Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/15/2001 10:51:43 AM EDT
Does anybody out there have any qoutes/data/etc on how our special forces feel about going into battle with the 5.56 (M16 family of weapons) vs the 7.62x39 (AK). I know alot of the arguments and other stuff, it is just that I have a friend that can't believe that we would use the 5.56 cartridge over the 7.62x39. When we go out shooting my AR and his AK and he talks about "which would you rather be shot with/or shoot someone with" routine. I know this is an old argument, but he is a person persuaded with data and respects our special forces. I cannot help but think that if our special forces didnt think the 5.56 was as good of a cartridge as the 7.62x39 they would use it. Thanks, I hope this isnt too much of a rehash topic.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 11:13:35 AM EDT
Well, I was never in the Special Forces, but I have seen wound data from actual shootings in combat with both calibers, and the 5.56 has far more devastating wounding effect. The 7.62x39 just zips right through, the 5.56 does some serious damage. The only advantage the 7.62x39 has is in short-range penetration of hard cover.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 11:29:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 11:46:07 AM EDT
The only thing the 7.62x39 has over 5.56mm is in sound suppression. While you can supress 5.56mm, in order to get it really quiet you have to shoot expensive subsonic rounds. There was an article on it in Weapons of Military and Law Enforcement where they were talking about special ops using 7.62x39 supressed AR's because their rounds were cheaper and they could make the action cycle more reliably. Instead of asking your friend to stand downrange, go someplace you can shoot at "reactive" targets and take two pork shoulder roasts with bone. Shoot each one with one round of 7.62x39 and one with 5.56mm and compare the damage. Then shoot it with a .30-30 and look at the wound generated. Pork has very similar wound characteristics with human flesh, or so I've read. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 11:51:11 AM EDT
hawkeye: lol rotflmao
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 11:57:49 AM EDT
I am quite a new member here on the board and a new member of the AR-15 family of gun owners, but I had contemplated the question of 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39 before i bought my AR. Just based on what i thought was my own interpretation of common sense and physics balled into one, I figured that a heavier projectile would as one of you said "just bore straight on through" while a lighter one would hit and ricocheet around. I haven't any evidence to back this up with, its just what I think would happen. as a side note, i'd like to say nice signature to GodBlessTexas, I love it!
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 12:05:30 PM EDT
The British Special Air Service liked the 5.56x45mm enough to use it back in the days when the British grunts were still using FALs.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 12:12:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 12:13:46 PM EDT
It's a non-issue. -SARguy
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 12:20:16 PM EDT
My take on this, the major wounding/killing effect on the 5.56x45 NATO cartridle lies in fragmentation and in order for this to happen, the projectile must have a velocity of 2500-2700fps. The use of current M4 and M4A1 carbines has shortened the range in which ideal fragmentation occurs. The 7.62x39 is usually in military use with a boat tail base bullet, which will begin to yaw at approx. 10 inches of travel in sof tissue, abdominal shots usually don´t exhibit great tissue disruption since the bullet has traveled thru the abdominal cavity before starting yawing. But some nations use, i believe our military here and some others, flatbased bullets which will yaw at only 3-4" travel, causing more damage to internal organs since the bullet will travel at a larger yaw angle. Please correct my ramblings if needed.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 12:43:01 PM EDT
I too can not claim to have ever been Spes ops. However I did work with the SF a couple times. They could carry just about whatever they wanted and the odd AK did show up now and then, but most carried a version of the M16, and most liked the 5.56x45 better than the 7.62x39. While not SF I was Infantry for a little over 20 years, and IMHO the 5.56 is the better combat round. SFC(ret)Rew E. Williams
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 1:08:54 PM EDT
I would rather go up against 10 poorly trained 7.62s than 1 highly trained .22. What is the difference between a fiddle and a violin? The player of course.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 2:00:09 PM EDT
dont forget the 5.45x39.5mm in the equation. does anybody have any info on the QBZ-95's chicom round, the 5.8x42mm i believe?
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 2:16:08 PM EDT
I wouldn't say that the 7.62 is any better than a 5.56. My uncle took a 7.62x39 in the stomach in Vietnam and is still walking around just fine. It didn't bounce around or fragment inside his torso. If it did, he wouldn't be here today. He wasn't cut in half or paralized either. The only remnant of his wound is a second belley button. Anyone that tells you that the 7.62 is some kind of super round is full of crap. The smaller 5.45x39, on the other hand, with it's FMJ "hollow point" has proven to be a pretty damn good round during the Soviet occupation of Afganistan.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 2:28:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 2:50:54 PM EDT
well, seeing as the AK-47 was replaced with AK-74 using 5.45x39....guess bigger isn't always better....carry more of less vs shooting better with less of more... I think that came out right... No_Expert
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 2:59:06 PM EDT
Is there anything more silly than when people (silly AK goofballs) claim that the SEALs and SF prefer the AK-47. Foolish myth. Ask this fellow what He prefers in an enviroment where the most available round is the 7.62x39: [img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20011115/capt.1005855829afghanistan_us_military_xbl104.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 3:52:12 PM EDT
superimposed? or is it me?
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 3:55:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: Is there anything more silly than when people (silly AK goofballs) claim that the SEALs and SF prefer the AK-47. Foolish myth. Ask this fellow what He prefers in an enviroment where the most available round is the 7.62x39: [deleted photo]
View Quote
well, he is ina "supported" position...and he is carrying what he was issued (most likely)... most of the "discussions" I've had with people revolve around the "if you're going in unsupported in a hostile area where you EXPECT armed conflict to occur...would you or would you not carry a weapon which uses the ammo of your enemy?" usually, the answer is yes. the weapon will sound like theirs, therefore you don't stick out as quick. Secondly, you can go in carrying less as you resupply from the enemy. Unlike in the movies, where the "GOOD GUYS" go in with an M16 and 3 to 6 mags and have unlimited ammo, reality bites. In other situations, you see them pick up the enemy weapons anyway. logistics. No_Expert. and please, no flames about the movie reference, I wasn't SUPPORTING the movie version of "reality"...just that's what "most" people see.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 3:55:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/16/2001 8:36:24 AM EDT by IronMike]
my wife picked it out qicker than shite! Ya kidding us right? just saw the photo's on the news,,boy was I wrong.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 3:57:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 4:25:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2001 4:19:01 PM EDT by boxer_64]
i was a hard core 30-anything fan until about 12 years ago,did some pork tests with 50# sides of meat. my brother also let me see some autopsy photos of gun shot wounds(he's always been a 5.56 fan). getting shot with anything is always life threatning. aslo look at the way modern warfare has changed in the last 30 years,lots less infantry and more airpower to do the job. my 300 rounds of 5.56 will out last the 200 rounds of 30 something anyone can carry,though i would NOT trade my 5.56 for anything less powerful to save weight and gain rounds(22lr) boxer
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 4:36:49 PM EDT
US forces, whether SOF or not, don't need to take ammo from the enemy. People who think that the US goes into continuous action and don't withdrawal at any point close to consuming all their ammo need to look at the CONOPS of US forces. That really isn't the way we operate. The only time US forces are planning to use a lot of ammo is when they do attacks or raids. If they are doing recon type work and have to start shooting their mission has failed and the chances for them to do recon are pretty slim and they will need to be extracted. And if they are in contact with the enemy and to the point they have used so much of their ammo, it would be much easier in an extremis situation to pick up the enemies weapons, there will be no time to acquire ammo and load up.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 4:43:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 7:45:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN: US forces, whether SOF or not, don't need to take ammo from the enemy. People who think that the US goes into continuous action and don't withdrawal at any point close to consuming all their ammo need to look at the CONOPS of US forces. That really isn't the way we operate. The only time US forces are planning to use a lot of ammo is when they do attacks or raids. If they are doing recon type work and have to start shooting their mission has failed and the chances for them to do recon are pretty slim and they will need to be extracted. And if they are in contact with the enemy and to the point they have used so much of their ammo, it would be much easier in an extremis situation to pick up the enemies weapons, there will be no time to acquire ammo and load up.
View Quote
Exactly. Besides, if they DO end up having to fight their way to an LZ, they can carry a hell of a lot more 5.56mm than they can 7.62mm.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 9:25:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2001 9:20:18 PM EDT by big_bore]
You tell you buddy that a 7.62X39mm hole is not as bad as a chunk blown out of you body. If the 7.62 round is so great why do the ruskies now use a round even smaller that 5.56? You want something to frag inside not just be big and make a hole. BTW: I got ride of my AR anyway and got a 12ga,70cal makes the bigest hole of all[:D]
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 9:36:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rew: I too can not claim to have ever been Spes ops. However I did work with the SF a couple times. They could carry just about whatever they wanted and the odd AK did show up now and then, but most carried a version of the M16, and most liked the 5.56x45 better than the 7.62x39. While not SF I was Infantry for a little over 20 years, and IMHO the 5.56 is the better combat round. SFC(ret)Rew E. Williams
View Quote
I am surprised, but it looks like I am the only SF guys here so far. But when others respond I am sure they will back me up. The only reason US Special Forces have, maintain, and train with foreign weapons is because of one of our primary missions(FID) Foreign Internal Defense Which is exactly what these SF guys did prior the the (DA) Direct Action mission they are now on. They/we train foreign troops to use their own weapons therefore we must be competent with these exact weapons. In my units Arms room we currently have about 50 AK's, 20 or so L1A1's, some Stens, HK MP5's and several other makes that we don't pull out much. Mainly due to the ammo they shoot and availability. When we deploy we use the M4 which replaced the M16A2. Why? Because it gets the job done. These BS stories of SOF useing AK's on water borne and desert ops are just that, BS. They get spread around by the fat guys at gun shows that swear up and down that the AR15 is a POS. True, we don't really get asked "what would you guys like to carry today?" But the Big Wigs at USASOC have a huge budget with which to purchase anything we want. That is why you see these pics of SOF with different equipment. It was purchased because it works best for the mission.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 9:50:22 PM EDT
No, that picture isn't superimposed. There's a few more pics at the moment up on the Yahoo news picture wire: http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=%22Afghanistan%22&n=20&yn=c&c=news_photos&cs=nw Very interesting paint job the one soldier has on his weapon.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 10:04:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: [img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20011115/capt.1005855829afghanistan_us_military_xbl104.jpg[/img]
View Quote
So is that an Aimpoint or an ACOG on top of that M4 ?????
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 1:34:14 AM EDT
Doorkicker hit the nail on the head. gun show A-holes will tell you all about the M16 family jamming and how the AK is prefered by specops for waterborne and desert ops...BS! i've had my M4 crusty with sand, slimy with goo and covered in muck. 100% go bang. when some big gut gun-show commando tries to tell me its a piece of crap i ask him about the AK's awesome safety selector on the RIGHT side of the reciever. i ask him about the placement of the mag release and the inability of the mag to be dropped because it needs to be rocked into place. accuracy? forget it. a basically trained Marine rifleman can engage targets at 500m with accurate aimed fire. try that with an AK!!!
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 4:50:35 AM EDT
M4, 5.56 [img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20011115/capt.1005852249attacks_afghanistan_us_military_xbl101.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 5:37:14 AM EDT
I think Doorkicker kicked it right. I'm a big fan and user of AR's, currently owning 4. But I could not forget the author of BlackhawkDown repeatedely quoting the Rangers and Delta troopers about the Somalis getting up and running off after being hit, sometimes several times. Anyone else remember this.
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 5:43:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By seb127: I think Doorkicker kicked it right. I'm a big fan and user of AR's, currently owning 4. But I could not forget the author of BlackhawkDown repeatedely quoting the Rangers and Delta troopers about the Somalis getting up and running off after being hit, sometimes several times. Anyone else remember this.
View Quote
Though I was NOT involved in this operation, I believe that the problem was an ammo/barrel twist rate problem. I have heard this explanation before but can not confirm it.
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 5:48:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoorKicker:
Originally Posted By seb127: I think Doorkicker kicked it right. I'm a big fan and user of AR's, currently owning 4. But I could not forget the author of BlackhawkDown repeatedely quoting the Rangers and Delta troopers about the Somalis getting up and running off after being hit, sometimes several times. Anyone else remember this.
View Quote
Though I was NOT involved in this operation, I believe that the problem was an ammo/barrel twist rate problem. I have heard this explanation before but can not confirm it.
View Quote
I just re-read Blackhak Down a few months ago. The main Delta SFC complained that the new ammo did not drop the bad guys at anything but very close range. I'll have to check it for his exact words/ammo type. Don Out
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 8:42:16 AM EDT
Boy was I wrong,,saw the photo's on the News just know,,,how do you say horses ass?
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 8:55:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By seb127: I think Doorkicker kicked it right. I'm a big fan and user of AR's, currently owning 4. But I could not forget the author of BlackhawkDown repeatedely quoting the Rangers and Delta troopers about the Somalis getting up and running off after being hit, sometimes several times. Anyone else remember this.
View Quote
I have read a lot of different opinions on why this may be. First, these Rangers, just scared kids really, my have been missing. Second, they may have been using barrels that were too short to generate enough velocity for the bullets to fragment. I have read variously that the Rangers were using M4s, XM177s and M16s. Combined with the new 62 grain bullet, the XM177s barely have a velocity of 2700 fps at the muzzle. Third, the Somalis may have been so emancipated that the bullets did not have enough space to turn around and fragment. The 5.56 round does not begin to fragment until it has gone through 5" of flesh. Fourth, the Somalis were doped up on Khat. Not much you can do about that. Did you notice in the book where they were repeatedly shooting a guy with M60, and he kept moving. The lack of instant kills was not limited to the 5.56 round. Ever shoot a deer? They do not instantly stop and die either, even with an '06 or 300 Mag. Even if you blow and animal's heart away, it can still run for a bit. Only CNS hits result in an instant stop. My suspicion is that the (1) the Rangers had an unrealistic expectation about what a person is supposed to when hit (from too much DOOM?); (2) the Rangers were missing more than they thought; and (3) the Somalis were drugged. The performance of the AKs in that battle was very underwhelming, although I am sure that had a lot to do with the quality of their operators. While 18 Americans were killed, there were hundreds of Somalis killed.
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 11:33:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By imposter: Did you notice in the book where they were repeatedly shooting a guy with M60, and he kept moving. The lack of instant kills was not limited to the 5.56 round. My suspicion is that the (1) the Rangers had an unrealistic expectation about what a person is supposed to when hit (from too much DOOM?); (2) the Rangers were missing more than they thought; and (3) the Somalis were drugged. The performance of the AKs in that battle was very underwhelming, although I am sure that had a lot to do with the quality of their operators. While 18 Americans were killed, there were hundreds of Somalis killed.
View Quote
I think you are right on. As I read the section where the guy was hosing with the M60 and grandpa didn't go down, I was thinking "We'll you have HIT him first!" There is no damn way a good burst from an M60 is not going to knock you on your ass.
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 6:44:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 11H1P:
Originally Posted By DoorKicker:
Originally Posted By seb127: I think Doorkicker kicked it right. I'm a big fan and user of AR's, currently owning 4. But I could not forget the author of BlackhawkDown repeatedely quoting the Rangers and Delta troopers about the Somalis getting up and running off after being hit, sometimes several times. Anyone else remember this.
View Quote
Though I was NOT involved in this operation, I believe that the problem was an ammo/barrel twist rate problem. I have heard this explanation before but can not confirm it.
View Quote
I just re-read Blackhak Down a few months ago. The main Delta SFC complained that the new ammo did not drop the bad guys at anything but very close range. I'll have to check it for his exact words/ammo type. If I am not mistaken the ammo they were using were green tip penetrating rounds, I don't think that they would fragment on impact with tissue. Don Out
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 7:26:17 PM EDT
why does'nt the military switch back to a lighter load. is'nt the 62grn the m855? why dont they use a 40grn? i dont know much about ballistics or have experience in a firefight, but cant help but be curious after reading DR. Facklers study from an above post. the 5.45 uses an airpocket to help the bullet tumble faster. would this not make a great addition to the 5.56 cartridge? curious lib
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 7:50:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 8:04:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By brouhaha: I think you mean emaciated.
View Quote
I think you are right.
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 8:09:58 PM EDT
The Russians didint get all they wanted out of the 5.45mm either. It is still the same M43 case necked down to .20. They still cant carry any more ammo than they did with the 7.62mm M43. Our 5.56 has a narrower, longer body, and 30 rounds of it are easier to package than 30 rounds of either Russian caliber.
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 8:14:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rg00red: Special Operations guys use the .300 Whisper for their suppressed rifles, not the 7.62mm Russian. The .300 Whisper loading is quite potent, something like .45 ballistics out to 200m. They use a 240 grain bullet pushed to 900 fps.
View Quote
I know the SSK Industries website says they have sold to US SPECOPS but how much do the REALLY use the .300 Whisper. I would think that it would be popular, but look how long it took to get the M4 in production. Popular doesnt always cut it with the people who make the budgets. Is there a MK or M number for .300 top halfs yet?
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 8:56:05 PM EDT
As I recollect, Stoner designed the AR-15/M-16 with a 1 in 12 twist. In it's original design, it was given to spec-ops during the VN war, it is here where stories of devastating wounds were first reported. It was actually blowing the limbs off the vietnamese. Correct me if I am wrong. Waterdog
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 9:02:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ORIGINAL-Waterdog: As I recollect, Stoner designed the AR-15/M-16 with a 1 in 12 twist. In it's original design, it was given to spec-ops during the VN war, it is here where stories of devastating wounds were first reported. It was actually blowing the limbs off the vietnamese. Correct me if I am wrong. Waterdog
View Quote
from what i have read a slower twist rate produces a "keyhole" effect. or "meataxe" effect. the bullet is not as stabalized. all i know lib
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 9:53:15 PM EDT
Someone in an earilier thread explained that in the M-60 incident where that old man kept getting up after getting hit, they weren't using FJM 7.62 slugs. They were using an AP 5.56 slap round or 5.56 in a .30 cal sabot. Being that none of the Somalis had armor of any kind, the AP rounds were overkill and created clean through and through wounds. Like getting stabbed with an icepick rather than creating a large wound channel.
Link Posted: 11/18/2001 10:35:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By seb127: I think Doorkicker kicked it right. I'm a big fan and user of AR's, currently owning 4. But I could not forget the author of BlackhawkDown repeatedely quoting the Rangers and Delta troopers about the Somalis getting up and running off after being hit, sometimes several times. Anyone else remember this.
View Quote
They were using CAR-15s with the short (10-11.5") barrels. These simply will not get ball ammo up to velocity for fragmentation. And, most likely, they missed quite a bit when they thought they were hitting . . . The book blames the new ammo (M855), but it performs the same as the old M193 in terms of fragmentation.
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 5:33:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By seb127: I think Doorkicker kicked it right. I'm a big fan and user of AR's, currently owning 4. But I could not forget the author of BlackhawkDown repeatedely quoting the Rangers and Delta troopers about the Somalis getting up and running off after being hit, sometimes several times. Anyone else remember this.
View Quote
They were using CAR-15s with the short (10-11.5") barrels. These simply will not get ball ammo up to velocity for fragmentation. And, most likely, they missed quite a bit when they thought they were hitting . . . The book blames the new ammo (M855), but it performs the same as the old M193 in terms of fragmentation.
View Quote
1. Listen to DoorKicker on 5.56 notes. 2. The TFR Rangers were [b]not[/b] "scared kids". 3. The D and Rangers were not using 10.5" barrels (why the fascination here?) 4. No Monday morning QBing please. 5. The mission was successful and actually exceeded the stated goal. -SARguy
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 5:39:02 AM EDT
Man, I am getting so tired of hearing [i]Blackhawk Down[/i] anecdotes to put down 5.56mm! I'd say the only sure-fire, drop-em with one round cartridge used in that fight was .50BMG! As for 7.62x39's effectiveness look at how many US troops sucked it up and kept going after getting nailed with this round (that Ranger Armor helped, though). Just a quick rant...[;)]
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 8:49:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hawkeye1: Just use the same argument that I have to a few others. Tell your friend to stand downrange and you will shoot him once with each round. He is then to tell you which hurts more.
View Quote
ROTFLMAO!
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 8:59:08 AM EDT
'course...I'm sure someone will argue with this...but caliber be damned....if you don't make a fatal hit...it don't kill. Remember the wound the enemy philosophy?? wound one guy and it takes one or more OTHERS to take care of him. if you want to kill, make a kill shot. there have been many times someone was killed by a .22LR, .25ACP, .32, etc as there have been many times someone WASN'T killed by a 9MM, .45ACP, .44MAG, .357 etc. IF you "spray and pray" 2o-30 rounds of ammo at a target and a few hit non-vital areas, it may eventually die.... or you put a single shot into the heart, head, neck, and it WILL die. So, let's say whatever you use (either issued or chosen) be proficient in it's and your abilities. No_Expert
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top