Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/4/2007 10:48:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/4/2007 11:01:46 AM EDT by hardcorps1110]
I know the 5.56mm round is accurate, but doesn't it seem like an M16 with a classic .308 round might be more effective? I know that it lowers the amount of ammo taken into combat but with the M16s design it doesn't seem like the trouble with the recoil on burst wouldn't be as bad as the M14, and you could get a larger/deadlier round down range. I'm new to shooting and stuff so I was just curious. Thanks for your thoughts.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 11:06:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/4/2007 11:15:04 AM EDT by seahorse]
The original AR was in .308, the AR-10. The path to how the 5.56mm cartridge was adopted for this rifle involved many years of tests, trials, board meetings, arm twisting and rejecting until a famous Air Force General named Curtis LeMay picked up an AR-15 and shot a watermelon with it. The rest, as they say, is history.

Get the book "The Black Rifle" and read it. That will answer your question(s). There is not enough time or room here to give you a good answer.


Edited for spelling.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 11:38:13 AM EDT
height=8
Originally Posted By seahorse:
The original AR was in .308, the AR-10. The path to how the 5.56mm cartridge was adopted for this rifle involved many years of tests, trials, board meetings, arm twisting and rejecting until a famous Air Force General named Curtis LeMay picked up an AR-15 and shot a watermelon with it. The rest, as they say, is history.

Get the book "The Black Rifle" and read it. That will answer your question(s). There is not enough time or room here to give you a good answer.


Edited for spelling.


ok thanks a lot
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 11:40:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/4/2007 11:42:34 AM EDT by Lab]
Here we go.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 11:53:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hardcorps1110:
I know the 5.56mm round is accurate, but doesn't it seem like an M16 with a classic .308 round might be more effective? I know that it lowers the amount of ammo taken into combat but with the M16s design it doesn't seem like the trouble with the recoil on burst wouldn't be as bad as the M14, and you could get a larger/deadlier round down range. I'm new to shooting and stuff so I was just curious. Thanks for your thoughts.


Using US MILITARY ISSUE AMMO, the 5.56 is more deadly than the 7.62x51 against unarmored soft targets, within it's effective range....

The 5.56 is SIGNIFICANTLY lighter, which is a big plus when you are wearing ~80lbs of body armor & other gear..... One would have to be goddamn Rambo to carry today's basic load of ammo, in full battle rattle, if said ammo was .308....

There is a REASON that the M240 (7.62mm MG, replaced the M60) crew has one crew member SPECIFICALLY to carry the ammo....

The full-auto shit is near irrelevant - soldiers are trained to use SEMI... But if one did need BURST or AUTO, 7.62x51 on FA out of anything but a 20-something-lb GPMG (Oink Oink...) is going to be less than effective...

Which is why every modern army uses a 5.XXmm round - even the Russians...

7.62x51 as an issue-rifle-round went AWAY for a reason...
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 12:34:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:


7.62x51 as an issue-rifle-round went AWAY for a reason...


The reason is the way we train/fight. The M16(and variants) does everything very well in the ranges we engage the enemy with our current tactics.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 12:51:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TaylorWSO:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:


7.62x51 as an issue-rifle-round went AWAY for a reason...


The reason is the way we train/fight. The M16(and variants) does everything very well in the ranges we engage the enemy with our current tactics.


Exactly...

And in today's war...

80lbs of 'Happy Gear' plus weapon & ammo, NOT INCLUDING A RUCKSACK is a big part of that...

I'm in Iraq right now, and NO I do not wish I had a 7.62mm weapon...

The gear is already heavy enough WITHOUT a heavier weapon and heavier ammo, for no practical purpose at the ranges we engage with individual weapons...

If a target is out of M16 range he is still IN M240, M203, M-2, Mk19, Abrams, Bradley, and (if available) Paladin/F-16/F-18/AH-64/OH-58 range...

Nice thing about being in the Army vs being alone bugging out in the woods... Bigger guns are just a radio call away...
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 1:05:04 PM EDT
Pick up a copy of the recent shooting times..theres an article on the 3/7 cavalry and and honest to goodness rating of the weapons they use....yea 7.62x51 is heavier but it goes through cover and is a one shot stopper...like the .45 acp of rifle rounds.I love ARs and have 5...under 100 yds its devastating on a human but urban combat means lots of cover to hide behind and somethings needed for that.

The AR15 was designed to be used in the jungle by soldiers smaller in stature and it does that job real good.I think its time to stop looking for 1 magic weapon and transform line infantry units equipment wise like their spec-ops counterparts...soldiers need different weapons for different situations and environments,there needs to be different weapons to choose from for a given situation.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 3:54:51 PM EDT
height=8
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
height=8
Originally Posted By TaylorWSO:
height=8
Originally Posted By Dave_A:


7.62x51 as an issue-rifle-round went AWAY for a reason...


The reason is the way we train/fight. The M16(and variants) does everything very well in the ranges we engage the enemy with our current tactics.


Exactly...

And in today's war...

80lbs of 'Happy Gear' plus weapon & ammo, NOT INCLUDING A RUCKSACK is a big part of that...

I'm in Iraq right now, and NO I do not wish I had a 7.62mm weapon...

The gear is already heavy enough WITHOUT a heavier weapon and heavier ammo, for no practical purpose at the ranges we engage with individual weapons...

If a target is out of M16 range he is still IN M240, M203, M-2, Mk19, Abrams, Bradley, and (if available) Paladin/F-16/F-18/AH-64/OH-58 range...

Nice thing about being in the Army vs being alone bugging out in the woods... Bigger guns are just a radio call away...



Thanks for your service.... great sig. btw.

Link Posted: 12/4/2007 4:45:15 PM EDT
Actually the real reason that most all NATO armies use a 5.56 is that the USA forced them into it.

Read up on the history of the M-16.

The USMC is currently testing larger caliber MBR (Main Battle Rifles) as the current rifle/ammo combo doesn't knock down the BG and keep them there.

The Army had the same complaint in Somalia.

The time has come and passed for a change in the rifle and the ammo.

See here for more info on the 5.56x45 round.

Might is not always right.

Link Posted: 12/4/2007 5:47:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cannibul:
Actually the real reason that most all NATO armies use a 5.56 is that the USA forced them into it.

Read up on the history of the M-16.

The USMC is currently testing larger caliber MBR (Main Battle Rifles) as the current rifle/ammo combo doesn't knock down the BG and keep them there.

The Army had the same complaint in Somalia.

The time has come and passed for a change in the rifle and the ammo.

See here for more info on the 5.56x45 round.

Might is not always right.



I'd love to see documentation that the Marine Corps is trying to revert back an MBR as the standard A rifle, and not a specialty rifle. Would you happen to have some?
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 6:31:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hardcorps1110:
...it doesn't seem like the trouble with the recoil on burst wouldn't be as bad as the M14...


NOTHING is as bad on burst as an M14. I've put a few hundred full-auto rounds through G3s and FALs, and a mag or two through original AR-10s, and they at least were manageable enough to keep even long bursts in a general area. The M14, though, just leaps out of your hands and into your cheekbone.

Armies that chose different tactics might do well with the 7.62x51. NATO armies, with current tactics, are well enough served by the 5.56mm, though I think we would have been better off if back in 1964 someone had taken 10 weeks to redesign the cartridge to actually do what it was supposed to do.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 6:44:48 PM EDT
Actually we'd be better off if in 1964 someone had decided that .250 savage would make a good military cartridge. Just a slightly larger AR and you're set for it. A good deal more power than 5.56 quite a bit lighter than 7.62.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 6:55:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cannibul:
Actually the real reason that most all NATO armies use a 5.56 is that the USA forced them into it.

Read up on the history of the M-16.

The USMC is currently testing larger caliber MBR (Main Battle Rifles) as the current rifle/ammo combo doesn't knock down the BG and keep them there.

The Army had the same complaint in Somalia.

The time has come and passed for a change in the rifle and the ammo.

See here for more info on the 5.56x45 round.

Might is not always right.



Not "knocking them down and keeping them there?"

The only complaint that came from Somalia was a Delta operator using a 10.5 barrel engaging moving targets blocks away. It's doubtful whether he even HIT them, and even if he did, no one should expect a one hit stop from a little barrel at that range. There was also a guy who survived 30+ rounds of SAW (even if it is what you call the "weak" 5.56 round, 30 rounds of anything should kill you) and a CHICK who lived for a bit after being blown to bits by M16s, SAWs, M60s and even had her leg removed by an M203.

You shouldn't expect one hit stops from anything that is man portable, but the 5.56 is by far the best combination of weight, accuracy, stopping power, and ease of manufacture in any small arms system out there.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 7:12:05 PM EDT
yeah, as long as we're using gunpowder powered brass cased ammunition, the 5.56 will be the best choice for a standard issue assault rifle. It has already outlasted all other front line infantry cartridges.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 7:25:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/4/2007 7:26:51 PM EDT by thedoctors308]

Originally Posted By Cannibul:
Actually the real reason that most all NATO armies use a 5.56 is that the USA forced them into it.


Same reasons most all NATO armies used 7.62x51mm in the past...the USA forced them into it.
What's your point?
5.56x45mm does the job it is required to, and to be honest, there ain't a whole lot of difference in rifle rounds, in terms of how good they kill the enemy.
The main difference is in effective range, and in defeating cover.
Since most fighting is done at less than 300 meters, the only advantage that a larger caliber offers is in defeating cover, but even there, 5.56 does well enough.
If it doesn't that is why you have the 240 or bigger guns that are just a radio call away.


Originally Posted By FA_45ACP:
yeah, as long as we're using gunpowder powered brass cased ammunition, the 5.56 will be the best choice for a standard issue assault rifle. It has already outlasted all other front line infantry cartridges.


Winner.
Winner.
Chicken.
Dinner.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 7:26:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FA_45ACP:
yeah, as long as we're using gunpowder powered brass cased ammunition, the 5.56 will be the best choice for a standard issue assault rifle. It has already outlasted all other front line infantry cartridges.


Outlasted, in what sense?

7.62x39mm is still being used in many places, in many officially-issued weapons, and was developed quite a bit earlier than 5.56x45mm.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 7:28:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MagicPussyCat:

Originally Posted By FA_45ACP:
yeah, as long as we're using gunpowder powered brass cased ammunition, the 5.56 will be the best choice for a standard issue assault rifle. It has already outlasted all other front line infantry cartridges.


Outlasted, in what sense?

7.62x39mm is still being used in many places, in many officially-issued weapons, and was developed quite a bit earlier than 5.56x45mm.


He was speaking from the NATO perspective.
However, his comment can be expanded to include the concept of high velocity cartdriges in general.
7.62x39mm has been superceded by 5.45x39mm in the former ComBloc nations that can afford to do so.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 7:33:15 PM EDT
Size isn't everything. There are plenty of people wandering around today who have been hit by a .50BMG round.

7.62x51 is good in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is not a standard issue infantry rifle. Too much weight and space for not enough of an increase in performance (in an infantry rifle)

Virtually everything 7.62x51 can do in a general issue infantry rifle, the 5.56x45 can do just as well, if not better.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 8:20:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By hardcorps1110:
I know the 5.56mm round is accurate, but doesn't it seem like an M16 with a classic .308 round might be more effective? I know that it lowers the amount of ammo taken into combat but with the M16s design it doesn't seem like the trouble with the recoil on burst wouldn't be as bad as the M14, and you could get a larger/deadlier round down range. I'm new to shooting and stuff so I was just curious. Thanks for your thoughts.


Using US MILITARY ISSUE AMMO, the 5.56 is more deadly than the 7.62x51 against unarmored soft targets, within it's effective range....

The 5.56 is SIGNIFICANTLY lighter, which is a big plus when you are wearing ~80lbs of body armor & other gear..... One would have to be goddamn Rambo to carry today's basic load of ammo, in full battle rattle, if said ammo was .308....

There is a REASON that the M240 (7.62mm MG, replaced the M60) crew has one crew member SPECIFICALLY to carry the ammo....

The full-auto shit is near irrelevant - soldiers are trained to use SEMI... But if one did need BURST or AUTO, 7.62x51 on FA out of anything but a 20-something-lb GPMG (Oink Oink...) is going to be less than effective...

Which is why every modern army uses a 5.XXmm round - even the Russians...

7.62x51 as an issue-rifle-round went AWAY for a reason...


I beg to differ. With the right setup .308 full-auto is VERY controlable.

Full Auto 7.62x51 SBR

Once he gets trained on target make note of the tennis-ball size group in the middle of it. Easier to see on slo-mo.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 8:41:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By MagicPussyCat:

Originally Posted By FA_45ACP:
yeah, as long as we're using gunpowder powered brass cased ammunition, the 5.56 will be the best choice for a standard issue assault rifle. It has already outlasted all other front line infantry cartridges.


Outlasted, in what sense?

7.62x39mm is still being used in many places, in many officially-issued weapons, and was developed quite a bit earlier than 5.56x45mm.


He was speaking from the NATO perspective.
However, his comment can be expanded to include the concept of high velocity cartdriges in general.
7.62x39mm has been superceded by 5.45x39mm in the former ComBloc nations that can afford to do so.


Fair enough.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 4:48:03 AM EDT
height=8
Originally Posted By 0612Devil:
height=8
Originally Posted By Cannibul:
Actually the real reason that most all NATO armies use a 5.56 is that the USA forced them into it.

Read up on the history of the M-16.

The USMC is currently testing larger caliber MBR (Main Battle Rifles) as the current rifle/ammo combo doesn't knock down the BG and keep them there.

The Army had the same complaint in Somalia.

The time has come and passed for a change in the rifle and the ammo.

See here for more info on the 5.56x45 round.

Might is not always right.



I'd love to see documentation that the Marine Corps is trying to revert back an MBR as the standard A rifle, and not a specialty rifle. Would you happen to have some?


I will have to go back through my old Leatherneck magazines. There was an article last year talking about it. At the very least they want a new cartridge for the AR series of rifles.
Top Top