It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thoughts on 5.56 vs. 7.62mm weapons and ammunition.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Actually I think you’re missing the point. I was taught in the Army that the M-16 was NOT designed to KILL the enemy. It was designed to WOUND him. Here’s the theory:

A wounded soldier takes 3 soldiers out of combat (1 is wounded and 2 must recover him).

A wounded soldier soaks up lots of supplies and clogs up the enemy’s supply lines.

A wounded soldier affects morale both at the front lines (screaming and panic) and back home (lots of full hospitals, crippled vets, etc).

If a wounded soldier recovers and makes it back to the front lies, it is possible that they are now a liability to the fighting effort due to being gun shy.

A dead soldier can be thrown in a ditch for burial, makes no noise, and is basically a static supply point for more soldiers.

The death is a clean sharp morale impact with less day-to-day reinforcement of the cost of war than a wounded soldier.


Another point:

U.S. Army doctrine: Infantry only exist to pin down a target until overwhelming force can be brought to bear (Artillery, Air Strikes, Armor, or lots of grenades).

For house to house the grenades and M-16 are fine weapons (although I prefer a beehive round in the old trusty M-203...clears out a room real fast).

The weight of the ammunition and it’s composition were chosen on these facts, not on it’s ability to kill a target (which was 2nd or 3rd on the list of desirable attributes).




posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
world.guns.ru...

X, as you can see, the AK has returned to its roots in 7.62mm, probably because you're better off throwing rocks than .223.

Mr. Nice, Beehive rounds and wooly petes are expressly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions...as much as that matters to Americans.

DE



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrNice
Actually I think you’re missing the point. I was taught in the Army that the M-16 was NOT designed to KILL the enemy. It was designed to WOUND him. Here’s the theory:

A wounded soldier takes 3 soldiers out of combat (1 is wounded and 2 must recover him).

A wounded soldier soaks up lots of supplies and clogs up the enemy’s supply lines.

A wounded soldier affects morale both at the front lines (screaming and panic) and back home (lots of full hospitals, crippled vets, etc).

If a wounded soldier recovers and makes it back to the front lies, it is possible that they are now a liability to the fighting effort due to being gun shy.

A dead soldier can be thrown in a ditch for burial, makes no noise, and is basically a static supply point for more soldiers.

The death is a clean sharp morale impact with less day-to-day reinforcement of the cost of war than a wounded soldier.


Another point:

U.S. Army doctrine: Infantry only exist to pin down a target until overwhelming force can be brought to bear (Artillery, Air Strikes, Armor, or lots of grenades).

For house to house the grenades and M-16 are fine weapons (although I prefer a beehive round in the old trusty M-203...clears out a room real fast).

The weight of the ammunition and it’s composition were chosen on these facts, not on it’s ability to kill a target (which was 2nd or 3rd on the list of desirable attributes).


yeah but now those abilities to not kill instantly is a liabilitity, ask any body who went through somalia, afghanistan or Iraq, you shot somebody once or 2 and they still keep comign at you shooting and whatnot. and a lot of times, WE are the ones taking care of wounded enemies while their comrades punch on with their assualts under a firefight, look at the last few land wars we've been in we've been responsible for both our wounded as well as the enemies' wounded. while I feel in a perfect world the deliverate attributes of the 5.56 would be ideal but we're not anywhere near that kind of a world and we remember no minor how minor the infractures the geneva conventions generally applies only to us in combat, look at iraq we have people shooting from inside churches, bombing mosque and rigging their dead and wounded, executions, blowing themselves up in markets, and what get's everybody juices flowing an american firing off X amount of shots unto 2 oncoming insurgents after being fired upon, or shooting some one who you have reason to believe may have a grenade or something while playing pussom.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Good Grief! How long will this stupid MYTH be around?


People, listen up....ALL military weapons are designed to KILL THE ENEMY. From pistols to nukes, they have but one purpose, to PERMANENTLY END THE CAREER OF OUR ENEMY. There was NEVER a shoot to wound infantry weapon ever made, combat cannot be that precise.

Also, there was never a "beehive" round for the M203. There is a shotgun type round (which is no more effective that a standard 12 gauge), smoke, CS, dual purpose, red/ white/green star cluster, and parachute flare, and powder filled training round. Flechette ammo was designed for many small arms weapon systems, but proved to ineffective due to lack of KILLING power.

There are no...NO....restrictions on beehive (made only for artillery and tank tubes btw), or white phosphorus ("willy" pete) by any of the Geneva agreements, Prague conventions, or Hague Accords.

However....I completely agree with the utter uselessness of the 9mm



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Army
There are no...NO....restrictions on beehive (made only for artillery and tank tubes btw), or white phosphorus ("willy" pete) by any of the Geneva agreements, Prague conventions, or Hague Accords.



Smaller flechettes were used in special artillery shells called "beehive" rounds (so named for the very distinctive whistling buzz made by thousands of flechettes flying downrange at supersonic speeds) and intended for use against troops in the open. They were used in the Vietnam War by artillery gunners to defend their positions against infantry attacks. Numerous treaties now forbid their use.


From wikipedia

You were right about the WP, though it's not exactly kosher.

DE



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The US never signed any agreement on beehive ammo. In fact, the M1A1 has an unused ballistic computer setting for its beehive.

We don't use it any longer due to logistics. It is rarely used, and takes up room and weight that can be used for better choices in projo's.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Just as a question, isnt it more sensible to wound rather than kill?

I mean it takes 2 people to carry a wounded man off the battlefield and a further medic to treat him , not counting the other medical staff, logicstics , etc.

But it takes 0 men to leave a dead body on the battlefield.

Lol, Mr nice didnt notice your post up there lol.....sorry about that..

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Army
The US never signed any agreement on beehive ammo. In fact, the M1A1 has an unused ballistic computer setting for its beehive.

We don't use it any longer due to logistics. It is rarely used, and takes up room and weight that can be used for better choices in projo's.


Note my comment above about American respect for life. Yes, I know its rarely used, but most civilized countries have agreed not to use munitions that cause undue suffering to combatants.

Back to the subject at hand, I would like to see an intermediate catridge come into use- namely the 6.8mm.

DE



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Sorry to piss on your Canadian sensitivities (after all, you guys disbanded the outstanding Princess Rifles because they were doing the job YOU ASKED THEM TO DO in Somalia), but we Soldiers want the bad guy shooting at him...DEAD, and dead NOW. Wounded men can still fight.

The wounded are not carried out until the battle is over, which means the wounded, if able...and usually are...can still fire back.

There is nothing civilised about combat or war. But, US forces go out of their way to ensure that exessive death or destruction is avoided. Your ignorant comment was childish at best.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
What is the expression?

"You may be obliged to wage war, but you are not obliged to use poisoned arrows." -Balthasar Y Gracian

You did not offend my Canadian sensibilities, you offended the concept that life is sacred, and if it should be taken it should not be taken in a cruel manner. Call it ignorance if you must, but I prefer to keep my notions of compassion and humanity.

DE

[edit on 29-5-2005 by DeusEx]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Then you are ignorant in the concept of combat and warfare.

I will restate; American armed forces go out of their way to reduce un-needed death and destruction. But that level of death and destruction that is needed to end a battle or conflict, will be brought to bear with little regard to the enemy's disposition.

War sucks, but the alternative is worse

It is obvious that you have no respect for American Soldiers. It is more obvious that you do not have a clue how we operate under combat conditions. Because of your too blatant political and personal bias/hate against America, you are not a person with which to discuss weapons and/or tactics involving American personnel.

As this is the Weaponry Forum, it is sad that you would involve your hate in these discussions. As such, I am placing you as my only entry on the ignore list.

Goodbye, and study how and why Canada's neighbor to the south has protected her all these years....sometimes without even trying.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   


The M16 is X pounds of garbage, in any form. I'll get to that part later

Many people say other wise, I prefer the M4 and even better the bushmaster M4.

But the M16 is still a great weapon, it all depends on who's doing the shooting. Some people can easily shoot a man or target in the chest at 500 yards with no scope....others can't hit the same at 10 feet.

The M16 either works for you or against you...IMO

[edit on 29/5/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
OK, here is how the situation goes;
the 7.62x51mm NATO round has greater range and higher kinetic energy than the 5.56x45mm NATO round.
The 5.56 however, benefits from lighter weight, less recoil, and can be used in larger magazines. In this case, It's a matter of preference. However, rounds like the 6.5x48mm have also been invented (or reinvented). These have "stopping power" close to that of the 7.62, but still remain light. In the near feature, with the invention of ELECTRONICALLY-FIRED WEAPONS, we may use things like c4 explosives for propellent, allowing for small rounds like the 5.56, to carry the range and kinetic energy of big rounds like the 7.62. The use of legalized hollow point bullets may also come into use (you could say; "these dum dums, won't cause unnecessary suffering: You will be too DEAD to suffer). Either way, both of these rounds are outdated, so these post doesn't really deserve much credit, unless we turn it into a: "how to make the 5.56 more powerful" type thing.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Oh, I forgot to mention something else;
The increased recoil from the 7.62x51mm NATO round is NOT an issue. Besides the fact that there are these little
things called MUZZLE BRAKES and PADDED STOCKS there is the fact that automatic fire is for suppressing purposes and having a "controllable" weapon isn't really necessary.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
i personally prefer the 30 caliber rounds



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
I agree with the 6,5 opinion of some people on here. Seems like a really great round. The ballistics/trajectory charts for it is impressive.
If I'm not wrong, there was a video of '249 in 6,5 somewhere on the net as well. Looked pretty interesting.
I would definitely go with 6,5 over 5,56/7,62 for assault rifle/saw role. As far as medium MG/DMR, 7,62 is doing just fine.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
5.56 is better. Less recoil for quicker followup shots, lighter and smaller rounds means more can be carried. the 5.56 tumbles after penetrating a few inches of flesh, actually causing a larger wound cavity than a 7.62 round which usually penetrates straight through, causing a pen-hole and clean exit.

Shot placement is more important than anything, so the ability to carry twice the amount of ammo is the most important aspect.

Now for deer hunting or long range, obviously a larger, more powerful round is required.

The Stoner design is a great weapons platform. It wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't. It's precise, accurate, tough, and modular. I prefer some of the new gas-piston type as opposed to the direct impingement though.

For SHTF, I definetly prefer the AK though!!

P.S. Since nobody likes to flag around here, I gave you a flag for your post!!
edit on 8-6-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
5.56 is better. Less recoil for quicker followup shots, lighter and smaller rounds means more can be carried. the 5.56 tumbles after penetrating a few inches of flesh, actually causing a larger wound cavity than a 7.62 round which usually penetrates straight through, causing a pen-hole and clean exit.

Shot placement is more important than anything, so the ability to carry twice the amount of ammo is the most important aspect.

Now for deer hunting or long range, obviously a larger, more powerful round is required.

The Stoner design is a great weapons platform. It wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't. It's precise, accurate, tough, and modular. I prefer some of the new gas-piston type as opposed to the direct impingement though.

For SHTF, I definetly prefer the AK though!!

P.S. Since nobody likes to flag around here, I gave you a flag for your post!!
edit on 8-6-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)

M16 is not that great, It needs meticulous cleaning. What you do not understand is that damage potential is about kinetic energy as much as soft tissue damage, a 5.56 is like getting punched, a 7.62x51 is like getting hit by a baseball bat. Definitely has more energy, but these rounds are outdated, maybe you should read my earlier posts.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by entityofwar
 


The cleaning issue is why I prefer piston to direct impingement. Also why I'd prefer an AK if the SHTF. You can go a few thousand rounds without a problem without cleaning though. Troops are taught to maintain their weapons anyway, so it doesn't matter much anymore.

I completely understand kinetic energy. What you don't understand is that no matter how much kinetic energy a projectile has, it's only the effective energy that is transferred into a target that matters. Even though the 7.62 NATO has over 1,000 ft. lbs. more energy than the 5.56, the majority of it is wasted anyway, because like I stated before, it goes straight through, and doesn't expel much energy into the target. You may get a slight hydrostatic shock effect, but not much until your projectile is closer in velocity to the .300winmag, or .338 Lapua. The 5.56 tumbling expells much more energy into the target before exiting. Now if you had a hollowpoint instead of the FMJ the NATO round uses, that's a different story.

I did read your posts, but first of all, this thread is about 5.56 vs 7.62. Plus, I've never heard of a 6.5x48mm. Maybe you mean 6.5 Grendel, which is only a 300 ft lb energy increase over the 5.56, just carries further but not as flat of trajectory. The 6.8SPC would be a much better choice for that argument, as it carries much more energy out to 300 meters than the 5.56, so honestly, if anything were to replace the 5.56, it would be the 6.8SPC. It's not a good idea to use C4 as a propellant, because it's burn rate when exploding is too fast. C4 is meant to shatter metal, not propel it. Gunpowder is a low explosive and burns at something like 1300 feet per second. C-4 is a high explosive and burns something like 25,000 feet per second!! I think you may be mistaken as to how propellants work. You need to burn the powder slowly to create the hot gas and expansion to propel the projectile. C4 would create a quick explosion with overpressure, and as the projectile went through the barrel, would already be losing momentum because the explosion event is already over. Not to mention the fact that you'd need a massive barrel to handle the pressure of the explosion, or a tiny amount of C4, which wouldn't work as well to propel the projectile at the same case pressure anyway. If C4 were feasable as a propellant, the military would already be using it.

Just because something is old doesn't mean it doesn't work or is outdated. Anybody who's been shot by either one of these rounds can tell you (or maybe they can't because they're dead) that they're effective!! They could easily use something similar to the 5.56 that's more powerful by propelling the projectile faster, but then you start causing excessive barrel wear and "burning" barrels, similar to the 22-250.

edit on 9-6-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I just recently bought a Ruger mini 30 ranch rifle which is a 7.62x39 round and I love it




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join