Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The truth about the 5.56mm round
TriggaFingaz    1/24/2004 1:51:19 PM
To all infantrymen and gunusers out there , tell me this: is the 5.56x45mm round an effective round or is it so weak that you need more than one shot to drop a man? Some books say that it is absolutely lethal, able to stop one's heart owing to sheer velocity. Other accounts claim that enemy soldiers hit with this round continue charging. Some books claim it will tumble and dig multiple wound channels in the body, detractors claim it drills straight though people but yet has poor anti-material penetration. Which is more accurate? Please specify whether you used M193 or M855 'green tips'.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
Pino    RE:Protective thickness of materials.   9/6/2004 3:39:49 PM
Just like the UZI I had ..... under every circumstance it will serve you!! ;-)
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:Protective thickness of materials.   9/7/2004 3:05:12 AM
The US is not bound by the Hague Convention.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:How could this happen?   9/7/2004 3:10:59 AM
I am sure AK47 users have their own stories about enemies who took several 7.62x39 rounds an kept popping off return fire. Its all part of the mythology of warfare. Too many people have unrealistic expectations. Now answer this. If the 7.62x39 was such a superior cartridge why did the Soviets abandon it for a cartridge ballistically very similar to the 5.56?
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:How could this happen?   9/7/2004 3:52:18 AM
"If the 7.62x39 was such a superior cartridge why did the Soviets abandon it for a cartridge ballistically very similar to the 5.56 " One of the reasons why the M-74 was developed was the fact that it weighed a lot less and, while this is not that important for motorised rifle troops who have a handy source of ammunition in their BTR or BMP, it is of vital importance to Spetsnaz and airborne troopers. The para could carry almost double the ammunition and, while the penetrative effects of the M-43 were somewhat compromised, the lethality was not. Accuracy was also considerably improved through a flatter trajectory and much reduced recoil. BUT, I would draw to your attention that the M-43 is still a very capable round, and that penetration is one of the reasons modern Kalashnikov rifles are making a return to 7.62
 
Quote    Reply

DrillSergeant    RE:5.56 effectivness   9/7/2004 6:04:26 AM
If you read about the reports from vietnam, going up today there has been a lot of unfavoriable reports about the 5.56. Reports from Iraq and Afganistan say that the military is not very happy about the performance of the round. I talked to a good friend who is in the 82nd last night stated that the 7.62x39 was a better stopper than the 5.56 round.
 
Quote    Reply

worldbuilder    RE:The truth about the 5.56mm round, not too hasty   9/7/2004 6:37:56 AM
In my opinion better penetration has its advantages, and disadvantages. The smaller 5.56mm round IS more accurate, especially during 'rapid fire', repeated single shots, etc, because of the smaller recoil. The 5,56 round also allows the soldier to carry more shots with him, to fit more rounds into the magazine, and such. The larger rounds, like 7.62mm, 6.8mm and various other designs, obviously do have better penetration, and somewhat worse accuracy. You are more likely to hit innocent bystanders, because of the greater innaccuracy as well as the bullet tends to keep going after it left your target. This could sometimes be an advantage, when engaging groups of enemies, but this is what he have machine guns for. Im assuming we are talking about the standard infantryman rifle, not some heavy support weapon. Im in a light infantry battallion, and in every team, we have at least one machine gun(MG3, 7.62mm) that supprts all the light rifles(G36, 5.56mm). Now it does depend on your mission and surroundings, what you want. For example, walking patrol in downtown Kabul, you just dont want everyone to be carrying a 7.62mm rifle. In Kabul, the streets are teeming with civilians, the soldiers will only get to shoot once if at all, so they'll still be to panicky to be accurate. And the enemy isnt likely to come crashing through the front gate with a heavy truck full of explosives, like in Iraq. In Kabul, precision one-shot one-kill shots are wanted. In Iraq, the situation differs completely. Theres no need for all this precision and caution. No one-shot one-kill mentality. PLus penetration is much more important in Iraq, in a crowded market in Kabul, penetration is the last you want. THe weapons you want will always depend on the mission, the surroundings. However, you will almost always find a mix of heavy machine guns complementing light, accurate rifles. In western armies anyway. Depending on the mission, you add more or less heavy guns. But changing all rifles to a heavy caliber is a very unreversible thing to do. Sounds not too well thought out, too hasty. Before we spend hundreds of millions, lose the function of light infantry rifles, have to buy a completely new stockpile of rifle ammunition(were talking billions of rounds) and lose all interoperability with NATO allies who all use 5.56mm, before we do all that, we should wait until the new situation afer the cold war has revealed what kind of ammunition is best. These are just my impressions. Just adding to what was written.
 
Quote    Reply

worldbuilder    RE:The truth about the 5.56mm round, not too hasty   9/7/2004 6:56:06 AM
Just for those who think the 5.56mm round doesnt stop someone... ...during March 2004, a soldier in my unit shot and killed the other with his G36 rifle (5.56mm) on the range during practice, then killed himself. I joined the unit a week later. I got the locker of the killer. He used 5.56mm rounds. Those who were there told me the first shot hit his arm. The second shot went through a magazine and flakvest, punctured his lower torso, and exited the other side. He immediately fell to the ground, green face, yes green, and basically bled to death there, blubbering incomprehensively. He was dead in 30 minutes. He was in no state to do anything there, he didnt even know where he was or who he was anymore. This was one of these supposedly useless 5.56mm rounds, AFTER going through an (empty) magazine, and a flak vest. He would not have been eble to get up and keep going. He was practically in Lululand. Gone, ok? Now the 5.56mm NATO round is designed to cause massive trauma to the internal organs, causing the victim to bleed internally, and die after 20-30min. There is nothing a doc could do. 5.56mm does the job. Sure, this guy was shot from behind, from a supposed friend. Some terrorist in Iraq might be so full of adrenaline he might somehow be able to get one shot off before collapsing. Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it. Again, depending on the mission they vary the amount of heavy guns in your squad. Another thing that I noticed: people believe that the 7.62mm round is better at penetrating steel helmets and such. Well, I'm not sure where they heard this. WE were always taught that one hit from a G36 causes the enemy helmet to snap back and break the neck of the soldier. There is a hunge amount of energy in one round, they leave the muzzle at 920m/s. The round just has to strafe the helmet to cause a broken neck. Helmets are made to protect against grenade schrapnell, not bullets. Also, I once had an opportunity to enter the NCO's Mess, they had a helmet on the wall. The standard Bundeswehr helmet is made of Kevlar. They had shot this helmet at least 8 times, with 5.56mm ammunition, and I saw how the bullets had left holes in the front, and matching holes in the back. They went right through the helmet. So forget everything you see in the movies. Also keep in mind that most infantry shooting happens at 70m distance, and 90% of all infantry shooting in wartime is under 100m. Some statistics for you all. Some kind of long range weapon is not what you want to give infantry soldiers, thats for snipers, or heavy machine gunners. Light infantry shoots up close, accurately.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:The truth about the 5.56mm round, not too hasty   9/7/2004 7:49:46 AM
Worldbuilder, One of the biggest complaints of US forces in Afghanistan was that the 5.56mm M-16/M-4 rifles did not provide accurate enough long range fire against jihadis and taliban/AQ fighters armed with older 303 (and similar) bolt action rifles and such, especially when rebels were firing down from hills and the US had to fire back up the hills, or across valleys. 5.56mm ammo just does not have the most ideal range capabilities in such mountainous operations, which is why numbers of 7.62mm rifles were requested. This debate is much similar to that going on you saw in the artillery links: there is no perfect rifle that works ideal in close-range urban fighting (Iraq) AND long range mountain/hill fighting (Afghanistan.) Certainly the M16 is fine for its role: close range combat like Iraqi Freedom. But Afghanistan is more of a 7.62mm war, just because the rifles still retain kill power at longer ranges necessary in that terrain. And a nation cannot afford to train all its soldiers as 1-mile snipers and equip them as such. Just like artillery, troops need an adequate primary rifle for the environmenmt/tactics they will be fighting. And from many of the ballistics tables available from US gunsmiths, there is nothing wrong with the accuracy of 6.8mm ammo. The inherent problems of most bullets are not the bullet design and cartridge, but more the fault is with the weapon designed to fire it. US rifle marksmanship teaches that a soldier should be able to engage a man at 300m (but not required to pass qualification). A 5.56mm round may harm him at that range, but it is more a guarantee that 6.8mm or 7.62mm will kill him at that range. There are several varieties of bullets available on the US civil market for hunting, that would not risk any over-penetration like 5.56mm NATO ammo. Many of these rounds are used at range to take large game animals due to the superior ballistics and terminal energy of the bullet. Certainly some of this ammo would be ideal in military operations, also. I know from personal experience, I would rather shoot an enemy soldier at longer range with a scoped Browning A-bolt .270 deer rifle with Nosler yellows: the internal damage inflicted on Pennsylvania whitetail deer is far greater than anything 5.56mm ammo does to people (and whitetail deer aren't always smart enough to realize they've been shot, so you need critical damage to stop them.) Personally, I think the >20million guns in the hands of US citizens is what has kept any foreign adversaries and terrorists from facing off against the US on our home soil. Some of the big bore hunting rifles have ammo that does horrific damage to big (300+ pounds) animals: I can't imagine what kind of damage some of those guns and their bullets would do to "scrawny" people (like a 375 H&H)..
 
Quote    Reply

Crosshair    Expanding bullets and SMG   9/7/2004 12:14:56 PM
What would happen if the US went to expanding bullets? I know if we used V-max varmit bullets against unarmored terrorists there would be manny more 1 shot kills. With my 22-250 the bullets is almost completly fragmented after passing through a 2 liter pop bottle. On a human the exit wound would would be the size of a dinner plate. Although my 22-250 pushes a 55 grain Nosler at about 4000 fps (using a 39 grains of IMR 4320, it's about a 3.5 grain overload, but the balistic performance is godlike.) the terminal performance would be similar in a 5.56 NATO provided velocity is high enough.. Anyway back on subject. If we stoped using dum-dum bullets and use some real expanding bullets the 5.56 would have much better killing power. An even better situation would be if we gave some troops in urban settings SMG's instead of rifles. The relativly short range is perfect for a SMG and you can carry even more rounds of 9mm than 5.56 and terminal performance is much better.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Expanding bullets and SMG   9/7/2004 6:30:31 PM
Expanding bullets (ie dum dum bullets), are outlawed by the Hague Convention. "The US is not bound by the Hague Convention" I do not believe for one minute that America is so backwards as to have not signed the treaty; can anyone provide some evidence of that?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics