U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Most military people I know who are dedicated to the craft of weapons usage do not like the M-16 nor do they like the 5.56 NATO round.

Your SKS will never be as accurate as any M-16/AR=15 derivative, it was never designed to be. It has NOTHING to do with 5.56 vs. 7.62. It has EVERYTHING to do with both rifle design and manufacture.

If you do not need 3-5 rounds per target you do not need to carry as much ammunition. Meaning if the 7.62 rifle will hit and drop a target with fewer rounds, you don't need to carry as many.

[AquaShrimp]

There would be much more collateral damage from wall penetrations and our troops might get into close quarters trouble without a decent rate of fire.

The US Army and US Marines still utilize the M16.  These aren't automatic weapons, just semi-auto and 3 round burst.  The M4 Carbines lose velocity past 50 meters, so the bullets dont fragment well or at all.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Most military people I know who are dedicated to the craft of weapons usage do not like the M-16 nor do they like the 5.56 NATO round.

Your SKS will never be as accurate as any M-16/AR=15 derivative, it was never designed to be. It has NOTHING to do with 5.56 vs. 7.62. It has EVERYTHING to do with both rifle design and manufacture.

If you do not need 3-5 rounds per target you do not need to carry as much ammunition. Meaning if the 7.62 rifle will hit and drop a target with fewer rounds, you don't need to carry as many.

nailed it. perfectly.

[68Hawk]

Yeah you're right.  No SKS will ever be as accurate as a good bushmaster.  There are so many factors involved, but its not just the ammo.  So would a 7.62 chambered ar15 be more or less accurate than a 5.56 chambered one?  Probably not, especially out over 300m.  Still, a lot of it comes down to the skills and training of the individual shooter.

I dissagree strongly thought that a bullet being inherently more lethal means you need to carry less of them.  Soldiers need to be prepared for whatever comes at them, which includes carrying enough ammo so they won't run out.  Also tactics such as covering fire (or the prospect of a miss) would seem to indicated that it is wise to carry more ammo than you think you will need.  The weight of the total loadout is more of a secondary concern, but is a factor.

I realize we could do better than the m16 and 5.56 round, but all in all at least the round is a good middle ground, multi role solution.  No tool is made for every job.  The same holds true for firearms.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Dago
LOL , you show off.

Hang, what milsurp you shooting now?

I have plenty Port and Aussie left, and a grand of Belgian, but thinking about picking up some of the SA on the market.  Supply of milsurp 7.62 is drying up.

I've been buying 1280 round cans of the 150g 'battle packed' South African. It ain't as accurate as 168g lake city.. but it's cheap; relaible and the 120 round sealed battle pack 'bandoliers' it's stored in will hold up for many, many years. Hope to give it all to the kids. Been buying a can a month for the last 6 months.

[Squire]

"Something else important is weight. The 5.56 round is WAY lighter than a 7.62 round, and carrying a full load of ammunition is much less a burdon"

Thats a myth that has been disproved countless times. There is no weight savings. Infantry soldiers typically carry 100 lbs of gear wether they have 308 or 556 rifles. I have heard the "weight saving" thing before, its bunk.

"Im sorry, but giving our troops a .308 rifle to raid houses with would be overkill and a tactically unsound decision. There would be much more collateral damage from wall penetrations and our troops might get into close quarters trouble without a decent rate of fire. I'd rather have an M16 to clear a room than a M14."

Again, I have to disagree. For starters, you dont issue rifles to your troops to reduce collateral casualties. That sounds unfeeling, but their job on the battlefield is not to be nice. Its to kill the enemy. Period.

As for rate of fire, you can clear rooms with M14s, grenades and pistols, just as you can clear rooms with M16s, grenades, and pistols. Also, troops have supporting Squad Automatic Weapons, like light machine guns, ect. You would not want to be an insurgent in Iraq when a section of infantry came in with 6 M14s, and 2 M249s, and grenades, with the intent to send you to the afterlife.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by 68Hawk
Yeah you're right.  No SKS will ever be as accurate as a good bushmaster.  There are so many factors involved, but its not just the ammo.  So would a 7.62 chambered ar15 be more or less accurate than a 5.56 chambered one?  Probably not, especially out over 300m.  Still, a lot of it comes down to the skills and training of the individual shooter.

I dissagree strongly thought that a bullet being inherently more lethal means you need to carry less of them.  Soldiers need to be prepared for whatever comes at them, which includes carrying enough ammo so they won't run out.  Also tactics such as covering fire (or the prospect of a miss) would seem to indicated that it is wise to carry more ammo than you think you will need.  The weight of the total loadout is more of a secondary concern, but is a factor.

I realize we could do better than the m16 and 5.56 round, but all in all at least the round is a good middle ground, multi role solution.  No tool is made for every job.  The same holds true for firearms.

The Stoner designed AR-10 is VERY accurate... it's the "7.62mm M-16". The carbine length version is an outstanding urban weapon, chews through cinder block like it was butter. The 22" 'target' barrel will take the pips outta a Ace at 1000 yards then punch a hole clear through the truck it's taped to.

Sadly, it suffers from the same finicky operating faults that the m-16 has. The best 7.62 battle rifles I've ever played with are the FAL and the M-14.. and the FAL, IF the sights are upgraded and an Israli forward assist is added edges out the M-14 as the better of the two.

IMHO..  

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

One more thing, when considering a weapon to carry in the field, upon which I'll depend for my survival, adequate is NOT what I'm looking for, VASTLY SUPERIOR and EXCEPTIONALLY EFFECTIVE are more the terms I'd seek. And the M-16/5.56 NATO combination is neither.

[bj229r]

Did not the 2 Delta guys (who essentially volunteered for a suicide mission in Mogadishu) both carry Vietnam-era M-14's for the same reason? (One was Shugart, can't remember the other brave soul's name)

[CavemanJ]

Originally posted by Swoop


What fires a 6.8mm round?


(Image removed from quote.) [/B]

Wasn't the 6.8mm SPC developed by the SOCOM types?

Barrett M468

[Furious]

Originally posted by Squire
...but their job on the battlefield is not to be nice. Its to kill the enemy. Period...

Winning a battle or a war is not neccessarily accomplished by just outright killing the enemy, but by reducing the enemy's capability to fight.  It is my understanding, and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, that the smaller round was chosen partially for its ability to cause casuallties and not just dead people.  

If you kill a man, you take one man off the line; if you wound a man, you take him and the soldiers that help him off the line.  In addition, you have a man screaming and writhing in pain and this may unnerve his comrades.



...now, that may not be of much use when fighting a bunch of guys that just don't give a crap.

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The M4 Carbines lose velocity past 50 meters, so the bullets dont fragment well or at all.

umm all bullets lose velocity immediately.  The FMJ bullets fragment just fine if they hit something.  There is no meaningful difference between the m4 and m16 in ballistics.

[AquaShrimp]

If you kill a man, you take one man off the line; if you wound a man, you take him and the soldiers that help him off the line. In addition, you have a man screaming and writhing in pain and this may unnerve his comrades.

Actually that wasn't a consideration in the design of the M-16, just an inadverant benefit.

The main factor in the design of the M-16 was the study done after World War II that showed that the side who fired more bullets got more hits.  Thusly, a rifle with lightweight ammunition and capable of automatic fire was designed.

[AquaShrimp]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
umm all bullets lose velocity immediately.  The FMJ bullets fragment just fine if they hit something.  There is no meaningful difference between the m4 and m16 in ballistics.

Please cite a source of information for this.  All I've seen and read is to the contrary.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by 68Hawk
Yeah you're right.  No SKS will ever be as accurate as a good bushmaster.  There are so many factors involved, but its not just the ammo.  So would a 7.62 chambered ar15 be more or less accurate than a 5.56 chambered one?  Probably not, especially out over 300m.  Still, a lot of it comes down to the skills and training of the individual shooter.

I dissagree strongly thought that a bullet being inherently more lethal means you need to carry less of them.  Soldiers need to be prepared for whatever comes at them, which includes carrying enough ammo so they won't run out.  Also tactics such as covering fire (or the prospect of a miss) would seem to indicated that it is wise to carry more ammo than you think you will need.  The weight of the total loadout is more of a secondary concern, but is a factor.

I realize we could do better than the m16 and 5.56 round, but all in all at least the round is a good middle ground, multi role solution.  No tool is made for every job.  The same holds true for firearms.

Do not confuse the 7.62 x 39 mm with the 7.62 x 51mm.