5.56 or 7.62? A compromise may be the best

No it is true. You actually need rifles that can perform the role of submachine guns. The Assault rifle is the compromise of the submachine gun and the battle rifle. Heck, the world's first assault rifle was even called a submachine gun.
 
I guess the new 6.8mm round will be far better than 7.62s and 5.56s. Today exists much better tools to develope and desing anything than at that time when 5.56's for example was developed.

Then after that the matter of cost-effective -relationship. Is it worth of all invested money to develope and manufacture new round wich will be only a bit better than rounds exist now.
 
Well it states that the Army doesn't have to spend millions of dollars, just change the upper and the mag. Remington already makes the round so...
 
I think the 7.62x51mm round isn't too heavy but just bit too powerful when used in a rifle like G3, FN-FAL and so. Considering the fact that most firefights are likely to take place in ranges less than 300 meters I would say the 7.62x39mm round would be ideal since it doesn't generate too much recoil, dunno about the 6.8mm thoughl.
SMG's are just about the only useful infantry full auto weapons besides machineguns but if you ask me I would take 12 cauge semiauto shotgun anyday. :)
 
Except of course a mounted GPMG, right?

Make no mistake the 7,62 NATO has it's place, but I think it is senseless to arm every foot soldier with this heavy and recoil intensive weapon. Sure, he can reach out and touch someone beyond 500 meters, but that is what the GPMG and DM is for, right?
The more I look at it, the more I begin to see where the Army is going with this. They want a round that has enough umphf to replace the 7.62 NaTO as a GPMG round, yet light enough recoil and size to replace the 5.56 as an AR round. May just be the "Wonder Cartridge" we needed in VN!
What of the 6.5 Grendel. I've read that it out performs the 6.8 quite a bit.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
The 7.62mm has a notorious recoil. Basically on anything auto it gets practically useless.
Click to expand...

No, it works fine with short burst and specially when rifle has muzzle break. 7.62x39 rifles are a bit heavier and that decreases recoil quite well. For example M16's low weight eliminates the advantage of 5.56's lower recoil compared to 7.62x39 rounds.

7.62x51 rifles are then different story.

7.62x39 along with 9mm pistols are toyguns.
 
7.62mmx39 round in any gun is no toygun by all means, you don't want to be shot with it nonetheless.
7.62x51 or 7.62x54R in GPMG can indeed bite someone out of 500 or even 700 meters away.
 
Armyjaeger said:
7.62mmx39 round in any gun is no toygun by all means, you don't want to be shot with it nonetheless.
7.62x51 or 7.62x54R in GPMG can indeed bite someone out of 500 or even 700 meters away.
Click to expand...

Certainly it kills but the recoil of for example RK95 is like toygun's.

7.62x51 and 7.62x53r give much harder punch in recoil.
 
bushpig1998 said:
Except of course a mounted GPMG, right?

Make no mistake the 7,62 NATO has it's place, but I think it is senseless to arm every foot soldier with this heavy and recoil intensive weapon. Sure, he can reach out and touch someone beyond 500 meters, but that is what the GPMG and DM is for, right?
The more I look at it, the more I begin to see where the Army is going with this. They want a round that has enough umphf to replace the 7.62 NaTO as a GPMG round, yet light enough recoil and size to replace the 5.56 as an AR round. May just be the "Wonder Cartridge" we needed in VN!
What of the 6.5 Grendel. I've read that it out performs the 6.8 quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Amen. It's got it's place. I just think it's not that great for the regular line soldier.
 
I've never fired any mounted MG's but I did fire PKM from bipod quite alot actually :) and I can tell its good for all the way to 500 meters even 700 if there happens to be clear weather and no wind, firing short bursts no more than three rounds which is what I did all the time, we didin't carried that much ammo :D
 
woo

the 5.56mm has its history of going in one end and coming out a total different other. And believe me it has the power to knock a man down. Seriously if any man has been hit and is still moving up you got to think to your self, is this guy psycho or human?

Its been doing well in UK the Rifle on the other hand is a different story lol

either way it kept me safe in Gulf lol
 
If someone says 5.56mm round is a poor man stopper then that person doesn't know what he/she is talking about. the nato bullet is small and flies about 1000 meters per second, there's this thing called hydostatic shock that occurs when that 5.56mm bullet hits soft tissue like human.

"the 5.56mm has its history of going in one end and coming out a total different other. And believe me it has the power to knock a man down. Seriously if any man has been hit and is still moving up you got to think to your self, is this guy psycho or human?"

Im not sure about that entry- outcome wound, isn't the russian 5.45mm bullet like that?
 
The 5.56 was designed to tumble once it hit target, problem is, with the lshorter barrels on the M4, the range at which this ballistic effect happens, is much shorter...something like 150 meters! This means that if smeone shoots at a human with an M4, and the target is more than 150 meters away, the bullet will just glide straight through the target, making a small entry and exit wound - with no shock or knock down power....unless it hits bone. I'm willin to bet that a 5.56 in the head at 500 meters is just as dangerous as a 7.62, but a head is a small target, right?
The 5.56 is a good round...and since it is produced in such massive amounts, very cheap. As long as you have a 20" barelled M16, the 5.56 should be very effective up to 300 meters IMO. I still think they should dig the prototype 5.56 minigun out and mount them on HMMV's as anti-personnel weapons...
 
Armyjaeger said:
If someone says 5.56mm round is a poor man stopper then that person doesn't know what he/she is talking about. the nato bullet is small and flies about 1000 meters per second, there's this thing called hydostatic shock that occurs when that 5.56mm bullet hits soft tissue like human.

"the 5.56mm has its history of going in one end and coming out a total different other. And believe me it has the power to knock a man down. Seriously if any man has been hit and is still moving up you got to think to your self, is this guy psycho or human?"

Im not sure about that entry- outcome wound, isn't the russian 5.45mm bullet like that?
Click to expand...

Hydrostatic shock is a myth. It simply doesn't happen.
 
Tumbling is the key. When that bullet hits the target and tubles, the result is a MASSIVE exit wound. This means that the superior penetration of the 5.56mm will get through body armor and transfer its energy into the enemy much more effectively than people normally give it credit for.
 
HMMMM THINKING ABOUT IT MORE AND MORE....
Seems many people love the 5.56 for it's compact size and low recoil, other hate it for lack of stopping power and lack of range....
....
So why not compromise? Personally, I would equip an army with either a combo of 5.56 AR's and 7.62 GPMG OR AR's and GPMG's chambered in 6x45mm - basically a 5.56 case with a 6mm bullet. The higher sectional density gives it additoinal range, knock down power and penetration....
Make sense? Of crouse the HMMV mounted .50 will always be around when STHTF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top