5.56 or 7.62? A compromise may be the best

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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 ;)
 
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.
 
OOPS sorry my point was, often compromises are simply the best way to go. The same applies with this new type of ammo.
 
"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."

No need to carry so much ammunition one time that weight increases too heavy. Usually we (finnish) are issued with 2x90 = 180rounds. Company's ammo squad has more rounds to supply troops needing more.

"The Finns used the submachinegun with deadly effect in the close quarters of the forests."

Yes so does RKs but 5.56 bullet has proven to be too light to use in covered terrain, the matter of compromiss, and autofire with 7.62x39 RK is not hard to handle, and short 2-3rnd burst are the best way to shoot autofire and allows better firecontrol.

IMHO i prefer semiauto because every shot is controlled and firerate is as fast as you pull the trigger. Not difficult at all when trained and firing all 5.56-7.62 are like toyguns. Weight of weapon influences to recoil. More weight -> less recoil, less weight -> more recoil. Lower weight of many 5.56 rifles disable major advantage to 7.62x39 rifles in recoil.

"Are aimed, single shots preferred? Absolutely. Is it ALWAYS the best option? No."

No but well controlled fire is, wich means almost or halfly aimed shots. Look at for example IPSC shooters and how they can shoot with semiauto and they even hit.
 
I prefer the 7.62 can do more damage. I find the guns that carry that caliber also are more reliable like the AK series.
 
AK's have to much kick and recoil and aren't accurate after the first shot.

Guns and Ammo Magazine did a artilce on the 6.3mm round, it was made by SF dudes so that they have more stopping power same reason why they use .45 ASP instead of 9mm.

I like that it can adapt to AR15 and M16 weapon types, seems good to me. Can use the same mag as the 5.56mm but less rounds.
 
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
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.
Click to expand...

there are two NATO standard rounds 7.62 and 5.56
 
Time said:
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
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.
Click to expand...

there are two NATO standard rounds 7.62 and 5.56
Click to expand...

I think the main point was that most of NATO uses a standard 5.56mm Mag; so when the Warsaw Pact comes throught he fulda gap, Brits can use German mags. :D
 
I've heard a lot of good things about the 6x45 round. More sectional density means more damage at longer range than the 5.56. The 5.56 fired out of the stubby m4 only gives you real damage out to 150 meters! The 6MM should extend this range quite a bit. The only parts of a standard m16 or M4 that would have to change is the barrel and optics! Same goes for belt fed weapons...the case is still the 5.56 case - just added a bit more weight and girth to the bullet itself. The grendel is a good choice too...if you are going to 6.8, might as well go to 7.62 - not much different.

If we have to stick with the 5.56, why not just go to the 7.62 Tokarev - smaller round, yet still gives excellent ballisitcs out to 150Meters....with less recoil and you can use the same ammo for sidearm and main weapon!
 
bushpig1998 said:
I've heard a lot of good things about the 6x45 round. More sectional density means more damage at longer range than the 5.56. The 5.56 fired out of the stubby m4 only gives you real damage out to 150 meters! The 6MM should extend this range quite a bit. The only parts of a standard m16 or M4 that would have to change is the barrel and optics! Same goes for belt fed weapons...the case is still the 5.56 case - just added a bit more weight and girth to the bullet itself. The grendel is a good choice too...if you are going to 6.8, might as well go to 7.62 - not much different.

If we have to stick with the 5.56, why not just go to the 7.62 Tokarev - smaller round, yet still gives excellent ballisitcs out to 150Meters....with less recoil and you can use the same ammo for sidearm and main weapon!
Click to expand...


No 6.8mm and 7.62mm are very different, Guns and Ammo mag did a article on the 6.8mm SPC, it has less kick and recoil and penetrates better. Not only that you would only have to change the upper reciver and mag. 5.56mm is the basic NATO round for assault rifles, thats why all NATO allies have it. 7.62mm Tokarev rounds are to slow and the round to big. We tried 7.62mm once.
 
What people don't realize is the 7.62mm and the 5.56mm both have their advantages and disadvantages. For one, the 5.56mm actually flies better and penetrates better. Before they made it "too accurate" the 5.56mm had no problems putting that energy into the target because upon impact, the bullet tumbled, transferring the energy extremely effectively. The result were exit wounds the size of a grapefruit (grapefruit, not grape!). This with the superior penetration compared to the 7.62mm. However, the current M-16s... and the current ammo, doesn't tumble the bullet when it impacts. This means the bullet's penetration ability becomes its liability because it just simply glides through the target.
 
I think that the way warfare has evolved into having highly mobile vehicles, air and land, capable of heavy fire support combining with most ground troops, the need for large rounds fired at great distances are not as important as in the past. Except for special teams such as snipers, battle planning seems to be closing as near as possible with light and heavy armored followed up by rifle teams. That makes the teams able to carry more ammo and do more damage at close range more effective at running gun battles. IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top