5.56mm vs 7.62mm

Aaahh Hollow point, sneaky Bloody Russians. Big No No, but the Soviets didnt really care as long as it got the job done. I wonder if they would have used Hollow points against us if there had been a WW3? Knowing the Soviets the answer would prob be yes. Do they still use that ammo as standard issue, does anyone know?

Can anyone reasonably verify that the soviets used hollow-point bullets, or is it just speculation?

I personally never saw the problem with them. Sure, they may be better killers, but isn't that the point of shooting people, to kill them?

I think the main problem with Hollow Point ammo is that it acts in a similar way to a dum-dum. Small entrance wound but an exit wound the size of a fist. The Hollow Point is against the GC because it causes unessisary suffering. Also anyone caught with Hollow Point or Dum-Dums on the battle field could expect no quarter from an enemy and would most probably be shot out of hand.
Hollow points and Dum-Dums are just one of those things you just dont do, not even in War.

reply to post by ADVISOR

Have you people heard of the poisoned bullet? The 5.56 tumbles in a body tearing it up. or a man killer I'd want a 5.56. For a more long range or bullet for stopping vehicles id want 7.62.

I don't believe its got anything to do with it being a hollow point round.

Because the centre of gravity is near the rear of the projectile, the Russian bullet starts tumbling, as it leaves the barrel.

Because the round is tumbling when it hits the body, it does have a tendency to fragment when it hits bone - thus giving the false impression that is a hollow point or dum-dum explosive round.

When you speak of choosing between the 5.56 and the 7.62, I assume you are not talking of varmints such as woodchucks and are speaking in terms of anti-personnel.

The 5.56 is just a hot-rod .22. It's results are very unreliable beyond 200 meters. The 5.56 literally "smacks" a target. I've seen a 5.56 hit the shoulder and exit the inside of the same-side knee, are ripping up everything inside between the two points. Basically the shape of the cartridge is a scaled down .50 Browning. The 7.62 is one of the most efficient rounds in existence. I said efficient.

The 7.62 is effective out to around 800 meters, although a really good shooter with an accurized rifle can reach out and tough someone reliably at 1,000 meters. The foot-pounds of energy downrange at every distance is much greater with the 7.62 than with the 5.56.

Our forces are frequently outgunned at distance. The 5.56 quickly runs out of "grunt" and our soldiers have found themselves at considerable disadvantages when having to rely on the 5.56. In essence, our snipers using 7.62, .300 Magnums, or even .50's usually start at around 800 yards and depending on the round, terrain, the weapon, skill, and marksmanship, can reach out to 2,500 yards. So in effect we have made the 200-800 meter range, a no-man's land. If you want to engage US troops, that is the range you want to engage from. 200-800 meters.

To correct this disadvantage, we are now using designated shooters with 7.62 rifles to eliminate this longer range advantage. Our great President Clinton in his infinite wisdom destroyed most of the M-14's that our military had, and so there's been a real scramble within the military to get their hands on some. Even then, they frequently send them to manufacturers such as Smith, Inc., to upgrade, accurize, and remanufacture these weapons for maximum accuracy and reliability.

In combat, only hits matter. It doesn't matter if you can carry more rounds but can't hit diddly squat - you may as well stay home. If making noise and spraying lead is your goal, then a Remington .17 will do just as well.

Fewer rounds such as the 7.62, but rounds that are more accurate at greater distances, and are more destructive on arrival will ever be the preference of a careful, knowing man.

Originally posted by fritz
I don't believe its got anything to do with it being a hollow point round.

Because the centre of gravity is near the rear of the projectile, the Russian bullet starts tumbling, as it leaves the barrel.

Ok, where do I start.

Firstly, a hollow point is not the same as an air space in the tip (although it is still technically correct to call it a hollow point), that's what the Russians did with the 5.45, and they weren't the only ones. These bullets don't tumble as they leave the barrel (sorry have to have a little :lol you wouldn't hit a barn door at 10 yards with a non-stabilized bullet. What they were designed to do was tumble when they hit something soft and squishy, something that all bullets do, it's just that some don't do it quickly enough, and that's what the Russians were trying to fix.

Traditional hollow points or JHPs are designed to "mushroom" when fluid under pressure enters the open tip, thus increasing the wound area and slowing the bullet inside the body - generally referred to as energy dump. Dum Dums (named after the British arsenal in India that first designed them) are NOT hollow points, they are standard FMJs that were formed with the tip of the copper jacket missing, thereby exposing the lead core, today we call these soft points. They work very well in rifles but are largely a waste of time in pistol ammunition where the velocities are inadequate to cause much expansion.

Next - no, the 5.56mm was not designed to wound, that is a total armchair commando myth. It was designed to kill, and the primary mechanism for that is bullet fragmentation typically at the cannelure where the jacket has been weakened. The 5.56 lives and dies by its velocity, and if you are shooting the mil std. M855 round out of a 14.5 inch M4 barrel at someone 300 yards away, all the wounds will be "ice pick" in nature - no fragmentation, limited damage.

Finally, yes I have shot both 7.62x51mm and 5.56mm, but not at people, and 5.56mm is a great round, but not ideal. It is a great round for civilians who can use soft tip or JHP ammunition, but has restrictions for the military who can only use FMJ and may need to engage at longer range. For me, and this is a highly personal opinion, 7.62x51mm just has too much thump - we Americans have been idiots in pressing other nations to adopt our ammo preferences, when all along the British had it nailed with their .280 round in the late 1940s.

So what we have today is the Remington 6.8SPC, arguably the best of both worlds, and a great round IMO, but what ballistics does it replicate? why .280 British of course. Sorry Britain, our bad.

But me, well I guess I'm a little old school, because I still have a strong liking for the simplicity and effectiveness of plain old Russian 7.62x39mm, and that's what I use.

reply to post by Retseh[/url]

I am sitting with my hands up in mock surrender. You are correct!

Of course they don't tumble when they leave the muzzle - I got that arse about face. What a Muppet! It is as you say, the bullet tumbles when it hits bone - nothing more, nothing less.

As Poirot would say, "The little grey cells. Are they not working properly, non, mon ami!"

The current L85A2 mounts a SUSAT which allows the user to engage tgts
with the S109 5.56 mm round currently in service out to 500 metres but I would suggest that a more realistic engagement range would be 300 - 400 metres.

Even then, I believe that the round will not drop somebody who is hyped up, unless it strikes a vital body organ.

The trusty 7.62 x 51 mm NATO on the other hand, will do exactly what it says on the tin! If it is good enough for a General, then it should be good enough for yer average Tommy!

I have said over and over again, that the L85 family of rifles are not suitable for the insurgency type engagements fought in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The L85 and L86 were designed to meet the Russian hordes sweeping down through Germany and, in their current configuration [bullpup design, rt handed use & rt side ejection only] IMO, they are totally unsuitable for long range engagements, especially in Afghanistan.

reply to post by fritz


Fritz, the SLR is gone mate. I know that you've never really gotten over that, but you have to learn to move on .

The 5.56mm from a decent length barrel will happily fragment at 200-300m (depending where it hits of course). It will kill at 500m, again depending on where it hits. Granted it's not a great choice for long range shooting, but it is good for the ranges that most of us can shoot at.

Experience in recent conflicts has demonstrated the need for large amounts of ammunition. 5.56mm allows this. There are times when fire suppression is the order of the day, and this needs lots of rounds down range. While the rounds may not be hitting much they will keep the enemies heads down long enough for a fire team to assault.

Recent experience has also demonstrated the need for accurate yet sustained medium to long range firepower (400-800m). Hence the GPMG has popped back in at section level (something to help you get over the tragic demise of the SLR, fritzy mate). The current British set up at the minute is something like this;

GPMG - The best weapon in the world, end of. 100 - 800m light role.
Minimi LMG - decent short range fire power but sprays around like mad womens poo at anything past 300m
SA80 - Good for individual fire out to 400m, area fire at around 600m.
LSW - Cr@p as a machine gun, cr@p as a rifle, not bad as a marksmans weapon out to 800m.
UGL - Handy for a bit of area fire out to 250-300m.
L115A3 - sniping at stupidly long ranges (1100m+)

Now that is every range from 0-1100mm covered. The septics have something similar. I think the biggest mistake the yanks are making is the widespread use of the M4. The short barrel is doing the 5.56mm round no favours, and most of the combat reports that deride the 5.56mm performance probably stem from this.

Use the round that your enemy will be using, that way you can loot their bodies.

reply to post by PaddyInf[/url]

Yeah I know mate, thanx for reminding me that I am over the hill

Trouble is Paddy, I am old school. My war was NI and Oman where the FN SLR was the dog's bollocks and even the Browning 9 milly was put to good use.

I have instructed others on the L85A1 and the LSW. I have used both on the ranges and that is all.

I have never used them in anger but as I have said, I was an LSW gunner and humble tho' I am, a bloody good one!

I do know, however, when I am beaten by a better man and I salute you Paddy. I have always valued your views and input, unlike some of the other posters who still come across as armchair warriors.

By the by old friend, are you travelling soon?

Originally posted by fritz
reply to post by PaddyInf[/url]

...I do know, however, when I am beaten by a better man and I salute you Paddy. I have always valued your views and input, unlike some of the other posters who still come across as armchair warriors.

By the by old friend, are you travelling soon?

You weren't beaten mate, your points were valid. I just love tickling the old & bold about the demise of the SLR.

As for travelling, I'm back in the UK now and stuck behind a desk for the next couple of weeks sorting out post op and mid year reports, training packages, post op equipment care and all the other tripe they don't tell you about in the recruiting office.

Oh to be a Ranger again...

reply to post by PaddyInf[/url]

You weren't beaten mate, your points were valid. I just love tickling the old & bold about the demise of the SLR.

Sniff. Yeah, well. No need to rub it in mate!

Now, do feel free to drag a sadbag nearer the camp fire son, and I'll tell you a tale or three about the Lee Enfield............................

One of the main differences between 5.56 and 7.62 is its wight and speed.

A 5.56 is a lighter bullet and got higher speed then the 7.62 bullet. The trajectory of the 5.56 is straight not like the 7.62 which got a slope like trajectory. Its easier to hit a target with something that shoots straight

The bad part about 5.56 ammo compared to 7.62 is that a lighter bullet can change trajectory easier then a heavier 7.62 if it hits something like a branch or Grass and so on on it way to the target. It might even be destroyed.

reply to post by fritz


Fritz, I'd love to pull up a sandbag closer to the fire although I'm no lad and getting a bit long in the tooth.

I used the 5.56 in Viet Nam until I found myself a cut-down Winchester Model 12 shotgun. But I love the effectiveness of the 7.62. You get a decent hit with a 7.62 and it's going down. You get a decent hit with a 5.56 - under 200 meters, and it's usually going down. But anything beyond that . . . well, I'm not a betting man. I much prefer those sure things!

Too much ammo (5.56) is being expended without results. A waste of money, a waste of time.

To you!

In my experience i would rather use 7.62 and it had nothing to do with the weight or power of the round. You see for a british soldier it was either carry the GPMG with 7.62 ammo or the SA80 with 5.56 ammo. The GPMG would win every time and be my choice rather than carry the flimsy SA80.

Seriously though as another poster mentioned earlier it would depend on the battle or enemy. 7.62 in the absence of a 50 Cal is good for laying down some heavy covering fire from a distance whereas 5.56 is good for close quarter fighting bunker to bunker

Originally posted by thesaint
see for a british soldier it was either carry the GPMG with 7.62 ammo or the SA80 with 5.56 ammo. The GPMG would win every time and be my choice rather than carry the flimsy SA80.

You can't have a platoon full of GPMGs though. To carry enough ammo to feed just ONE GPMG per section requires every member of the section to carry 100-200 rounds for it on top of their normal load for their personal weapon. I love the Gimpy, but it's a hungry beast.

A firefight demands fire suppression. People don't seem to understand that the vast majority of ammo expended in a firefight don't actually hit anything. They are used as fire suppression.

Does this mean you don't aim? Does this mean I advocate "spray & pray"?Of course not. If you can see the enemy you aim at him. What it means is you have to expend ammunition in the area of the target to keep its' head down. This allows you or elements of you unit to close in with and kill the enemy. Half the time you can't even see the enemy because they're firing from cover. There's smoke about, you have sweat in your eyes. You're breathing out your arrse and your pulse is going a dinger. You can't get into a text book firing position because of the only cover you could find was an 18" deep dip in the ground filled with rocks. You have the choice of waiting until you can see them before returning fire, hoping that one of their rounds doesn't hit you in the mean time, or you can return aimed fire at possible/probable firing points. This uses up even more ammo.

The simple fact is that a soldier in modern conflicts needs to carry a lot of ammo. 5.56mm is lighter an allows you to carry more. It is accurate and will kill at realistic combat ranges (out to 500m-ish). 7.62mm is a more potent round, no doubt. If I was going toe to toe against a known number of enemy in the open I'd probably choose it. But we don't. We have to tab long distances in very high temperatures and go against often numerically superior forces on their own ground. I want lots of bullets please.

Hey paddy theres no need to describe battle to me. I know the score (Im pretty sure we have had this convo before)

I know there cant be a platoon full of gimpys i was merely speaking from my point of view. Each section needed a Heavy Gun especially if one of the fire teams were going to be used for covering fire only. Me i personally chose to take the responsibility of carrying the gimpy purely because i enjoyed the amount of firepower i could put down (And the fact i didnt have to be the bugger who crawled up to the bunker to post a grenade). Yes it was heavy and awkward especially with legs and belt hanging down whilst your running. Yes it was very difficult to control the hits on target but it kept heads down and i enjoyed using it. (Plus the rest of the section had to help me clean it lol)

thesaint

Originally posted by thesaint
Hey paddy theres no need to describe battle to me. I know the score (Im pretty sure we have had this convo before)

Sorry mate, I didn't aim the last post specifically at you. I understand you know the score. The post was aimed at the general reader.

I won't argue the merits of either side, but I will add this.
7.62x39 ammo is cheap as (almost) dirt, and I want a round suitable for survival, no matter what I am hunting.
And as I don't plan on staying in a trench for a day or two, or chasing multitudes over hill and dale, the weight factor difference is insignificant.
If I can't get done whats needed to be done with an easy carry of 10 or 15 clips, I'm probably toast anyway.