To take the weight argument further,a pack of 500 Daisy BB's weigh MUCH less than 300 .223...

And to take the stopping power argument further, a 20mm rifle will mess you up a lot more than 308. You're not going to lug around a Denel NTW-20 though are you.

 

[Millwright]

Here we go !! Again !!

Thought about posting a long involved answer. Most here have "covered the ground" adequately. But I'll add these few missives:

The current 5.56 is more akin to the .222 Magnum than the fabled 'triple deuce'. Check the dimensions.....And the Mag is one hell of an accurate/killing .22CF round !!

The "Deans of Infantry Combat", the Germans determined 300 meters was the practical distance for combat in the oh so long ago and made the first "assault rifle and cartridge " with that distance in mind. Kalishnikov saw its value and improved upon the concept with a rifle that was easy to make, easy to service and dead nuts reliable in the field. They sold millions. Its become so ubiquitious in Africa "Kalish" has become the Swahili word for "teenager"....

The 5.56mm M-15, aka "Mattel Rifle" has had a "run of the show" far longer than the fabled M-1 Garand, or its son, the M-14 in its various iterations. Both rifle and cartridge embody certain tactical advantages in combat. Not the least of which is the 5.56mm enables a lot more shots/soldier as a function of his basic combat load. For ground pounders this is an important consideration. Even in today's "mechanized army" most of what you desperately need/want you carry.

Troops now patrol in vehicles, so barrels on their 5.56's are shorter to facilliatate entry/exit and use in house/house combat. But engagements in Afghanistan ain't like combat in Iraq !! Distances tend to be greater and targets more heavily clothed. All of which means poorer 5.56mm terminal performance at extreme ranges from sort barrels. Which is why most patrols contain embedded "Designated Marksmen" using an accurized M-14/.308 and Snipers using a Remington bolt rifle using the same .308 ammo. >MW

 

[RP88]

So, does anyone who actually spent time shooting at someone with a 5.56 rifle have anything to say about the subject?

I'm getting the idea that, after all of the "my cousin's captain's colonel said that..." fable-tellers, equipment haulers who didn't get to shoot at anyone, and people who still can't believe that their M14s got taken away and replaced by the M16 (and are probably still sore from the first batches of M16s that had their problems), that nobody here knows a thing about the 5.56 round other than that "it evolved from a varmint round, so therefore it is inadequate."

C'mon, enlighten me. Tell me why I should buy an AR upper in a "better" caliber.

means poorer 5.56mm terminal performance at extreme ranges from sort barrels.

in rifle country, it has been shown that the differences in velocities and accuracy compared from carbine and 16" barrels to 20" barrels are extremely negligible, if not identical. I'd imagine that ballistic performance wouldn't be as severely impacted by a shorter barrel, either. Unless someone can show that the negligible difference does contribute to significantly poorer performances...

 

[Gungnir]

So, does anyone who actually spent time shooting at someone with a 5.56 rifle have anything to say about the subject?

I have, in Northern Ireland, the Gulf, the Balkans and Sierra Leone with the British armed forces (the original source of the complaint). Got out before Gulf 2 and Afghanistan.

Never had an issue pulled trigger (several times) guy fell down go boom. Which is why I mentioned Internet commandos in my last posting.

Mostly I've shot at tree's, buildings, ridge lines, rocks, trenches, hills, cars, grid coordinates, and occasionally at people, like most guys in the armies of the world do.

 

[RP88]

Thank you for the response, and I salute you for your merits and service.

 

[dom1104]

I have, in Northern Ireland, the Gulf, the Balkans and Sierra Leone with the British armed forces (the original source of the complaint). Got out before Gulf 2 and Afghanistan.

Never had an issue pulled trigger (several times) guy fell down go boom. Which is why I mentioned Internet commandos in my last posting.

Mostly I've shot at tree's, buildings, ridge lines, rocks, trenches, hills, cars, grid coordinates, and occasionally at people, like most guys in the armies of the world do.

And finally someone who has been there and done that stands up, I expect this thread to get really quiet as all the people realize they have no experiance from which to talk.

 

[Tim the student]

So, does anyone who actually spent time shooting at someone with a 5.56 rifle have anything to say about the subject?

I have. I think it sucks.

 

[C-grunt]

Worked great for me and all my buddies.

 

[Labyrinth666]

While we're on the subject, what happened to the XM8 and XM29 programs? Shouldn't we be working on new technology, not updating the old?

 

[Tim the student]

Not me. Too many times it just drilled straight through, without even a decent exit wound. In fairness, there were one shot stops, but there were just as many times that a guy could be shot a couple of times within an inch or two of the one shot drops and still be fighting. In my book, that kind of reliability sucks.

I watched a guy get shot COM once, and it didn't even make him change his stride. It took another one to drop him, and he was still capable of fighting for a couple of minutes. When I went up to him, (I was a medic, and had to do my thing, even though we were all but sure he was dead) I looked and one entrance wound was about 3" higher than his xyphoid process. The other was about 2" right and up from his xyphoid process. How either one of those didn't kill him within a couple of seconds, I'll never know. But they didn't. I am not in the Army any more, but you can bet I will pass on FMJ's in my AR. Love the rifle, not the ammo we used.

 

[C-grunt]

Sometimes they are just tough SOBs. But with a guy like that, do you think a 7.62 in the same spot would have done it?

 

[navyretired 1]

People who are not proficiant with a weapon often blame the weapon. The British were working on smaller caliber since before world war 2 but couldn't make up their minds or couldn't talk others into it.
We've worked our M16 platform to the point that our real marksmen take and make shots out to 500 meters. They are so good at it that an investigation was started to see if the were executing prisoners because of all the head shots. Hells bells they were shooting what they could see with confidence and training in their weapon. Give me a choce of setting up a counter ambush instead of walking into one and I'm likely to set up 3-500 meters away myself. and I'm not worth a dime if I'm missing my target.

 

[Tim the student]

do you think a 7.62 in the same spot would have done it?

I do. 7.62 always seemed to do a lot more than just punch a hole.

 

[Ronsch]

I really do not care what the British/English say about anything combat related. Their track record isn't so hot...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The thing is, only two of the five (urban warfare and jungle warfare) have fighting taking place at intermediate ranges. The other three (forest, desert and arctic) require the ability to hit and kill at 500 yards or more

Actually, I believe that Army studies across all terrains since WW2 have shown that 90% of infantry combat happens under 100m and 99% happens under 300m.

If I recall (and it is here in the archives of THR somewhere) the USMC reported its average engagement distance during OIF I and II as being around 35m.

 

[Maj.Striker]

While we're on the subject, what happened to the XM8 and XM29 programs? Shouldn't we be working on new technology, not updating the old?

What did they offer that the M4/M16 platform doesn't already? To be sure they looked cool but did they provide enough difference to make it worth completely replacing our small arms arsenal? We should be looking at lasers and stuff... Ok, just kidding about that but seriously I don't see the need to replace yet based on the technology that is out there. After World War I, the U.S realized that the bolt action wasn't good enough and replaced with semi automatic M1 Garands, after WWII they realized the need for full automatic rifles and delivered the M14 and then the increased capacity and lightweight of the M16/M4. What's the next step? Smaller ammunition with increased power? Detonating ammunition?

 

[Gungnir]

I really do not care what the British/English say about anything combat related. Their track record isn't so hot...

Oh really, care to explain? I'd like to hear your thought process on this.

 

[Vonderek]

I really do not care what the British/English say about anything combat related. Their track record isn't so hot...

You have got to be kidding.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Both the 5.56 and the 7.62 have issues that keep them from being ideal for general issue. While I am currently enamored with the M1A and the 7.62mm cartridge, I will admit that is because it fits my needs and what I am looking for in a rifle these days. I like projecting power. That is the point of a rifle to me. This system does it better for farther than any 5.56. If I was more interested in the closer range stuff or if weight was a bigger concern, I might pick the 5.56, but only because I had too. I like the 7.62x39 round, but admit it has limitations as well. As a compromise to all of them, I am still standing by for a general issue service cartridge of between 6.5 and 7mm shooting of bullet of between 110 to 140 gr between 2300 and 2600 fps. Ideally, I'd have a 6.5mm cartridge with a 120 gr bullet of construction similar to the Yugo M67 ball round for the 7.62x39, driven to about 2500 fps from a 16 inch barreled carbine. This would give the crtridge recoil similar to that of the 7.62x39, or more recently the 6.8 SPC, which has been demonstrated controlable enough to be practical on full auto. It should have an excellent SD and BC, due to its caliber, mass, and profile. When combined with its modest but respectable velocity, it should have better external ballistics than either. It should also have very good penetration. And it's length due to its weight, caliber, and construction combined with its enhanced tumbling characteristics make it terminally effective to surprising distances without relying on velocity. Historically we have dabbled with the moderate calibers and they have proven promising but never been fully endorsed, for reasons many of their users fully understand. I think we've hit promising examples of the limitations on either side, but it is time to stop beating around the bush and go for something in the middle. It doesn't have to be the 6.8 SPC or the 6.5 Grendel, but these are good places to start. Either would be a step in the right direction.

 

[dom1104]

I really do not care what the British/English say about anything combat related. Their track record isn't so hot...

Hilarious. He knows more than an entire nation.

 

[Labyrinth666]

"What did they offer that the M4/M16 platform doesn't already? To be sure they looked cool but did they provide enough difference to make it worth completely replacing our small arms arsenal? We should be looking at lasers and stuff... Ok, just kidding about that but seriously I don't see the need to replace yet based on the technology that is out there. After World War I, the U.S realized that the bolt action wasn't good enough and replaced with semi automatic M1 Garands, after WWII they realized the need for full automatic rifles and delivered the M14 and then the increased capacity and lightweight of the M16/M4. What's the next step? Smaller ammunition with increased power? Detonating ammunition?"

The XM8 is a more advanced system and is waaaaaay more customizable than our current platform, and it was supposed to hold us over until the XM29 was completed and produced en masse (and yes the XM29 is a lot more capable than the M4s and M16s are).

 

[Old Guy]

I have, in Northern Ireland, the Gulf, the Balkans and Sierra Leone with the British armed forces (the original source of the complaint). Got out before Gulf 2 and Afghanistan.

Never had an issue pulled trigger (several times) guy fell down go boom. Which is why I mentioned Internet commandos in my last posting.

Mostly I've shot at tree's, buildings, ridge lines, rocks, trenches, hills, cars, grid coordinates, and occasionally at people, like most guys in the armies of the world do.

Sounds like a Scouse to me!

 

[Gungnir]

Sounds like a Scouse to me!

Nope other side of the Country, a Geordie, from Newcastle upon Tyne with the same thing said about the place Music, Acting or the Army to get out of the place. I guess you can guess which one I picked. Although it's all changed a bit since the cliche was created.

 

[RebelRabbi]

What a fuss

The 7.62 NATO is obviously a superior round in CQB and in terms of distance. The 5.56 is obviously a superior round logistically and in automatic fire.
A Battle Rifle is heavier and has less capacity than an Assault Rifle. It's a trade off like carrying a snub nose. If ya'll want a compromise try the .280British Round that the US rejected years ago. :banghead:

 

[mljdeckard]

So, you have used 7.62 in CQB?