The British on the 5.56 caliber

[Mags]

Check this out.http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=502535

A Battle Rifle is heavier and has less capacity than an Assault Rifle.

 

[Pilot]

The British military are the most replicated around the world including ours. I have great respect for them and what they think about weaponry.

 

[Mags]

The British military are the most replicated around the world including ours.

You have that backwards let me fix that for you.

The American military are the most replicated around the world including the British.

There ya go.

 

[Gungnir]

You have that backwards let me fix that for you.
The American military are the most replicated around the world including the British.

Sure, and Delta Force sprang into being miraculously like Athena from the head of Zeus.

 

[nathan]

Time for the Brits to reissue the No 4 M k 2s they have in store. Or the FAL rifles .

 

[Mags]

Okay if we copied the Brits why are they using 5.56?

 

[Gungnir]

Mindset, Skillset and Toolset in that order

Specific tools are the least important (although the easiest to argue since they're the cutting edge of Military force). Simply because NATO standardized on 5.56mm doesn't mean that the rest of NATO is copying America, just that at the time, you had more invested in the 5.56mm cartridge than everyone else. If everyone else had standardized on another cartridge and the US then adopted it would that be considered that America was following everyone else?

Of course not that's absurd. Standardization across a large multinational organization such as NATO makes logistical sense, at the time of selection of the 5.56mm it wasn't a done deal anyway and if FN hadn't pulled a rabbit (with the SS109) from the hat NATO might well have Standardized on 4.85x49mm (as it had better penetration and test results than the current [at that time] US issued M193) instead of 5.56x45. As also happens NATO didn't standardize on at that time issued US 5.56mm ammo, that was M193 (55gr ball), but on M855 (62gr ball with steel penetrator), which is not of American but Belgian design.

So is America copying the Belgians?

 

[twofifty]

There you go. Now let's juggle that hot waffle.

 

[Gungnir]

Oh and to add some syrup to the waffle.

Beretta M9 - Italian
9mm NATO - German
MP5 - H&K German or British
Rheinmetall L44 and L55 guns (M1A1 and M1A2) - German
Chobham Armor (M1A1 and M1A2) - British
The Tank - British WW1
APDS (predecessor of APFSDS) - French but first used by the British after the designers were evacuated during WW2
HEAT - British No 68 AT Grenade 1940-1945
M240 - FN (Belgian)
M249 - FN (Belgian)
M1014 - Benelli (Italian)
M777 Lightweight Howitzer - British
AT4 - Swedish
SMAW - IMI Israel (derived from the British LAW)
SCAR - FN (Belgian)
M32 MGL - Armscor (South Africa)

And those are only the one's I can think of off the top of my head. So if equipment dictates who's following who, then precisely who is following who...?

 

[navyretired 1]

At the time Gene Stoner was workng on the M 16 he was also working on a 7.62X51 M10 But nearly all nations wanted a smaller terminally unstable cartridge including the British with their 280 in a 7/8 scale FAL. The primary reason was for troop loadout as we (every country) was tired of our troops being cut off without the ability to resupply with ammo and knew that required a lighter troop load out. Ammo powder technology had caught up and there's the .223 Mag. just sitting there waiting to be militarized. Just lengthen neck (increased ability to withstand bullet setback in auto fire and change shoulder angle?) and you've got 5.56X45.
The old song about not being effective is always sung by someone never hit by one. I've seen limbs ripped off by 5.56 and people dying from systemic failure due to hydrostatic shock. I like 7.62X51 too and find some of the battle rifles for same great guns (M14, FAL, G-3,) But I also like being able to carry 3 times as much ammo and I've never held my weapon over a paddy dike and sprayed and prayed. My percentage was never 10K rounds per kill although I know that that was the pencil pushers numbers, and they were probably right. But you won't hold a m14 over a paddy dike with one hand and empty a magazine either will you?
I don't know why I even attempt to persuade anyone, and I know that the tip of the spear wants something better at 6-8 Hundred yards, but that doesn't mean a total replacement of a whole weapon system that we have to pay for, when the now system works 98% of the time.

 

[Chindo18Z]

In modern Western military circles, four countries are blindly convinced that they possess the earth's penultimate fighting force...the USA, the UK, Israel, and France.

Only two of them are right...

Americans retain a permanently jaundiced view of our British Brothers, no doubt a result of that little bonfire made of Washington during the War of 1812.

But really, it's all cool. We trade good ideas via osmosis. Why not? The US is arguably just the legacy Western British Empire.

I'll see your waffle and raise you a Trident missile (or a Big Mac).

Cheers.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The XM8 is a more advanced system and is waaaaaay more customizable than our current platform

An AR180 gas system in a plastic shell with a proprietary mount system that makes every existing optic/laser/grip/etc. in the inventory obsolete is "more advanced" and "more customizable?"

The only reason the XM8 exists is because they were trying to salvage something (likely a career) out of the millions of dollars spent on the failed XM29 program.

 

[C-grunt]

The XM8 also melts.

 

[scythefwd]

Americans retain a permanently jaundiced view of our British Brothers, no doubt a result of that little bonfire made of Washington during the War of 1812.

We don't get much respect from our British counterparts either. More than one place in Iraq has "Name one war the Americans won without the help of the English"

Just below that is
The American Revolutionary War
The War of 1812
The American Civil War


They were great people to hang out with though. Loved 'em. I would hang out with a group of British medics in Kuwait when I wasn't on shift.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

In modern Western military circles, four countries are blindly convinced that they possess the earth's penultimate fighting force...the USA, the UK, Israel, and France.

Why would they all be blindly convinced they are in second place? I would have guessed they would be convinced they possessed the earth's ultimate fighting force. Perhaps they are modest? If they were more modest, perhaps they would consider themselves to be antepenultimate?

 

[dom1104]

so yeah I went to bed, woke up, and this thread went from someone saying "anything bigger is better" to "Which country is better".

lol.

oooooooooookay. Nothing left to learn here.

 

[Chindo18Z]

Why would they all be blindly convinced they are in second place?

Think a little more about it...defense appropriations hang in the balance.


I've seen a lot more folks survive 7.62 x 39 hits than 5.56 x 45. Several friends of mine are still walking around my unit after having been drilled by AK fire. I've met WWII vets who survived 8mm, .303, and .30-06 wounds. There are damn few magic bullets (delivering show-stopping damage even with marginal hits) until you employ very big and fast loads. Even then, nothing is absolute. I knew a man who took a Soviet 12.7mm through the thigh and lived.

If I was seriously worried about caliber effectiveness, I'd never leave the wire without a Barrett in my arms. However, that would be silly. As would be my carrying of an M14, FAL, G3, or AK47.

I don't worry about effective calibers...just effective hits.

5.56 works just fine (even in Afghanistan). In my experience, damn few people can hit anything with any rifle at ranges over 500 meters in combat (even with a magnifying optic). Most can't hit anything at 300 meters while under fire. Most Muj AK bullets are simply addressed to whom it may concern past 100-150 meters.

 

[dom1104]

Chindo, you know a lot of really torn up people.

Do you work in a VA hospital or something?

 

[fireman 9731]

I've seen a lot more folks survive 7.62 x 39 hits than 5.56 x 45. Several friends of mine are still walking around my unit after having been drilled by AK fire.

Ever think that might be due to far more advanced medical services they receive?

 

[StarDust1]

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....

"Ahh" 5.56 is many things to many people, however good "sub-machine" gun round is not among them, "sub-machine" guns fire low powered "handgun" cartridges exclusively...

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Links to the orginal articles in which the Telegraph based it's news report:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btb.pdf

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btbjdw.pdf

 

[waldonbuddy]

I think a lot of the debate on the topic such as this on on caliber effectiveness stems from mostly two things.

One is military people who have been taught to use suppressing fire and can call in more support if the weapons they have on hand aren't enough.

Second is civilians who have a different perception on most types of encounters than the military would. A civilian would most likely have to be in a SHTF type of situation for any kind of a fire fight {barring home invasion, but that kind of event wouldn't be a sustained exchange of fire} .
He would also have to have an all round weapon to suit the majority of his needs as he can't call for heavier support weapons to be brought into the situation. He would also have to make more of the rounds on hand count vs the militarys use of suppressive fire.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Think a little more about it...defense appropriations hang in the balance.

Touche

 

[Limeyfellow]

And your point is?!? Most soldiers say that attackers take 3-4 shots of 5.56 in center-mass to stop them. That was rarely said while using the .308 or .30-06 in war.

When they switched from the Krag to the 1903, they did infact say the same thing about .30-06. Who would use such a little bullet, when you need a .40 calibre round to do any real damage. The same complaints were heard from .50+ rounds to .40 rounds and throughout history.

It usually led to stories about how "I know I shot the guy 5 times and he still didn't go down because I never miss!" Originally the British wanted a .280 British round back at the end of WW2, but the US would never allow it. Suffers from the not invented here syndrome.

 

[Hawkeye6]

When they switched from the Krag to the 1903, they did infact say the same thing about .30-06. Who would use such a little bullet, when you need a .40 calibre round to do any real damage. The same complaints were heard from .50+ rounds to .40 rounds and throughout history.

It usually led to stories about how "I know I shot the guy 5 times and he still didn't go down because I never miss!" Originally the British wanted a .280 British round back at the end of WW2, but the US would never allow it. Suffers from the not invented here syndrome.

Limey:

I beleive the Krag you refer to used a .30 caliber cartridge. Generally refered to as teh .30-40 Krag, or IIRC the .30 Government. The US did not issue a .40 cal Krag to the best of my knowledge. Now the Krag (a magazine-fed "repeater" with a 'zine cut-off, did replace the .45/70 in single shot rifles...

Also, again based on my recollection, the Garand entered service in ~1936 or so chambered for the .30 '06 cartridge, even though the US had been looking at (I bleive) a .270 caliber cartridge. A reason was the vast stocks of existing ammunition and the facilities to produce it...

could be wrong on some of this, but...