5.56 or 7.62?

[l3w53r]

Hello, sory for(1)butting in,and (2)replying to a two-month-old topic.

Ok...(1)I just thought that killing power are just for games like counter-strike.Thing is, I dont think you have to kill, or even physically wound the enemy at all.You'll just have to scare the crap out of him.

(2)Then, my father tells me of an issue with the 5.56, he says the bullets get deflected in tall blades of grass(the type found in tropical countries).

(3)also, I think combatants would not be really exposed, they'd be taking cover right? and i think having better penetration would mean something, even if it's just a couple of milimeters better.

(4)And even though the 5.56 can be heard less, I think the cracking sound of a 7.62 would be better for shaking enemies up.plus concealment is a bit harder these days, with a lot of gadgets sprouting up.

(5)and if the enemy gets out of cover,I think a 3-burst shot can do the job, and having a higher velocity would make more accurate shots at longer ranges.

(6)I think having more ammo would make soldiers use weapons more recklessly.Knowing that you have a relatively small load of ammo would make you shoot more carefully, making accurate shots and putting fear inyo the enmy knowing that the shot are aimed(by the proximity of where the bullets hit and the sound of the rifle firing

(7)The killing power again does not matter much, it all depends where you hit, and if you dont hit anything important, then you might as well give the enemy a good scare. I think seeing a bullet rip through comrade and throw up a small cloud of dirt when it hits something solid would scare someone more than seeing a comrade fall with a 5.56.

Just the thoughts of a 14-yr old still learning about things.=)

[Slapdragon]

Lets take these one at a time. This data is coming from my departmental armorer, who is dictating to me, but I will get further information later.

First off you have to realize that this is one of those topics that just cannot be discussed rationally in many cases, people will always believe bigger is better, and the cult of marksmanship runs too deep for rational discussion in many cases, however, here is current military think current in all western nations and Russia based on more than a hundred years of experience with cased long arms.

First, you need to discard the bigger is better falacy. Police have been studying gunfights for years, and recently the FBI released a list of the highest stopping power rounds based on a single center of mass body hit. .44 Magnum? .44 Automag? If you guessed those were the best stopping rounds, you would be wrong. Both scored in the high 70s. The best stopping round in street use is the .357 Magnum with a score of 97. .45 ACP has score in the middle 80s, right next to 9mm. Turns out .44 Magnum over penetrates the human body, even though it will be thought to be best by many. (In fact, the absolute best stopping round is the 5.6mm FN Tactical Round, which cannot be purchased by civilians).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by l3w53r:

Hello, sory for(1)butting in,and (2)replying to a two-month-old topic.

Ok...(1)I just thought that killing power are just for games like counter-strike.Thing is, I dont think you have to kill, or even physically wound the enemy at all.You'll just have to scare the crap out of him.

<hr></blockquote>

Killing power is secondary to stopping power in military weapons, but more important is suppressing power, which is related to # of rounds accurately fired in the general area of a soldier. This is because of a combat theory called tipping points, where two groups are fighting, the guys who duck and hide first get stuck into position and are more difficult to control by their leaders. They also cannot complete missions. When one guy ducks because things get to hot and quits firing, then the next guy is more likely to duck, and so on, until you get the entire unit on the ground. Then artillery can do the real dispersion since the unit is immobile.

That is not to say that military rifle power does not have its place in taking out enemy soldiers (for example a shock ambush uses the killing power of an infantry rifle), just that its job is to hold the enemy in place and not primarily to seek out and kill individual soldiers.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by l3w53r:

(2)Then, my father tells me of an issue with the 5.56, he says the bullets get deflected in tall blades of grass(the type found in tropical countries).

<hr></blockquote>

Your father is mistaken. If the M16A2 rifles used by my department are not seriously deflected by the wind shield of a car, how would a blade of grass with little or no mass create a serious deflection. While hunting with a 5.56 rifle, I have taken shots through grass dozens of times and never had a deflection that caused a serious miss.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by l3w53r:

(3)also, I think combatants would not be really exposed, they'd be taking cover right? and i think having better penetration would mean something, even if it's just a couple of milimeters better.

<hr></blockquote>

Penetration is an issue, which is why modern 5.56 was redesigned to have a better penetration, but a person under cover by definition cannot be reached by any man portable infantry weapon. Which is why infantry units carry grenade launchers.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by l3w53r:

(4)And even though the 5.56 can be heard less, I think the cracking sound of a 7.62 would be better for shaking enemies up.plus concealment is a bit harder these days, with a lot of gadgets sprouting up.

<hr></blockquote>

5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm both crack as the bullets pass through the air at supersonic speed. My issue .40 SW Glock cracks, my personal HP-35 9mm makes a crack, and so forth. I am not sure how much a soldier thinks, "well hell, they are only firing 5.45 instead of 7.62 at me the wimps, I will just get up and do an old fashion bayonet charge on the gamey bastards" when they are being fired on. I know that in the shooting simulator, when a plastic ball zings past my head (those things hurt like hell) I am scared stiff and want to duck and hide.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by l3w53r:

(5)and if the enemy gets out of cover,I think a 3-burst shot can do the job, and having a higher velocity would make more accurate shots at longer ranges.

<hr></blockquote>

Here you are arguing for the 5.56 series of weapons, which are normally associated with burst firing mechanisms. 5.56 though does not have the range of 7.62, which is its only disadvantage, and which is why it is not commonly used in company level suppression weapons. Since infantry confrontation occurs at much shorter range, the 5.56 is right at home.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by l3w53r:

(6)I think having more ammo would make soldiers use weapons more recklessly.Knowing that you have a relatively small load of ammo would make you shoot more carefully, making accurate shots and putting fear inyo the enmy knowing that the shot are aimed(by the proximity of where the bullets hit and the sound of the rifle firing

<hr></blockquote>

This was the military thinking for the first 50 years of the last century, and it turned out to be wrong. Making your men count their shots is a great way to loose firefights. Aimed fire happens so rarely on the modern battlefield as to be a major event (read Gantner where he devotes 20 pages to the firefight where he got to first (and last) use aimed fire, 6 months into his tour of combat).

That is not to say that wild rock and roll automatic firing into the air is good. Instead, short bursts fired in the area of opposition to suppress and possibly hit the enemy is the trick now used to win firefights.

Otherwise you need to ask yourself why every major military in the world has gone to smaller calibers, more ammo on the individual soldiers' backs, and controlled automatic fire.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by l3w53r:

(7)The killing power again does not matter much, it all depends where you hit, and if you dont hit anything important, then you might as well give the enemy a good scare. I think seeing a bullet rip through comrade and throw up a small cloud of dirt when it hits something solid would scare someone more than seeing a comrade fall with a 5.56.

Just the thoughts of a 14-yr old still learning about things.=)<hr></blockquote>

I am not sure that you can tell the difference. I have seen 4 shootings, one with a .22, a couple with 9mm, and one with a hunting rifle, and except for one of the 9mm to the head I see no real difference between the size of the hole, even between pistol and rifle. Now maybe I am just not that perceptive, and a soldier has special training they do not give the police to recognize what caliber of shell has struck their comrads, but somehow I doubt that a guy looking over at his buddy who has just been stitched with a 5.45x39mm just shrugs and says, "hey sarge, they only have .22s, why where we ducking anyway?"

[Gyrene]

On the matter of range, both the 7.62 and the 5.56 are just as accurate at ranges of 400 yards and below, and most engagements happen well within that distance, the 7.62 will have more energy left at that range, of course, but the 5.56 is still considered effective at 400 yards also.

I doubt that soldiers in a firefight would care whether they are getting shot at by 5.56 or 7.62, they would not be able to tell the difference much, as if they were getting shot at by a .50 cal.

Most, if not all military standard issue ammo are solid core FMJ rounds as denoted by the Geneva Convention (No hollow points allowed) and all overpenetrate the human body and are very good against light cover light wooden buildings & such. The extra penetration of a 7.62 would seem to give it an edge, but the higher volume allowed by the 5.56 evens things out.

Miniguns firing 7.62 in Air Force service in Vietnam were held to be just as good as .50 cal's in penetrating the Jungle canopy when fired from Jolly Greens solely due to the minigun's huge rate of fire.

If heavy body armor (Beyond flak jackets) ever becomes widespread, then a heavier cartridge like the 7.62 would be at the advantage, but as it stands both 5.56 & 7.62 will go thru common "Second Chance" type vests.

One of the more dangerous rounds you can face is the lowly .22LR, whose slow speed leaves a large entry wound and almost always deviates course in the body and does not exit, causing a very complicated and dangeorus wound to treat.

Gyrene

[109 Gustav]

Slappy-

How does the .30 Carbine round stack up against the other small caliber rounds? Does it also become unstable and tumble?

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 109 Gustav:

Slappy-

How does the .30 Carbine round stack up against the other small caliber rounds? Does it also become unstable and tumble?<hr></blockquote>

The FBI listing does not include .30 Carbine, probably because not enough people get shot with them anymore to build data. However, post World War two tests found that the .30 Carbine was a "better killer" than the 9mm or .45, each of which get 83 scores in the FBI scale of stopping power.

The FBI test of stopping power tends to pile rifle bullets together since center of mass hits from most rifle bullets are pretty devestating things. No one in their right mind goes to a fight they know will happen armed with a pistol or a weapon that fires pistol rounds. Many Sherriff's departments until very recently issued carbines to deputies because the .30 Carbine is a good killer, penetrates doors well on cars and houses, is small and easy to fire, and is fairly reliable for street use. The M16, until two or three years ago, was considered to powerful for street use.

Now things have changed, and a sprinkling of deputies on every shift of better equipped forces have an M16 or an FM SMG, and everyone that passes has a shotgun for back up. The day is coming when law enforcement may have to step up from our current pistols to something with more punch -- mostly because we are again being outgunned by people who wear body armor to do bad things. Of course we are trained to deal with body armor, but it still sucks.