5.56 or 7.62? A compromise may be the best - Page 3




 
--
 
February 6th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
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.
February 6th, 2005  
EuroSpike
 
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.
February 7th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
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...
--
February 7th, 2005  
Shadowalker
 
 
http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm

new american rifle thats going to likely use the 6.8mm
February 9th, 2005  
Armyjaeger
 
 
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.
February 9th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
The 7.62mm has a notorious recoil. Basically on anything auto it gets practically useless.
February 9th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
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.
February 9th, 2005  
EuroSpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
The 7.62mm has a notorious recoil. Basically on anything auto it gets practically useless.
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.
February 9th, 2005  
Armyjaeger
 
 
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.
February 9th, 2005  
EuroSpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armyjaeger
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.
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.