5.56 or 7.62? A compromise may be the best - Page 6




 
--
 
February 16th, 2005  
lemontree
 
The 5.56mm round was selected 45 yrs ago due to in concept of the future battlefield.
A 7.62x51mm round is a killer. When a soldier is hit, he dies.
A 5.56mm round is designed to wound, so that he is carried out of the battlefield by his unit, thus reducing minimum 4 men from the scene of fighting and less men to fight against.
Besides a wounded soldier, screaming his guts out, reduces moral of the enemy troops vis-a-vis a dead soldier.
February 16th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemontree
The 5.56mm round was selected 45 yrs ago due to in concept of the future battlefield.
A 7.62x51mm round is a killer. When a soldier is hit, he dies.
A 5.56mm round is designed to wound, so that he is carried out of the battlefield by his unit, thus reducing minimum 4 men from the scene of fighting and less men to fight against.
Besides a wounded soldier, screaming his guts out, reduces moral of the enemy troops vis-a-vis a dead soldier.
That's a pretty big statement. Do you have any links? Although that could have been a reason, that severely wounding is just as good as killing... if not better because it uses enemy resources, lowers morale of those alive etc., I don't know if that's the MAIN reason why they'd select an ammo type. I mean, then why bother switching if you can just kill the bastard with what you got anyways and save the money of converting your entire arsenal to 5.56mm?
February 16th, 2005  
Armyjaeger
 
 
Are insurgents and terrorists willing to risk that minimum of 4 men to carry out a single wounded...I didn't think so.
--
February 17th, 2005  
Vitaly
 
I was thinking and, what do you think about an even smaller bullet with even faster speeds. I have the .204 ruger in mind with it's speed of 4000 fps.
February 17th, 2005  
lemontree
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
That's a pretty big statement. Do you have any links?
Unfortunately, there are no links provided for what is taught in military academies and courses of instruction. However, I shall try and locate some links for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
I don't know if that's the MAIN reason why they'd select an ammo type. I mean, then why bother switching if you can just kill the bastard with what you got anyways and save the money of converting your entire arsenal to 5.56mm?
Ammo types are selected for specific reasons.
- For instance 9mm or .45 rounds are used in CQB weapons like pistols and SMGs, as the reason is to neutralise the target with minimum hits. It is designed to stop/kill at close ranges, hence these rounds are snub nosed and not as aerodynamic as rifle rounds that are required to hit targets are increased ranges.
- Another reason is over heating of barrels. A 7.62x51mm round fired by a L1A1 SLR generates 14,000 calories of heat in the chamber of the barrel. If auto fire is required the barrel get heavier and increases the weight of the weapon. Hence, you notice that the FN SLR and M-14 genre of rifles were semi-auto inspite of having capability for auto fire.
- A 5.56mm round is smaller than a 7.62x51mm round and has lesser ampount of propellant, hence, the heat generated in the chamber while firing is less. This enables the weapon to be made automatic, which has its own advantages for the infantyman.
These are very valid reasons for a country to spend millions of dollars on conversion of rifle calibres.
February 17th, 2005  
lemontree
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armyjaeger
Are insurgents and terrorists willing to risk that minimum of 4 men to carry out a single wounded...I didn't think so.
When this concept of warfare vis-a-vis intention to kill or wound was being envisaged 45-50 yrs ago, the terrorist and insurgent problem was non existant.
However, if you are dealing with insurgents, they also tend to act with some levels of decency as compared to terrorists. An insurgent and terrorist is not the same person.
An insurgent only attacks symbols of govt authority, i.e army, police of the occupying forces or the own govt forces. He does not attack or harm civilians since he depends of them for his survival and he is their freedom fighter.
A terrorist care about none of the above. He kills indiscriminatly civilian or army alike.
February 17th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemontree
- A 5.56mm round is smaller than a 7.62x51mm round and has lesser ampount of propellant, hence, the heat generated in the chamber while firing is less. This enables the weapon to be made automatic, which has its own advantages for the infantyman.
These are very valid reasons for a country to spend millions of dollars on conversion of rifle calibres.
Yes I know that, but what's that got to do with the whole wounding is better than killing bit?
February 17th, 2005  
lemontree
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemontree
- A 5.56mm round is smaller than a 7.62x51mm round and has lesser ampount of propellant, hence, the heat generated in the chamber while firing is less. This enables the weapon to be made automatic, which has its own advantages for the infantyman.
These are very valid reasons for a country to spend millions of dollars on conversion of rifle calibres.
Yes I know that, but what's that got to do with the whole wounding is better than killing bit?
A weapon is designed based upon the type of missile being thrown at the enemy. The system is designed keeping the intention in mind.
When the intention is to reduce the fighting strenght or bayonet strength of the enemy then a suitable projectile is developed to achive that. The concept is to increase the administrative pressure on the enemy during war.
When you are going for attack on a defended locality, if your troops fall dead, the commander does not have much of a bother, since he just waits for the rear echlons to fetch up and carry away the body bags. But when more troops are just wounded then he is at pressure to provide immediate medvac for these troops. Medvac is a moral booster in war.
Now if the objective has been captured, but the bayonet strength of the attacker is denuded due to carrying away of the wounded, then a counter attack by the enemy to regain ground will not have much opposition. And captured ground is lost. A waste of resourses and effort.
February 23rd, 2005  
Joker
 
 

Topic: 6.8 SPC


Why not take the 6.8x43 SPC??? Its the middelway between the 5.56 and the 7.62!
February 24th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
I've thought of the 6.8, but from reports I've read, there are some feeding issues in the MG's and it is also a bulkier round than the 5.56 - pretty much eliminating all weight savings of going to intermediate cartridge. The 6.8 is just too close to a 7.62 Nato round to be a real intermediate. I still think that merely increasing bullet diameter and sectional density would greatly improve the 45 mm case design - simply open up the neck a little and stuff a 6mm (.243) in it and there you go - then replace the barrel and optics on your AR with smm parts and you are good to go. The mags,receivers,bolts and iron sights will still work with the 6mm round.