Replacing the M-14, M-16, M-4, XM-8 et al - Page 19




 
--
 
January 22nd, 2006  
dobrodan
 
Quote:
5.56mm has better penetration than 7.62mm.
Only partially true... And only if you compare 5.56 AP to 7.62 FMJ at relatively short ranges. 7.62 AP, however, has superior penetration at all ranges.

Quote:
Also, the reason NATO must agree to using 6.8 SPC as a standard is because all NATO countries have assault rilfes that fire 5.56mm and the reason for this is that when NATO countrys go to war they can use eachothers ammo. If the U.S. is using just 6.8 SPC and lets say the UK is using 5.56mm then how are they going use our ammo if they run out? This is one of the reasons the U.S. went from 7,62mm to 5.56mm as standard ammo.
Well, when NATO agreed to use 5.56mm as NATO-standard, that didn´t throw 7.62mm out in the cold, did it?

Still, both Norway, Greece and Turkey use 7.62mm as their main calibre, and it was not until the -90s that Germany changed to 5.56...
January 22nd, 2006  
dobrodan
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean
MMG means medium machinegun, and it is a gun that is supposed to fire cartridges larger than 7.62mm. I am not so sure about the use of the .338 LM round as a GPMG round. It is far more powerful, yes, but do not forget that you can engage targets at 800 metres with a GPMG due to the volume of fire you can put out. However, target identification at that range is somewhat problematic, so the benfits of the increased range would be offset by the difficulty in target ID at the longer ranges. .338 Lapua Magnum is a precision round, custom designed to allow the use of a rifle that is far lighter than present .50 BMG sniper rifles at comparable ranges. The use of this round would also mean heavier, more expensive rounds, less ammo carried per gun, faster gun and barrrel wear (muzzle velocity is far higher). The US already had the 30.06 calibre during WW II and realized that it was overkill, so they shortened the cartridge to create the 7.62mm NATO calibre. There is no reason to make the same mistake again.
As for 5.56, please remember that many studies were done and they all found the same thing. More than 90% of infantry engagements are fought at ranges of 200 metres or less. At that range, 7.62mm battle rifles are definitely overkill, a 6.5mm Grendel might be overkill as well. Let's be a but serious here. How many people realluy believe that the 5.56 round is ineffective inside of, say 250 metres? As much as I dislike the calibre, I think it works.

Dean.
The reason to use a heavier calibre than 6.5 or 7.62 is to get increased penetration, not to necessarily get better range, even though that is a bonus.

Because the 6.5 is a very streamlined round, it retains its velocity and energy far better than both 5.56 and 7.62mm.

The initial velocity of 6.5mm is far lower than 5.56, and a bit lower than 7.62. But at all ranges, 6.5 has greater energi than 5.56, and will actually have higher velocity than 7.62 after 500m, thereby making it a flatter-shooting round with good penetration even at range. At 800m the 6.5 will have higher retained energy than 7.62, and will be supersonic past 1000m.

I wouldnt call the 6.5 Grendel overkill, I would call it just right for the job.

Also, It functions far better out of cabine-sized barrels than both 5.56 or 7.62.
January 22nd, 2006  
Joker
 
 
@ Cadet Seaman
Ok, than it was your mitake!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
If the U.S. is using just 6.8 SPC and lets say the UK is using 5.56mm then how are they going use our ammo if they run out? This is one of the reasons the U.S. went from 7,62mm to 5.56mm as standard ammo.
I know about the logistic problems, but how often does it happen that one of the big nations run out of ammo the last time???
And i think that the US was the first nation wich used 5.56 in the NATO and than all others start to get this as a standart too. But im not sure so corect me if im wrong!!

Greetz Joker
--
January 23rd, 2006  
zander_0633
 
 
Wellthi so tht if any slider r out of ammo, they can st take from th enemy!
January 23rd, 2006  
Dean
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker
@ Cadet Seaman
Ok, than it was your mitake!!


I know about the logistic problems, but how often does it happen that one of the big nations run out of ammo the last time???
And i think that the US was the first nation wich used 5.56 in the NATO and than all others start to get this as a standart too. But im not sure so corect me if i´m wrong!!

Greetz Joker
Joker, you are right on. The US was the first to use both 7.62 and 5.56. In addition, they dragged NATO in for 7.62, and nobody said very much, except for Germany, IIRC. But due to the fact that it was soon after the WW II, Germany had very little say in the matter.
The choice of 5.56 was very different. Many countries were openly questioning the use of 7.62 battle rifles, but the US was going ahead with it. Suddenly, they adopted the M-16 in 5.56, which was really strange, because up to that point, the US Army was NOT interested in the M-16, only the Air Force was. (The US Air Force has small organic infantry type units that are used to provide base security. US Air Force Base security is not, and never has been provided by any other US military branch, unless by special request.) Suddenly US Army units in Vietnam were running around carrying M-16's and the US decided to adopt the 5.56 round. At that time other countries were experimenting with other calibres, such as the UK with their 4.85 round, and IIRC, others were playing with calibres in the 6.5 - 6.8 range, (sorry can't remember who), but the US adooption of 5.56 once again forced NATOs hand, and all of us adopted 5.56. Then came the modification of the round, the ss-109 round, the re-barreling of the M-16 to M-16A1, etc, etc, and here we are still talking about it. But you know, Guys, even if the 6.5 is adopted, someone out there will say, "Hey!! That round is overpowered, so let's go back to 5.56!" The debate never ends...

Dean.
January 23rd, 2006  
Joker
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zander_0633
Wellthi so tht if any slider r out of ammo, they can st take from th enemy!
Whhhhaaaatthhhhhhhh??????????????

@Dean
Thank you for affirm my statement.

I found this on the net and it sounds interesting, so i post it here.
Quote:
NATO

NATO's 7.62 × 51 mm rifle cartridge was introduced in the 1950´s as its standard infantry cartridge, used in the US M-14 rifle and the Belgian FAL rifle that most of NATO adopted under one name or another (the British called theirs the L1A1, for example). The "battle rifle" concept called for a weapon capable of firing a full-powered round (full-powered in comparison to the military rifle cartridges that were common in the first half of the 20th Century, such as the 7x57 mm Mauser, .303 British, 8x57 mm German Mauser, and .30/06) on full automatic. The cartridge adopted was developed by Winchester / Olin firearms, and the Pentagon gave Winchester permission to sell a commercial version of the cartridge as a hunting rifle cartridge called the .308 Winchester. The .308 Winchester cartridge is very popular with American sportsmen both for long-range target shooting and hunting big game up to the size of elk or moose.
It was observed that there was no way to make a controllable 7.62 × 51 mm assault rifle light enough to be practical, though there was and still is some question of whether full-auto fire is necessary, helpful, or even desirable in a general-issue infantry rifle. In the early 1960s a very vocal faction in the US military was of the opinion that it was, though given that this faction consisted mainly of highly opinionated Air Force generals like Curtis "Bomb the Reds back to the Stone Age" LeMay (LeMay was an intelligent and competent man, but he had no experience in ground warfare, just opinions about it), it's hard to understand why Secretary of Defense McNamara listened to them, but he did, perhaps because he didn't have any combat experience either, and just a few years after issuing M14 rifles to the Army and Marine Corps, he ordered the US military to switch to the M16 instead (though many of the M14s remain in storage in armories in the US, and even in 2004 many of them have been brought out of storage and issued to the men at the sharp end in Iraq and Afghanistan, and rumor has it that the Marine Corps now wants three men out of every thirteen-man rifle squad to carry M14s).
The argument for the .223 cartridge was that weapons such as the FN FAL were necessarily large, somewhat heavy, and (due to the power of the cartridge) difficult to control in full-auto fire, though the need for that feature is debatable. Note that most US Army and US Marine infantrymen today carry M16A2 rifles with the autosear, trip lever, and ratchet sear removed, making them semi-auto only. A secondary argument was that smaller calibers like the 5.56 x 45 mm / .223 Remington allowed American infantrymen to carry more ammunition due to the lighter weight of the individual cartridges, but general issue of full-auto weapons in the new small-caliber round meant that though American infantrymen in Vietnam with M16 rifles could carry two and a half times as much ammunition as they could for M14 rifles, they went through that ammunition three or four times as quickly, due to the poor training and poor discipline that were the norm for draftees in Vietnam.
In the early 1970s, NATO then adopted the medium-powered Remington .223 caliber as 5.56X45 NATO, retaining the larger cartridge for certain sniper rifles and medium machine guns; some NATO countries also use the 5.56X45 in belt-fed light machine guns as well.
And i found this:
The Saga of the M16 in Vietnam
Part 1 : http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html
Part 2 : http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html

Very interesting but toooooooooooo long to Quote here.

Greetz Joker
January 23rd, 2006  
zander_0633
 
 
Thnanks!


My Key board has just run out of battery! aha!
January 23rd, 2006  
Joker
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zander_0633
Thnanks!
My Key board has just run out of battery! aha!
Ok, nice, great but now we got only the reason. But............
Quote:
Originally Posted by zander_0633
Wellthi so tht if any slider r out of ammo, they can st take from th enemy!
......what do you want to say us with this "aslkdhgslaedlg csmnadsjhcbksjsylasdjf"??????????????????????

Greetz Joker
January 24th, 2006  
Dean
 
 
Thanks, Joker. Those are great articles. They manage to tie together every single problem that I have ever heard about with the M-16. It should be required reading for everyone who has a part in the decision making porcess for any new piece of equipment. If people listened to it, it would save a lot of trouble for the guys at the pointy end of the stick.

Dean.
January 24th, 2006  
zander_0633
 
 
I said that If they used standard ammo, They can just take the ammo of the enemy cause they are also using the same type of ammo!