5.56 or 7.62?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Let me offer the similie. In stock car racing, why does the car with the most horse power and torque not always win? Horsepower and torque is the direct equivilant in terms of force to a bullets muzzle energy.

The reason that the 5.56 is actually a better killer than the 7.62 is because the assumption that energy is the only variable. In fact, it is a composite variable with a nonlinear relationship, mostly because the human body is a complex organism.

Here is another example. A large lead pipe swung at a person's chest can come very close to the speed of sound at its tip, and can deliver many multiples of the energy of a 7.62 bullet, but is less deadly. In fact, when we look at police officers on the street, the lead pipe to the chest is far less of a threat than one to the head (changing the body position variable) or a knife to the chest thrust with much less energy.

Then you have the case of body armor. The body armor I wear on the streets will stop a .357 magnum bullet. If that ever happened to me, it might break my ribs and crack my breast bone, but I would be much more likely to survive the encounter. The amount of force I would be exposed to is the same though -- the vest does not "absorb" any energy -- it just spreads it out. Now a 5.56 or 7.62 will penetrate and may kill me, even though so much energy is lost to them by the dispersion of the energy on the vest that the bullet could well be subsonic and thus not have much shock wave, and may even be deflected by the deflector pad in my vest out of the way of the main organs.

This is why the 10mm is relatively rare as a police round and the .40 S and W is fairly common. The 10mm at close pistol ranges may actually overpenetrate its target, and although better at penetrating body armor is harder to shoot. You are better off hitting the chest with a .22 than missing the head with a .458 magnum<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[SeaRich]

Dr. Mikhail Kalishnakov was on the History channel last night talking about this very issue. He said that that the only reason that the newer AK-74's (successor to the -47's) and such went to 5.45 ammo was because of a Soviet fear of the new M-16A2 rifle invented by Gene Stone here in the States. He said (the tape was from '98) that he will always prefer 7.62 ammo over the smaller stuff. So much for that. Gene Stone was there too but the program ("story of the Gun") was mostly a love-fest for the AK-x series.You guys have started a very intellectual argument! :cool:

Rich

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaRich:

Dr. Mikhail Kalishnakov was on the History channel last night talking about this very issue. He said that that the only reason that the newer AK-74's (successor to the -47's) and such went to 5.45 ammo was because of a Soviet fear of the new M-16A2 rifle invented by Gene Stone here in the States. He said (the tape was from '98) that he will always prefer 7.62 ammo over the smaller stuff. So much for that. Gene Stone was there too but the program ("story of the Gun") was mostly a love-fest for the AK-x series.You guys have started a very intellectual argument! :cool:

Rich<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eugene Stoner, who first designed the AR-10 and later the AR-15 (transformed into the M16 by Colt) has not been involved in the development of the M16 weapons line since 1968 when he began to seriously push his own 1965 design, the Stoner 62 and 63 system.

The main reason for the AK-74 was a set of studies that found the AK-47 to be much less effective in combat than the M-16 due to logistics, recoil, and killing power issued. The AKM model of the AK-47 was perfectly fine, it just was long int the tooth and tactically out moded. The AK-74 proved itself to be a much better weapon not from a design standpoint, but from ease of supply, firing, and superior one round killing ability. It still was not as good round for round as the M16 series, but the bullets were cheaper to make and the basic AK-47 design that is the main AK-74 is rugged and very reliable.

[Stephen]

Someone is simply stiring. I cannot believe that anyone can seriously say the 5.56mm is always more effective that 7.62mm.

The argument about ammunition weight has some validity, but to say that 5.56mm is always superior is untenable.

Arguments about bullet placement are irrelevant. The simple fact is that penetration depends on the momentum of the projectile. And damage caused is proportional to the amount of energy available to be dumped in the target.

Arguments about over penetration are also spurious as wounded are a bigger drain on the resources of the enemy than dead.

How can you account for the observable fact that it takes more than double the hits to drop an enemy soldier with 5.56mm?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen:

Someone is simply stiring. I cannot believe that anyone can seriously say the 5.56mm is always more effective that 7.62mm.

The argument about ammunition weight has some validity, but to say that 5.56mm is always superior is untenable.

Arguments about bullet placement are irrelevant. The simple fact is that penetration depends on the momentum of the projectile. And damage caused is proportional to the amount of energy available to be dumped in the target.

Arguments about over penetration are also spurious as wounded are a bigger drain on the resources of the enemy than dead.

How can you account for the observable fact that it takes more than double the hits to drop an enemy soldier with 5.56mm?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy, you have not presented any evidence -- and all I have ever seen is anecedotal.

First, you need to consider the work done by Dr. Fackle of the

Letterman Army Institute of Research. He determined that the superior energy of a bullet such as the 7.62 meant nothing if that energy was not dumped to useful purpose, and that the cavitation of the passing of the larger bullet only mattered in cases where the bullet had to do damage from relatively shallow penetrations.

This is not stiring. I am afraid I lack the skill to put the physics of how bullets dump energy into fluid into simple enough terms, or the ability to argue around a "bigger is always better" viewpoint. Reread my previous posts. The 5.56x45mm M193 and SS109 variants have a greater killing power than 7.62x51mm.

Also note that since it takes from 1000 and 10000 rounds of infantry calibre ammunition to cause one casualty, professional military soldiers would much prefer to get as many rounds of ammunition onto the backs of their men as possible, all talk of killing aside. Plus, within its effective range, the M16 is much easier to shoot, and compared to the M14 and FAL, has a much greater relative firepower.

But, do not hesitate to organize your thoughts on this, present them in writing, and I am sure that you can get it published with the U.S Military. If you can prove what you are saying, which is opposite the finding of the past 40 years of wound ballistics studies, then you will soon find yourself a celebrity. Here are some good starting points. Seriously, there are some aspects of the 7.62x51mm versus 5.56x45 that are subject to controversy, and wound ballistics show that much much heavier .30 cal bullets are needed for example by snipers (A role in which the 5.56x45mm is unsuited), but please give the armies of the world credit for not all being idiots without at least presenting some evidence.

Sellier, K. , and B.P. Knuebuehl. (1994). Wound Ballistics. Elsevier Science.

MacPherson, D. (1994). Bullet Penetration - Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma. Ballistic Publication. El Segundo, CA.

Roberts, Gary (1998). The Wounding Effects of 5.56MM/.223 Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Carbines Compared with 12 GA.Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant. Wound Ballistic Review. Volume 3, Issue 4.

Dutton, Gerald, Tim Loyns, MD, Sgt. Shaun Roach, Sgt. John Dickinson (1998).A Review of the Wounding Effects of the Colt AR-15 and FN FAL Rifles Used by Martin Bryant in the Port Arthur Shooting Incident April 26, 1996; Tasmania, Australia. Wound Ballistic Review. Volume 3, Issue 4.

DiMaio, VJM. (1999). "Gunshot Wounds - Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques.". Boca Raton, CRD Press.

[Stephen]

' Easy, you have not presented any evidence -- and all I have ever seen is anecedotal.

' There is no unequivical evidence about this.

The only way to prove the effective range of any weapon is to take a large number of people of all shapes and sizes and get them to stand at the range you are testing and shoot them. This would have to be done for all ranges you are testing. And I think a through test would probably take about a month. Then onto the next projectile weight, shape & type. Then it would be on to the next weapon. Thank God no one has done it!

The only truely unequivical way to prove weapon efficency is to shoot people, in a contolled environment. Sorry, but a model is just a model, nothing else.

This leaves physics, which although is not unequivical prove of weapon efficency, is based on data from other experiments over hundred of years.

Which tells us that after the projectile has left the muzzle it starts to slowdown. The rate of deceleration is inversely proportional to the momentum of the projectile, mass multiplied by velocity.

Nothing can be destroyed, or moved, without the application of force. The more energy available in the projectile the more damage can be done. Everthing else being equal.

The energy available in the projectile is proportional to it's energy, mass multiplied by velocity squared.

In military terms we don't need to kill the enemy, only injure him. So if some of that energy is waisted it doesn't matter.

As I think you have pointed out the 62gr 5.56mm projectile seems to be more effective than the 55gr. This tends to support the bigger the projectile the longer it takes to slow down theory. ( as shown above ).

The 7.62 NATO projectile is heavier again and so takes longer to slow down. Making it more effective at longer ranges. Indeed if you calculate the energy of 7.62 and 5.56 projectiles you will see that 7.62 tends to have more energy.

Which makes it theoretically more effective. If you have a look further back in the discussion you will see that people who have used both in combat tend to believe 7.62 NATO takes the enemy down more quickly.

In military terms killing power is not as important as stopping power. Casualties rather than fatalities.

' please give the armies of the world credit for not all being idiots without at least presenting some evidence. '

The US Army did not change to 5.56mm because it is more effective that 7.62mm NATO.

Since about half way through WWII theorists started to note that the range at which infantry tend to fight is rarely farther than 400m.

The then currently used ammunition ( 7.92, .303, .30 06 ) were all effective at ranges much greater than this. The first army to fielded a weapon which was designed to be effective at 400m and not much were was that of Germany. They developed the assault rifle, one that fires a less powerful round, which was therefore cheaper to produce and transport.

After that war the Soviets followed suit and developed the 7.62mm short. While NATO counries did not. They addaped 308 Win as 7.62 NATO. Which although not as powerful as 30-06 is still effective at ranges far inexcess of 400m. I think it was so the infantry man's rifle would be using the amunition as the GPMG. The Soviets fielded more types of MG than NATO, developing LMGs that fired 7.6mm short.

Around about the time of Vietnam the US Army decided to change to assault rifles. Rather than full powered rfiles. 7.62 NATO is effective far in excess of 400m, the maximum range that an infantry man tends to fight.

They adopted a cartridged based on .222 rem, 5.56mm. This was not because 5.5mm is more effective that 7.62 NATO, it is because it is lighter, cheaper to produce and cheaper to transport.

They traded firepower ( on a shot by shot basis ) for economy and a saving in weight.

Again this is discused earlier in this discussion.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen:

' Easy, you have not presented any evidence -- and all I have ever seen is anecedotal.

' There is no unequivical evidence about this.

The only way to prove the effective range of any weapon is to take a large number of people of all shapes and sizes and get them to stand at the range you are testing and shoot them. This would have to be done for all ranges you are testing. And I think a through test would probably take about a month. Then onto the next projectile weight, shape & type. Then it would be on to the next weapon. Thank God no one has done it!

The only truely unequivical way to prove weapon efficency is to shoot people, in a contolled environment. Sorry, but a model is just a model, nothing else.

This leaves physics, which although is not unequivical prove of weapon efficency, is based on data from other experiments over hundred of years.

Which tells us that after the projectile has left the muzzle it starts to slowdown. The rate of deceleration is inversely proportional to the momentum of the projectile, mass multiplied by velocity.

Nothing can be destroyed, or moved, without the application of force. The more energy available in the projectile the more damage can be done. Everthing else being equal.

The energy available in the projectile is proportional to it's energy, mass multiplied by velocity squared.

In military terms we don't need to kill the enemy, only injure him. So if some of that energy is waisted it doesn't matter.

As I think you have pointed out the 62gr 5.56mm projectile seems to be more effective than the 55gr. This tends to support the bigger the projectile the longer it takes to slow down theory. ( as shown above ).

The 7.62 NATO projectile is heavier again and so takes longer to slow down. Making it more effective at longer ranges. Indeed if you calculate the energy of 7.62 and 5.56 projectiles you will see that 7.62 tends to have more energy.

Which makes it theoretically more effective. If you have a look further back in the discussion you will see that people who have used both in combat tend to believe 7.62 NATO takes the enemy down more quickly.

In military terms killing power is not as important as stopping power. Casualties rather than fatalities.

' please give the armies of the world credit for not all being idiots without at least presenting some evidence. '

The US Army did not change to 5.56mm because it is more effective that 7.62mm NATO.

Since about half way through WWII theorists started to note that the range at which infantry tend to fight is rarely farther than 400m.

The then currently used ammunition ( 7.92, .303, .30 06 ) were all effective at ranges much greater than this. The first army to fielded a weapon which was designed to be effective at 400m and not much were was that of Germany. They developed the assault rifle, one that fires a less powerful round, which was therefore cheaper to produce and transport.

After that war the Soviets followed suit and developed the 7.62mm short. While NATO counries did not. They addaped 308 Win as 7.62 NATO. Which although not as powerful as 30-06 is still effective at ranges far inexcess of 400m. I think it was so the infantry man's rifle would be using the amunition as the GPMG. The Soviets fielded more types of MG than NATO, developing LMGs that fired 7.6mm short.

Around about the time of Vietnam the US Army decided to change to assault rifles. Rather than full powered rfiles. 7.62 NATO is effective far in excess of 400m, the maximum range that an infantry man tends to fight.

They adopted a cartridged based on .222 rem, 5.56mm. This was not because 5.5mm is more effective that 7.62 NATO, it is because it is lighter, cheaper to produce and cheaper to transport.

They traded firepower ( on a shot by shot basis ) for economy and a saving in weight.

Again this is discused earlier in this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you are not understanding how data is developed using the scientifric method. Basically, some guy saying, "my 7.62 is way better than the 5.56" is not a useful test, and you do not need to shoot at real people. testing to destruction is rarely needed in a world which provides so mauch data on its own.

Basically, until you read the seminal texts on this subject and understand the variables of shot placement, energy expenditure in a semi-liquid, effects of bullet shapes on wound tunnel, and effects of wound tunnel types , and so on, there is no way to discuss this intellectually, only by anecedote.

However, as I said, your insight into wounding ballistics could be invaluable, in that it flies against current scientific understanding. Please drop the anesedotal evidence from the center of your argument and restate it taking the variables I have presented into account. Otherwise, I will have to trust the Army on this one over your learned information.

[SeaRich]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

The main reason for the AK-74 was a set of studies that found the AK-47 to be much less effective in combat than the M-16 due to logistics, recoil, and killing power issued. The AKM model of the AK-47 was perfectly fine, it just was long int the tooth and tactically out moded. The AK-74 proved itself to be a much better weapon not from a design standpoint, but from ease of supply, firing, and superior one round killing ability. It still was not as good round for round as the M16 series, but the bullets were cheaper to make and the basic AK-47 design that is the main AK-74 is rugged and very reliable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Slapdragon,

Thank you for answering my post! I guess I really don't "get it" with those History Channel gun shows. There is a complimentary one that shows the complete development history of the AR-10. The program that deals with the AK-47's and such seem to be totally anti-Gene Stoner. I don't know. Some of you guys are soldiers-I am just a school teacher.

Funny thing is that I thought you would take issue more with the fact that the newer AK-74's use 5.45 and not 5.56 which is what this thread is talking about.

Rich :cool:

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen:

They adopted a cartridged based on .222 rem, 5.56mm. This was not because 5.5mm is more effective that 7.62 NATO, it is because it is lighter, cheaper to produce and cheaper to transport.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not matters which are inconsequential in modern warfare I would suggest.

I'd also suggest that this might be the reasons why the US Army adopted the M193 round but they are not the reasons why NATO adopted the SS109 round. One of the main tests it had to pass was that it had to be able to penetrate a standard M1 helmet at 500 metres. It actually does so at 900 metres.

According to the trials conducted in the late 1970's the SS109 met or exceeded all the critaria laid down by NATO for its future small-arms round. And this is the point, the SS109 round is not the same as the M193 round. Indeed, its superior in accuracy and penetrative power at all ranges.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaRich:

Dear Slapdragon,

Thank you for answering my post! I guess I really don't "get it" with those History Channel gun shows. There is a complimentary one that shows the complete development history of the AR-10. The program that deals with the AK-47's and such seem to be totally anti-Gene Stoner. I don't know. Some of you guys are soldiers-I am just a school teacher.

Funny thing is that I thought you would take issue more with the fact that the newer AK-74's use 5.45 and not 5.56 which is what this thread is talking about.

Rich :cool:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you can see with the discussion of 7.62 versus 5.56, and if your read accounts of the adoption of the M1, the M14, the FAL in Europe, and other histories, you will see that weapon choice often has more to do with politics than science. You see this in simulations and bull sessions.

The 5.45 versus 5.56 is really not an issue at all. The rounds are functionally similar in purpose, reason for adoption, and even design. In fact, there is more difference between the SS109 and the M193 versions of the 5.56x45mm than between the 5.56x45mm M193 and the 5.45x39mm 54 grain boat tail that is standard in Russia.

[Stephen]

If you are comparing a rifle chambered for one calibre with a rifle chambered for another, then you have to compare them:

with the same design of projectile

hitting the same target at the same point of entry, from the same angle

at the same range

Otherwise the comparison is not valid.

Therefore shot placement is irrelevant. You would be comparing apples to watermelons.

Therefore the effects of bullet shapes on wound tunnel are irrelevant. , as the projectile design is the same. Or you are comparing apples with bananas?

Energy expenditure in a semi-liquid, what kind of semi-liquid? Nobody has been able to build a model sufficiently like the human body. And if they did they would also have to model things like blood flow, adrenalin, hunger, emotion etc. The human body is not a homogeneous sac of fluid. A model is just a model, nothing more. You can not produce fact from a model, only theory. You might as well judge a rifle by how easily it knocks over a metal plate.

Effects of wound tunnel types? They would be the same if the same point of the human body were struck from the same angle, at the same range with the same design of projectile. Except effects caused by differences in the energy available to dump. Or are we comparing apples and grapefruit? A better question would be, which projectile was most likely to create any wound tunnel after hitting a metal object in the enemy infantryman?s webbing pouch first. Or which projectile was most likely to create any wound tunnel after penetrating wood before striking the enemy infantryman.

No unless you deliberately shoot a lot of people in a controlled environment, you cannot prove any rifle calibre is superior to another. You can only produce theory.

In infantry on infantry combat it is more important to cause casualties than to actually kill the enemy. Therefore things like over penetration are irrelevant, an excess of energy is not a problem.

Hundreds of years of research has proved some simple physics. You can?t do damage without energy. No energy, no damage, no wound tunnel. Pretty simple really.

The more energy the bigger the wound channel can be. Simple physics. Don?t forget you have to compare apples to apples. So you are comparing the same projectile type, hitting the same object, at the same place, at the same angle.

The energy of a moving body depends on it?s mass and velocity.

Sample calculations:

7.62 NATO:

Projectile weight: 9.3 gm, 144gr FMJ

Typical muzzle velocity: 835 m/sec

Energy at muzzle: 1/2*mass* velocity*velocity

½*9.3*835*835

= 3,242 joules

5.56mm M193:

Projectile weight: 3.56 gm, 55gr FMJ

Typical muzzle velocity: 1005 m/sec

Energy at muzzle: 1/2*mass* velocity*velocity

½*3.56*1005*1005

= 1,797 joules

5.56mm M855:

Projectile weight: 4.02 gm, 62gr FMJ

Typical muzzle velocity: 885 m/sec

Energy at muzzle: 1/2*mass* velocity*velocity

½*4.02*885*885

= 1,574 joules

Therefore 7.62 NATO has more energy at the barrel than 5.56. Therefore it is capable of doing more damage if it is using the same projectile type, hitting the same object, in the same place, at the same angle, at the barrel. Apples to apples.

Can you offer any reasoned argument that disproves this logic?

The US Army did not adopt 5.56mm because it is more effective than 7.62 NATO. It adopted it because they believe it is effective enough out to 400m. It is lighter and it is cheaper to manufacture and transport. I say again, it was not adopted because it was more effective!

If it was more effective than 7.62 NATO, then why has it not replaced 7.62 NATO MGs on AFVs? If the US Army was convinced it was more effective they would have replaced the MGs on AFVs!

No, 5.56 is not always better than 7.62 NATO!

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen:

If you are comparing a rifle chambered for one calibre with a rifle chambered for another, then you have to compare them:

with the same design of projectile

hitting the same target at the same point of entry, from the same angle

at the same range

Otherwise the comparison is not valid.

Therefore shot placement is irrelevant. You would be comparing apples to watermelons.

Therefore the effects of bullet shapes on wound tunnel are irrelevant. , as the projectile design is the same. Or you are comparing apples with bananas?

Energy expenditure in a semi-liquid, what kind of semi-liquid? Nobody has been able to build a model sufficiently like the human body. And if they did they would also have to model things like blood flow, adrenalin, hunger, emotion etc. The human body is not a homogeneous sac of fluid. A model is just a model, nothing more. You can not produce fact from a model, only theory. You might as well judge a rifle by how easily it knocks over a metal plate.

Effects of wound tunnel types? They would be the same if the same point of the human body were struck from the same angle, at the same range with the same design of projectile. Except effects caused by differences in the energy available to dump. Or are we comparing apples and grapefruit? A better question would be, which projectile was most likely to create any wound tunnel after hitting a metal object in the enemy infantryman?s webbing pouch first. Or which projectile was most likely to create any wound tunnel after penetrating wood before striking the enemy infantryman.

No unless you deliberately shoot a lot of people in a controlled environment, you cannot prove any rifle calibre is superior to another. You can only produce theory.

In infantry on infantry combat it is more important to cause casualties than to actually kill the enemy. Therefore things like over penetration are irrelevant, an excess of energy is not a problem.

Hundreds of years of research has proved some simple physics. You can?t do damage without energy. No energy, no damage, no wound tunnel. Pretty simple really.

The more energy the bigger the wound channel can be. Simple physics. Don?t forget you have to compare apples to apples. So you are comparing the same projectile type, hitting the same object, at the same place, at the same angle.

The energy of a moving body depends on it?s mass and velocity.

Sample calculations:

7.62 NATO:

Projectile weight: 9.3 gm, 144gr FMJ

Typical muzzle velocity: 835 m/sec

Energy at muzzle: 1/2*mass* velocity*velocity

½*9.3*835*835

= 3,242 joules

5.56mm M193:

Projectile weight: 3.56 gm, 55gr FMJ

Typical muzzle velocity: 1005 m/sec

Energy at muzzle: 1/2*mass* velocity*velocity

½*3.56*1005*1005

= 1,797 joules

5.56mm M855:

Projectile weight: 4.02 gm, 62gr FMJ

Typical muzzle velocity: 885 m/sec

Energy at muzzle: 1/2*mass* velocity*velocity

½*4.02*885*885

= 1,574 joules

Therefore 7.62 NATO has more energy at the barrel than 5.56. Therefore it is capable of doing more damage if it is using the same projectile type, hitting the same object, in the same place, at the same angle, at the barrel. Apples to apples.

Can you offer any reasoned argument that disproves this logic?

The US Army did not adopt 5.56mm because it is more effective than 7.62 NATO. It adopted it because they believe it is effective enough out to 400m. It is lighter and it is cheaper to manufacture and transport. I say again, it was not adopted because it was more effective!

If it was more effective than 7.62 NATO, then why has it not replaced 7.62 NATO MGs on AFVs? If the US Army was convinced it was more effective they would have replaced the MGs on AFVs!

No, 5.56 is not always better than 7.62 NATO!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You failed to read my previous posts. Please reread them and return with a refutation.

All research supports the conclusion that mussle energy does not = killing percentage excapt as a secondary variable with less than a .25 level of correlation. In addition, even if it did, then a through and through penetration (please read at least one of the major wound ballistic texts for the definition of this) then much of the energy is lost.

Wound placement is such a huge variable that it dwarfs all others, as is shown by when Mark Coates was killed by a .22 LR.

You need to better support your argument since muzzle energy has long ago been discarded as the largest variable in weapon power (in German it was discarded in the 1930s in fact).

Tanks have 7.62 machineguns because of range and because weight is not as much of an issue with a tank. I challenge you to find any documentation that states the 7.62x51mm MGs mounted on tanks in the US Army (or its allies) was mounted for killing power.

As I said before, if youi can better support your argument other than repeat over and over again that the 7.62 has more muzzle energy, then you would have the making of a very successful paper..

[Stephen]

No Slapdragon, you go back and read all your posts. The main assertion, that you seem to want to stick to, is that 5.56 is always better than 7.62 NATO.

If you read my last post properly, you will see that I have proven logically that if the rifles are is using the same projectile type, hitting the same object, in the same place, at the same angle, at the same range then 7.62 NATO is superior. You have to compare apples to apples.

That?s right, if EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL the more energy the better!

How many times do I have to say the same thing?

I have read texts and seen ? experimental results ? for the type of studies you are talking about. And none prove that 5.56mm is better than 7.62 NATO if the rifles are using the same projectile type, hitting the same object, in the same place, at the same angle, at the same range.

? Wound placement is such a huge variable ? Yes it is. But you can?t compare A to B if the wound placement is different! It would be a farcical comparison.

? other than repeat over and over again that the 7.62 has more muzzle energy ? I have not done that. I have been saying that if everything else is equal then the projectile with the most energy can do more damage.

Go back and look at my last post. I gave a logical argument as to why if everything else is equal then, the projectile with the most energy can do more damage, especially in a military environment.

?Tanks have 7.62 machineguns because of range and because weight is not as much of an issue with a tank. ? Thank you 5.56mm is not always better than 7.62 NATO. That?s what I?ve been saying!!

Where is the hole in my LOGIC?

Can you offer any reasoned argument that disproves my logic?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen:

No Slapdragon, you go back and read all your posts. The main assertion, that you seem to want to stick to, is that 5.56 is always better than 7.62 NATO.

If you read my last post properly, you will see that I have proven logically that if the rifles are is using the same projectile type, hitting the same object, in the same place, at the same angle, at the same range then 7.62 NATO is superior. You have to compare apples to apples.

That?s right, if EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL the more energy the better!

How many times do I have to say the same thing?

I have read texts and seen ? experimental results ? for the type of studies you are talking about. And none prove that 5.56mm is better than 7.62 NATO if the rifles are using the same projectile type, hitting the same object, in the same place, at the same angle, at the same range.

? Wound placement is such a huge variable ? Yes it is. But you can?t compare A to B if the wound placement is different! It would be a farcical comparison.

? other than repeat over and over again that the 7.62 has more muzzle energy ? I have not done that. I have been saying that if everything else is equal then the projectile with the most energy can do more damage.

Go back and look at my last post. I gave a logical argument as to why if everything else is equal then, the projectile with the most energy can do more damage, especially in a military environment.

?Tanks have 7.62 machineguns because of range and because weight is not as much of an issue with a tank. ? Thank you 5.56mm is not always better than 7.62 NATO. That?s what I?ve been saying!!

Where is the hole in my LOGIC?

Can you offer any reasoned argument that disproves my logic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, we were talking killing power, which was not why the 7.62 was retained for tanks one way or anothert.

Second, you failed to read and respond to my previous post.

I will bold the important passage:

Muzzle energy does not have a high correlation with stopping or killing power.

That does not mean it has no correlation, it has about a .25 correlations, which means if you had a 7.62 cal bullet with 1500 joules of energy and one with 3000 then the higher energy bullet would be about a quarter more effective all other things being equal, assuming that all of the energy from the bullet is dumped into the tissue.

Let me repeat for conception the previous statement, please read it:

Muzzle energy does not have a high correlation with stopping or killing power.

It has a moderate to low correlation with stopping or killing power.

Now, there are other problems with the 7.62 round. At battlefield ranges (under 300 meters being the average contact range for small arms actions since WW1) 7.62 overpenetrates the human body, sometimes leaving only having expended half its energy there (especially when shooting under 100 meters). The lighter 5.56 rounds slow down faster in the semi-liquid of the body, and thus dump energy more efficiently

At ranfes 5-700 meters, the 7.62x51mm comes back into its own in killing power, since it retains much more energy and its less efficient ballistic coefficient is not as much of an issue. But those ranges are way beyond the normal engagement range of infantry.

[Rifle1860]

You know, the nice thing about the 7.62 round is that you don't have to wait for them to step out from behind the tree.

[Carter]

Okay,

First, I believe the 7.62 mm NATO is more deadly than the 5.56 mm.

Yes, wound placement is the most important factor.

If the brain or upper spinal cord is hit, the wound can cause death or instantaneous incapacitation.

If the heart or major blood vessels are hit, the wound can make somebody bleed to death. But they will not die instantaneously. It will take a minimum of 10 to 15 seconds to lose consiousness.

If the fragile tissue of the brain or liver is affected by the temporary cavity of a bullet wound, the results can be fatal. Otherwise the temporary cavity is largely irrelevant.

However wound placement is often a difficult factor to control.

Yes, the 5.56 mm is more accurate on rapid fire at short range than the 7.62 mm. But the 7.62 mm is more accurate at long range. And most 7.62 mm weapons are mounted anyway.

You can carry more 5.56 mm rounds, so maybe the 5.56 mm has an advantage as far as wound placement. The infantryman has got more shots, that are more accurate at short range.

But as far as the actual wound, the 7.62 mm NATO looks like it is quite nasty.

Just look at that Figure 11 I mentioned before. The proof is there in black and white.

The problem of overpenetration is exagerated. The websites I listed say that a minimum of 12 inchs of (flesh) pentration is desirable. Obsticles, flak jackets, and clothing will slow a bullet down. You've got to penetrate to hit something vital, So in combat, you want a lot of penetration.

You also want a big permanent cavity.

The 7.62 mm NATO is a big, high energy round. It penetrates and leaves a big permanent cavity.

AP rounds and the 7.62 mm Short do have terminal effect problems. They get penetration, but mostly pass right through a "target", often leaving the "target" with a wound that looks more like a pistol wound.

The soft point 7.62 mm NATO fragements, and the 7.62 mm FMJ tumbles inside a "target", Enhancing the wound effects. Particularly the deadly permanent-cavity wounding effects.

To me, the 7.62 mm NATO soft point looks like an ideal anti-personnel round.

A shotgun wound also looks quite deadly.

The 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm NATO FMJ look second best as far as permanent cavity.

The 7.62 mm Short has penetration, but usually a small permanent cavity because it begins to tumble late.

The 5.45 mm has penetration and a smallish permanent cavity. A large temporary cavity increases its potential over the 7.62 mm Short because this makes the brain and liver more vulnerable. But, from what I've seen I'd take the 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm NATO over the 5.45 mm any day.

[Coyote]

Excellent summary by Carter. I would have to point out that the orginal question wasn't specific enough to warrant the excruciating detail in some of the posts above. Most of the disagreements I see are a result of equating the terminal ballistic performance of each round as synonymous with military effectiveness.

As Carter has pointed out above, terminal ballistics is the last factor that comes into play. The distribution of small arms calibers that we currently see in western military inventories is proof enough that few armies think either round is one-size-fits-all solution for modern combat.

The only thing I can add to Carter's post is that "tumbling" is not an intentional design characteristic of any of these rounds. Prior to impact, tumbling results from either a mis-match between bullet weight, velocity, and rate-of-spin (or poor manufacturing quality control). This results in a loss of accuracy and fewer hits.

When we traded in our M16-A1s for A2s, the documentation summarized the changes in the weapon. The 62 grain bullet was introduced to take along with the faster barrel twist of the M16-A2. This produced better accuracy and more penetration for only a small increase in weight.

Coyote

See you at Fiddler's Green.

[Stephen]

Slapdragon,

Glad to see you have not found an error in my logic yet!

"if you had a 7.62 cal bullet with 1500 joules of energy and one with 3000 then the higher energy bullet would be about a quarter more effective all other things being equal" Good you agree! If EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL the more energy the better!

I don?t care if it is only 10% better, it is still better than 0%

?we were talking killing power? I?m not! I?m addressing the apparent assersitions in your earlier posts that 5.56mm is always better than 7.62 NATO. Specifically I am talking about knock down in a military environment.

You said ?Of the three rounds it has the lowest penetration and lowest wound channel effect, although it is superior to the 7.62x39mm in penetration. The round out ranges the ability of an infantryman to use it by around 600 meters.? Can you see the contradiction in that quote compared to your later comments?

And ?The 7.62 is not an ineffective round, it is just not as deadly as the 5.56 of either variety.?

And the general tone of your posts, especially your earlier ones, points to an assertion that 5.56 is always better than 7.62 NATO

So I am talking about 5.56mm versus 7.62 NATO in a military environment. If you go back and read my posts you will see that!

?At battlefield ranges (under 300 meters being the average contact range for small arms actions since WW1) 7.62 overpenetrates the human body? OK let?s talk about this now.

In a military environment overpenetration is not a problem because the object of the exercise is to cause casualties, not fatalities. The immediate concern is to stop the threat, put the enemy down. In fact a wounded soldier is a larger logistical and administrative burden to the enemy than a fatality. Do you agree?

Summary:

If EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL the more energy the better! ? agreed.

Overpenetration ? under discussion

Cover & concealment ? in abeyance

I do agree that the lighter 5.56 rounds slow down faster in some semi-liquid mediums and thus dump energy more efficiently. But I can?t agree that ?The lighter 5.56 rounds slow down faster in the semi-liquid of the body, and thus dump energy more efficiently? because nobody has found a model of the human body sufficiently accurate enough to prove this.

We can discuss this later, if you like. For now let?s stick to one ?issue? at a time. Overpenetration.

Anything we should discuss that I have missed?

?At ranfes 5-700 meters, the 7.62x51mm comes back into its own in killing power?. Good! Another admission that 5.56mm is not always better than 7.62 NATO.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen:

Slapdragon,

Glad to see you have not found an error in my logic yet!

"if you had a 7.62 cal bullet with 1500 joules of energy and one with 3000 then the higher energy bullet would be about a quarter more effective all other things being equal" Good you agree! If EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL the more energy the better!

I don?t care if it is only 10% better, it is still better than 0%

?we were talking killing power? I?m not! I?m addressing the apparent assersitions in your earlier posts that 5.56mm is always better than 7.62 NATO. Specifically I am talking about knock down in a military environment.

You said ?Of the three rounds it has the lowest penetration and lowest wound channel effect, although it is superior to the 7.62x39mm in penetration. The round out ranges the ability of an infantryman to use it by around 600 meters.? Can you see the contradiction in that quote compared to your later comments?

And ?The 7.62 is not an ineffective round, it is just not as deadly as the 5.56 of either variety.?

And the general tone of your posts, especially your earlier ones, points to an assertion that 5.56 is always better than 7.62 NATO

So I am talking about 5.56mm versus 7.62 NATO in a military environment. If you go back and read my posts you will see that!

?At battlefield ranges (under 300 meters being the average contact range for small arms actions since WW1) 7.62 overpenetrates the human body? OK let?s talk about this now.

In a military environment overpenetration is not a problem because the object of the exercise is to cause casualties, not fatalities. The immediate concern is to stop the threat, put the enemy down. In fact a wounded soldier is a larger logistical and administrative burden to the enemy than a fatality. Do you agree?

Summary:

If EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL the more energy the better! ? agreed.

Overpenetration ? under discussion

Cover & concealment ? in abeyance

I do agree that the lighter 5.56 rounds slow down faster in some semi-liquid mediums and thus dump energy more efficiently. But I can?t agree that ?The lighter 5.56 rounds slow down faster in the semi-liquid of the body, and thus dump energy more efficiently? because nobody has found a model of the human body sufficiently accurate enough to prove this.

We can discuss this later, if you like. For now let?s stick to one ?issue? at a time. Overpenetration.

Anything we should discuss that I have missed?

?At ranfes 5-700 meters, the 7.62x51mm comes back into its own in killing power?. Good! Another admission that 5.56mm is not always better than 7.62 NATO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to read my comments a bit betterr. I responded on the killing power of the 5.56 and never once mentioned anything else in my original post. You are arguing with yourself. I never saidf that in every situation in all circumstances the 7.62x51mm was any better, you made that one up yourself and have been doing point counter point with yourself ever since.

As for muzzle energy: reread my previous comments. I cannot post anything else until you actually read what I have to say, it would be pointless.

I am serious that I do not mind discussing this, but I a fencing match with no scientific purpose is no good.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Stephen]

Slapdragon,

?I never saidf that in every situation in all circumstances the 7.62x51mm was any better? I?m not sure what you mean. Because you have been saying 5.56 is superior.

You did say ?The 7.62 is not an ineffective round, it is just not as deadly as the 5.56 of either variety.? Pretty plain to me. NO exceptions there!!!

I?m glad you now agree with me that 5.56mm is not always better that 7.62 NATO.

?As for muzzle energy: reread my previous comments. I cannot post anything else until you actually read what I have to say, it would be pointless.?

You said ?if you had a 7.62 cal bullet with 1500 joules of energy and one with 3000 then the higher energy bullet would be about a quarter more effective all other things being equal?

A pretty clear statement that if EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL the more energy the better! Do you agree?

Let?s get things straight, one simple point at a time.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen:

Slapdragon,

?I never saidf that in every situation in all circumstances the 7.62x51mm was any better? I?m not sure what you mean. Because you have been saying 5.56 is superior.

You did say ?The 7.62 is not an ineffective round, it is just not as deadly as the 5.56 of either variety.? Pretty plain to me. NO exceptions there!!!

I?m glad you now agree with me that 5.56mm is not always better that 7.62 NATO.

?As for muzzle energy: reread my previous comments. I cannot post anything else until you actually read what I have to say, it would be pointless.?

You said ?if you had a 7.62 cal bullet with 1500 joules of energy and one with 3000 then the higher energy bullet would be about a quarter more effective all other things being equal?

A pretty clear statement that if EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL the more energy the better! Do you agree?

Let?s get things straight, one simple point at a time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will reserve comment in order to keep the peace until you address my points. For example, you ignored "at standard rifle ranges, the 5.56x45mm is more deadly than the 7.62x51mm" in coming up with your idea that I was claiming that the 7.62x51mm was weaker in all situations. Since my statement on muzzle energy as a causal factor in killing factor compared to other variables is a key factor, we should instead start there.

[Carter]

Just to clarify about what I meant by tumbling . . .

The tumbling I was speaking of is a yaw that occurs on the bullet after the bullet strikes it's "target"

Often a bullet will begin to turn as it passes through flesh. If the bullet stays together it will probably turn 180 degrees, exiting the "target" back-end first.

This can be seen in Figure 7: http://www.vnh.org/EWSurg/Figures/Fig07.html

This turning increases the size of the temporary and permanent wound cavities.

[Stephen]

Slapdragon,

Actually the entire paragraph you wrote is:

"The "few victims shot in the torso" is the key there, not the 7.62. The 7.62 is not an ineffective round, it is just not as deadly as the 5.56 of either variety."

Nothing about range there! And as I said before it is the general tone of your posts, especially your earlier ones.

"I will reserve comment in order to keep the peace until you address my points." Me address your points! What about the logic of my argument, that I asked you comment on?

In fact I have asked you seven questions. And you have answered one of them.

I suggest you go back and read the entire tread. I have presented a logically set out argument and asked you to comment on it. Which you have refused to do.

There is obviously no point in discussing anything with you. You even misquote yourself! See the example is above.

And I have done my best to ignore your condescending remarks.

Even your footer does not seem appropriate for a reasonable person.

Targets down, patch out.

Stephen

( who has found, in the past, that many academics do not have an open mind )

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen:

Slapdragon,

Actually the entire paragraph you wrote is:

"The "few victims shot in the torso" is the key there, not the 7.62. The 7.62 is not an ineffective round, it is just not as deadly as the 5.56 of either variety."

Nothing about range there! And as I said before it is the general tone of your posts, especially your earlier ones.

"I will reserve comment in order to keep the peace until you address my points." Me address your points! What about the logic of my argument, that I asked you comment on?

In fact I have asked you seven questions. And you have answered one of them.

I suggest you go back and read the entire tread. I have presented a logically set out argument and asked you to comment on it. Which you have refused to do.

There is obviously no point in discussing anything with you. You even misquote yourself! See the example is above.

And I have done my best to ignore your condescending remarks.

Even your footer does not seem appropriate for a reasonable person.

Targets down, patch out.

Stephen

( who has found, in the past, that many academics do not have an open mind )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stephen, I want to point out that you started out the conversation with a rather anti-intellectual comment "I'm sorry but what a stupid statement!" If you had intended a more soft response perhaps you should have made a more intellectual rejoinder to my comments. Perhaps it would have been useful if you had looked into references, presented data, and developed an argument instead of flying off the handle. If you notice I was always calm and just requested that you needed to read more on the subject, and that you could, assuming you could make your theories stick, publish on the subject very easily.

If this discussion was nonscientific or just a barromm discussion, it should probably have been labled that way. I noticed that some very smart people posted, such as the Major, Gyrene, and Andrew Hedges.

I put forward though that the game in question is a highly academic attempt to simulate real world events, and a highly successful one, so academics should never be left out.

Oddly enough, in another thread on a different forum, I was made fun of for being a reserve deputy sherrif, since we know nothing about firearms -- your swipe at academia means exactly the same thing, nothing.

Still, the points I made earlier are still valid. Muzzle energy is not the be all of weapon deadliness. Shot placement (center of mass) is much more important as a variable than the difference between the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45mm. Science now has shown that the faster, smaller bullet dumps energy more effiently into a target, and other factors such as mass of round is very important.

Refute my points with facts or lash out as you like, it means nothing to me. I am not here to flame, merely to discuss wargaming simulations. I am not here to fight you, and gladly yield the field to you -- that despite years of study to the contrary, the 7.62 is the deadliest round ever made for assault rifles.

[argie]

For an interesting accountt on combat use of 5.56 against 7.62, I suggest to found something about the Top Malo House combat between Argentine Commandos and British SAS in Malvina's war. An Argentinian Commando receved 5 shots, IIRC, from a M16, plus a nother one that hits his FAL and continues teh fight until he got surrendered. This don't means that in any case 7.62 is better than 5.56. But, for instance, teh 5.56 round that hits the FAL didn't disable it.

Reports from Argentines shoted by M16 said that the 5.56 has a tendency to overpenetrate at close range. Strange, considering that test done with pigs (a sort of semiliquid sustance) shows that the terminal ballistic of 5.56 has a different behaviour.

Anyway, Argentine Army wanted to switch to 5.56 after Malvinas.

Another thing to have in mind is that those combats were fought in very cold climate conditions: the bullets lose speed faster (the lighter ones more faster) and the ballistic is a bit different. This could have also affected terminal balistic in some way.

But, I'm not an academic and I don'yt know squat about firing weapons