Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 6/16/2001 10:57:33 AM EST
I am writing a persuasive essay for my college and I could use some help from you guys. Please share your opinions on why you think the 7.62 is being rendered obsolete by the newer, more accurate 5.56mm. Also share thoughts on how more armies around the world are using the 5.56 now. thanks, Robert
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 11:22:30 AM EST
The 5.56 ammo is lighter, and thus more of it can be carried by the single soldier. I don't think it is much more "accurate". The round does have a higher initial velocity, thus has a flatter trajectory, a slight advantage. Also, most analysis of infantry combat since WWII has seen that engagement distance were only a couple hundred yards, so the need for the heavier ammo that retained the terminal energy 700 yards downrange was no longer needed. Also, and this is just my opinion, I can shoot a .223 all day long. But the 7.92X57 in my Mauser starts to get abusive after about 50 rounds. espcecially prone.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 11:33:27 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 11:48:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/16/2001 12:53:39 PM EST by Kuiper]
This is a very sided debate. The advantages of lighter projectiles is a flatter trajectory, thus easier to hit things at distance, and the infamous "Yaw"--Keyholing in soft tissue thus causing a fantastic wound channel. It's main advantage is it's controabillity on full auto fire, and this is why smaller rounds have been adoptedby most Armed forces around the world. The greater the projectile size, the greater the recoil (Simple physics)- For civillians who for the most part are limited to semi-auto fire, the .30 cals are about ideal. They offer better pucnh through improvised cover (Trees, Branches, Glass....) and a greater range (in the case of the .308, not so much in the .30 Commie) Overall, it boils down to semi auto controlled fire vs. full auto. In semi-auto, there is no reason to forego the range, energy, and wind bucking abillities of the 7.62 On full auto, the recoil with the .30's is more then most can handle, so the little rounds do the trick. GrOwingGrass [red]pictures removed, due to irrelevance to the thread and to avoid racial slurs in an otherwise good thread[/red]
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 11:52:54 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 11:54:19 AM EST
WOW what a great post Mcgrowing Mcgrass Please, tell us more with your relevant pictures...
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 11:54:40 AM EST
What is the point of the photos in your reply growinggrass?
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:18:15 PM EST
As an individual weapon there is very little need for the power or weight of a 7.62. However for your crew served medium machine-guns, the 7.62 is much better suited. It allows attack of targets that are a little harder than human skin at increased distances, it can also be used effectively in the indirect fire role to place plunging fire on a target or to fire into defilade.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:19:46 PM EST
Irondog: Just my opinion, but I belive everyone is partly right. The 5.56 is lighter and easyer to carry more ammo. Just as accurate at shorter ranges. But after that my idea is a little different. The 5.56 (.223) is just enough to inflect casuties. In stopping power its no match for a 7.62 (308) but I think thats the idea. Dead people dont need atention (Help), but wounded people do, maybe it'll take two people to help and carry off their one buddie. The idea is not to kill the guy, just to take him out of action, out of the war. My two cents. (Sorry no spellcheck)
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:25:11 PM EST
I think I'll stick with my AR with a Garand close by !!!!! [x]
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:30:30 PM EST
The argument in favor of 5.56 for military purposes is that more ammunition can be carried for the same weight. This of course didn't mean that soldiers got to slack off - they just carried more stuff/ammo instead. However the argument against 5.56 will likely grow stronger in the future as better body armor is developed. 5.56 has far less energy than 7.62. It matters little to a soldier that they can carry enough ammo to fire 1.7 shots (ferinstance) instead of 1 shot if the ligher ammo isn't effective against common body armor/cover.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:50:43 PM EST
Sounds like an interesting class if you are debating 7.62 vs 5.56. I missed that class for sure. LOL
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 3:44:28 AM EST
Thanks for the information and your opinions. Its helped me alot. BTW, this isnt like some military class, its just one of the qualification courses for engineering classes. We had to write an essay on military, political or education issues. It had to be specifically about one thing(they dont like broad topics). This was just the first one that popped in my head. I knew I could get some good stuff from these forums. Thanks again, Robert
Top Top