Why 5.56?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

That's not the case. It's "fire superiority".

Rapid fire is probably the most important single phase of the military rifle shooting in war.......The storm of the fire with which the trained regulars of the British Army halted the advance of the overwhelming German divisions in the August retreat of 1914, made the Germans believe the British had their front stiff with machine guns instead of being scantily supplied. The British trained their regulars with the heavy stress of rapid fire. (the Lee was capable of firing two shots to the Mauser's one, and the British Contemptibles fired even faster then this proportion when matters became hot
Click to expand...

CPT Edward C. Crossman, "Military and Sporting Rifle Shooting". 1932

Our Army was so impressed that after 1917 British non-coms were brought to this country as instructors in Rapid Fire techniques. This need for rapid fire was what got the search for a self loading rifle program started, and now, all modern army's have adapted automatic rifles of one sort of the other.

We all have our opinions on rifles and ammo, but none can dispute the need for rapid/automatic fire to gain fire superiority. The lighter the rifle/ammo, the more ammo you can carry to gain this fire superiority.

Yes you need the means of precission fire, (there fore the SDM program) but you also need rapid fire, like you need mortors, artillary, etc etc..........its all part of the combined arms concept.

I'm aware wars are differant. Vietnam is differant then Iraq (except for urban battles from Tet '68) for example.

BUT: War per se, proves the fact that History Repeats itself. Urban combat in Europe closely resembes the urban battles in Iraq. The later portions of the Korean war resembles Afgan as does the 10th Mountain Division campaines in Italy. Vietnam resembes the Jungle fighting in the SP during WWII. Precision rifle shooting in combat has its place, but it was the massive "rapid fire" from both rifles and machine guns that keep the troops in the trenches in WWI.

We all, who study the art of Sniping, like to use Stalingrad as the prime example of our art, but in reality, the Russin sniper tactics were that they were left in pockets as the Russians retreated. These snipers would direct artillary on the German positions which caused more damage then the sniper rifle. It wasn't until the Russians outfitted whole units with intermediate round "assualt rifles" (and mass artillary) that pushed the Germans out, and encircled them.
 
Well, actually, at the time, it was the Germans who had the intermediate round weapon in the form of the MP44, only they didn't have enough of them or soldiers either.

It is interesting to reflect on different armies approaches to tactical problems, which are often different than problems that other armies think they have. The different solutions they come up with are the result of different resources and of different problems coming up with a working solution. Some wonderful weapons (not exactly wonder weapons) were scorned when they became available, usually by the old timers up and down the ranks, including generals, until they were on the receiving end and saw the light. Submachine guns are a good example.

In the case of the Russians, or rather the Soviets, they had bad experiences in their wars with Finland and decided sub-machine guns were a Good Thing and went in for them wholesale. They did not neglect other small arms by any means and some of theirs were better than the competition. For all their roughness, they were generally more reliable than finely built weapons and that is always appreciated by the front line soldier. So they probably had things like that on their mind when the AK-47 was being developed. I believe that sub-machine gun development continued into the 1950s and beyond even when the concept had become mostly obsolete with the introduction of intermediate caliber rifle cartridges, only they didn't realize it.

I couldn't possibly say what the good folks at Armalite were thinking but more than likely they were simply trying to do more with some of the concepts they had developed on previous weapons. For the life of me, I cannot think of another military rifle from that period with similiar characteristics. But the Nylon 66 certainly comes to mind.
 
"In the case of the Russians, or rather the Soviets, they had bad experiences in their wars with Finland and decided sub-machine guns were a Good Thing and went in for them wholesale."

My understanding is that the Soviets used the sub-machine gun because it was much cheaper to stamp out the parts rather then spend more for a battle rifle. It was used by the many, many thousands out of necessity.
The Soviets had a problem arming all of it's military with adequate weapons!

"For the life of me, I cannot think of another military rifle from that period with similiar characteristics."

The British had an experimental rifle called the EM2 at the end of the 1950s that used a 6.2mm cartridge but the U.S. discounted it as being too weak.
The British brought back the EM2 years later with an even smaller 4.85mm cartridge that was replaced by the 5.56 mm in favor of Nato.

Back to the point, the 5.56 mm is not perfect but it is very good for it's intended purpose. The cartridge and weapons that use it will be around for the next couple of decades, at least.
 
The Red Army was very conservative and some generals didn't think much of machine guns, but that was true in other armies as well until the shooting started. But it was true the Soviets had trouble providing enough equipment for their army and the low cost of the submachine gun, especially the PPS 1943, was a big plus. However, when they began producing the AK-47 (after they produced the SKS), the first ones were anything but cheaply made. I imagine there could be a nice long thread about the relative merits of fit and finish on a combat weapon, compared to other features. The first AKs had milled receivers.

You are correct about the EM-2, which my source gives as 7mm short or .280 (I don't actually have one), but it didn't enter service or get produced in any numbers to speak of. But that reminds me of a note about some of the testing about some of the experimental cartridges. A requirement was to be able to pierce both sides of an issue helment at certain ranges, and the comment was "of those rounds that hit the target," suggesting to me that achieving hits is harder than penetrating the target. At least it has to happen first.
 
An angle which hasn't been addressed yet, unless I missed it:

As hard armor use spreads, why move from what's proven to provide the most challenge to armor makers, namely the 5.56mm M855 Green Tip FMJ @ 3054 fps or faster?
 
Last edited:
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)
Click to expand...
I never said that the tactic was urban legend, but when people go saying the 5.56 was developed specially to only wound and not kill, that's urban legend. People don't die from bullets, they die from the wounds caused by bullets and the 5.56 causes nasty wounds that very often lead to death.
 
In a sense, aren't all military bullets designed to wound? Wasn't that the whole idea behind full metal jacket? Weren't they made as a way to incapacitate an enemy rather than outright kill him?
 
I didn't say wound, I said incapacitate. As in, getting the enemy out of the battle. Whether or not they die is of little consequence as long as he is out of the battle. That's always been my understanding. Isn't that why the hague conventions outlaws expanding ammo as inhumane?
 
Excuse me but you did say wound!!!

"In a sense, aren't all military bullets designed to wound?"

Your words hardworker. But any way how do you get soldiers to wound/incapacitate the enemy on purpose when they have such a low hit ratio in the first place? And I heard that they outlawed Hollow Points to prevent the "Dum Dum" type bullets of WWI. Those would almost explode when hitting a person. But most people think any restrictions in war are unnecessary when you use napalm, cluster bombs, 50bmg and 20mm anti personnel rounds to mow down the enemy in droves. Not to mention the A-Bomb, which was not restricted. Germ warfare and poison gas deserves restriction but otherwise let the boys fight. :D
 
Last edited:
My mistake, I did say wound when I meant something else. I'm not talking about wounding being a military tactic. I don't pretend to know anything about military tactics. My point is that military bullets are effectively neutered by the hague convention banning expanding ammunition.

What I'm saying is, at least to the best of my understanding, the goal of shooting someone, at least as far as the guys who wrote the hague convention were concerned, is to remove them from the battle, not necessarily kill them. It is this goal that led to the banning of expanding ammunition. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
as far as the guys who wrote the hague convention were concerned, is to remove them from the battle, not necessarily kill them
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it say "it was forbidden to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering"
I think that leaves killing them wide open, just don't make them suffer, an early attempt to PC war.
 
Last edited:
I agree. It was trying to make war more PC. What I'm saying is that, at least in my eyes, killing the enemy is not the goal of war. The goal is to make them unable to fight. Often that means killing them, but wounding them sometimes has the same effect and is more PC.
 
What does win by attrition really mean?
Click to expand...
It means the side that runs out of resources first, loses. It could be men, machines, ammo, or just the will to fight. Run out before the other side does, you lose.
 
Amazing, that after over 50 years the merits of the 5.56 are still being debated.
 
Last edited:
"Remember top brass service men in the Civil War were against repeaters."

One of the biggest reasons why General James Ripley, chief of ordnance, was hesitant to authorize large-scale issuance of repeating rifles was because of the already strained supply situation.

Each new cartridge introduced into the supply system made a bad situation infinitely worse.

During the War the Union ended up supplying something like 100+ individual cartridges, none of which was interchangeable.
 
"My understanding is that the Soviets used the sub-machine gun because it was much cheaper to stamp out the parts rather then spend more for a battle rifle. It was used by the many, many thousands out of necessity."

Not just the necessity of producing arms quickly, but the submachine gun was also uniquely suited for Soviet massed infantry attack tactics.

The firepower that a Soviet division armed with submachine guns, while indeed short ranged, could lay down was just freaking staggering.
 
It's worth mentioning to this endless debate that:

1) The DoD is looking at other calibers, especially as SOCOM and other units have adopted various non-standard calibers over the years in support of specific missions. In fact, they are always evaluating and developing new technology to meet future requirements.

2) Something I haven't read much of isn't the lethality of the 5.56, but its ability to penetrate soft-medium cover, such as a mud wall, at distance. The old M1 could chew up a cinderblock or cement wall. The 5.56 has trouble penetrating anything more than a few inches of adobe. This is significant tactically.

3) For a target wearing body armor, penetration isn't necessary for incapacitation. Depending on the armor type and the blunt impact, backface deformation can be enough to collapse lungs and otherwise severely injure.

4) Let's not overlook training rounds, and the cost associated with Soldiers, Marines, and other Warfighters getting sufficient ammunition for training, not just combat. Contracts are made in advance for hundreds of millions of rounds. Ensuring that supply chain is steady, given the fluctuation in things like the copper/brass market, is vital.

4.5) In addition to available ammunition and guns, there's the issue of reliability, maintainability, and supplying a steady stream of replacement parts, cleaning equipment, everything else needed to support a caliber change. It's a significant undertaking, and there will always been some culture-change required as well.

5) The 5.56 tumble is not intended to wound rather than kill. The injury mechanism (after penetration) is that the bullet tumbles in tissue to create a wider wound, and if it impacts bone with sufficient velocity, is likely to fragment creating secondary internal wounds, potentially impacting vital organs or the central nervous system.

6) You really, really don't like the 5.56? Pick up a SCAR Heavy, 7.62x51.

7) There is an army (literally) of civilians, some of whom wore the uniform, some not, who support all branches of the military in developing equipment, thoroughly testing that equipment to standards and requirements from the users, before it is fielded. To say that the only people whose opinions count are those in the trenches is a very closed, near-sighted view of how the DoD operates to address emerging needs. Is green-suit input and involvement good? Absolutely, it's vital, and is part of the process every step of the way, but it takes both working collaboratively to make it all come together.

7.5) The testing performed by the Army and USMC is extensive. We're not talking about shooting a few gel blocks and armor plates. Often, hundreds of thousands of rounds are fired during a test program, before the item even gets to full-rate production. Some will be through guns with instrumented chambers, barrels, receivers, pads.. looking at temperature, pressure, acceleration, strain & stress. Others will use chronographs and radar to measure external ballistics. Some will use high-energy flash x-ray to investigate internal ballistics. Accuracy and repeatability will be evaluated. Users (Soldiers, Marines, etc) will be given the rounds in training scenerios to get their early feedback. The list goes on and on, and a complete program may runs years to support the final evaluation and fielding, at which time, follow-on assessments gather user-data during and after combat events.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top