Ideal Assault rifle cartridge.

Status
Not open for further replies.
"England went smaller with the 4.85mm but again had to play nice with the ally who had bailed them out with guns and ammunition in two world wars."

The primary reason why the 4.85 failed to find any takers at all, not just NATO, is that it was designed around a fairly short, lightweight bullet.

Ballistics were phenomonal out to about 150 meters. At 50 meters it was like the target was being hit by a mini nuke.

Much past 150 meters the bullet started shedding velocity like mad and effectiveness plummeted.

One estimate I've seen stated that the 4.85 was as effective at 300 meters as the 5.56 was a 600 meters, and at 600 meters the 4.85 was largely useless unless the target was hit in the head.
 
This is one of those fascinating threads that just gets better and better. Here are a few of my own thoughts on the topic.

While we are all always searching for the ideal, it doesn't follow that there is only one. Both the 7.62x39 and the 5.56 NATO are pretty good and both have been in use since before I left high school. That must say something. Neither operates on the battlefield all by itself, which means that the ideal assault (or infantry rifle) cartridge should not be expected to do everything. Otherwise compromise enters into the picture. That is, unless you see these two cartridges as compromises themselves.

Some suggest the problem is lack of training. An infantry unit, when not in action or on R&R, is training. Not training on the range, of course. They will go through a training cycle to enable them to operate as a team, and as part of larger and larger teams as the cycle progesses. I assume the Taliban is always in combat, or so it would seem. Anyway, there is no way you can train everyone in an infantry unit to be above average. Excellent marksmanship is not only the result of good training but also of talent and certain physical abilities, both of which you need to be born with. You can't train someone to have good eyesight.

That means it is pointless to talk about the 500-meter capabilities of a cartridge when the average soldier will have trouble making hits at 300-meters. No offence to all you average people. That doesn't mean a full-grown rifle, such as an M14, has no place in an infantry unit.

Moving on to the weapons that use these cartridges, I think the AR-15 family of weapons is pretty good. I owned an AR-15 and was mightily impressed with it, though I only had an M14 in the army. At the same time, I have no idea why anyone thinks an FN FAL is any better than an M14 but that's not an issue that belongs in this thread. But the M4 seems to be more common these days. We had one here at work for a month or so a few years ago and I had a chance to examine it closely. It sure was a heavy thing but otherwise it seems pretty handy.

While we all talk about the ideal cartridge, other, more progressive folks have fooled around with what we (they, that is) have and have done things to improve performance. Not with the cartridge but with the sights. Optical sights are lavishly issued in the armed these days and hits ought to be going up. If not, I'd like to know why.

Now, about that foolishness about just wounding people. Where do people get the idea that only wounding an enemy takes more of them off the battlefield. Only we take care of the wounded like that and for that matter, we might be the ones taking care of the wounded enemy. Even more so, I imagine that we shouldn't take prisoners, either, for the same reason.

None of the above is to suggest that we have reached the end of small arms development.
 
Some suggest the problem is lack of training. An infantry unit, when not in action or on R&R, is training. Not training on the range, of course.
Click to expand...

Based on what I have read. (Again, I don't have any direct experience with this other than my 1st cousin is the Captain in charge of the Ft Benning boot camp).

The military training time isn't teaching what needs to be taught. One of the guys one LF.net was in a firefight and one of his guys said that his target wouldn't fall, he just kept shooting him but nothing happend. He watched the guy shooting and said he was shooting over the guys head, notice the guy flinch when the rounds were snapping over his head. He told him to drop his point of aim and then splat. No more Haji.

There were quite a few other eamples of this, many times this was suggested as the reason why some people my have felt the 5.56 was inadequate. They thought they were getting hits they weren't actually getting because the training they were getting wasn't focused on combat shooting. The focus was too much on COIN and diversity training and not enough on actual combat marksmanship.
 
You may have a good point. But it isn't a new problem. Judging from what I have read, that problem goes back a long ways and not only in our army. To address the shortcomings of recruit training, combat formations often established battle schools of one form or another to bring replacements up to current standards and in particular, for the theater in which the organization was operating. The unfortunate thing for the soldier on the ground (the "dismounted soldier," as a recent expression puts it), is that it always seems to take a year or two for any army to get its act together to fight the current war.

At the same time, it is also an unfortunate thing that early successes in action (again, by any army) are often as not unappreciated and from a historical standpoint, even totally ignored as if they never happened. But such successes may have no bearing on the outcome anyway. You could say that they were "overcome by events." More than likely, any successes by the enemy will be downplayed for propaganda reasons, or, if you are supporting our enemy, magnified.
 
Mike Irwin
I think I would prefer 5.56 to 4.85 whoever was backing it. America got almost exactly what it asked for in the M1 carbine(What a lovely weapon). What America could have had, and perhaps should have had was the 30 Kurz in 1941. American might have laid claim to the first Assault Rifle. Could have changed history, really set the cat amongst the pigeons.:cool: Don't have hard and fast ballistics for that round either.
 
"17 caliber? Wow, that was gutsy."

It was never adopted, but it is what the original versions of what became the SA80 were first chambered in.

The bullet was actually 19 caliber, .190.

In early NATO tests the 4.85 actually outperformed the then current 5.56 bullet (M193), but at the same tests FN rolled out their re-engineered 5.56 bullet, which NATO later adopted as the SS 109 and the US as the M855. It blew the 4.85 out of the water ballistically, so the 4.85 was dropped and the Enfield rifle redesigned to take 5.56.
 
7.62 x 39 is the perfect assault rifle cartridge. Personally, I don't think it's been fully explored. By that I mean that I've wondered how far it can be pushed to increase its power and accuracy. People think 7.62x39 = steel-cased dirty ammo. And, why not, the stuff works and its cheap. But, what if you used a brass casing, slighter tighter chambers, good powder, and real copper jacketed lead bullets. Replace the sloppy gas system found on most AK's and use something more comparable to a FAL. I'd bet that you can squeeze some much better performance out of this cartridge.
 
There is no perfect cartridge or platform to shoot it from. The OP is obviously biased against the 5.56 why? Because more 3rd world crapholes prefer the AK? Makes a lot of sense. It's like saying that gang bangers prefer small .25's like the raven because it's a superior cartridge. Put a gun in scum's hand, scum shoots gun. Scum doesn't give a crap what cartridge it shoots.

All cartridges ever developed have positives and negatives, all offer trade offs of some sort. Just glad I'm not limited to military ball ammo with anything I shoot.

LK
 
7.62 x 39 is the perfect assault rifle cartridge
Click to expand...

Why do you say this?

In my experience the round has inferior ballistics to the 5.56/5.45/5.8 in both terminal & flight characteristics.

It does beat those rounds in penetration against some types of barriers (like concrete) but inferior in penetration of ballistic armor.

Just curious about your reasoning.
 
Increase the performance? That's what some folks try to do with the .45-70. I suppose it's a worthy goal, only what results isn't the same cartridge. But maybe the 7.62x39 isn't perfect after all, although it's certainly "good enough."

The original FAL was designed around the 7.92k cartridge, I read somewhere. But as far as the AK design goes, it's already been improved upon in a few models. I'm not sure there's much room left for any more improvement on the basic design.
 
Sorry that I hurt your feelings with a bald statement, Mick.

The fact remains that the USA was then the industrial powerhouse that drove such decisions for the old allies and NATO.

I don't think we necessarily got it right. From what was available in the 1950s, the .280 cartridge in the FN rifle seems a good combination to me. Especially in light of later developments now seeking a middle ground between .22 and .30.
The which I doubt will happen. 21st century budgets will not support incremental improvements in smallarms. Maybe we can buy the (plastic) cased telescoped system, when and if it is debugged.
 
Why do you say this?
Click to expand...

It's a 30 caliber cartridge with the potential for much higher capacity than .308. You can carry much more 7.62x39 than .308. I believe that if it's power is slightly increased, and used in a firearm better designed to take advantage of increased power than an AK, it will blow away 5.56 in just about every category.

Why are we even comparing 7.62x39 to 5.56? 5.56 is a minimalist round for light-weight, full-auto machineguns. In a semi-auto, it might be ok for shooting medium dog-sized critters. It's only advantage is a slightly higher capacity than 7.62x39....maybe. IMHO, 30 caliber is what I want in a gun designed for fighting men.

It does beat those rounds in penetration against some types of barriers (like concrete) but inferior in penetration of ballistic armor.
Click to expand...

Most 7.62x39 is russian crap shot through AK's. Has anyone tried to make a more premium 7.62x39 cartridge -possibly, but I personally haven't seen any. If you are looking for something armor-piercing, I'm sure a hardened steel core 7.62x39 in a hot cartridge will be just as if not ore effective than 5.56. Some Mini-14's and AR's can shoot 7.62x39, but I'd like to see a lighter weight version of a FAL-type rifle chambered for this cartridge, with slightly tighter chambers. I believe there is a lot more power and performance that can be squeezed out of the 7.62x39 with the right ammo and right rifle.

My only point here is that we are comparing apples to oranges - Wolf 7.62x39 fired out of sloppy AK's to premium brass cased 5.56. fired out of tight-assed chambered AR's. So, let's make some premium, hot 7.62x39 and shoot them out of AR's with barrels specifically configured to obtain maximum performance from this cartridge, and then compare the cartridge to 5.56. And, while we're at it, lets see how close we can get performance to .308 out of this smaller cartridge. Heck, there was a time when .308 was considered much weaker than 30-06.....technology changed this.
 
Last edited:
The Russians have never tried to make the 7.62x39 their all-round cartridge. They retained the 7.62x54, a rimmed (flanged) cartridge, for use in machine guns (other than the squad auto) and their marksman/sniper rifle, which is deployed at squad level. But I wouldn't call the 5.56 minimalist.

The AR-15 was originally designed around the .222 Remington. Potential users thought it should have a 100-meter additional range capability, so a new cartridge, the .223 was developed and the AR-15 became the first gun to use that cartridge, I believe. But you can call it minimalist and it won't bother me at all. But remember, up until relatively recently, submachine guns were widely used in some militaries even to the exclusion of rifles (but not other weapons). Mostly what the so-called intermediate calibers have done, and there are really only two, is to make submachine guns obsolete. For those of you who haven't handled a submachine gun, they can be surprisingly heavy.

Personally I think both cartridges are fine just the way they are.
 
Mostly what the so-called intermediate calibers have done, and there are really only two, is to make submachine guns obsolete. For those of you who haven't handled a submachine gun, they can be surprisingly heavy.
Click to expand...

While the submachine gun is all but obsolite for your average soldier, I will disagree about the weight. While the older sub guns weight about as much or more than a rifle (like the Thompson which weights about 10 pounds) modern ones can be very light. A Kriss V is only about 5 pounds. Thats half the weight as the Thompson with the same cartrige.

Just sayin:o


Of course rifles/carbine's did get the same treatment and why have a Submachine gun that weights 5-6 pounds when you can carry an M4.
 
Last edited:
jimwatson no harm done

"Least said soonest mended"

Jim your mention of the British 280 made me think.

Perhaps we are re-inventing the wheel. It's like everyone knows a wheel must be round, BUT no one agrees how many spokes are required or if spokes are really needed. Perhaps cartridges are like wheels "The number of spokes you need is dictated by the terrain you intend to cover."

With cartridges the one you want is dependent on the intended target, its probable range and to some extent by what protects it. When we can agree on that perhaps then the powers that be will issue our troops with the "perfect" assault rifle cartridge.
 
Dear Father Time,

Sorry; just had to say that. My point earlier was that the M4 carbine when tricked out with all the bells and whistles is no longer lightweight. That's not saying it's too heavy or anything and a regular 7.62 NATO rifle will also be heavier when the same things are added to one of them, too. It's still a handly little thing.

Regarding the cartridges again, which is where this all started, I'm sure there could be some improvements possible. I've thought that the 5.56 case with a .30 bullet might be better but you'd quickly have arguments about what weight it should be. But by retaining the case with only that change, everything else with the AR-15 series ought to work as it is. But you'd have to get the rest of the world, almost, to go along with the idea--or would you?

However, it would remain that the improvement would be incremental and would in no way replace the larger cartridges that would almost certainly be retained, meaning it wouldn't be an earth-shaking change.

What is interesting here is that during WWII, the Japanese and Italians, who both had considerable actual battle experience during the war, changed from a 6.5mm to a 7.7mm or thereabouts cartridge because they both, independently considered the previous round to be too weak. The Italians for their part were already using a larger round in some of their machine guns. Yet at the very same time, the Germans, who also had a little battlefield experience, adopted the first true intermediate cartridge. No wonder no one learns anything from history.
 
Not every problem can be fixed with a hammer. That's why we have things like screwdrivers and pliers as well.

The 5.56 isn't perfect (too small, doesn't penetrate). 7.62x51 isn't perfect (too heavy to carry in quantity). Yet, for some reason, M14s are working side by side with M4s. The M249 has been running around with this buddy the M60/M240 for a long time. We have been using the M2 for decades.

Bottom line: If you're having trouble clipping wire with your hammer, don't blame the hammer. The military uses a LOT of cartridges besides 5.56.
 
I have thought about Blue Train's point a lot.
Different perceptions had armies moving in opposite directions in WW II.
Also, we used the M1 Carbine as a combat weapon a lot more than its planners, looking for a pistol substitute, ever intended.
We had just as well bite the bullet (sic) and figure on supplying two different infantry rifle/lmg systems. The search for The All Around Rifle may be as futile for the army as it is for the hunter.
 
It's always hard to see the big picture in discussions like this and moreover, it's hard to see the problems that occur from both a development and production standpoint and from a user standpoint. Sometimes, it isn't even easy to get the end user to accept the newfangled things. And it goes without saying that even when a new weapon is developed, even when it's only a variation of something you already have, you can't snap your fingers and have it in the troops' hands a month later, although some amazing production feats have happened and recently, too.

Another thing that enters into both the theory and the development of new weapons or weapons systems as well as the attitude of the users is the perception of the enemy's weapons, which may be false. The Japanese in WWII had the idea that every American soldier carried a machine gun, they had so much firepower. They may not have been that far off but it played a part in their (the Japanese) post-war development of their own new weapons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top