The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - January 7, 2009

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Infantry Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: 5.56mm vs. 7.62mm, An old argument but still valid
WFG    6/8/2004 6:06:17 PM
Given all the evidence from Vietnam that the 5.56mm round of the M16 was not adequate to stop even a small framed individual pumped up on adrenaline or dope; it seems that we are revisiting these issues again now in Iraq. Many operators in theater in Afghanistan and Iraq have made similar comments about the inability of the 5.56mm to stop and drop the current foe. Several have mentioned that a weapon like the M4 carbine, for its size and compactness, chambered in 7.62mm would be a great improvement. The conventional wisdom is that 5.56mm provides the operator with the ability to carry more rounds and that volume of fire is the preferred method of engagement. If it takes multiple hits to stop and drop your foe with 5.56mm then what?s the advantage. Fewer, more well aimed, and well placed shots with a round that is proven to stop and drop like the 7.62x51mm I think is the better choice. What are some of your thoughts?
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
joe6pack    RE:5.56mm vs. 7.62mm, An old argument but still valid   6/8/2004 6:56:42 PM
I'm ok with the 5.56 round. I'm somewhat dubious of some of the inadequacy claims attributed to it. Yes it's not a .45 round desinged to knock someone on their butt. But it is light, accurate and I think effective. I'm not saying I scoff at the idea of a 7.62 M-4 either.. That could be mighty usefull. However, with improvements in body armor it may be time to start looking for new rounds in general. I doubt we and our allies will have the market cornered on body armor for ever.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:5.56mm vs. 7.62mm, An old argument but still valid   6/8/2004 9:08:18 PM
one thing about good ol 308 is that it changes the definition of Hard Cover significantly in favour of the shooter. just for a giggle imagine the muzzle blast off an M4 in 308 plus i think you could kiss off the utility of auto fire with that rig.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:5.56mm vs. 7.62mm, An old argument but still valid   6/8/2004 9:30:55 PM
The topic has been talked to death a time or two. As I've noted before, all rounds are trade offs. The 7.62mm side of the debate tends to pretend that .308 is some kind of death ray and skip over the possibility you'll have to double tap with .308 as well. And they tend to act like 5.56mm is guaranteed to fail without double tap. Both premises don't hold up reliably -- just statisitical tendencies. For an AR/carbine role, I'll take the 5.56mm round all day -- especially if I'm a notional operator who has the range time and training to use my M4 or other weapon to the fullest. As for an M4 in 7.62x51mm . . . too much recoil. Autofire is obviously bad, but even in semi it's going to kick like a beast, which means that I'd better not need to double tap (or better not miss) because it's going to take me longer to put the weapon back on target while the other guy is trying to kill me. The proposed 6.8mm round seems like a good idea to me -- it takes bullet weight towards .308 without fully sacrificing the idea of a handy and compact assault rifle to the full size bullet, but stays light enough to carry lots of ammo and recoil soft enough to make the a minimal issue in rapid fire.
 
Quote    Reply

WFG    RE:5.56mm vs. 7.62mm, An old argument but still valid   6/8/2004 11:07:06 PM
I'm glad the 6.8mm and mention of alternate rounds has been brought up. I lean towards a 6x45mm cartridge that was tested and fielded on a limited scall some years ago. The 7.62mm is not a all powerfull deathray but is vastly superior to 5.56mm in stopping power. As far as full auto, that shouldn't even be a consideration. There are very few occasions that call for the use of full auto for a weapon in the roll of "battle rifle", i.e. the standard infantrymans rifle. If you need suppressive fire you use a SAW/ LMG type weapon or all the squad/ platoons rifles brought to bear on the target. Also, as far as the recoil and and muzzle flash, these can both be addressed through the combination of training and technology. I have used 5.56mm in the M16A2 for 15yrs professionally and in real world operations. I have used 7.62mm in the M14 in various forms as well for roughly the same amount of time. Though I have not used 7.62mm in a real world operations I would still prefer it, if I had a choice, over 5.56mm any say for any operation. These ate just my thoughts though.
 
Quote    Reply

ChdNorm    RE:5.56mm vs. 7.62mm, An old argument but still valid   6/9/2004 12:16:52 AM
I always throw my two cents in on the side of the 7.62. I tend to think it's a better general purpose round that the 5.56. I think the 5.56 (M-4 specifically) is great in a roll similar to what the M-1 Carbine served as in W.W.II. I do yield to those more knowledgeable in the real world life of the poor ol' 11B who has to tote the things around, as opposed to being one of God's chosen few (the Cav) and having the benefit of getting to ride behind your ma deuce .. not drag her ass around. In my opinion though, a lot of the issues I find a little dubious. I see few scenarios where a rifleman will run thru his basic combat load in a single contact whether he carries the 7.62 or 5.56. A lot of what ifs and buts could be said ..... but the reality is there is always a wagon load of resupply not too far behind. I know loca fire suppresion and fire superiorit is always given to the 5.56, but I still believe the 7.62 has it there. As already mentiond, the 7.62 can do some scary things to light cover. While it may not carry the volume of fire ... it does make a difference between harassing and killing fire. One area that I'm not too sure on that interests me on this subject ... it seems that currently and in the near future fire support comes in the form of JDAMS falling 40,000 feet. What is the safety zone from the target area? I believe it's in the 500 meter range? From an infantry engagement standpoint, it makes sense to me to look at squad level weapons as something that keeps the enemy in contact while fixing them for the fire support. Don't jump on me yet ... that's the way I see it, not necessarily the way I think it ought to be done. If you cant effectively engage out to at least the minimum distance from the target, I think there is the very real possibly of the enemy closing into that gap between the effective range of small arms and the minimum distance that fire support will be dropped from our troops. Maybe its not as big deal as I think about it being. But in choosing what's best for our particular needs I sure as hell would take it into consideration.
 
Quote    Reply

WFG    RE:5.56mm vs. 7.62mm, An old argument but still valid   6/9/2004 5:01:28 AM
ChdNorm: I concure. Fewer, more well placed and acurate shots on the target to fix and hold the enemy at range is the referred method. When situations are presented that provide you with a warm body at close range, the ability to leave a large gapping whole in the chest of your foe, given out current foe, could also serve to steal the desire of his comrades to close the distance as well. The key to all of this is in training though. The current command climate needs to place more attention to dedicated rifle marksmanship for all branches in a higher priority. Train to standard, not time.
 
Quote    Reply

smokey       2/13/2008 8:37:45 PM
While I realize that there is no assuarance that an enemy soilder will drop on the 1st shot, I think that the 7.62 certainly greatly increases the chances of success. No doubt that it is an effective round in combat. As for the 5.56, we have to remember that this round and the original rifle made to fire it (M-16 or AR-15) was the brain child of one man, Eugene Stoner. The concept of a reduced powered round was not new of course but switching to a much smaller calibre with a much ligher bullet was a new concept. The idea was that the smaller round with more velocity hit as hard as the larger round with less velocity. Of course, the smaller lighter bullet did not produce the same knetic energy as the larger round. While the enemy soilder hit with it may eventually die, there was more of a chance that he would not drop immediately giving him those few seconds to get off a few more shots and or throw an explosive device. I do hear of reports such as this coming out of Iraq and that some squads have a shooter with an M-14 with scope to finish those that won't go down. I am pleased to hear that new rounds are being explored such as the 6.8 mm. This is not a new concept however. Shortly after WW II, the British developed a new rifle of bullpup design which fired a 7 x 43mm round (if I recall correctly). This round produced significantly less recoil that the 7.62 but it still fired a 140 grain bullet at over 2400 feet per second. It was selective fire and controllable in full automatic fire and was said to have a range of 600 yards. The round sparked the interests of several contries and only for the fact that the U.S insisted on a short version of the 30-06 (7.62), the round may well have been adopted. We may of well had an ideal round more than 50 years ago. From what I read, there was little doubt that at least Britan and Canada would have adopted the EM2 rifle but NATO standardization stopped this. To me, the 7 x43 mm round may have been the answer but the round and the EM2 rifle fell into history. I would appreciate feedback and comments.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       2/13/2008 11:52:54 PM

 

As for the 5.56, we have to remember that this round and the original rifle made to fire it (M-16 or AR-15) was the brain child of one man, Eugene Stoner.
 
Interest in small caliber-high velocity rounds predates Stoner's involvement in the picture.  Research on SCHV rounds started in 1950 or so, and had already included a number of rounds and different experimental platforms to launch thm (including modified T48/FALs) by the time Stoner was filing his first applications for patents relevant to the AR-10/15.
 
It's also worth noting that Stoner designed the AR-10.  Two other engineers at Fairchild/Armalite did the scaling and conversion of the AR-10 into a .22 cal weapon (originally .222 Remington) -- though Stoner was involved in promoting the weapon, etc.
 
I do hear of reports such as this coming out of Iraq and that some squads have a shooter with an M-14 with scope to finish those that won't go down. I am pleased to hear that new rounds are being explored such as the 6.8 mm. This is not a new concept however. Shortly after WW II, the British developed a new rifle of bullpup design which fired a 7 x 43mm round (if I recall correctly).
 
Yep.  6.8 Remington SPC is a pretty close match, in terms of muzzle energy, to .280 British/7x43, just throwing a lighter bullet faster due to the need to work within an AR's magazine well.
 
From what I read, there was little doubt that at least Britan and Canada would have adopted the EM2 rifle but NATO standardization stopped this. To me, the 7 x43 mm round may have been the answer but the round and the EM2 rifle fell into history. I would appreciate feedback and comments.
 
EM2 and the FAL were both set up for .280/7x43, originally.  Would have been a much better round for NATO standardization than 7.62x51.
 
Quote    Reply

smokey       2/14/2008 7:20:50 PM
Thanks for the feedback. I was aware that there was FAL was also chambered in the .280 round as well. I was not aware that the small calibre high velocity concept went back as far as you mentioned. Did they experiment with 55 grain bullets and even ligher bullets? I fully agree with you comment that the .280 British would have been a much better overall round than the 7.62 as it seems to have a close to ideal balance of stopping power, velocity and not too much recoil.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       2/14/2008 11:24:00 PM
I think they tried bullet weights down to 40 grains, based of different cases (think they did some based on .30 Carbine in the same vein as 5.7 Spitfire, and were pushing a 55 grain 5.56mm round in a necked down .308 case for a while, besides more developed stuff like .222 Remington).
 
Quote    Reply

smokey       2/15/2008 5:53:22 PM
I was not aware of necking down the 308 to 223 with a 55 grain. I also never heard of the 5.7 spitfire. I would'nt reading up on this. Any suggestions?
 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine       2/16/2008 11:54:34 AM
I know this is a more technical aspect thread, but here's a different take on Tactics side that the Commandant of the Marine Corps want to try address as an immediate Stop-gap until the issue of proper round size is addressed.
 
Improving the % of Head Shots on moving targets thru more inventive training programs.  Starting w/ skeet & trap w/ a shot gun working to rifle shot, to improve reactionary & instinctive shooting of a very small target moving very quickly- i.e. Head Shots.
 
Going hunting
 

Marine Corps Times Article
April 16, 2007
By Kimberly Johnson
 

Commandant: It's not the round, it's the shooter

Close with. Destroy. Repeat. The basic recipe for the perfect Marine infantryman is usually a simple mixture. Toss in a little kill, capture or repel, sprinkle in some fire and maneuver, then separate into four-man teams and bake under the hot sun.

Easy as pie, usually, except the Corps' top officer says there's something wrong in the kitchen.

He's been getting complaints from the field about "stopping power." Grunts say they have to pump handfuls of rounds into insurgents before the bad guys hit the dirt, and some still manage to keep coming.

Some say the rounds need to be bigger if they're really going to wreck the enemy's day.

Commandant Gen. James Conway has a different view: Put a round in the right place, and you'll stop the bad guy, no matter the size of the bullet and how fast he's moving.

So prepare to adjust fire, because Conway's new weapons training initiative puts a premium on hitting moving targets and shot placement, and reminds infantrymen that they are the predators and not the prey.

In other words: teach the grunt to hunt.

Stopping power

Ask leathernecks with combat experience if their M16 gives them enough stopping power, and you'll get a mixed response. Battlefield lore says some Marines picked up AK47s during the battle of Fallujah because they weren't confident their own rifles and 5.56mm rounds would be potent enough in stopping the enemy.

One temporary fix is to give out heavier rounds, and Corps officials have received requests for just that.

"Based on the specific threats encountered, the Marine Corps determined there was a requirement to provide commanders with a heavier-grain 5.56mm round, the M-262, to be employed as required," said Corps spokesman 1st Lt. Brian Donnelly, speaking for Marine Corps Systems Command.

Conway has heard these complaints, but says a bigger round isn't necessarily the answer to increasing Marine lethality during combat. Special operations forces, however, use weapons that fire 7.62mm rounds, the commander has noted. "We're going to take a hard look at that and see if it's something that we need in this day and age in terms of a heavier caliber," he said.

While the Corps is researching whether that's worth doing, turning away from the M16 to a new rifle is not a priority right now, Conway said.

To change that, Conway has directed officials at Camp Pendleton, Calif.-based I Marine Expeditionary Force to take the lead in developing a weapons training course that will instill what he called the "hunter" mentality.

"[I MEF commanders] believe that if we create a mentality in our Marines that they are hunters and they take on some of those skills, then we'll be able to increase our combat effectiveness," Conway told Marine Corps Times on March 1.

"A hunter can hit a moving target with a great deal of frequency," he said. "Maybe we start with shotguns and build a level of confidence in hitting a moving target, skeet or trap, and we go from there to rifle shots."

Conway is looking for quick results, and wants I MEF to push leathernecks through the new training before they head back into their next rotation in Iraq this time next year, Conway said.

"Sooner is better," he said. "I'd like to see people act on that pretty quickly."

Taking it up a notch

While Marines are "legendary" for marksmanship skills, the threat in Iraq means they have to take it up a notch, said a Corps official in Washington, D.C., who is familiar with planning for the initiative, but asked not to be named.

"The exact form that that improvement to training will take is in a nascent stage of development," he said. "The aim of the 'combat hunter' concept is to build on a Marine's proven ability to successfully find and engage the enemy hidden among the people. And by incorporating training that will enhance our ability to hunt and find the enemy and then hit fleeing and moving targets, we will ensure our Marines will remain the hunters of this war."

I MEF has teamed up with Marine Corps Training Command, the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab and marksmanship experts, the official said. "I expect they'll soon have identified skills we can improve and facilitate future training improvements for all Marines."

The Corps hopes to tap into skills certain Marines may already have learned growing up in rural hunting areas and in urban areas, such as inner cities, said Col. Clarke Lethin, I MEF's chief of staff.

Once they define and understand what those skills are, then the Corps will determine what it can teach and if it should institutionalize it, he said.

I MEF, under Conway's direction, is in the midst of limited training experiments with squad- and platoon-sized groups of leathernecks who already have battlefield experience. "The best experts are young Marines, those who have been out in combat on a number of tours," Lethin said.

It is still unclear at this early stage, however, how the combat hunter initiative will be used in future weapons training.

Lethin would not go into detail about specific issues that have emerged in combat with Marines, saying it was classified information.

He did, however, say combat scenarios can be a real challenge for Marines, especially "in the heat of battle and in that moment of decision of engaging the target, especially in close quarters. We may be firing and thinking we're hitting the target," only to later discover they may not have been, he said.

Mentality
"We identified a need to ensure our Marines were being the hunters and not the hunted. How do you find your target before it finds you?" he said. "We're always in an offensive posture, but with the enemy mingled among civilians, we have to be discreet." Combat hunter training would employ increased emphasis on observation skills, he said.

"Hunting is more than just the shooting. It's finding your game," Lethin said.

Shot placement is becoming a higher priority in weapons training. In late March, the Marine Corps Combat Marksmanship Program instituted a point system on fixed field targets, with plans to count the point system toward a Marine's annual rifle qualification later this year.

Instilling this hunter mind-set into Marines is not entirely new for the Corps. The service's martial arts program is also tapping into such training for close-range moving and shooting, said Hunter Armstrong, director of the Sedona, Ariz.-based International Hoplology Society and Corps martial arts adviser.

Armstrong's organization focuses on the study of human combative behavior. "We are a hunting mammal, and like all hunting mammals, show two types of aggression," emotional and predatory, he said.

Emotional aggression occurs when the primary aim is to keep group cohesion and to display dominance, he explained, giving the example of two male cats. "When they face each other, there's a lot of noise," until one backs down, he said.

Things change, however, when the cat goes after a mouse.

"Humans have that same type of aggression as well," Armstrong said. "When we're hunting, we show a different type of aggression than two guys duking it out over a girl."

Predatory behavior is controlled, unemotional and tied to cool-minded behavior. The posture is neutral. "Look at Marines going through a town on patrol," Armstrong said. "You'll see that same stalking posture."

But other lessons have been learned in Iraq. "What we're seeing while clearing buildings in Fallujah is that they don't have time to take a site picture and shoot," he said. "We're so consumed by the weapon itself, we pay more attention to it than the man behind it," Armstrong said.

Armstrong teaches MCMAP instructors how to move toward an opponent and shoot, looking at the target, not their front post, he said.

Historically, early man survived by forming small hunting bands, or groups, of about 20 people. And as in inner-city gang conflicts today, they demonstrated aggressive behavior in order to hold territory, Armstrong explained. "We have an ability to look at other groups as dehuman."

But the types of aggression aren't always clear-cut. "Sometimes when we should be calm, we will blend both," he said. "It's something you see, unfortunately, with young Marines in stressful situations," he said alluding to current allegations against Marines for battlefield misconduct.

"We can ameliorate that problem the more we train them as hunters," he said. Relying on standard training, which employs elements of the hunting mode, makes it too easy for emotion to come into play, he said.

"I'm all for General Conway's concept," he said. "It's a huge step in the right direction."

 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       2/16/2008 1:33:23 PM

I was not aware of necking down the 308 to 223 with a 55 grain. I also never heard of the 5.7 spitfire. I would'nt reading up on this. Any suggestions?



The necked down .308 was part of a desire to remain semi-NATO compatible with a new round.  Wasn't the most efficient approach with a .22" cal projectile, so got shelved fairly quick, I think.
 
5.7 Spitfire was a wildcat cartridge an American gunsmith came up with (can't recall his name) that was basically 0.22" bore conversion for the M1 carbine, with the round based on necked down .30 Carbine ammo.
 
If you can find a copy of Edward C. Ezell's The Great Rifle Controversy it has some very good information on the US rifle R&D/fielding situation beginning with the planned late WW2 upgrades to the M1 Garand up to the -A2 upgrades to the M16.  The book is based on Ezell's doctoral dissertation for a PhD, so it relies on primary sources and better research than a lot of more accessible books that may just repeat common myths, legends, etc.  Definitely see if your local library can get a copy for you or something, though, as it's out of print, and copies on Amazon are upwards of $100.
 
Quote    Reply

smokey       2/16/2008 2:33:58 PM
I found a book back in 92 or 93 titled "The M-16 Controversies". I read parts of it and it has similiar information regarding the advantages and drawbacks of calibres. I would not be surprised if you have heard of it already. If not, it is pretty good reading. Thanks for the info.  Smokey from Newfoundland signing off.
 
Quote    Reply

smokey       2/17/2008 7:24:05 AM
Of course any new training to assist with lethal shots is welcomed in any theatre of battle. Also, I know that the U.S. Marines are highly trained. I think however that some of the things mentioned in the article are unrealistic especially in the heat of combat where shots are often unaimed. I do agree with some of the comments about focusuing on the weapon too much as opposed to the shooter. We know that the insurgents for the most part use the AK-47 and this weapon has really not changed significantly since 1947. You can take it into combat anywhere with the old notch iron sights and know that it is reliable, has stopping power and accurate enough for hits at reasonable ranges. (I knowing that accuracy is not one of its highlights) I don't know that the M-16 with some of its changes over the years has become that much more effective. It remains the same basic rifle and is still 5.56. I agree that until a more suitable round is found that more training will assist. While hind sight is 20 /20, I still struggle with the fact that .280 british developed more than 50 years ago appeared to be an excellant overall round but was ruled out in favour of the short version of the U.S. 30-06 (.308). After insisting that NATO countries adopt the .308, the U.S turns around 20 years later and goes against standardization and goes with the 5.56. I understand why with the situation in vietnam and the M-14 lacking firepower agains the AK. I think however that if the .280 british had of been adopted years before, NATO countries would have had weapons that were controlable in automatic, weapons with very good stopping power not to mention that the .280 is ballisticially much superior to the russian 7.62 x 39.
 
The article has some good points but for the most part, it comes across to me as a little hard to swallow. We can talk about training all day but the starting point is the put a weapon in Soilders hands that they believe in. Soilders will not always make head shots and will not always hit moving targets. Some soilders are more cool headed than others. Thanks for sending the article however as parts of it were certainly interesting.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy