Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by Shotgun @ Thu, 08 May 2008 00:44:24 +0800

Shotgun — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:44:24 +0800

Found it, please refer to:

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/556mm_ammo.html

Apparently its just degrade accuracy. My bad.

Davechng, can you verify that the information on that page is largely correct?

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by Shotgun @ Thu, 08 May 2008 00:39:34 +0800

Shotgun — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:39:34 +0800

IIRC, it was cos the M192 would be less accurate as well as dip more. I can't remember, but there was this site that explained why the M192 should not be used in the later series of M-16s. I'll try to dig up the site.

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by Gedanken @ Wed, 07 May 2008 22:21:54 +0800

Gedanken — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:21:54 +0800

Originally posted by davechng:

try shooting burst or Full auto on a 7.62x51 NATO rifle !

Dave, it's probably the lightfighter bias talking, but I can't see all that many situations that require flicking the selector to rock and roll - controlled fire with 7.62 would do the trick nicely IMHO.

IIRC, the M192 tends to tumble more upon impact than the M855 - why don't we go back to the older round?

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by Shotgun @ Wed, 07 May 2008 21:27:33 +0800

Shotgun — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:27:33 +0800

Just make sure dont wowo. Any round will do as long as you hit the target. If you dont believe , go to range and get shot by any of following rounds & tell forum which one didnt hurt so bad.

I got shot by a 6mm BB pellet from a Sniper. Man, it hurt like a @!#@!. I got so pissed off I charged @ him with my TMP-side arm and sprayed him with a 20 over pellets. Made sure I aimed for his thighs where he was not wearing protection too.

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by Sepecat @ Tue, 06 May 2008 23:57:10 +0800

Sepecat — Tue, 06 May 2008 23:57:10 +0800

Just make sure dont wowo. Any round will do as long as you hit the target. If you dont believe , go to range and get shot by any of following rounds & tell forum which one didnt hurt so bad.

.22

.32

.38

9 mm

.45

.223

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by davechng @ Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:52:26 +0800

davechng — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:52:26 +0800

its a good trade off.... try shooting burst or Full auto on a 7.62x51 NATO rifle !not very controllable ! even comparing say an AKM with 7.62x39 over say an M4 with the 5.56 M855... the recoil and controllability of the weapon is significantly less on the m4... going to the AK74 with the 5.45 ! very smooth and soft recoil and thus better hit probability.

Not putting down the .30 caliber . but each round has its usuage and not one round can do it all!

DaveC

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by Shotgun @ Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:43:01 +0800

Shotgun — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:43:01 +0800

No round takes off unless its adopted widely by NATO. We can design the best bullets ever, but if NATO members do not adopt it, its not going to "fly."

Its a chicken and egg thing. Its not logistically sound to adopt a round not widely used by a NATO, yet a round needs to be widely accepted by NATO before more countries find it cost efficient to produce it.

5.56 is here to stay for while.

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by Croningfool @ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:12:14 +0800

Croningfool — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:12:14 +0800

As I said, I think that is nonsense. They may have said it to try and get people to adopt the round they want.

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by Eddie Lee @ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:09:47 +0800

Eddie Lee — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:09:47 +0800

Originally posted by BabyRex:

I remember one of my instructor in OETI telling us that 1 hit from a 7.62 round will most likely kill but for a 5.56, you may kil, you may not kill the fella, leaving the fella hit in agony and pain.

Wounding more enemies have a greater pychological and logistical impact than killing more enemies. as the cries and screams from fallen comrades are demoralizing than dead comrades and the logistics involved to evacuate and care for the wounded will put a bigger strain on the enemy.

This may sound cruel but which war isn't. And believe it or not, this is also one of the reasons (never officially acknowledged) the US chose the 5.56 over the 7.62.

Actually the US free admits that the potential to wound was a factor in choosing the 5.56mm round. The logic is that if you kill a man you take one man out of the fight. But a wounded man will need two other men to evacuate him. But the main reason the US went with such a light round is the weight. Pound for pound you can carry about 3 of the lighter rounds for every 7.62x51 round.

Also the 7.62 round is worthless for selective fire. But I still prefer it over the lighter round. Even though it takes a lot more training to master the heavier rifle.

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by Croningfool @ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:41:58 +0800

Croningfool — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:41:58 +0800

Perhaps 6mm is the best compromise. More lethality but without too much an increase in weight.

[quote]..

The 6mm round would probably weigh between 90 and 100 grains, and utilize a cartridge case between 40 and 45mm. The basic idea is that the 6mm would give infantry rifles...

greater reach and penetration against hard targets, and it would allow machine gunners to carry more ammunition. It would also give the latter group lighter recoil than the 7.62x51mm. Supposedly, the 6mm rounds the Army has experimented with have equal or better penetration than the 7.62x51mm round at normal infantry combat distances. One common caliber would also simplify supply.

Anyway, for years, the 6mm concept has been put way back on the proverbial back burner, due to the laws of inertia and the fact that other NATO countries seem to be perfectly happy with the status quo--a status quo, by the way, that we, the United States, basically forced on them. Since then, our military has been hesitant to try to force yet another caliber of our choosing on them. However, now might just be the time. Recently, the 6mm concept has come back under the military's radar as a result of the rather lackluster performance of the 5.56mm against Al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, not to mention the equally problematic effectiveness against hostile Somali gunmen in Mogadishu back in '93. Our 62gr M855 round, hyperstabilized by a very fast 1 in 7 barrel twist rate, has apparently been zipping right through the skinny Al-Qaeda, just like it did the Somali's, instead of yawing or going frangible inside them. It's therefore been taking multiple rounds, as many as 4-5 rounds, to put a single man down. Needless to say, this is not what you want in a CQB scenario....[/quote]

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=282

Or maybe the 6.5mm grendel?

I think arguments that the 5.56 wounds and therefore increases the burden on the enemy is nonsense. When I shoot someone, I want him to go down and stay down! Besides, the argument that the 5.56 is superior because it wounds instead of kills can only be made if the 5.56 consistently wounds - which it doesn't. It sometimes kills and sometimes wounds, like most other rounds out there.

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by davechng @ Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:55:33 +0800

davechng — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:55:33 +0800

YEah Agree that the recoil of hte 7.62 NATO is good in semi auto but beyond that on a shoulder handheld rifle like a G3, L1A1 or other MBR ( main battle rifle) the full auto is not very controllable compared to the 5.56 equivilent ! Even for me, the AKM in 7.62x39 is not very controllable in full auto compared to say an M4 or AUG in 5.56.

Again! it is also in the training and the type of weapon implemnted! defeintly need a heavier bullet for the 5.56 ... maybe a 68 or 77 grain bullet instead of the 55 and 62 grain currently use!

DaveC

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by davechng @ Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:53:02 +0800

davechng — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:53:02 +0800

YEah! the NATO round is in 7.62x51mm usually on a 144 grain to 147 grain depending on the country of origin!

RUssian ammo is 7.62x39mm ( they claim to be 7.62 but it is not in .308" but .310" diameter bullet) and AK bullet usually comes in 122 grain!

DaveC!

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by SingaporeTyrannosaur @ Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:14:04 +0800

SingaporeTyrannosaur — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:14:04 +0800

Yeah but the recoil on the full NATO 7.62mm has always been an issue, and there's the issue of the 5.56mm causing more tissue damage if it fragments.

7.62mm is powerful, but it tends to go all the way through the target unless it strikes bone or something like that, unless you drive it at higher speeds it will not fragment.

I imagine double tapping would be tougher on 7.62mm given it throws the rifle about more, but a single hit from it will be pretty bad.

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by arball @ Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:45:27 +0800

arball — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:45:27 +0800

Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

The AK 7.62mm is a different round from the NATO 7.62mm (your GPMG ammo), it is a cut-down round designed to be fired from Assualt Rifles and hence has far less energy then the NATO 7.62, which is a "full" size round.

But it still packs more wallop then the 5.56mm, though it might be less wounding because sometimes it just goes right through the target as opposed to the fragmentation effects of some 5.56mm rounds at some engagement distances.

yepp. NATO and east bloc 7.62 shld be diff if remb correct... the 7.62 "Long" and 7.62 "short" rite? i think the FNFAL used the 7.62 long and the aks use the short....the long had better range and killing power..

read it off wiki on rhodesia-smth if i remb correct....some time ago...

------

noo..... there goes my 100th post.... T_T

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by SingaporeTyrannosaur @ Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:50:09 +0800

SingaporeTyrannosaur — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:50:09 +0800

Depends on 7.62 fired from what. 7.62 shot from an GPMG would probably take limb clean off. But a 7.62 from an AK might not be as wounding as you think. Its about the muzzle velocity if i am not wrong.

The AK 7.62mm is a different round from the NATO 7.62mm (your GPMG ammo), it is a cut-down round designed to be fired from Assualt Rifles and hence has far less energy then the NATO 7.62, which is a "full" sized round.

But it still packs more wallop then the 5.56mm, though it might be less wounding because sometimes it just goes right through the target as opposed to the fragmentation effects of some 5.56mm rounds at some engagement distances.

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by zenden9 @ Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:39:28 +0800

zenden9 — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:39:28 +0800

Originally posted by eagle:

no paragraphing very hard to read leh...

Read the link , better la...

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by eagle @ Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:34:55 +0800

eagle — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:34:55 +0800

no paragraphing very hard to read leh...

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by zenden9 @ Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:31:55 +0800

zenden9 — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:31:55 +0800

http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/chinacomplex.htm

Interesting finding.... 5.8mm rounds?

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by Shotgun @ Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:21:32 +0800

Shotgun — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:21:32 +0800

Originally posted by BabyRex:

I remember one of my instructor in OETI telling us that 1 hit from a 7.62 round will most likely kill but for a 5.56, you may kil, you may not kill the fella, leaving the fella hit in agony and pain.

Wounding more enemies have a greater pychological and logistical impact than killing more enemies. as the cries and screams from fallen comrades are demoralizing than dead comrades and the logistics involved to evacuate and care for the wounded will put a bigger strain on the enemy.

This may sound cruel but which war isn't. And believe it or not, this is also one of the reasons (never officially acknowledged) the US chose the 5.56 over the 7.62.

Depends on 7.62 fired from what. 7.62 shot from an GPMG would probably take limb clean off. But a 7.62 from an AK might not be as wounding as you think. Its about the muzzle velocity if i am not wrong.

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by eagle @ Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:17:19 +0800

eagle — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:17:19 +0800

Bow and arrow game la:

http://strong-bow.freeonlinegames.com/

I find it quite fun...

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by SingaporeTyrannosaur @ Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:13:38 +0800

SingaporeTyrannosaur — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:13:38 +0800

Some people are looking to the 6.5mm Grendel, and it looks promising.

But personally I think each round has its advantages and disadvantages, with current conventional propellent technology there's only so much performance you can get out of a bullet for each kind of round, so if you want hard hitting you've to give up ammo space and face harder recoil and vice versa the other way.

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by BabyRex @ Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:44:45 +0800

BabyRex — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:44:45 +0800

I remember one of my instructor in OETI telling us that 1 hit from a 7.62 round will most likely kill but for a 5.56, you may kil, you may not kill the fella, leaving the fella hit in agony and pain.

Wounding more enemies have a greater pychological and logistical impact than killing more enemies. as the cries and screams from fallen comrades are demoralizing than dead comrades and the logistics involved to evacuate and care for the wounded will put a bigger strain on the enemy.

This may sound cruel but which war isn't. And believe it or not, this is also one of the reasons (never officially acknowledged) the US chose the 5.56 over the 7.62.

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by EarlNeo @ Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:08:06 +0800

EarlNeo — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:08:06 +0800

Originally posted by Meia Gisborn:

The problem with shooting steel or steel-jacketed projectiles in a firearm is you are going to increase the wear in the bore of the barrel by several orders of magnitude vis-a-vis traditional copper-jacketed projectiles, as steel is significantly harder than copper.

That's true. But u dun have to issue or use steel projectiles during training. Only use them in war time. That's why our sm1 tank is issue AP-wing rnd at war time only. Beside, sg isnt gg to fight a war lasting more then a yrs.

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by Meia Gisborn @ Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:58:17 +0800

Meia Gisborn — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:58:17 +0800

Originally posted by Shotgun:

This is a nicer video in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLSXS4cRFFI

OMG! Was David Hasselhoff one of the judges in that video???

Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds? replied by Shotgun @ Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:20:18 +0800

Shotgun — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:20:18 +0800

Originally posted by Fatum:

this is cute ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcNY2t0h-HE

Yeah man, saw this video before... really awesome. The bean was just crazy.

But the arrow on arrow one is not unheard of. I've seen it happen twice in the past 2 years already. And on both occassions, the nocks for the first arrow were shattered by the 2nd arrow, resulting in a shaft-in-shaft type of penetration. Cos the nocks are still in place, its even harder to achieve this kinda "stunt."

This is a nicer video in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLSXS4cRFFI

Back to topic!

7.62 definitely hits harder and penetrates more. But the 5.56 still has greater wounding effect when it penetrates flesh.

Recent Posts in 'Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds?' | sgForums.com