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.

 

5.56mm vs 7.62mm

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2003 @ 05:34 PM
link   
i have read about this on many websites, and that many people cannot decide which is the better ammo to use, the main arguments are

5.56mm - is a lighter and smaller round that causes less damage than the 7.62mm, but soldiers could carry more of the ammo.

7.62mm - a larger and heavier round designed to pierce armour, as less ammo can be carried the shooter would have to be more accurate.

so more 5.56mm can be carried but it causes less damage, whereas the 7.62mm causes more damage but less can be carried

what are people points of view in here, on this subject?
maybe someone in here has at one point used both rounds?




posted on Dec, 28 2003 @ 05:51 PM
link   
It all comes down to two choices. One, you can shoot to injure, useing a smaller round that causes less trauma keeps the opponents active by haveing them pay medical attention to those shot.

Where a larger caliber round will mostly kill an opponent. Since medical attention isn't an option, as they will more than likely be dead.

So, personal choice is all a matter of opinion. Do you want to keep them alive therefore makeing their team or squad members deviate from the fireline, or just plain take em out.



posted on Dec, 28 2003 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
It all comes down to two choices. One, you can shoot to injure, useing a smaller round that causes less trauma keeps the opponents active by haveing them pay medical attention to those shot.

Where a larger caliber round will mostly kill an opponent. Since medical attention isn't an option, as they will more than likely be dead.

So, personal choice is all a matter of opinion. Do you want to keep them alive therefore makeing their team or squad members deviate from the fireline, or just plain take em out.


doesnt using rounds that are designed to just injure the enemy break the geneva convention?



posted on Dec, 28 2003 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Either round will kill someone, it is a matter of personal preference, and which one you are better at firing. As long as your shot is on target, it will have the proper effect. More stopping power isn't really necessary in most situations, and having more ammo is also a plus. It is really up to the person using the weapon, and how accurate they can fire it.



posted on Dec, 28 2003 @ 06:13 PM
link   
If you look at the trend of NATO standard rounds, they have been getting smaller. Wonder why that is?

Yes, Shoktek, it very much matters on the person behind the weapon. Shot placement, is actually the key to effectively useing a firearm. That and useing two hands, LoL.

Personally, if I have to shoot someone, I want to know they are going to stay down. I prefur a .45 compared to any other caliber. I know a .45 is going to go through bone, where 9s and other small cal rounds have been known to deflect and even travel along the bone.



posted on Dec, 28 2003 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Yea this is just like a 9 vs .45 debate...even though it is more practical to go with the lower caliber, if it were me out there shooting at people I would go for the big gun just because...I can...
Although if you were really serious you would practice a lot with both and decide which is better for you.



posted on Dec, 28 2003 @ 06:40 PM
link   
could it also depend on the terrain, as the 5.56mm is small can it be deflected by catching braches of trees etc....?



posted on Dec, 28 2003 @ 06:56 PM
link   
"Bullet mass and bullet striking velocity establish a bullet's potential; they set the limit on the tissue disruption it can produce. Bullet shape and construction determine how much of this potential is actually used to disrupt tissue; they are the major determinants of bullet effect. Far and away the most disruptive bullet of those described is the West German 7.62 NATO round. Its fragmenting behavior maximises utilisation of its much higher potential (bullet mass well over twice that of any of the 5.56mm bullets and velocity only about ten percent less than theirs) for tissue disruption."



posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I was still in the British army when they were changing from th 7.62 SLR and GPMG to the 5.56 SA80 (or whatever they are calling it now), and belive me when youve seen a 7.62 GPMG ripping trees to bits and punching holes in brick walls, I know which size round I want to be using. Yes I know you carnt carry as much ammo as someone using 5.56, but if I hit someone I want them to stay down. And anyway, on one exercise I ended up carrying bout 500 rounds of 7.62, and that should to be enough for anyone



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 10:22 PM
link   
i think 5.56 is probebly better for mobility since the weapon is normally smaller and lighter than a 7.62 weapon. however, when im standing guard on a gate at work, i would rather be issued with a 7.62 weapon than the 5.56 L85-a1 currently given to me! to shoot an oncoming vehicle intent on breaching the gate with a 7.62 round, if you aim for the engine block, it'll stop pretty quick, and i dont care about injuring the terrorists in it, i want them to go down since they are highly unlikely to administer first aid to their compatriates! a 5.56 would likely just bounce off and id be killed in the ensuing hit and run, assuming of course i didnt do a runner already!



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   
>>It all comes down to two choices. One, you can shoot to injure, useing a smaller round that causes less trauma keeps the opponents active by haveing them pay medical attention to those shot.

Where a larger caliber round will mostly kill an opponent. Since medical attention isn't an option, as they will more than likely be dead.

So, personal choice is all a matter of opinion. Do you want to keep them alive therefore makeing their team or squad members deviate from the fireline, or just plain take em out.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Cleggy says:

"could it also depend on the terrain, as the 5.56mm is small can it be deflected by catching braches of trees etc....?"

Surprisingly enough, when American Rifleman ran a series of tests about ten years ago (using various thicknesses of plywood at various angles to the path of the bullet to simulate twigs and branches), the smaller, faster rounds were actually deflected the least.

Needless to say, this report was very controversial, because it ran counter to what most people believed. Nonetheless, deflection rations seem (at least from this study) to be more a function of velocity (inverse of course) than of bullet weight.

By the way, I think ther are two important consideration which have not been brought up in this discussion.

The first is that there are three different types of 7.62 cartridges, what I call the "7.62 short" (7.62 X39 Warsaw Pact and .30-.30 Win); the "7.62 medium" (.308 Win) and the "7.62 long" (.303 Enfield and .30-'06 Spgfld).

Each one of these has different charcteristics and capabilities; contrary to what we read, not all .30-caliber bullets are created equal.

The second item is that the discussion seems to be based on a single-use scenario, i.e., battlefield use only.

I would think that, especially on a forum like this, one would consider the choice of a rifle as more of a survival weapon, which would mean that you would think of it in terms of hunting as well as a sturmgewehr only.

For that, a 5.56 mm (e.g., the .223 Rem) does not have the shock value to knowck down a deer or an elk unless your shot placement or luck is superb. For that reason alone, I would recomment that anyone wanting a rifle, even an autoloading battle-rifle, to consider the 7.62 round, preferably the .308 Win.

As you can see from my avatar, I have an autoloading carbine (a Kalashnikov) in ".30 cal short", 7.62 X 39 mm. However, I did, at one time, own a 5.56 carbine, the Ruger Mini-14 -- which I got rid of -- since it may have been cute, but wasn't the all-around effective survival tool I was looking for.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Where a larger caliber round will mostly kill an opponent. Since medical attention isn't an option, as they will more than likely be dead.

So larger rounds would be the preference in modern warfare no? Insurgents, martyrs, and fanatics tend to not have well supported field medical staff no? And more casualties means less prisoners no?



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I would personally use a 7.62 for the staying down reason. Anyone who has studied war will know that an injured man can still man a gun and fire at the enemy, regardless of injury unless he has both arms shot off. And not ALL armies will make the wounded their priority. They will try to finish the firefight first or advance to the wounded as opposed to runnig out into the line of fire and getting them. 'Nam's street battles in Hue are a great example of the Vietnamese using these tactics to lure soldiers to a wounded fellow soldier.

I would also take a 7.62 for its ability to punch through stuff. Meheheh.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
The 5.56mm round needs to have a velocity of 2700 fps to fragment and be a reliable killer, under that it's really nothing. It's good from the M16 out to 300m? I believe and from the M4 150m?. It lacks the legs of a the 7.62mm round but most infantry engagements take place under 200m.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   
although 5.56 does have its advandages AKA the enemy can be wounded so it takes 3 people to carry and treat a wounded man.
now after hearing a guy scream to death for about 5 or 6 hours it will start to grind you and you might actually go up and kill the poor sod but if you leave him the enemy will come and retrieve him ,hopefully if they dont want thier troops going mad, and there fore lowering thier strength by 4 men.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
>>The 5.56mm round needs to have a velocity of 2700 fps to fragment and be a reliable killer, under that it's really nothing. It's good from the M16 out to 300m? I believe and from the M4 150m?. It lacks the legs of a the 7.62mm round but most infantry engagements take place under 200m.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   
At 600 yards the 5.56mm will stay together when it hits a soft target (but penetrate a hard target), such as a human body and producing a would no bigger then a .22.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Cleggy, no, it is ok to injury the opponent. Exploding rounds, or "dum-dum" rounds, are illegal as they are designed to inflict suffering.

The 5.56mm kills, and if you are hit center mass, you are going to be having a really lousy day and not wanting to engage very much. While discussing this to the nth degree, remember, we are still talking about being shot, not be scratched.

Not only are the rounds for the 7.62 heavier and larger, but so are the weapons. I know I'm not playing anymore, but when I was I hated the load a soldier carries. Give me a rifle and some ammo, let the trucks carry the rest a mile or so behind! The lighter the better, I always figured.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I'll agree with 7mm on the 6mm...

the best round in my oppinion would be a 6.66mm bullet with little pentagrams engraved on the tip of the bullet
j/k



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join