ARVN wasn't the problem...
Posted on 05/26/2010 11:41:33 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The Times (the British one) has a story about the continuing debate over the 7.62mm round versus the 5.56mm as employed in the long range firefights in Afghanistan. The story asserts that the 5.56mm round used in the M4 rifle “lacks sufficient velocity and killing power in long-range firefights.” As Defense Tech readers know, we’ve covered this issue before.
As for the stopping power of the 5.56mm round, that very topic came up at a roundtable discussion I attended with the Army’s Program Executive Office Soldier last month at Aberdeen Test Center, Md. It led to an interesting discussion about wound dynamics, the “wound channel” and the “bleed out effect.”
Responding to claims that high-velocity 5.56mm rounds pass straight through the body without killing, Brig. Gen. Pete Fuller, the commander of PEO Soldier, said a new 5.56mm round that will be shipped to troops beginning in June, the M855A1 lead free slug, will get rid of what he called “yaw dependency.”
“The current M855 (5.56mm) ball round is yaw dependent. The closer you are to something you’re shooting at, the less yaw it has and it’s going to go right straight through,” said Fuller. Also, the M4 carbine has a 14 ½ inch barrel compared to the 20-inch barrel on the standard M16. “That shorter barrel cut out 5 ½ inches for that round to get to full muzzle velocity,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at defensetech.org ...
If they’re comparing the 7.62x39 round to the 5.56 round straight up, the larger bullet is not “better.” The 7.62 bullet is larger, but it’s much slower. It’s around 2900 feet per second compared to 2100 fps for the AK-47 round.
I prefer the good old 55gr FMJ out of an M4 and a 77gr SMK out of a 20” SPR or M16. That seems to give the best exterior and terminal ballistics for both rifle configurations. Anything else needed is a different tool requirement.
Why use one bullet when three of four will do the same job?
How they got through that article without mentioning bullet weights and twist rates baffles me. Nothing wrong with a “mismatch” of the two, if gnat’s ass accuracy isn’t needed. Give me a bullet that’s unstable enough to flip like a Ukranian gymnast on impact.
“Give me a bullet that’s unstable enough to flip like a Ukranian gymnast on impact.”
I am sick and coughing hurts, stop it. lol.
“Why use one bullet when three of four will do the same job?
“
Don’t know about you but under pressure I’m not such a perfect shot and I don’t know anyone who is. More chances with more ammo is a good thing.
Sorry...was sick last week. Coughing didn’t last long, but it hurt. Get well soon.
If you spray your ammo into the dirt or into the treetops, you will die. Only those who retain fire discipline and "mesh with the team" will survive. A magazine can be emptied really fast on full auto, almost without any meaningful hits.
Belt-fed machine guns are a horse of a different color.
This isn’t about spray-n-pray; this is about real-world shooting, not some mental exercise. No one makes every shot. No one. Not me, not you, no one. Having extra rounds is a good thing. It is a fallacy that it takes multiple rounds of 5.56 to take someone down but only one 7.62.
Frankly, i wonder how many of our soldier’s ballistic problems are actually differences in the ROEs they serve under as opposed to their forebears with heavier rounds.
No one firefights in a vacuum. If our people were allowed to adapt their tactics to the weapons, instead of visa-versa, I think we’d see much better results from the lighter round.
You make an excellent point. How many times are the troops left on their own to fight it out with a rifle when artillery or airs trikes should be used because the ROE doesn’t want to hurt property or isn’t in budget. People talk of 1,000 shots across A’stan’s mountains, but what the Hell for? Those shots are for heavy equipment, not rifles.
That is sometimes true. As a general rule, I'd bet on the 7.62. I'd surely prefer the 7.62 X 51 fired from a nice long rifle if I were in Afghanistan. I like AR-10s and FALs. The M-14 has its problems, but it sure did shoot well. I currently have an M1A with a synthetic stock. It behaves very well. I'd probably depend more on my L1A1 in a real scrape.
You should choose your own weapon. If that is a 5.56 variant, that is cool. I'll willingly carry those heavy 7.62s.
Would you do so in a "duel" where your opponent got to choose the terrain and engagement conditions?
If you are asking if I would choose my weapon appropriate for the terrain and engagement conditions, I would answer "yes".
If you are asking if I would always choose a weapon that used 7.62 X 51 rounds, my answer would be "most of the time".
I think it wise to also have a sidearm and a few grenades. Did I mention deployment with a well-trained and well-drilled team?
I like it when the tanks clear the houses.
I think your rejection of my question, proves my point.
It is manifestly obvious the intent of my hypothetical was to have you choose your weapon BEFORE learning the terrain and engagement conditions.
What rejection, and what is your point?
I phrased TWO answers in order to answer an ambigious question. State your question without ambiguity, or choose whichever on my answers that seems to go with the intended question.
I'll try again, and I'll type really slowly: It is appropriate to choose the weapon according to the situation. I would carry more that one weapon if possible. I prefer the 7.62 X 51, and would probably choose to carry heavier ammo under most circumstances.
That wasn't even slightly obvious. Given this clarity, I would choose a weapon that uses the 7.62 X 51 round.
ARVN wasn't the problem...
“Why did they ever switch from a .30/06 round to the modern U.N. round?”
The 7.62 x 51 NATO cartridge (.308 Winchester) is the updated version of the venerable .30-06 round that takes advantage of the advances in modern gunpowders and bullets to achieve the same/better ballistic performance as the older .30-06 round. 7.62 x 51 cartridge brass can be easily made from older ‘06 brass by renecking to the shorter OAL of the 7.62 round.....well within the capabilities of the average reloader......
It might be noted that the US lobbied/steered Nato to adopting this as the standard NATO round.... the UN had nothing to do with it. A few years after the 7.62 adoption the US reversed course and adopted and pushed NATO to adopt the M-16/5.56 mm (.223 Remington), which to date, is the longest serving Rifle (M-16/M-4) and calibre to be used by the US military.
Highly accurate with good performance down range the 7.62 x 51 Nato round along with the Upgraded M-1 Garand known as the M-14 service rifle would again/still be my personal choice to carry into battle.........
“Hint: 7.62 NATO.
Just change the M-4 uppers”
I believe that it is possible to convert the M-16/M-4 to 6.5 or 6.8mm rounds by changing uppers/barrels, but to get a 7.62 Nato you would have to go to Eugene Stoner’s AR-10 design......
The Nato round is much longer than the M-16/M-4’s magazine/magazine well could accommadate.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.