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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Two points there, one about armour piercing and the other about centre mass hits killing.

Read Blackhawk Down. Master Sergeant Paul Howe complains that his green spot light armour piercing 5.56mm rounds are going straight through the Somalis and leaving them standing to come at him. The reason a certain CMH-receiving sniper chose an M14 instead.

But, as my father said, the SLR kicks like a mule. In WW1 the British .303in (7.7mm) was good for 1500m, the trenches were 30m (or less) apart.

As for armour piercing, I hope that meant body armour, to go through an M113 you need a .50 cal Browning and those are just made from aluminium.




posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Look, I've seen men get shot with 5.56, 7.62x39 and 7.62 NATO. The only experience I don't have is carrying a 7.62 NATO battle riffle in combat (my 240B was mounted to a gun truck, I was a TOW gunner), although I would imagine you would get used to the weight, just like every other pain in the ass piece of gear we lug around.

With the exception of a head shot, I have never seen or heard of a 5.56 dropping a person. What I have seen is 7.62 NATO shred through flesh like butter, not a nice memory. So far as 7.62x39, one of our guys got shot from about 5 inches away in the chest and his SAPI stopped the round very well. He was bruised, but it came nowhere close to penetrating the vest.

It is true that 5.56 needs both velocity and depth in the body to fragment. Even when it does fragment (70% of the time given perfect conditions) the fragments usually dont deviate from the wound channel by more than a couple of centimeters, usually not enough to branch out and hit organs not affected by the temporary wound channel. If your enemy is slim or you hit a limb, the round will not fragment, and does very little damage although if left untreated the person will probably die a few days later.


Both common 7.62 rounds, however, tumble consistently (95%) given at least 12 centimeters of flesh to work on. This tumbling action has proven a much more consistent killer then the fragmentation of the 5.56. Also, the bullet exits the body backwards, causing a nice exit wound.


Anyways, all I am saying is that I have seen all those rounds do their thing, and I would take a 7.62 NATO over a 5.56 to save my life any day.

Ask yourself which round you would rather be shot with if you had to make the choose.


P.S. 5.56 doesnt consistently puncture Kevlar helmets, more like 1 out of 10 rounds. Youd be amazed the things a bored group of soldiers will shoot to keep themselves amused.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
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.

Or they might shoot him to put him out of his misery, or he might just blow himself up right there and they'll say 'ahh, akmood is with the martyrs now'.

Not to say that the enemy is allways a radical militant muslim suicide fanatic, just that thats whats going on now.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   
As far as armour peircing rounds, how about 'sable' rounds for small arms? Eh, eh?


Originally posted by cavscout
Look, I've seen men get shot with 5.56, 7.62x39 and 7.62 NATO. The only experience I don't have is carrying a 7.62 NATO battle riffle in combat (my 240B was mounted to a gun truck, I was a TOW gunner)

Bradleys?,


P.S. 5.56 doesnt consistently puncture Kevlar helmets, more like 1 out of 10 rounds. Youd be amazed the things a bored group of soldiers will shoot to keep themselves amused.

Christ man, get some frikin beer. Actually I'd bet there was already some involved.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Nygdan, no not bradleys. I do have the D3 on my MOS to signify "Bradley Crewmember" however I was on a gun truck in Iraq. In 2cav, we mount TOW missiles on hummers, havent seen a brad since basic.


So far as the beer question, I don't drink and if I did, I wouldnt have done it in Iraq even if I could find some.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Ive seen what 7.62 can do when we were in the Balkans, very gruesome. Given the choice i would take the 7.62 over the 5.56. The old SLR ( a version of the FN Fal rifle ) we (UK) used before we changed to the SA80 used the NATO 7.62 round and it served us well for a long time. The 7.62 packs major stopping power, i have heard tales, never seen it myself, of people being hit by 5.56 and keep going. In a combat situation that most defiantly is NOT what you want.


[edit on 30-11-2004 by Janus]



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I have owned a Ruger Mini-14, Ruger Mini-30 and AK-47 (SAR-1) and AK-74 (SAR-2). I like the heavier round in the 7.62 Soviet, but I REALLY like the lighter recoil and ammo of the 5.56 X 45 and 5.45 X 39 rounds. Re-acquiring target and firing is much quicker with the lighter rounds, and their flatter tragectory is much more easily used at varing ranges since it is much faster speed.
BUT>>> Now for me, a civillian, it makes little use to have 400 vs 200 rounds on me while I am plinking, or Deer hunting, and a DNR officer might take offense and write me a ticket if I did carry that much ammo while hunting, but I do favor the heavier round since it is more humane to the kill. Now the military might think otherwise with regard to their objectives and methods.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I know that from personal experience using the M-16A2 is like shooting with an oversized b.b. gun. Just laying behind an M-60 or a SAW has a much more satisfying feel to it

Of course nowadays with each member of a squad carrying a specific weapon(SAW gunner, grenadier, rifleman, etc...) each can kind of back-up each other. Although each squad at operational readiness in theory has a SAW gunner that can lay down plenty of fire, I still think a rifleman should be carrying a slower repeating rifle such as the M-14, with plenty of stopping power while a SAW would lay down suppression.

Just my two cents



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 7mm08
>>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 Jan, 2 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Well, the new 5.56mm Kinetic Energy Rounds should b more effective than the other 5.56mms, but I don't know if this will b as good as 7.62mm, same with the 6.8mm, but that might replace the 5.56mm, but I dunno.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Why haven't the armed forces of the world made the transition to caseless ammo? 2mm caseless would weigh in substantially lighter than either of the two rounds under discussion, and though damage would take a back seat to penetration, a good shot is a good shot, and there are many ways to drop a man with a needle, you don't necessarily need a sledge hammer.

I think soldiers would appreciate the drop in weight from a transition to caseless, and the potential for clean kills would remain. A high velocity 'flechette' type ammunition, fired singly or in sprays, will do the job neat and tidy. Sever a brain stem, puncture the heart or the lung, and your target is down. And the range could be phenomenal, with pinpoint accuracy. The potential is there for an upgrade, so why haven't we made that leap? Are Pentagon war hawks too bedazzled by multi million dollar weapons systems that they can't be bothered with upgrading a 'superfluos' thing like small arms ammunition?



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I was under the impression that the Pentagon did look into the subject, I know that the Germans tested caseless ammo but they didn't adopt it. I beleive the reason was that if one country did it then their allies would have to in order to sustain interoperability with their ammo. Still, I don't see why special operations units and if it is as accurate as you say sniper units couldn't use them.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
remtek.com...

www.azod.com...

These two links are for the Gll by H&K and a link to some info about electric ignition in the Voere line. There is a good amount of info on the subject of caseless ammo, and I really think it needs to be explored. The benefits are there, the technology is there, and damnit, I want a space marine rifle! hehe



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
I own a Russian SKS. IT fires 7.62.39 rounds, and is very accurate. I have fired both types of ammo, and I prefer the power of the 7.62. If you shoot someone with this ammo, they will not be shooting you back anytime soon... 7.62



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
This is my question:

What deals more damage? which do you prefer?

I heard the Soviet 5.45mm is a VISCIOUS little round, the Afghans called this the poison bullet...why?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
This is my question:

What deals more damage? which do you prefer?

I heard the Soviet 5.45mm is a VISCIOUS little round, the Afghans called this the poison bullet...why?


Ive only had experience with the NATO 5.56 round so i cant comment about the 5.45mm. I imagine the slightly smaller Soviet round may have a higher muzzle velocity perhaps. The 5.56 may deal out more damage but really there isn't that much between them. As for why it was called the poison bullet i really couldn't say, perhaps the Soviets dipped them in garlic like the Gangsters in Chicago did so that if the bullet didn't kill you the infection from the garlic did, *shrug* who knows?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
i have posted a similar response in another thread, but here it is again. Ive shot both rounds, carried an m16, an m4, an m14, and the 240B. the saw is still a 5.56 round, with a little more powder to operate the weapons. Unlinke Cavscout, I have carried the 240 bravo on foot, and the rounds, and when my AG went down, all the associated gear. IT SUCKED, but i tell you what, the guys with the m16 needed me to clear the air so they could head shot the rats, and i knew my center mass would drop just about anyone. both are rounds that serve a purpose, but when life is on the line, a three round burst of 5.56 isnt what i want to depend on. i trust that last round in the belt to do a better job than those three. and the weight, while i may be shorter after jumps with all that weight, and countless miles of humping gear all over gods green earth, im still alive, and will choose weight over ease when my life depends on it



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
In the 60's, I was trained on .303 but never had to use it. A superb rifle which, according to my uncle, had a superior killing range to any weapon on the battlefield with the exception of the .50 Browning HMG or the Vickers .303 (same round) and the awesome MG42 (SF role)

In the 70's we had FN SLR's and a damned good job too. The superior 7.62mm round had the legs to hit and drop out to 800 metres depending on sight system and skill of user and if hit by one, you did not get up to carry on the fight. The round used by us (Brits) was used in the LMG (Bren) and the FN MAG (GPMG).

Now we have a plastic toy, the L85A2. 5.56mm x 30 round mag. Unless you've got a SUSAT instead of iron sights, you can't drop jack # over 400 metres. At least it's got auto BUT more than a 3 round burst is a waste and the L86 LSW fires the same round.

BUT Gimpy is still in use (7.62) and not interchangeable with 5.56mm.

Oh yeah. I forgot the Minimi. 5.56 ain't it? Okay so it fires same round but is belt fed. When was the last time any Minimi gunner correctly balanced the weapon prior to a patrol in Iraq? And are there enough to go round or has Hoon the Loon not supplied enough of them as well? I would love to know.

Thankfully, I am now out - of the mob, that is! Had to use 7.62 in Ireland and Oman but luckily missed the Falklands. Great stopping power, fewer rounds but as we were taught to shoot properly, each round counted.

Today we rush through skill at arms trg, rush through grouping and zeroing and APWT or APWA.

We even use bloody lasers as an aid to teaching our guys to shoot. What a load of B*&%!@>S.

It is simple. Long range versus short range firefight? Why let the enemy get that close then stop them with automatic fire that will probably miss after the first 3 rounds. Why not stop them at 800 metres with well aimed shots. You only have to drop a couple of them and the rest will think twice.

Well, that's been my experience. Perhaps all you super troopers like humping extra rounds but you can't beat cutting through walls with a 7.62 AND taking some schmuk's head off afterwards!



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
This is my question:

What deals more damage? which do you prefer?

I heard the Soviet 5.45mm is a VISCIOUS little round, the Afghans called this the poison bullet...why?


Because it's hollow-pointed.

How does that work under the Geneva Convention?



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
geneva Convention says ball ammo only, meaning no hollow points for those of you not in the ballistics know. Ball ammo against personnel, and AP and Incendiary against vehicles and equipment, but then, a belt is considered equipment. If I remember the correctly, about the only ammo truly banned by the GC is hollow and DUM DUM rounds, and all similar rounds designed to wound and prolong suffering and not kill primarily. But if you ask me, a bullet is a bullet, they are all used to kill, if they werent, they wouldnt be so controversial, and neither would guns....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join