[GMFWoodchuck]

There has long been some contention between the 5.56X45mm and the 7.62X51.

I was doing some thinking about it. The 5.56/M16 was brought out as a weapon to be used against the USSR. As much as they were our foes, it would seem to me that the typical Soviet soldier at the time would have been much like a typical NATO soldier. Both soldiers would have realized that the fight was ultimately a political one. So in effect a 223 bullet would be more than enough to put a typical Soviet soldier "out of the mood." The same as would happen to a NATO soldier. Fine and dandy. The 5.56X45mm would suffice in this matter.

However, our last three wars (Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan) were against a much more determined foe. Against all odds, the Viet Cong, and the Muslim Insurgents were/are actually fighting for a cause. Fighting for a cause changes a fighter's mentality. I would presume anyway. A 223 bullet through a Viet Cong or a Islamic fighter's arm might not change their mood. In addition, Afghanistan being the source of the world's opium, it would seem to me that there could be many drug induced Islamic fighters that do not quite feel pain as a sober American/NATO soldier would. Thus a bullet with considerable greater stopping power was/is really needed. The 7.62X51 would seem to me as the answer to some of the issues that our soldiers are facing. A soldier in Afghanistan needs to kill his opponent as opposed to a NATO soldier in Europe.

That said. Wouldn't it seem reasonable that our soldiers be trained and have access to both M-14 type and M-16 type weapons (or whatever platforms they chose) and be deployed with the weapons according to the theater? Our soldiers aren't stupid. They can figure out a gun. In Iraq, often being an urban fighting environment the M-4 seems reasonable. It's a shorter weapon better suited to that task. But in Afghanistan the 7.62X51 would be far more appropriate. I would imagine an M-14 variant firing a 7.62 caliber bullet would be more effective against a drug-induced jihad fighter. Or a politically motivated one as in Vietnam.

Basically, I'm not saying one is better than the other. But in one theater one may be more appropriate, and the other vice versa would be true.

Am I the only who thinks this?

 

[broom_jm]

Yeah, it's an old debate, but to me it's pretty simple: At ranges of 200 meters or more, the 5.56 is as likely to wound as it is to kill, with a center-of-mass shot. A 7.62 NATO is very likely to kill at 200 meters, and more. In addition, the average length of engagement in Afghanistan is much greater than it was in Vietnam, and whether they are high on opium or not, the Afghan fighters are not stupid; they've figure out the M4 and 5.56 is about worthless at 600 meters, while their 7.62x39 AK's still carry enough energy to be lethal.

We're giving our boys a fine weapon, but it's chambered for a flippin' VARMINT cartridge. Yeah, some might consider the enemy a varmint, but he's a heckuvalot bigger than a groundhog, even if that's how he lives! I don't much care if they go to the 6.5x47 Lapua, 6.5 Grendel, 30 AR, or whatever. The US military needs to give our fighting men a cartridge that will anchor an enemy where he's hit, not just wound him to go get patched up and fight another day.

 

[cfx90]

I'd like to see a fair shot (no pun intended) given to the .243/6mm.

 

[unclenick]

The attempt to shift to smaller calibers goes back a good ways. After WWI, one test on pig carcasses actually showed a heavy (125 grains) .257 caliber to be the most destructive to the target of the round tried, IIRC.

This CBS News article is an interesting read.

 

[broom_jm]

Nick, that was a good article, but IMHO, it fails to touch upon the special needs of the war in Afghanistan. Specifically, the article is about close-quarters combat and the lack of stopping power the 5.56 displays. The story does present the other side of the argument; that more rounds fired in those situations is an advantage because shots are not being carefully placed. I can see where that makes sense, but isn't that where a machine pistol firing heavier 9mm or 45 caliber rounds is better than the 5.56 or a larger rifle round?

What I'm frustrated by is the futility of seeing a well-placed shot from a 5.56 at 300 meters or more not incapacitating the enemy, whereas their larger caliber weapons surely will. To a certain extent, our boys are carrying a knife to a gun fight...I think it stinks.

 

[Mush from PA.]

Doesn't the Army still have some old M2 Grease guns in 45 ACP? In close quarters that is what I would want.....

 

[unclenick]

The Squad Designated Marksman gets a modified AR with optical sight and a 20" barrel with 7" twist to shoot 77 grain Sierra MatchKings with. They certainly will hit at 600 with no problem. I've shot plenty through a 20" barrel at that range. The 80 grain SMK is better, but its just too long to be seated for magazine feed. I don't know how its relative killing ability rates against the 55 and 60 grain military ball.

I've gotten old enough to just plain have more faith in the killing capacity of the .30. I recall Hatcher mentioning the 173 grain FMJ BT was developed for M1 ammo between the wars because officers from WWI wanted something that carried farther and hit harder than the 150 grain .30-06 ammo did. Now people are in awe of the killing power of 125 grain .30's from the AK's. Go figure. Different time and place and a different opinion of killing power arises.

Meanwhile, the CBS article is just one of three on the general subject, IIRC. I can't locate one of them, but here's a second one.

 

[GMFWoodchuck]

The reason I brought this topic up is precisely the "non-lethality" of the 5.56. That's why it's being used. Remember, we do adhere to the Geneva Conventions as a whole. And the goal is not neccessarily to kill the opponents, but to incapacitate them. Hence why we do not use expanding bullets.

Of course we're going to hear reports of people surviving multiple torso shots. That's bound to happen when you have thousands or more people being shot. That same would happen with any caliber. Would these people start calling for troops to all be armed with 50 BMGs because some guy somewhere survived a bunch of 30 caliber rounds?

I'm talking about as a whole. Do to the extended ranges, would the 7.62 be more appropriate than the 5.56 due to it's greater hitting power? And in Iraq would the opposite be true? Or even in a WW3 setting against China or the USSR. Is the 5.56 a fine round being that the typical opponent has family that he doesn't want to loose at home and therefore stops fighting (the actual goal) with a non-lethal shot from a 5.56 that could have been otherwise lethal with a much larger round?

The whole range thing I think is a tad silly. The practical trajectories of the 7.62X51 versus the 5.56X45 are virtually identical. And both have vastly a superior trajectory than the 7.62X39. A US Marine with a 5.56 can quite easily start engaging the Taliban long before they can engage our guys. A simple look at a chart can show you that. The Taliban are staying out of range and spraying and praying out of fear, not reason.

Let me reword my ultimate question after I state the simple facts. The 5.56 was introduced because of it's non-lethality and due to it's smaller size (and the benefits of that) The expected design target is the typical soldier from a "first world" nation (the USSR.) That said, should we consider outright killing one opponent (Viet Cong, Taliban, Al Qeda, etc) over another (USSR, WW2 German, etc) only because they have a different mindset? Can we say "oh you're a Taliban, I'm going to kill you unlike I would my Russian counter-part." as a nation?

If we chose the "moral high road" and the answer is no, well then I would surmise this debate as being dead and keep on using the 5.56 round. If the answer is yes, should we have two stock-piles of weapons and deploy them accordingly?

I'm not sure where I stand. We hear about these instances of the failings of the 5.56, but how often does that happen? I need to know that before I can make a position one way or the other.

 

[arkypete]

I'm not convinced that theTaliban are using AK-47s to engage out troops at 600 plus yards. They have lots of old Moison Nagants using the 7.62 by 54 R, old Mausers in 7.92, the medium machine gun using the 7.62 by 54 R, all of which are just coming in their own at 600 yards.
I've forgotten where I read of one officer wanting to replace the troops M-4s with Springfields. He couldn't see the saving in ammo costs when troops are firing 200 rounds of 5.56 when one well placed round of 30-06 would do. I suspect he could be convinced to use the M-14 set to semi auto only, rather then a bolt gun.
When I decided that I needed a semi auto I bought an AR10. If the occasion occurs that I need to shoot some one I prefer that they stay shot.

Jim

 

[zachaliles]

alrighty then. ok, I'm a little drunk, and I was only deployed in 2006-2007 in Iraq. it is not, I say again, not the weapon or the cartridge you want to be concerned with. Nor should you argue about it.
Sure, a big fat bullet going 2600FPS is nice, but read a little. The reason for the smaller cartridge is to give the soldier more ammo to sustain a longer firefight. I dont know what the combat load for the .30-06 was, but I'd rather have my 210 rounds of 5.56 than a considerable amount less of any round.
It's more about gaining ground and intel than just killing insurgents .
The insurgents in Afghanistan are much more organized and lethal than those found in Iraq, and apparently because there's a new name on Iraq, the threat is gone(I hate the fact you cant put an "irony" font in these things). If your main objective is to clear buildings one day then go on convoys the next, would you really want to be concerned with having 2 or 3 or 4 "primary" weapons?
I think not. The theaters we fight in nowadays are ever changing. This isnt burger king.

 

[arkypete]

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/532-wall.pdfic=16110.msg132729;topicseen#msg132729

 

[Combat Diver]

The 5.56 can and will reach out to 600yds. Its the shooter, who lacks the ablity. Giving him a 7.62 rifle won't solve the problem if he can not connect. Don't forget your already carrying an additional 35 lbs of body armor and helmet, then water, ammo, radio, first aid kit, frag grenades, compass, GPS, etc. As mentioned by zach that alot of rounds are fired during movement/bounding/supressive fire and not aimed at a specific target. I would rather pull off all the M68 CCO Aimpoints and give each soldier a ACOG 4x scope in Afghanistan and give them more range time. Have you ever considered why all major army's have gone to intermediate rounds? You generally do not engage a enemy until he is within 300m for several reasons.
1. You can not identify him between a civilian/soldier with the naked eye pass that distance.
2. You want to close with the enemy to bring your maxinum firepower to bear on the enemy.
3. You don't give him to much room to fire and manuever on you.

If engaged outside of 300m you have numberous other weapon systems to engage him with. DMRs, sniper rifles, M240/M2/Mk19 machine guns, platoon/company mortars, artillery and air assests. By the way the M885 ball was designed to penetrate a US steel M1 helmet at 800m for the M249. There are other better rounds slowly coming more available. I've been shooting and carrying Mk262 for 6 yrs now.


CD

 

[jbee]

> 1. You can not identify him between a civilian/soldier with the naked eye pass that distance.

Well, part of the trouble is you can't tell them apart even 300 feet away in Afghanistan? imho, The real trouble will start once it becomes common to wear hard body armor, courtesy of Iran, under their clothes coupled with their ever increasing use of AP rounds.

While we talk about cartridges, IEDs maim and kill more soldiers then anything else, and they let 20 tanker trucks in Pakistan line up on a road leading into a combat area to get blown up.

Combat Driver,

Would soldiers rather have better boots or a different cartridge? I have been looking at the boots the soldiers wear, it must a tough 16 hours in them in that climate walking.

 

[Combat Diver]

I still prefer the old jugle boot or desert boot over anything getting fielded today except during winter. Might be because I've got thousand of miles out of them and they are broken it.

If engaging targets with body armor on with AP to defeat that threat, your still just punching a straight hole thru. If you engage with AP against soft tissue then you still just punch thru. Don't believe we've developed a optumin round for both yet.

CD

 

[m141a]

I think that woodchuck's point is a valid one, as are the other posters, but one thing CD hinted at is true;
We are no longer engaged with regular military uniformed combatents, today's 'wars' are of a guerrila nature, against combatents that are among our troops day in day out, till activated to kill our boys. These 'wars' today are no longer about politics or real estate, but just about killing Americans, and the way of life we have. The war against Iraqi troops was over before it began, with the US superiority showing it's force once again.
It is my opinion that the United States has the most well equipt, well trained, most technological fighting force in the world. Fighting a guerilla war, like Vietnam, Somalia, Afganistan, perhaps our tactics need to be upgraded.
Now do not get me wrong, because for me to sit here safe in the U.S., protected by my troops, and having NEVER served in the military, I am not judging our tactics. God Bless those that go in harms way. It just seems to me that we as the US adhere to 'rules' of engagement, while our foes do not. Herein lies the problem.
I listen to friends that have been in theater, and they feel well protected by the 5.56, and the .308.

Is there a simple answer to the 'ammo issue', without revamping the firearms used today? Perhaps, but my opinion is inconsequential compared to those who do this for real. The long and short....I'd rather have more ammo than run out in a fire fight.

 

[GMFWoodchuck]

Not to get off topic, but bow is it "legal" to use Matchking ammo loaded by Black Hills? By my understanding expanding bullets do not comply with the geneva conventions. They certainly expand, which is why they kill so well as they have proven to be capable of.

 

[zachaliles]

im not 100% that its a matchking. matchkings are HPBT right? last i checked we use a 62GR fmj with steel penetrator in the tip. not hollow points. the geneva convention blatantly states that. also, the matchking has a hollow point to push the center of gravtiy further rearward thus stabilizing it in flight better/longer. not to expand, thats what the gameking is for.

 

[unclenick]

The 77 grain Sierra MatchKing is being used in 5.56 special ammo in the SDM rifles, just as the 175 grain Sierra MatchKing is being used in M118LR 7.62 sniper ammunition.

The Hague Accords (not the Geneva Convention) are where expanding ammunition was abolished in warfare. The hollow points in match ammunition don't normally expand, though. Too small. Those hollow points serve no purpose. They exist only as an artifact of using the bottom of the jacket cup to form a solid base, which has proven a good deal more important to accuracy than having a solid pointed nose is. After the base is formed, the lead core is stuffed into the open end of the cup. They then form the ogive and the point, but the point never quite closes, much less fuses, much as they might prefer it did one of those two things. Bottom line is, as Harry Pope once commented, "the base steers the bullet", and having that carefully formed solid base provides better accuracy than a solid nose exposed base bullets by a significant margin. I believe that's how Sierra made its name, introducing that method for mass production of match bullets with the 168 grain SMK in the late 50's.

Anyway, in 1986 (IIRC) the Adjutant General's office issued an opinion that the MatchKings had "non-expanding hollow points" and therefore did not violate the spirit of the Hague Accords. Prior to that, hollow point match bullets, like the 168 grain Sierra used in M852 match ammo, was labeled as not being for combat. Today its fine.

 

[GMFWoodchuck]

Interesting, Unclenick. I knew that they weren't "expanding" bullets by design. And I knew that they didn't expand like the gameking for example. But spirit of design and final result are two different things. I have always thought that some people have used them as hunting bullets with varying degrees of success which to me says that it's an expanding bullet. Berger bullets are also a good example of what I mean. They started out as target bullets but also turned out to be decent hunting bullets as well.

My point is this, if I buy a car that in "spirit" is a 30mpg car but in reality a 15mpg car, it's a 15 mpg car that I'm not happy with. A "spiritually non-expanding bullet" is still an expanding bullet.

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to give our guys "inferior" ammo, but if we're going to claim to fight by the rules, then lets fight by the rules. Otherwise, just throw them out and do what we need to do and make no pretense about trying to kill our opponents.

I just want them (our government and military) to make a stand one way or another and stand by it and to heck with who thinks what.

Getting back to the 30 versus 223. I think that they should just give our guys with weapons of the caliber appropriate to the theater. I mean, I would give up one submarine or one cruiser or a few fighters for that. Our men on the ground are what makes the difference in the end.

 

[broom_jm]

I just want them (our government and military) to make a stand one way or another and stand by it and to heck with who thinks what.

I think we can safely say they've already done that...and so, we continue to use a varmint cartridge in battle.