5.56mm vs 7.62mm

Originally posted by PaddyInf

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.

My Apologies Paddy. That line was not meant to read the way it was typed. Sometimes text reads a little arrogant. I know your a fine person having spoken with you before. No worries my friend

Meee tooo Nice to have you back safe Paddy....

Hope you have washed the dust out of all those cracks and crannies now..

See you on ARRSE sometime ..lol

7.62 everytime. I don't own a single round of 5.56. Yeah it's cheaper to shoot but what is the ultimate goal? Knockdown power is much greater with the 7.62. This has been proven time and time again. I'll post some youtube links later when I get a chance to research.

As an armchair warrior I want to take time to post an experience I've recently had to mirror what another poster stated on Page 1 of this thread.

I have recently been experimenting with a new pistol barrel I purchased at a gun show. It is for a single shot pistol called a Thompson Center Contender. It is in an unusual calibration called 7mm TCU ...or Thompson Center Ugalde . Ammunition for this caliber is not purchased in the stores but made in ones shop with sizing dies.
The Neck of a standard 5.56mm case is expanded to .284 caliber and then reloaded with a 7mm diameter bullet. I have loaded and fired this pistol barrel..of 14 inches long with both 120 grain and 139 grain bullets. The impact or energy of this wildcat caliber round is immediately noticable over standard 5.56mm ammunition.

What happened as a result of fire forming the first cases of this Wildcat round at the range...was that I quickly realized the appeal of the 6.8 and 6.5 mml rounds for the M16 family of rifles. I realized this also with the Brits and their development of the .280 caliber round. I think the Brits may have been on to something here.

I also agree with the argument of the shortness of the M4 type barrels resulting in some loss of performance in the 5.56mm round.

I have also reloaded some 5.56mm ammunition with heavier bullets of some 77 grains. So far I have only fired some 10 rounds of this reloaded ammo to check feeding through the magazines. All fed fine ..no problems.
I loaded these 77 grain bullets mostly to check feeding and accuracy in a 1 in 7 twist rifling. Most of my 5.56 ammunition to date has been around 55 grain bullets.

As I understand it the military is experimenting with some specially made Squad Designated Marksman AR type riflesin 5.56mm with special loads for accuracy (Black Hills ammunition) ...to extend the ranges/accuracy capabilities of the squads above the levels of the standard M4 issue rifles. I have not heard much about the effectiveness of these rifles or the special loadings used in them.
These rifles are not using the short barrels of the M4 series arms.

I too like the .30 caliber round. I also like it in 7.62x39mm. Eventually I would like to find this caliber in a bolt action rifle...not semi autos. Semi autos in this caliber are all around..I just prefer bolt actions for most non military uses.
I reckon I too am a bit old school ....as I too like the SLR/FN LAR..also the olde M1 Garand/M14 series. I also have a respect for the Olde Lee Enfield but would prefer one in the 7.62x51mm calibration over the olde .303 British. In 7.62x51 the Olde Lee Enfield would be a great rifle adapted to sporting uses ..particularly with the very wide selection of bullets for different sporting tasks in .30 caliber. It is the same with the olde Springfield bolt actions.

However..as stated by my recent experiments...I am now aware of the potential of the intermediate caliber around 7mm.

Thanks to all for interesting posts.

Orangetom



[edit on 27-10-2008 by orangetom1999]

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I too like the .30 caliber round. I also like it in 7.62x39mm. Eventually I would like to find this caliber in a bolt action rifle...not semi autos. Semi autos in this caliber are all around..I just prefer bolt actions for most non military uses.
I reckon I too am a bit old school ....as I too like the SLR/FN LAR..also the olde M1 Garand/M14 series. I also have a respect for the Olde Lee Enfield but would prefer one in the 7.62x51mm calibration over the olde .303 British. In 7.62x51 the Olde Lee Enfield would be a great rifle adapted to sporting uses ..particularly with the very wide selection of bullets for different sporting tasks in .30 caliber. It is the same with the olde Springfield bolt actions.

However..as stated by my recent experiments...I am now aware of the potential of the intermediate caliber around 7mm.

Thanks to all for interesting posts.

Orangetom



[edit on 27-10-2008 by orangetom1999]

You can pick up an old Mosin Nagant 91/30 bolt action 7.62 x 54 for under $100. You want some power.... I have two and both are the best bang for the buck when it comes to high powered rifles.

5.56 for close quarters

7.62 for calling long distance

7.62x54R if you can find something to push it through

Originally posted by Symbiote
5.56 for close quarters

7.62 for calling long distance

7.62x54R if you can find something to push it through

This is (sort of) the way we have it at the minute (less the 7.62x54R). We have both calibres in the section - 5.56 in the rifle and LMG, 7.62 in the GPMG. The majority of weapons are in 5.56mm though. The problem with the "horses for courses" approach from the military perspective is that you can't carry 3 different weapons each, and to equally distribute 3 different types of weapon around the section means reducing the units firepower if a contact falls outside the remit of the other two calibres.

For example I read a study a while back stating that as most firefights are sorted out under 200m and most section firepower is provided by the machine gun, why not bin assault rifles and only issue MP7 or P90 type SMGs? While this theory seems sound, it doesn't take into account medium range snap shooting, nor does it consider engaging multiple targets from different angles at medium ranges.

The assault rifle is designed to be a jack of all trades. It needs to be capable of laying down a degree of accurate firepower at the majority of ranges that a soldier may find himself engaging targets at, while still being light enough to carry for long distances as well as aim quickly at short range. The soldier needs to be able to carry enough ammunition to allow for fire suppression, but the ammo needs to be able to inflict damage on targets at realistic combat ranges (out to around 400-500m).

7.62 is great for medium to long range shooting, and it packs a decent punch. However it is a bit much to control accurately when fired on automatic or rapid from a weapon weighing 10lbs-ish. The ammunition weight reduces the amount that can be carried by the dismounted soldier, reducing the fire support options.

5.56mm allows for controlled rapid and automatic fire, while the 62gr round in current use is effective at realistic combat distances (assuming it is fired from a decent-length barrel). It is accurate at ranges in excess of 400m if the firer does his part. the weight of the ammo allows for more to be carried, which increases the length of time a unit can go without resupply.

7.62mm rounds are known to over-penetrate tissue at close range, without applying their full kinetic energy to the target. This is especially true of the FMJ rounds used by the military (in keeping to the Geneva Convention). They also have a tendency to over-penetrate walls: not a good thing when you're in urban combat and keeping civilian casualties to a minimum is a priority.

The 5.56mm does not over-penetrate, tending to break up on impact no matter how close the target is. It was actually found to be deadlier than the 7.62mm at the kind of range a SMG would come into its own, and these ranges were found to be the ranges most infantrymen were called on to fight at. The bullets fragment in a way that apply full kinetic energy to the target, with complex wound tracks that cause larger amounts of internal bleeding. That is what they are for, and that is why most western militaries adapted them. Greater control over the weapon gives an even greater advantage at closer ranges. The ammunition capacity issue is probably secondary.

For greater or longer range firepower, s squad is supposed to be supplied with a support weapon such as a light or medium machine gun.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
7.62mm rounds are known to over-penetrate tissue at close range, without applying their full kinetic energy to the target. This is especially true of the FMJ rounds used by the military (in keeping to the Geneva Convention).

No such thing as overpenetration of tissue in a military setting. The damage from high velocity rounds comes from the shock wave and mass vacuum combined with tissue damage. The exit wound of a 7.62mm is about the size of your fist. That's a lot of tossue damage. The stuff between the entrance and exit holes are mostly mush. Dumping KE in a target is good for pistol rounds (which are very slow compared to rifle rounds), but a rifle round is lighter and relies on velocity to cause the damage.

They also have a tendency to over-penetrate walls: not a good thing when you're in urban combat and keeping civilian casualties to a minimum is a priority.

It's flippin brilliant when the enemy are in houses though, as they tend to be in urban environments. 7.62 from a GPMG is GREAT for improving mouseholes in walls for entry. Damage limitation has to come secondary to firepower in most engagements I'm afraid.

The 5.56mm does not over-penetrate, tending to break up on impact no matter how close the target is... >

>...ammunition capacity issue is probably secondary.

I suspect you are looking at data from the old 55gr M193 round that was initially issued to US forces. The fragmentation of the M193 ws indeed spectacular, but it was at the cost of stability and penetration, often being stopped/deflected by fairly light foliage. The SS109 round in current use penetrates more, is more accurate at longer ranges and still fragments sufficiently out to 200m (when fired from a 20" barrel a la M16/SA80) or about 85m (when fired from a 14" barrel a la M4) to cause the damage you describe.

At 500m the round still has the ability to penetrate both sides of a US issue helmet, as well as the contents of said helmet. This is important due to the increased use of body armour and cover options available on most battlefields. Insurgents regularly fire from light cover (eg vehicles), so a round that penetrates ligh armour is an advantage. When the M193 was used by UKSF and special duties personnel in the 1980s the round was regularly being stopped and deflected by car doors, which forced them to introduce the G3KA4 in 7.62mm. SS109 doesn't have these problems however. Indeed in recent tests 5.56mm SS109 was shown to penetrate armoured targets at longer ranges than 7.62mm NATO!

The 5.56mm was introduced initially because of the load bearing issues being vioced by US infantrymen in SE Asia, who stated that they were unable to put down enough sustained firepower in close range snap engagements, such as those encountered in Vietnam.

Originally posted by PaddyInf

The 5.56mm was introduced initially because of the load bearing issues being vioced by US infantrymen in SE Asia, who stated that they were unable to put down enough sustained firepower in close range snap engagements, such as those encountered in Vietnam.

Almost - the development started in the late 1950s and the round was introduced in 1963, so both development and field issue began before Vietnam really kicked off.

It just took a while to replace all those M14s (which of course are now being reintroduced for units lucky enough to be able to pull the required strings to get them).

You don't half crack me up Paddy Especially with "It's flippin brilliant when the enemy are in houses though, as they tend to be in urban environments. 7.62 from a GPMG is GREAT for improving mouseholes in walls for entry. Damage limitation has to come secondary to firepower in most engagements I'm afraid."

I reckon thats where my beloved Shed at Stamford Bridge coined the song, "One man went to mow".

Obviously the guy was using a General because they cut everything down to size

reply to post by gotrox


if you cant get it done with one round your toast