M14 video

[Lee]

I didn't say the M14 was a sniper rifle, I said it's a good battle rifle for use in the DMR role (many of these seem to have been accurized with match grade barrels, etc. for this use) or in a general combat/assault use. For a true sniper rifle, I think you're generally better off with a highly precise bolt action rifle like the M24 or M40. But if the army wanted to buy some dedicated semi-auto rifles, then I'd lean toward the PSG-1. The point is that the M14 is good for both DMR and assault, and will be very reliable in either role, even in heavy sustained fire combat situations.

As to whether the M14 (or some other high quality battle rifle in .308) should completely replace the M16, you can go to many gun enthusiast boards and debate that all day, that debate has been raging for years. And there are quite a few combat-knowledgeable people on the subject that would say it's a good idea. In any case, that's not the point here. I think a good compromise would be to have in addition to the DMR a second guy (he would be the second best marksman in the unit) that would have an M14 set up in assault configuration (not DMR with big scope) that could take point on building assaults and such with maneuverable firepower that would drop enemies in their tracks like a sack of potatoes in the first round or two, as well as to help out in engaging targets farther out than the M16/M4 would tend to be effective at. Those two guys could also share ammo as needed.

As to the point about intermediate rounds, there is validity to that. But bear in mind that both the StG 44 and AK-47 both used rounds of 7.62 or greater size, which are quite effective. The .223 is considered by many to be too light a round based on less-than-stellar combat results in a variety of situations. Just about any heavier round than .223 would be better, even if we didn't go to a full .308 battle rifle.

Yes, it is true, despite popular belief, that the M16 runs better when well-oiled. But it's still not going to run as reliably on average under heavy fire conditions as the H&K 416 will.

Another video of the M14 in assault configuration in action.

[Lee]

Dietrich: Yeah, just about anything would be better than .223, 6.8mm SPC is another interesting one.

[flamingknives]

Going on theory, I'd go for the same as all my mates, so:

a) I don't sound/look different and get myself shot

I can nick ammo off them if I run out.

c) I stand at least an outside chance that I can get the right spare parts off my unit armourer, should I need them.

But that's not really going to fly if everyone thinks that getting hit by 5.56mm NATO (derived from .223 but a bit different) is like getting hit with a rolled-up newspaper.

I wonder if I could find volunteers for some live tests. I'd start with .22lr and work out and see how long people are willing to stand and take it.

[lomir]

I would ask for a blaster rifle with a lightsaber as back up With a 6.5 mm Grendel weapon you were going to have a serious headache looking for some spare ammunition, Dietrich, as that cartridge is as rare to find in military logistics as hell My apologies in advance because I don't want to make fun of it (just kidding a little) but I think that is a very uncommon choice

[Rustman]

The vast percentage of small arms ammunition just gets sprayed in the general direction of the enemy, and that is for very well trained troops. The hit rate for poorly trained troops must infinitesimal. So there is a real debate to be had on the merits of both sides of weight vs lethality. The Army seems to be trying to put the whole argument off until DARPA or somebody like them comes up with a truly revolutionary "something".

"Sprayed" isn't really an accurate term to use. The military has been back and forth on it. It used to be that accurate fire was the focus...then in Vietnam they decided that massed firepower was more effective than any particular single soldier's ability to put steel on target at range...now things have swung back toward the middle again. I think that where things are right now is probably about as perfect as you are gonna get in terms of firepower vs precision fires balance. The biggest thing is that generally in combat, you aren't shooting at individuals, but positions. It's not like the range where you have this sillouetted pop-up to put a hole in. Identifying where fire is coming from is relatively easy, but identifying an individual target is more problematic. You might see a muzzle flash in a window or dust being kicked up by people shooting from a berm, but that is all you are gonna see. The idea of massed firepower in that you putting a beaten zone on that position. You are going to shoot up that window...or that berm...it isn't just spraying in a general cardinal direction. However, because the opportunities to clearly identify and engage an individual target are rare, it is actually even more vital that when the situation does present itself the soldier can quickly capitalize on the opportunity and reliably drop the target at range. That's why there has been this push with things like the designated marksman program and integrating more precision assets into the regular infantry squad.

[Sgt Joch]

As to the point about intermediate rounds, there is validity to that. But bear in mind that both the StG 44 and AK-47 both used rounds of 7.62 or greater size, which are quite effective. The .223 is considered by many to be too light a round based on less-than-stellar combat results in a variety of situations. Just about any heavier round than .223 would be better, even if we didn't go to a full .308 battle rifle.

there is more to 5.56 than just lightweight/carrying more ammo:

The primary advantages of the intermediate power 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge are summarized as follows: (1) the penetration and power of the SS-109 version are superior to the 7.62mm NATO and more than adequate for the 300-meter average combat range documented in actual battle (ORO studies): (2) the lower recoil generated by the 5.56mm cartridge allows more control during full automatic fire and therefore provides greater firepower to the individual soldier; (3) the lesser weight of the 5.56mm ammunition allows the individual soldier to carry more ammunition and other equipment; (4) the smaller size of the 5.56mm ammunition allows the use of smaller, lighter and more compact rifles and squad automatic weapons and; (5) the lethality of the 5.56mm projectile is greater than the 7.62mm projectile at normal combat ranges, due to the tendency of the lighter projectile to tumble or shatter on impact. In summary, the 5.56mm NATO provides greater firepower and effectiveness than the larger and heavier 7.62mm NATO. 5.56-mm NATO ammunition weight only 47% as much as 7.62 mm NATO ammunition.

http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_762.html

-using 5.56 ammo allows you to design lighter, more compact firearms which are easier to handle in close quarters: the M4 is 30" retracted/weighs 7 lbs fully loaded while the M14 is 44" long/weighs 11 lbs.

-although there are advantages to using a heavier bullet, you also have to look at terminal performance, 5.56 ammo, because it is lighter, tends to fragment more on impact than 7.62 ammo. When it does fragment, it can cause a more severe wound than a heavier bullet which may just punch through soft tissue. No bullet is one-shot/one-kill. You incapacitate another human being by either disabling his central nervous system or through loss of blood causing unconsciousness. Depending on the circumstances, 5.56 ammo can do this as well as a heavier bullet.

So when you look at it on a global level, it makes more sense for an army to use 5.56 ammo in their primary firearms. There are more advantages than disadvantages.That does not mean, of course, that there is not a role for heavier ammo, when accuracy at a longer range is required, say for a marksman/sniper.

[Lee]

Like I said, the version of the M14 that would be routinely used for clearing rooms and such would be the assault configuration like in those videos with a 16 inch barrel, quite handy in close quarters. Lighter than a DMR version, too. Some extra weight is good because the round is more powerful than .223, helps to dampen recoil. And as we've seen in the earlier video, the M14 can be fired fast and with control. In a building clearing maneuver you would typically fired fast double taps or short full-auto bursts on targets, but that guy even did it emptying a magazine on full-auto.

While it is possible for a .223 to take out an enemy fast with a good hit, the .308 will do it much more reliably under more circumstances and it can punch through intermediary obstacles and still deliver a potent hit much better than .223 can. And as to wounding, again, that only works if you have distance between you and the enemy, and the enemy has any intention of even trying to help the wounded. In close combat a U.S. soldier doesn't have the luxury of waiting for the "wounding" aspects of his ammo to yield some benefit, he has to neutralize the enemy as fast as possible on the spot.

Also, troops in Afghanistan have found how limited the .223 is when having to fire over longer ranges. Here's another area where the .308 way outclasses the .223. If each squad had 2 M14's (one assault, one DMR), this would add quite a bit of very effective firepower for both close quarters work and targets at longer ranges. Well, at least there are quite a few M14's out there being used as DMR battle rifles to help our guys, and they aren't in huge demand with the troops for no reason.

[Bulgaroktonos]

The M14, even in its shortened variant, is not good for room clearing. Aside from concerns of over-penetration with a full sized rifle round, you also have to deal with the recoil, and though the weight of the rifle compensates some, you still end up with a much heavier rifle (10.5 lbs according to the Springfield site!), and a smaller magazine capacity to boot. Also, the idea that 5.56 is designed for wounding the enemy so that his buddies will be distracted helping him is flat out wrong. Damage that will stop an enemy is permanent damage to important organs, specifically the spinal column, heart, and brain. Because the M193 round fragments, it not only induces more internal bleeding, it also creates a larger wound channel and is more likely to hit those important organs.

While 7.62x51 is heavier and faster, that is only helpful for long-range shooting or penetrating cover which is why the round is used in the SR-25 and M40.

The Soviets didn't change to 5.45 because they thought the number was lucky.

The M14 is a beautiful weapon, but in practical terms it is little more than an adaptation of the Garand, as jenrick pointed out. Besides, real 7.62x51 lovers go for the FAL or G3.

[jenrick]

If you've never had the experience of being in an enclosed space (ie indoors) when someone touches off a .308 (especially out of a shorter barrel), it's something. It's like being flash banged, which is not good for the rest of the good guys to be exposed to. Running suppressors would help with that quiet a bit I'll admit, but it'll still be worse then running a 5.56 platform with a suppressor.

-Jenrick

[ScubaSam]

Firing 7.62 indoors, or being with someone doing it, doesn't sound like it would be a lot of fun (even if you're not on the recieving end).

The noise, the wild recoil, the penetrative power, all doesn't sound like the kind of thing you want in a CQB engagement.

I regularly fire 7.62 bolt action target rifles, and the recoil from one round in that makes me wonder how Russian/Syrian conscripts can manage to fire, say, a 3 round burst from an AK-47 accurately. Though having a spring in your rifle might go some way to absorbing the recoil, as opposed to a bolt action where all the energy goes right into your shoulder.

Still, doesn't look easy.

[flamingknives]

There are many different types of 7.62, in the same way that .50 AE is a considerably different beast to the .50 BMG. The AK47 fires a short 7.62mm cartridge. On top of that, the action soaks a fair amount of recoil.

Still, most descriptions of firing a lightweight rifle chambered for 7.62mm NATO indicate that it's more of an exercise in anti-aircraft fire

[Sgt Joch]

You also have to make sure you are looking for the right things when you analyse reports of the 5.56 mm ammo's supposed lack of stopping power. When you look into reports of individuals taking multiple 5.56 hits before finally going down, the most plausible explanation appears to be poorer than expected fragmentation performance and/or rounds passing through individuals with minimal yaw, causing minimal damage:

Though early M855 experiments showed the round fragments well in the lab, more recent testing has been showing inconsistent fragmentation. Partially because of the complex construction of the round, M855 has widely-variable yaw performance, often not yawing at all through 7-8" or even 10" of tissue. Testing has shown large batch-to-batch differences in yaw performance even from the same manufacturer, and given the number of plants manufacturing SS-109-type bullets, fragmentation performance is very difficult to predict. This is complicated by the low velocity implicit in using M855 out of the short barreled M4 platform.

Interesting, few of these reports seem to be coming from troops 20" or SAW platforms. It would seem that the additional velocity from the longer barrel provides adequate usable fragmentation range for M855 in the majority of cases. From shorter barrels, such as the M4's 14.5" barrel, M855's fragmentation range varies from as much as 90m to as little as 10m, which frequently isn't enough range.

From Dr. Roberts:

"Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56x45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite their being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting. This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the chest of a thin, malnourished individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants. Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag’s papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11-28, Winter 2001) describe this problem."

http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html

There is no reason to believe 7.62 mm NATO ammo would have performed better in the circumstances, since it would also tend to pass through with minimal yaw, causing minimal damage.

You may also want to look at this article which compared the M4, M16 and M14 in Close Quarters battle and found no advantage to 7.62 vs 5.56 mm ammo:

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf

[Rustman]

If you've never had the experience of being in an enclosed space (ie indoors) when someone touches off a .308 (especially out of a shorter barrel), it's something. It's like being flash banged, which is not good for the rest of the good guys to be exposed to. Running suppressors would help with that quiet a bit I'll admit, but it'll still be worse then running a 5.56 platform with a suppressor.

-Jenrick

Eh...adrenaline takes a lot off though. You'd be suprised the random things you don't notice when there are actually people shooting back. I was in a room with a 240 and a SAW shooting out one of the windows and I honestly don't remember actually hearing either of them fire. They did...the effects on target and the casings and links littering the floor were kinda a clue...but I have no memory of hearing it. The brain does weird things when it is under high levels of stress.

[Dietrich]

These points you all have been making about the relative unsuitability of weapons chambered in 7.62mm (or thereabouts) for the role of the typical infantryman's long-arm only reinforce my keenness for a rifle chambered in 6.5mm Grendel.

And if I was in, say, an SOF unit and could thus have a chance of being granted my request for a 6.5mm Grendel weapon, then I would have a pretty good chance of getting 6.5mm Grendel ammo for said weapon. But yes, I understand that, for tactical practicality, I would probably end up just using a tricked-out H&K 416 (in 5.56mm NATO) so as to be able to draw ammo from the same store(s) as my teammates.