Use of ATGM

[Battlefront.com]

Err, the XM-25 uses a 25mm grenade. The XM29 would have used 5.56mm in a secondary weapon, but only because the amount in service/stocks, like the British sticking with the .303 for such a long time.

DOH! I keep confusing XM-25 with XM-29 and vice versa. Yeah, I was meant XM-29. And yes, one of the main reasons to stay with 5.56 is the "comfort" factor.

Kip,

This may have been mentioned previously but when it comes to the 7.62mm v 5.56mm discussions it is worth remembering that Finland never deserted the heavier bullet.

Many nations still use the H&K G3, which uses 7.62. Some, like Germany and Spain, have apparently fully converted to the 5.56 G36. I'm not up on the conversion schedules for such countries as Norway and Denmark, so for all I know they are in the process of switching over to the G36.

Steve

[akd]

I thought Norway had decided to stick with the G3, but I may be thinking of another country.

[Kurtz]

Doesn't Finland use the 7.62x39 round?

[akd]

Originally posted by Kurtz:

Doesn't Finland use the 7.62x39 round?

Yes.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And yes, one of the main reasons to stay with 5.56 is the "comfort" factor.

Yeah that's a really good reason - plenty of Empire & Commonwealth soldiers had "comfort" from their .303's during WW's 1 & 2 because the Brits stuck with it rather than adopting the .280

At least the Brits had the excuse of being flat broke - I've just read that there's a bit of a shortage of 5.56mm ammo at the moment, and with all the recent usage many US weapons are due for replacement.....

[John Kettler]

Saw a Tales of the Gun episode featuring extensive interviews with Sergei? Kalashnikov (of AK fame). It's worth noting that he bitterly opposed the move to a smaller caliber cartridge for the new AK (AK-74

in 5.45mm). He felt that battlefield performance would suffer under many conditions and pushed hard for upgrading the 7.62mm cartridge, but was overruled.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Kurtz]

Amatuers talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.

The logistical advantages of 5.56 vs 7.62 are huge. Logistics win wars, individual rounds of rifle ammo doesn't.

IIRC the reduced size and weight of the ammo was one of the major selling points of the Heckler & Koch G11 with caseless ammo.

We should remember that the 5.56 round was decided upon based on experiences from WW2 (and Korea?), major conflicts. Not the conflicts of today.

In the context of a major conflict, 5.56 is a good round. The soldier can carry plenty of them, it's probably less likely to kill than the 7.62, but wounding the enemy is "better" in a full-scale war. Shorter range wasn't a real problem since the infantry squad couldn't engage the enemy outside the range of its anti-armour weapons (LAW). This because the enemy rode in armoured vehicles.

The times have changed, today it might be desirable to have a round that will kill the enemy instantly, and the range of the new anti-armor weapons are much, much longer (Javelin).

But switch to 7.62 and you'll be able to carry only half as much (?) ammo for the same weight, or leave something else behind.

5.56 is an excellent round for World War III, but is it as bad today as the critics say? Or is it just nostalgia speaking?

The reluctance of some nations to adopt 5.56 might be economic as well. Without World War III looming on the horizon, there's no perceived need to upgrade something as mundane as the rifle, especially when performance can be enhanced with new sights etc. I think Norway intended to replace their G3's with G11's, but that never happened.

[Denwad]

6.8mm

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Kurtz:

We should remember that the 5.56 round was decided upon based on experiences from WW2 (and Korea?), major conflicts. Not the conflicts of today.

So was the 7.62mm x 39 and the British .280 - the choice of 5.56mm was solely due to it being the favoured round by the USA, who refused to comtemplate adopting anything designed by anyone else for purely internal poitical reasons.

Realists talk politics!!

In the context of a major conflict, 5.56 is a good round. The soldier can carry plenty of them,

Which of course means you have to make and ship more of them, which makes logistics that little bit more difficult.

In this context the article above does talk magazine capacitied - where you can put 30 556 rounds in a magazine the current 6.8 SPC design will fit 28, and the 6.5 Grendel will fit 25.

[Kurtz]

5.56 or .280 - it doesn't really matter. I meant the choice of a smaller round than the rifle rounds used at the time (30-06, .303, 7.92 etc).

Smaller rounds are (probably) cheaper in the long to manufacture. And with a given size and volume - would you like 1 or 2 rounds when going to war? Would you like to have 1 or two rounds when you're running out of ammo?

One can argue that it's better to get one round that does the job, than two rounds that doesn't, but I still think the smaller rounds (5.56 or whatever) are fine for the war they were designed for. Which may not be the war they are used in today.

I assume the 7.62x39 was replaced by the 5.45 x whatever for logistical reasons as well.

However, it's a lot of anecdotal evidence mixed with nostalgia, methinks... Would the situation in Iraq be much better if the troops carried 7.62N rifles? Would it have made a significant difference in Somalia?

Replacing all 5.56 weapons with a 6.8 mm is a big task, economically and logistically. Does the new ammo types really have such big advantages? Does all weapons need replacement, if not, you get a new ammo type in the inventory.

It's comparatively easy for a special forces-type unit to adopt a new wepaon or ammo, but doing the same in the entire ary is a much bigger task.

[Peter Cairns]

The other option is to go for an advanced round such as the germans did that has the bullet inbedded in a block of propellemt. this lets you have a bigger calibre but not necessarily a bigger round.

The new 40mm Compact rounds are actually smaller than 30mm rounds and about the same size as a 25mm.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

I've read that Russian troops in Chechniya do whatever they can to get a hold of the older line of small arms vs. the current ones simply because they don't like the newer, smaller round.

Stalin's Organist

Which of course means you have to make and ship more of them, which makes logistics that little bit more difficult.

No, the net effect on logistics should be better. Ammo is shipped in boxes in sleeves in cases which are ultimately in palettes. Logistics thinks in terms of cases and palettes. A palette of 5.56 is going to contain more rounds than a palette of 7.62. The logistics only change to favor 7.62 if soldiers use more 5.56 than they would 7.62 and that the extra usage exceeds the amount of surplus 5.56 rounds.

I don't really know what the answer is to 5.56 vs. 7.62 because soldiers can't make up their minds. On the one hand you hear them saying "I want a more powerful round, and I don't care about the extra weight" and then in the next breath they complain bitterly about how much weight they have to hump around. I've also not heard any of these soldiers relate to combat experience firing off a 7.62 rifle in combat conditions for a few weeks with poor nutrition and lack of sleep. The recoil between the two rounds is very significant, so I'm curious how combat fatigue would be affected by the larger round.

Like I said, I don't have a clue which is the better round overall. I do know, however, that there are tradeoffs that must be considered, and Humans in general are very bad at evaluating them when they only have experience with one. You get some who say that what they have is the better choice simply because that is what they have experience with, while others are "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" types who tend to opt for whatever they don't have. Very tough to sort through

Steve

[Guest Mike]

So we shold be looking for .1mm rounds in the near future??!!

Sorry - I forgot to put a smiley in the original post you quoted.

as you say - pallets are the unit of currency for logistics, but they are of no interest to the people who have to use the weapons and who rely upon them for their lives.

One of hte reports I read yesterday mentioned somewhere on this forum (can't find it now - will edit in the link if I do) mentioned that the soldiers in Iraq favoured reliability above everything else, lethality 2nd, and weight nowhere.

now most of those soldiers would be young chaps with no experience of anything apart from their scale of issue weapons, so aren't really the people I'd quote on comparative effectiveness of weapons, but I take their point - a weapon is nothign if it isn't working, and it is only marginally better if it is working but can't kill the bad guy.

On the matter of lethality I'm of the conviction that "gossip" about lack of lethality is a sure sign that there is a problem of some sort, and that official explainations that say that ther eisn't a problem (as long as you have good marksmanship, proper maintenance, operate in pairs and have the right tactics) only serve to confirm my opinion in me!!

Marksmanship is a give of course - you aint' gonna kill/incapacitate anyone you can't hit - but telling soldiers to take head and torso shots is a sign that something's wrong - a head shot will kill or incapacitate with almost any weapon - even a rock, and a solid punch to the gut would put me out for several minutes!! I expect more from a military rifle!

The concept of blowing an limb off by hitting a bone makes sense in this context....although imagining it is quite horrific

[juan_gigante]

Wait - how many threads are there now that are just about rifle caliburs? They're multiplying! It's almost as if... as if... they're alive.

[Dillweed]

Jokes about round size and "what you do with it" aside, I personally believe that skill can overcome limited round size. Bullets to small? Practice. Doesn't matter if you have a .22 or a 22mm if you hit him in the forehead.

Yeah, training troops for headshots is over the top. But for a more realistic example I would imagine putting 3 5.56s (from say, and m-16 burst) into a center mass would drop someone pretty much as well as a single 7.62 to the same area.

Removing my tounge from my cheek, I do have a question.

Whats the average infantry combat distance these days? I remember reading that in WW2 it was something like 50m. At this distance whoever threw out the most lead would usually win. Hence the assult rifle. Assuming that this is still the case today (a fairly big IF) I would imagine that the ability to carry more rounds (and therefore send more downrange) would be a signifigant advantage over a smaller number of bigger rounds, as the vast majority are going to be misses anyway.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

Wait - how many threads are there now that are just about rifle caliburs?

Dunno - but there's ..let's see....2 about rifle calibers

They're multiplying!

1 x 2 = 2?

It's almost as if... as if... they're alive.

So they're up to the normal level of sentience around here already - "almost" alive?!

[hellfish]

Stop being so literal.

[Guest Mike]

Follow your own advice!

[Peter Cairns]

I read a report by SIPRI ( Stockholm Institute of Peace Research Studies) years back on the ballastic effects of 5.56mm rounds. Two things emerged.

Firstly because of the shape, (long thin) they tended to shatter more when they hit bone, distort and tumble, particularly if they have lost energy and are "wobbling" in flight. This caused them to create a shockwave in the body as they disappated energy.

Secondly when the looked a brains where the bulllet had passed through one side and out the other, say completely through the right hemisphere and out the back, they found limited damage, a clean hole front and back and a path.

However when they looked at the other hemisphere, it was mush, as the round hade created a pressure wave which not only burst the opposite hemisphere to the path, but was sometimes strong enough to fracture that side of the skull along the weak points.

So at close range when velocity is very high (close to 1,000mps), it can pass straight through and leave a clean hole and cause little damage bcause it doesn't deform or slow or cause a pressure wave.

Howver at lower speeds at at say over 100m or so, when it gives up more energy or has begun to wobble a bit, or if it hits bone or the skull it can have devastating effects.

Conclusion.

There is a lot more to bullet effects than just calibre.

Peter.

[vincere]

I don't really know what the answer is to 5.56 vs. 7.62 because soldiers can't make up their minds. On the one hand you hear them saying "I want a more powerful round, and I don't care about the extra weight" and then in the next breath they complain bitterly about how much weight they have to hump around.

Soldiers have right to bitch

I guess another aspect to factor in is that as better body armour is fielded so the need for AP and penetration increases. A little liek the trend for bigger guns on tanks.

[Dillweed]

For a "peace research" institute they seem to be shooting a lot of (what are hopefully) corpses in the head.

[juan_gigante]

Stalin's Organist, you'll eat your words when BFC is forced to open an entire "Rifle Caliburs" forum to store the threads on the topic. On day, you'll learn that you should heeded my words.

Edit: If this discussion here counts as a thread on threads on rifle caliburs, we all lose.

[Guest Mike]

Yep - when they do that I'll have an entre of nouns, a main course of verbs and conjunctions, and desert of grammatical marks