Why 5.56?

[m.p.driver]

The 5.56 filled another part of the military doctrine thought at the time of,injure one and it takes two to carry him off,so three combatants are out of the game.Never put much faith in it when the hit individual is still returning fire,and might be a religious zealot now pi**ed off. I guess we didn't learn anything from the Moro.
I think a short 6mm or 6.5 would have made a better in between round,throwing a long skinny 125-140gr.
Having shot on rifle teams i know my abilities with an M16 out to 300m,but given personal choice I'll take a m14.

 

[Jt1971]

Before debating the merits of the 5.56 vs. the 7.62, one must study all the research material out there and examine the testing that has been done.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htm

http://youtu.be/lprGoEpDXJQ

The conclusions I have reached are:

- the 7.62 is better when you are engaging targets at a distance or targets behind a barrier. The video above demonstrates the 7.62mm is better at handling targets within buildings. the 5.56 clearly has less penetration

- the 5.56 in hollow point is very effective, however, the full metal jacket version is less effective

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=22&Weight=All

- the 7.62 in full metal jacket is just as effective as even the most potent 5.56 rounds

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=24&Weight=All

- the 7.62 has more kick which makes follow-up shots slower less accurate

- you can carry a lot more 5.56 then 7.62. More rounds is better when you are greatly outnumbered. For example, lets say you were in that battle in Somalia, would you have a more effective round or more rounds in general?

- sometimes you dont want too much penetration, for example, home defense. You really dont want that 7.62 going through one wall and out the other. The 5.56 in hollow point is a better alternative.

The answer to the age old debate is that a military unit is best served with both calibers. It depends upon the mission you are going on. I would want the 7.62 if I was going on a mission that required the engagement of targets at a far range or which are fortified behind barriers. However, for close quarters battle then I would choose the 5.56. The military appears they have gone in that direction with the "designated marksman".

One key factor in weapons and caliber selection of government organizations is $$$. The government does not have unlimited dollars and they can't load the armory with all of the rifles or calibers that you would like. They have to settle upon one standard and you have to make the best of it. It would be nice to have the Beowulf .50 in the armory, but the government would run out of money if they had everyone issued a Beowulf upper. So you have to go to battle with the weapons in the armory and not the ones you wish were there. Just make the best of what you have and train hard. You can't have every weapon in the world at your disposal.

You can't go by soldier's experiences alone. Soldiers have concluded many wrong and inaccurate things over the years such as the frozen uniforms of Korean soldiers during the Korean War being bulletproof. Someone told me once that it was against the Geneva convention to fire upon humans with a 50 Cal. The fact is that during a fast and pitched battle people will conclude just about anything. Also, can you really trust the word of a bunch of 18-23 somethings who will say just about anything to get some attention? Argue from the standpoint of credible tests and research, but dont take the word of an 18 year old full of testosterone.

 

[WLJ]

The 5.56 filled another part of the military doctrine thought at the time of,injure one and it takes two to carry him off,so three combatants are out of the game

sigh...
Urban legend

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Watch the language filter, folks.

Yep, I mentioned before that no one can find a primary source for the wounding doctrine. I think I said that talking to high end military firearms trainers and those in charge of planning training say it's BS.

 

[44 AMP]

No source, but a plausible explanation...

FMJ rifle bullets, because of their design (light at the front, heavy at the back) will tip over and tumble as they travel through tissue. Bigger, heavier bullets take longer to do this (travel through more tissue before turning base first), smaller, lighter bullets do it sooner.

A lot of the time, a .30 caliber bullet will have passed completely through a person before it has "tumbled". The .22cal usually tumbles within a body, or at least begins to. This was observed by GIs when the first M16s were field tested in Southeast Asia. The small light bullets did tumble, and bounce off bones, causing very potent wounds.

Thats where it began. And as large numbers of M16s began to be fielded, the story went out, told to, and by the sargents, to the troops, to give them confidence in the new "toy guns" and their itty bitty bullets.

Perhaps it was the bean counter's thinking that lead to the "wounding takes three men out of the fight" stories, however it started, it got into popular legend, and has stayed there ever since. Sort of like the "hit a guy in the finger with a .45 and it will knock him down" legend. Its BS, but for some reason, does not seem to ever die.

Now, the military, in its infinite wisdom, changed the ammo spec on the 5.56, changed the twist on the rifles, issued them in country without cleaning kits, and generally did a lot of things to render the M16 and the 5.56mm ammo the lest effective and least functional possible. They even put out another legend, that the rifles did not have to be cleaned! (That one died rather rapidly).

So now, we are in combat in Vietnam, and our guys are finding out that the "Mighty Mattel" (another BS legend) does not work the way we were promised it would. Here begins the (justified) doubt about the effectivness of the 5.56mm, and the M16 rifle. And that one has stayed alive, to this day, and probably will continue on for a long time yet.

It has taken 40 some years, and a lot of dead and wounded GIs, but the service finally got the bugs (both design flaws and bureaucrat induced) out of the M16 and its ammo. I'm not a big fan of either, but I can, and do admit that today, they work as well as can be, for what they are. But what they are is not the best possible system for all situations. That's reality, deal with it, and move on.

 

[The Book]

One report I was reading says the Afgan war becoming more of long distance war is the military is thinking of putting one or two 7.62 in the group along with the 5.56.
This may be a dead horse but the idea of a forum is to get folks talking and this sure has

 

[Jt1971]

No one is debating the fact that either the 5.56's or 7.62's ability to kill, but the debate centers around which is the better tool for the job. You wouldnt use a brick to put a nail into a piece of wood...instead you would use a hammer as it was built for the job. Of course, the 5.56 is not the best tool for every job. It may not be so effective at firing at the enemy who is barricaded inside a house as the video I posted proves. Firing at an angle into the house is more challenging for the 5.56. However, there are certain circumstances where I would favor the 5.56.

So you have to figure out which tool is better for the mission you are on. However, the problem is that oftentimes the cirumstances during a mission change rapidly and a soldier can't carry 2-3 rifles with different calibers. This is why you have an entire squad with mixes and matches of different weaponry to help fill the voids during the course of battle. No military unit in recent times has gone into battle exclusively with the 5.56. There are designated marksmen and machine gunners who use the 7.62 so there is a mix of different calibers.

At the end of the day, the truth is that both the 5.56 and 7.62 have the ability to drive that nail into a piece of wood. I can guarantee that if either round hit you in the chest, leg, arms or head there is going to be a lot of blood and you will be considerably slower (if not stopped) after the fact.

 

[BlueTrain]

Another thing worth remembering about the AR-15 and the cartridges it was originally offered in (it was entirely a commercial venture), is that it was designed in a very progressive era in which we had finally gotten around to replacing the WWII equipment that had been in use through the late 1950s. Even so, the M1 and the BAR continued in use into the 1970s with National Guard units.

Apparently no one today will admit liking anything from that period for some reason even though much of the equipment is still in service in some modified way, if it isn't entirely obsolete. The AR-15 and the AR-10 were very innovative in some ways, even if some of the details had already appeared on something else. The pistonless gas system was not original, for instance. The goal was apparently to make the greatest use of space-age materials, sort of a buzz word at the time, and it certainly did. Plastic had already been used on rifles but not to the extent it was on those rifles. Some experimental rifles even had wood "furniture" and there were some AR-10s with short barrels.

Other innovative new weapons of the day included the 40mm grenade launcher, the M60 machine gun and the 90mm SP gun and even the M113 armored personnel carrier. Anyone here not seen one of them? Even the M14 was considered the greatest thing since the bolt action rifle.

Another factor was the fact that experiments had been ongoing in more than one place with small caliber or intermediate caliber cartridges for the previous 25 years and some had already been in service by 1960 for 15 years. That much wasn't really all that new at the time. That doesn't mean it was the best choice by any means but you will notice that it has been around now for nearly 50 years, the AR-15 having been introduced when Kennedy was president. Hasn't quite beat the .30-06 yet but it soon will.

 

[kraigwy]

More ammo=pray and spray? I never understood the theory.

Relatively a simple concept. The purpose of firepower in combat is not just precision fire. Yes that is important, but its not the only thing thats important in regards to rifles used by soldiers.

In SE Asia, a majority of the firefights, you never see the enemy. You are firing at a tree line or something similar. That brings us to fire an maneuver.

In the old days we called into Bounding Overwatch, (don't know what its called today. Basically you have two fire teams. The squad advances. One fire team takes cover and provides deadly mass fire as the second team moves up. This team now takes cover and provides the fire for the other team to move up. All the time you are keeping the bad guys' head down as you move on them.

Its the same for Ambushes. The immediate action for an ambush is to assault through. This takes massive fire power. Your idea here is not to kill anyone (that comes later) but to get them to keep from shooting at you.

Its the proven technique to get you out of an ambush. It takes massive fire power.

I'll point out again, that most of the time you don't see who you are shooting at.

SO YES, there is a need for what you call, SPRAY AND PRAY. That's where the weight of the 223 and the ability to carry more ammo comes in, and it is effective on shooting bad guys, and its an accurate and effective round to about 700 meters.

Add that to the fact that sniper engagement average somewhere north of 400 meters.

 

[8shot357]

Holy cow this went on more than I'd like to read!

Post # 26
Glenn E. Meyer
Remember top brass service men in the Civil War were against repeaters.

Like Custards last stand?

Rich Miranda

Post # 37

The few times that it wasn't, they brought in a usually readily available alternate weapon. The theme seemed to be that the 5.56 is the right tool for the job MOST of the time, so why trade away its very positive aspects (light recoil, accuracy, light weight) that ALWAYS benefit you, for more punch that will benefit you seldom or rarely.

(light recoil, accuracy, light weight) that ALWAYS benefit you, for more punch that will benefit you seldom or rarely.

Time to go to bed!

 

[Trigger Finger]

"a combination AK 57 oozie radar laser triple-barrel double-scoped heat-seekin shotgun." YEA, I want one of those!!

SIGSAR, where are you getting your information from? I don't think I have ever read a more inaccurate post about anything!!
"useless against thin skinned targets" This is very wrong to say the least.

I carried an M-4 for years and found it to be very effective. The round would penetrate vehicle bodies, soft armor and glass well, not great but well. A member of my unit used one to shoot through a back window of a car and into the head of the murder suspect we were after. It worked fine.

I bring up these old war stories just to illustrate that I know something about what I speak. Used within its limits the 5.56 is very good. IMHO

 

[MTT TL]

Yep, I mentioned before that no one can find a primary source for the wounding doctrine. I think I said that talking to high end military firearms trainers and those in charge of planning training say it's BS.

It was the Post Chaplin for Ft. Bragg. He put an article in his Chaplin's Corner. *Doat, I just invented another urban legend.

Relatively a simple concept. The purpose of firepower in combat is not just precision fire. Yes that is important, but its not the only thing thats important in regards to rifles used by soldiers.

In SE Asia, a majority of the firefights, you never see the enemy. You are firing at a tree line or something similar. That brings us to fire an maneuver.

In the old days we called into Bounding Overwatch, (don't know what its called today. Basically you have two fire teams. The squad advances. One fire team takes cover and provides deadly mass fire as the second team moves up. This team now takes cover and provides the fire for the other team to move up. All the time you are keeping the bad guys' head down as you move on them.

Its the same for Ambushes. The immediate action for an ambush is to assault through. This takes massive fire power. Your idea here is not to kill anyone (that comes later) but to get them to keep from shooting at you.

Its the proven technique to get you out of an ambush. It takes massive fire power.

I'll point out again, that most of the time you don't see who you are shooting at.

SO YES, there is a need for what you call, SPRAY AND PRAY. That's where the weight of the 223 and the ability to carry more ammo comes in, and it is effective on shooting bad guys, and its an accurate and effective round to about 700 meters.

Add that to the fact that sniper engagement average somewhere north of 400 meters.

I am not even sure where to begin. I'll just say a lot has changed. Just about everything you said actually.

 

[BlueTrain]

I happened to catch something on television a year or two ago. It was combat footage from probably Afganistan of a convoy that was caught in an ambush. The camera showed the hillside where the fire was coming from but you couldn't see a target by no means, at least not on the screen. But the convoy literally covered the hillside with automatic weapons fire smothering the opposition and everyone got home safe (to camp, that is). That was combat and nothing at all like rifle range shooting. And yes, it was spray and pray, probably same as the other side.

There is a concept also called reconnaisance by fire, too, which involves a lot of shooting.

 

[MLeake]

If you said "suppressive fire" as opposed to "spray and pray" you would probably ruffle fewer feathers. Of course, you'd describe similar methods, but one sounds more professional.

 

[oldkim]

People play video games way toooo much....

The question why does the military have the 5.56 as the main battle rifle issued to our military....

It's really simple - we (civilians) can argue the point til the cow's jump the moon...

From a military standpoint.... you use what you are "issued". (Period).

It's all about logistics right now - ammo and firearms are readily available. Even so much that we civilians (I used to be military) are now shooting the heck out of the AR-15 (M-4/M16 variants).... we have a choice and by almost any standard the AR-15 variants is still a big seller.

Small units have tried and are testing "newer" rounds and "rifle platforms" but until it goes main stream it'll be some time before the average boots on the ground will see those that are being field tested.

With advancements with calibers and firearm platforms I'm sure the next generation will be a huge step (I just don't see it happening in the next 5-7 years).


Oh so back to the video game concept. I see there are several arguments of "spray and pray" - I like to see you pop your head over that cement cover. When someone is really shooting at you.... you want to put down covering fire and hope for the best.

Although call it "suppressive fire" is a funny PC term...

 

[Dangerwing]

Holy Feedback batman!!

Wow!! I got a lot more discussion out of that thread-starter than I expected! A lot of good points too! Some I agree with, some I don't. I am currently a member of the US Military and my primary job is OC/T (Observer Controler/Trainer) I run training lanes for units during their mobilization process. That being said, I agree with the thought that the 7.62x51 probably isn't practical or necessary for most modern combat applications. When it is needed, most combat units (read Infantry) have either a few M-14s or an M-240B. A few people touched on the 6.8 Spc. I guess thats what I was getting at. No necessarily just the 6.8, but other modern rounds. It seem there has to be a middle ground between the 5.56x39 and the 7.62x51. The .243 is light and low-recoil, yet offers much better stopping power than the .223. Even the .270 that has killed so many deer would be an option worth discussing. I just think there has to be a happy medium.

To all those that point out that the 5.56 has proven to be a leathal round in combat I say this: the most common round used in murders in the US is the .22 LR. Therefor it has been proven a leathal round. Does that mean we should equip our soldiers with it?

To those that point out that 7.62 is too heavy I say this: so why does some poor joe still have to carry a M240B and a few hundred rounds of ammo? And why does his even poorer AG have to carry a spare barrel and SEVERAL hundred rounds of ammo? Soldiers have to carry heavy things. It sucks but welcome to the military.

Either way, it was a fun debate!

 

[BlueTrain]

I think the orginal question is interesting and not really answered so far but, no, I don't have the final answer either.

I mentioned earlier that experiments in smaller caliber cartridges, meaning cartridges smaller than the .30-06, .303, 7.9 Mauser, and all the other cartridges that almost all armies were using in, say, 1918. And remember the rule of thumb, nothing is going to be changed in the military right after a major war. I don't know if what's going on now counts or not but I doubt any change will be made for a long time just for that reason alone. That is, provided it ever ends. It isn't unknown for significant changes or innovations to be made during a war, as with the AR-15.

Returning to my thought here, even the Garand was designed with a new cartridge, the .276 Pedersen, which I assume had a seperate development history, but the rule of thumb was working against it. And did you ever notice how the same names keep popping up in firearms design?

After the war the British did lots of experiments with very small bore cartridges but most of them had serious shortcomings. But nothing is designed in a vacuum, except maybe the Glock, and every new cartridge probably owes something to three or four older cartridges. Since the AR-15 was entirely a commercial venture, same as their other products, it might be that the choice of the .222 Remington was made with darts, although I don't know what else they might have chosen from what was available. They certainly should have known about the 7.9x33 and in fact the first FN light auto rifles were in that caliber. The ones in 7.62mm while not bad rifles, were neither light or auto. The 7.62x39 may not have actually been familiar to the designers at Armalite and by the time they found out, it may have been too late. Just as there are AK rifles in 5.56, there have been AR-15s in 7.62x39 but I understand there have been issues. But in any event, I'd have to believe they would have rejected it (the 7.62x39) anyway because it was contrary, so to speak, to their way of thinking.

So, evidently, as the project became better known in military circles, the .222 was seen as inadequate and a more powerful cartridge was called for, which resulted in the .223 Remington, as it was called commercially, although some early publications refer to it as the .224. The .223 seems to be between 10% and 20% more powerful.

If any of this is true, then you immediately begin to wonder what else they might have used.

You also know that some armies were also already using rifles in 6.5mm but the cartridges were really no smaller than .30-caliber ammunition in any significant way, though they were usually less powerful and probably remarkably close to some of the new-fangled cartridges being designed today for the M-16. The .243 Winchester that someone mentioned is a derivation of the .308 Winchester and is not significantly lighter or smaller. Frankly it is difficult to believe that something really new could be designed now.

 

[MTT TL]

Ok, I am more awake now...

Relatively a simple concept. The purpose of firepower in combat is not just precision fire. Yes that is important, but its not the only thing thats important in regards to rifles used by soldiers.

The job of the rifleman is to be precise. It is more the job of the machine gunner to lay down suppressive fire. Sure, a rifleman can help lay down suppressive fire but it is not his job.

In the old days we called into Bounding Overwatch, (don't know what its called today. Basically you have two fire teams. The squad advances. One fire team takes cover and provides deadly mass fire as the second team moves up. This team now takes cover and provides the fire for the other team to move up. All the time you are keeping the bad guys' head down as you move on them.

It is still called bounding overwatch except normally it involves three squads plus a supporting element. A squad almost never attacks a prepared defensive position on it own. The closer you get to the objective eventually it breaks down into fire teams and then buddy rushes. Or you just drop a bomb on it and clean up after.

Its the same for Ambushes. The immediate action for an ambush is to assault through. This takes massive fire power. Your idea here is not to kill anyone (that comes later) but to get them to keep from shooting at you.

There are lot of variables here based on the type of ambush, the type of enemy, the distance to the enemy etc, etc. I won't hit each of the scenarios but there are a lot of decisions that are made by SOP.

I'll point out again, that most of the time you don't see who you are shooting at.

Maybe in Vietnam, everywhere is different. You might not see a person but you will likely see a weapon signature. Normally it all happens so fast you are not entirely sure what you saw. But most often I saw the person.

SO YES, there is a need for what you call, SPRAY AND PRAY. That's where the weight of the 223 and the ability to carry more ammo comes in, and it is effective on shooting bad guys, and its an accurate and effective round to about 700 meters.

Suppressive fire. Suppressive fire is aimed shots. People that don't aim get swatted on the back of the ACH and yelled at.

 

[skydiver3346]

Why the 5.56?

Cause that is what we got the most of (rifles/ammo) etc.
Yep, it did the job in Vietnam and been taking out our enemies ever since then. But I do agree it has it's shortcomings on certain situations. Seems to me they ought to look at the 6.8 SPC round as its replacement. Same gun and the training would not change. The 6.8 is just a more efficient bullet type to handle most combat scenarios. I have an AR type rifle in the 6.8 caliber and it is awesome. Very accurate and much more down range energy (especially at the longer distances).

 

[m.p.driver]

The idea of wounding one to remove three is far from a urban legend,it was taught in the classrooms in basic training(At least at Ft.McClellan ,Ala in 1987).Also taught was to lift your buddy through a high window by you taking the stock of an m16,and another taking the muzzle,and lifting your buddy while he stands in the middle.Who's trying to say they were right?It was just the thinking and training at the time.