Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
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

 
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

Carl D.       2/17/2008 4:50:43 PM
SCCOMarine's posted article reminds me of reading somewhere that during the Vietnam War, at least on one of the services, the Army, set up the jungle equivalent of Hogan's Alley using modified Daisy BB guns in their Quick Kill Program [url=http://www.i-kirk.info/misc/quickkill/qwikill.htm]LINK[/url].  I'd imagine that the increased use of simunitions in MOUT training is also imparting a lot of those same skills.
  
 
 
Quote    Reply

forvalour       4/14/2008 3:58:03 AM
hk 417 with 16 inch barrel in 7.62, if you're goiing to shoot someone hit 'em hard
 
Quote    Reply

big79       9/27/2008 4:57:27 AM
i believe that the m1 garand was origana;y designed to use teh remington 270  and was modified to use the 30-06 to ease supply demands, given stocks of ww1 ammo available at beginning of war. kind of funny that we are returning to what the engineers origianly designed for combat rifles.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard    22-250   10/8/2008 5:11:53 PM
For general information, the cartridge in which you neck down a .308 case and put a 22 caliber bullet in it is standardized as the .22-250 nowadays. It is a relatively common varmint cartridge.
 
buzzard

 
Quote    Reply

Jammmr    7.62 v. 5.56?   3/20/2010 7:35:30 AM
     I've read some interesting points on this topic and feel the need to put in "My two cents". I'm an ex 11B and have humped  that weapon all over creation and back. The 5.56 round has served me and my buddies well, however I have, on several occassions "Popped" an enemy in the chest w/ a double tap and he still got off a couple of shots before he went down. Consider the fact that if you are engaging multiple opponenets, where you single tap each exposure before returning to the original target, that individual may shoot you before you get back to him. With the 7.62 that scenario is highly unlikely. Also w/ the 7.62 I can shoot through walls and vehicles and "motor" on to the objective. I have a A-10 chambered for the 7.62 and absolutely love it. As the above post mentions, it's all about training. Militaries all over world use this weapon because it is idiot proof. With as little practice as basic training you can immediately and without thought perform immediate action and preventitve maintenace, so the design is outstanding. The additional recoil is negligible and easily overcome by putting alot of rounds downrange. The U.S military will never switch to this round. It'd all about the amount of rounds that you can carry and the weight. I wouldn't want to carry the additional weight of a basic load (300 rnds.) of 7.62 rounds no matter the increased effectiveness.
   
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics