User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 11:06:38 AM EDT
[#1]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 11:38:13 AM EDT
[#2]
ok thanks a lot |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 11:40:57 AM EDT
[#3]
Here we go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 11:53:25 AM EDT
[#4]
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... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 12:34:22 PM EDT
[#5]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 12:51:16 PM EDT
[#6]
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... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 1:05:04 PM EDT
[#7]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 3:54:51 PM EDT
[#8]
Thanks for your service.... great sig. btw. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 4:45:15 PM EDT
[#9]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 5:47:55 PM EDT
[#10]
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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 6:31:27 PM EDT
[#11]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 6:44:48 PM EDT
[#12]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 6:55:33 PM EDT
[#13]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 7:12:05 PM EDT
[#14]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 7:25:28 PM EDT
[#15]
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.
Winner. Winner. Chicken. Dinner. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 7:26:49 PM EDT
[#16]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 7:28:35 PM EDT
[#17]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 7:33:15 PM EDT
[#18]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 8:20:27 PM EDT
[#19]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2007 8:41:21 PM EDT
[#20]
Fair enough. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2007 4:48:03 AM EDT
[#21]
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. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
