5.56 or 7.62? A compromise may be the best




 
--
 
January 30th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 

Topic: 5.56 or 7.62? A compromise may be the best


http://www.military.com/soldiertech/...soldiertech.nl

Look at this. This could be a pretty good idea.
January 30th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Certainly looks like a good idea to me. Especially since it can work with the lower receiver groups of M16s and M16 variants. That would economize implementing a great deal.
January 30th, 2005  
Sea_Cadet
 
7.62 will rule the world forever!!!!!
--
January 30th, 2005  
Judas
 
I dont want to get into ballistics, but Id rather have a hole in me than a .223 bounce around in me...but then again I'd rather not be shot

My cousin was shot in the leg by a 7.62 when he was 8 years old at a Stockton school shootout and it blew a hole through his leg; which his scar isnt very big...But I've heard stories about a 5.56 enter the buttocks and leave the throat
January 30th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
The M-14 was 7.62mm and was put out of service becasue the round had to much kick and the weapon to heavy.

And we have 5.56mm because its NATO standard. M16 fit into AUG's.
January 30th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
The round was too heavy and the level of damage one could achieve with the 5.56 is pretty comparable to the 7.62. The thing is, the 7.62mm has a better overall stopping power, but the 5.56mm penetrates better. Also the 5.56mm flies faster... but the thing is, if the bullet is made too stable, it'll just glide right through the target meaning there's a lot of energy that's not transferred onto the target. That's where most of the problem lay.
The 7.62mm is simply too heavy, and if you ever have to put your weapon on automatic, you'll be in trouble because it is simply too difficult to handle.
January 30th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
The 6.5mm Grendel looks like a great round. It has the same energy as a 7.62mm and doesn't go subsonic till 1200 yards. Great for close up and long range shooting.
January 30th, 2005  
EuroSpike
 
"The 7.62mm is simply too heavy, and if you ever have to put your weapon on automatic, you'll be in trouble because it is simply too difficult to handle."

Autofire is only waste of rounds. Semiauto and aimed shots and double shots at close range are the best. Unless the purpose is to spray and pray.

If 7.62 feels to be too heavy, get yourself to pump some iron
January 30th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
EuroSpike, if you have to march cross country with that thing, I think you'd rather have the 5.56mm. Not to mention, you can't make your army out of 2m tall Viking Warriors who are 200kg of solid muscle.
You can carry much more ammo with the 5.56mm and once the fighting hits the streets, believe me, you'd want a weapon that can go automatic.
In Korea the more rapid firing PPSh overwhelmed the more reliable and far mroe accurate M-1 Garand because at close ranges, the raw firepower of an automatically firing weapon from groups of troops made a difference.
The same was felt in the Eastern Front of World War II. The PPSh allowed the Soviets to have far more automatic weapons than the Germans had and believe me, that did make a difference in the cities.
Ironically, it was from the Winter War against the Finns that the Russians first learned the effectiveness of the Submachine gun at close ranges. The Finns used the submachinegun with deadly effect in the close quarters of the forests.

Automatic fire has always been and is still very useful today. Not every situation is a nice situation where you can sit down, aim and take a single shot at the enemy who is moving in a predictable manner.

Are aimed, single shots preferred? Absolutely. Is it ALWAYS the best option? No. And because of that , the whole class of the assault rifle, the compromise between the battle rifle and the submachine gun, was born.
January 30th, 2005  
SHERMAN
 
 
If you wish to discuss auto fire pros and cons open a new discussion.