Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 7.62 NATO or 5.56 NATO for our troops ?

.308 Winchester or .223 Remington for our military ?

Tough question really. There are mixed accounts on the effectiveness of the M855 Ball round used by our military right now. The 62 gr bullet has a tungsten carbide steel penetrator. Read "Blackhawk Down" and you will hear multiple accounts of dissatisfactory performance from the round. The Deltas hated having to shoot each threat 6 times for them to feel it. Apparently, the round zips right through and fails to tumble or do much damage.
On the other hand, the .308 may be overall too big. Current trends are towards more urban conflicts. This situation does not favor the 7.62x51. The round is not controllable in automatic fire, at least by most accounts I have read, and the rifles are by and large too bulky and long. Searching a house with a FAL, M14, or G3 would be extremely difficult in most situations.
I think the Russians had it right with the 7.62x39. It offers the wound channel of the .308 but in a smaller more compact and friendly size that is easier to carry and to shoot full auto.
Limited to ball or non expanding ammo, I think the .223 is a mistake. It may be easy to fire and carry, but from what I hear, ain't gettin the job done on the other end. But I don't think the .308 is the answer. I propose a new cartridge. Probably the easiest route would be to neck the .223 up to accept 6.5 or 7mm bullets, shooting a 120 to 140 gr bullet at about 2300 and 2100 fps.
I also say enough is enough with the Geneva convention. We should do an about face, grab our ankles, moon em in the name of Uncle Sam, and develop effective ammunition. We need something that expands. That is how energy is deposited, how tissue is destroyed, and how you put something down. How bout a sub caliber penetrator surrounded by a soft lead core or one of compressed metal shavings, and a copper jacket. Upon impact the jacket and core seperate violently and the penetrator still goes through armor--something for soft tissue and armor. Call it an Impact Discarding Sabot or something. But quit handicapping our troops for a bunch of feel goods.

Several problems in acuracy here. First, the M855 does not have a tungsten carbide penetrator, just a steel one - this is just one of the many factual errors in the Blackhawk Down novel: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m855.htm

The M855 round does tumble and fragment in flesh - "evidence" of its effectiveness on living targets is more anecdotal than scientific. http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg

The Soviets liked their 7.62x39 so much that they abandonded it in the 1980s in favor of a 5.56 clone, the new 5.45x39 which was issued to all front line troops. So much for Soviet "superiority" in killing technlogy....the wound channel of the 7.62x39 is in fact inferrior to that of the M855:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg

The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with 'humane' bullets - it was the Hague Accords which addressed this issue. The US is not a signatory of that work so is not 'bound' by any such rules; they are simply self-imposed.

This subject is an interesting one with LOTS of opinion, much of which is based upon either no combat experience, or experience with no modern relavance. Lots of heat, little light, but it is fun! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If I understand modern military doctrine appropo combat casulties the thinking is massive amounts of fire power on area targets. This calls for massive amounts of ammo that need to be carried by the individual. Thus the smaller/lighter most reasonably effective the better. Unlike hunters who are intrested in killing the game as quickly and humanely as possible military thinking is to render the target inneffective just by hitting it. A shot in the big toe is just as effective or more so than a shot to the heart as wounded troops floping around screaming have more psylogical impact than quietly dead bodies. Most individuals when hit will quit fighting. Exceptions, certainly, that's how we get CMO winners. Military is not concerned with the individual however just the overall.

BCR

This is a fascinating topic, and I would hope that we could not limit our choices to just the 7.62 or the 5.56. I can't say that I have a lot of experience with either of those two rounds, however I do find the following opinion to be persuasive:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/243_service_rifle.htm

You guys are forgetting the LAW/MAW/HAW concept.

The individual soldier's rifle is part of a team; a team that uses light (rifle & SAW), medium (M240) and heavy (M2HB) direct fire weapons (and this is just through the Bn level).

Dismounted infantry should open up their fire at 300 - 500m (hey, I would get within handgrenade range if I could before the enemy knew I was there, read Rommel's Infantry Attacks) and they get there under the cover of mortars, arty, tank main gun, air support and MG fire.

I do feel the time may be ripe to replace the 5.56 with a more effective round, I understand there is a booming business in South America dealing with a .223 necked up to 6mm or 6.5. Given the concept above I feel going to 6 or 6.5 on the 5.56 case may be a good call; it would be simple to change out M16A2/M4 uppers (you would need to for the sights) as well as SAW barrels and feed tray covers (again the sight issue). The same mags, bolt faces, mag pouches, manual of arms, etc. would continue to be used.

Given the 2 original choices I would stick with the current 5.56 round, it supports it's place in the team better.


Just my opinion,
Bob

To kill an enemy is not always the best. Every wounded soldier means more trouble. The enemy will be stalled in his attempt to move forward because he will have to take care of the wounded. Every wounded will take 1-2 soliders to take care of him. He will use helicopters and cars to transport wounded back from the front, instead of using them to attack you. The 5.56 will wound more people than a 7,62mm. If you hit a man with a single 7,62 mm round, he will go down for sure, and he will stay there. Shooting a man with a 5,56 mm he might take several shots before going down, and he can still get on his feet again.

The 5,56 is much more easy to shoot than a 7,62, beacuse of the recoil. It is faster to train the troops to shoot well. It is also possible to controll it when fired at full auto. A 7,62 will climb. You hit with the 2-3 first rounds, the rest goes of in the air.

The 5,56 is a smaller and lighter caliber, and therefor the troops can carry more rounds in the field. whats the meaning of a real "dropper" if you can`t carry enough rounds with you? smaller round also allows larger magzine capasity, wich can make the difference between victory and failure. In 1940 the french where issued with rifles holding three shots in the magazine. The mauser held five. Every time the french had to reload, the germans could fire two more rounds. The shorter case allows the rifle to fire more rounds per minute than the 7,62 mm.

The stopping power i`s not all that important anymore since most special forces around the world are issued with bullet proof wests wich can stop a 7,62 mm FMJ bullet. Russian Spetznas used to be issued with a west with the impressive weight of 36 lbs.

As it goes for urban warfare on foregin soil, the 7,62 mm is superior. The reason is simple, it smashes trough walls. It is another matter if we have to fight terrorists in a big city like New York or London. A 7,62 bullet can drop the target, smash trough a wall and blow the head of a child. In such conditions the troops would be more usefull with MP 5`s in 9 mm parabellum and Benelli super 90 M1 shotguns. The chance of blowing the head of civil population in foregin countries are less than in large western cities, because th population tend to flee from the area before the troops attack.

I think the common trooper are better of with a 5.56. In combat he will be supported with heavy weapons like M 249, MG 3, 50 cal machine guns, helicpoters, F/A 18, B 52`s just to mention something. And if he should have to fight against terrorists in some big city in europe or US, he will have a caliber dropping the target, and wich will stop when hitting a wall. A 5,56 bullet often stops in the body as well.

just my toughts

Rather than switching to the .243 Winchester, wouldn't it be better to just neck up the .223 to .243 caliber? That way you could use the same rifles and magazines, with only a change in barrels needed. The 100 grain .243 would probably be much more effective at putting the enemy down, and the recoil would still be very mild. Mag capacity would be the same. In fact, many years ago I think I remember that a gunsmith was converting Ruger Mini-14s to a 6mm wildcat.

After my original post I did a search and found a 6x45 wildcat that was very popular in the '60's with the benchrest crowd. It is just a .223 necked up to .243 like has been suggested. It is still in use by some varmint hunters. Again, changing to this would be simple, but would also be a non-standard round for NATO (something we tend to push a lot).

As an aside, we don't train to stop and help OUR wounded in the attack (that is what Corpsmen are for) why would the enemy. The psychological effect of wounded friends/comrades is high, but only really the first time. After that you quickly learn that to stop and help the wounded puts you at greater risk than pushing forward and gaining the objective.

Bob

Gunny Bob,

I think a trip back to the original system designed by Eugene Stoner was and is the way to go. It incorporated all levels in a parts interchangable system with one base weapon system to build on. From MBR to light machine gun.

Just a thought, and yes it was 7.62 NATO.

How about the .223 with 55 gr Ballistic Tips for our military? Forget the Geneva Convention (apparently our enemies in these current conflicts have) outstanding accuracy and a sucking chest wound a the end of each shot.

I just read Col. Cooper's "Thoughts from the Gunners Guru" in the latest G&A. He brings this point up, slaps the 5.56 then goes on to end the paragraph by saying it is the man not the equipment that makes the difference. Kind of discounting what he had just got done saying as far as I was concerned. Sean

T Lee,
I would agree, parts commonality could be important; carbines for Plt and higher leaders, rifles and LMG with common parts allow you to keep the LMGs running at the expense of less necessary weapons (or those previously possessed by casualties). But after helping my MMG Section Leader develop and give a course on Machinegun Gunnery to our SAW gunners (Automatic Riflemen) I would insist the LMG version be primarily belt fed, our experience with magazine feeding of the SAW was horrible. Mag feeding is nice for emergencies, but we will mark mags identified as working well in SAWs so they will be issued to SAW gunners first.

Regarding caliber, again given the two original choices I would stay with what we have. The 5.56 may have been a knee-jerk reaction that went too far, but returning to the 7.62 for everything would also be a mistake. Do we need a round firing a 62gr bullet at 3200fps with a max eff range of 500m (on a point target)? No. But under 100m (where most firefights take place) we don't need a rifle that produces 17ftlbs of recoil and has a mag capacity of 20 rds (unless you really want big mags). Having shot an M60 from the shoulder I will attest that it is VERY difficult to control and that weapon weighed 18lbs (even from the bipod the M240G is difficult to control and it weighs 25lbs), image 3rd burst with a 9lb rifle, or trying to do triple taps.

If there is an identified need to up the stopping power of the current ammunition issued to riflemen then the answer lies somewhere between the 2 extremes. I like the look of the 6x45; it adds 40gr, bumps the caliber a little and lowers the velocity to maintain controlability. The 7.62 is a great round, terrific penetration, good ballistics, creates a decent wound, this is why it is used in MMGs and by snipers. The 5.56 fills the current need for a lighter round for general issue and for use in LMGs.

All in all an interesting subject, but I suspect wasted verbage as nothing is going to change too soon. Last I saw the Army wasn't looking to increase the caliber of the next rifle, they wanted to decrease it.

Bob

No argument on the controlability issue, our fist guns in the slicks was a "free" 60, just hanging from a strap and shoulder fired. We soon learned we needed a mount, I also have fired the M-14 on full auto, forgitaboutit. Three round burst on the other hand would be a good thing. And if I recall right 0and I may not) the Stoner incorporated a provision for belt feed on the LMG variant much like the SAW.

Good discussion, but most likely moot as you say. Our fearless leaders always look for the easy way out!

Good discussion, probably one of the most common ones around troops doing the 'wait' part of the 'hurry up and wait' part of military life. I understand the need to carry more ammo, easier shoot-ability of the weapon, wound the enemy so his two buddies have to carry him, 95% of soldiers never actually bust a cap on a bad guy, etc... I've even had to preach it a time or two to my guys. But, all things being equal, with a screaming Arab running at me with a bayonet fixed on his AK, <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> I'd rather be shooting a 7.62.

Sort of off the subject: did it ever come out what ammo that DC sniper was using? Seemed like lots of damage for just a plain old 5.56 FMJ round.

SD

Yeah, I know. I have assumed that they were soft points due to all the damage they did. Would like to know for sure though. SWAT teams seem to have a high level of confidence in 55 and 60 grain soft points in terms of putting a bad guy down fast at close to medium range.

The one question to which I could never quite muster a reply: "Couldn't they at least give us a cartridge that was legal for deer?" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

SD

Y'all need to read the latest shotgun news. It has a great article by (Ken ?) Fortier on the latest Russian and Chinese battle rifles and how they compare to the .223. The gist is that the rifles are ballistically very similar but it is the bullets that make a major difference in performance. The russian bullet has superior performance when overpenetration is an issue. Overpenetration is identified as the major culprit in afghanistan and other mideast/central asia conflicts. It achieves this by having a hollow crush cavity in the tip which promotes yaw (flipping) of the bullet. The Russian bullet can start to turn in a few inches while the standard .223 round can take up to 11 inches to flip around. 11 inches puts in out of (or almost out of) most major limbs and most skinny torsos before any real damage is done. The article discusses everything that has been discussed here about the .223 (not about alternate calibers).

How about a 7mm caliber bullet (125 grains or so) in a PPC style casing ?

Right now the military is testing (and very serious about)
the 6.8X 48 round. This is a .276 cartridge...does this bring something to mind from General Dougs era?
Its shoots a 125 g bullet at about 2,800 fps. Has the same
BC as a .308/168 . Same downrange ballistics.

This WOULD be a true 7mm.

I was in the Army for just 10 years 27 days (real honest to God Honorable Discharge), and while in the 2nd ACR in Desert Storm all I could think was 'I wish I had a .308"


The US Army (I cant speak for the other 3 guys) doesnt even emphesise BRM like they used to. I have a neibghor who is 20 years younger than I, and is a artillery captan. They go to the range about once a year!



When I was in, I never went less than once every 90 days, in the CAV I feel like I lived at the range. But the simulations don't help crap, nothing beats live fire. Would you feel ready to bag a buck after just playing Deer Hunter?




And I was never confident with the M16A1, the M16A2 was a pure pleasure to shoot and I always shot expert. BUT I felt totally under gunned sitting in that wide open desert. I am happy we had the "Mother of all Surrenders"




But this rock and roll, fire 600 rounds per solder to kill one enemy solder is crapola. And I am sorry the just wound to use more guys to care for him is dikky-dau. The araib exterimist type wont stop to help his buddy, because he belives his friend is going to Allah-land for dying to kill the 'dogs' (you and me). And a nice well placed 168gr, over a varmint 5.56 will put that prick down, for good.




And I never liked/trusted this SAW stuff. I remember when an expermental M60 was used in some chosen units dubbed the 'Rambo' because it was a copy of the Hollywood Wood version, that little bastard could spit out the 7.62's, and I would rather carry more heavy EFFECTIVE ammo, than hundreds of little non penetrating crap.