The 5.56 has a very light recoil. Most high school aged recruits can be taught to fire and handle the light rounds quickly enough. The 5.56 is in the same class as some of the best varmint rounds, such as the .222 Remington, and has the same potential for accuracy. I don't see as much of a problem with the caliber as I see in the antique AR-15/ M-16 platform rifles. After 50+ years, it's time to quit playing and build a better mousetrap.
Why 5.56?
- Thread starter Dangerwing
- Start date
- Status
The 7.62 obviously has more stopping power. Its a heavier round and travels at a faster speed. There is no question that it is a better fight stopper then the 5.56. However, try rapidly firing the M14 versus the M16. A lot more kick, bark and rebound with the M14. Also, the M14 holds 20 rounds versus the M16's 30 rounds.
So each rifle is suitable for certain missions, but a soldier can only carry one rifle and the DoD can only get behind one issue rifle. If you have different caliber rifles, then a whole lot of re-training has to be done. There is that time issue. BTW, I saw a picture of some soldiers in Brazil and it seems they do just fine with their 7.62 FN FALs. They still use them with success.
So each rifle is suitable for certain missions, but a soldier can only carry one rifle and the DoD can only get behind one issue rifle. If you have different caliber rifles, then a whole lot of re-training has to be done. There is that time issue. BTW, I saw a picture of some soldiers in Brazil and it seems they do just fine with their 7.62 FN FALs. They still use them with success.
Based on my own experience as a 19year old recruit, the M14 is not difficult to fire quickly. You can go through your ammunition as fast as you can pull the trigger and change magazines. Yes, the M16 is lighter but the M4 with all the bells and whistles that are in fashion in the army these days gives up a lot of that lightness, though it is still lighter and handier than an M14. And the M16 has less (but not zero) kick but overall, I can't see that as a factor. There is some question of the value of full auto in an infantry rifle (I'm only speaking of the rifle here) in the first place, compared to semi-auto. They do have machine guns, which I understand they attempt to teach users to fire semi-auto. Something got mixed up there for sure.
I also think the 5.56 has sufficient penetration. True, nothing like 7.62 NATO but don't think you'll be safe standing behind six inches of a mud wall. Or a cinderblock wall either, for that matter, unless your cinderblocks are harder than my cinderblocks were when I was learning about my privately owned AR-15. Accuracy at 500 yards? Forget it. You're safe if I'm shooting at you. But don't stand still out in the open; I might get lucky.
I also think the 5.56 has sufficient penetration. True, nothing like 7.62 NATO but don't think you'll be safe standing behind six inches of a mud wall. Or a cinderblock wall either, for that matter, unless your cinderblocks are harder than my cinderblocks were when I was learning about my privately owned AR-15. Accuracy at 500 yards? Forget it. You're safe if I'm shooting at you. But don't stand still out in the open; I might get lucky.
National Geographic had a very good video comparing the M14 vs the M16.
http://youtu.be/4weIh3Mc6kU
They have a person fire both the M14 and the M16. Notice how the M14 kicks back and the shooter has a difficult time putting rounds down on the target. The first shot is good, but the succeeding shots become very challenging. Most of the 7.62 rounds land in the dirt to the sides of the target when fired rapidly. When he switches to the M16, the shooter is easily able to deliver deadly rapid successive rounds down on the target. When the video is slowed down, the M14 demonstrates lots of kick/shake whereas the M16 remains fairly stable.
So the M14 is good for long-medium range sniping, but the M16 is better for that close-in work. If I might say, I have fired the M16 many times and have never had an issue delivering rounds to the target from a football or so out. At 3 football fields, it does become more challenging to hit the target, but its still possible with the M16. Thats a considerable distance...
http://youtu.be/4weIh3Mc6kU
They have a person fire both the M14 and the M16. Notice how the M14 kicks back and the shooter has a difficult time putting rounds down on the target. The first shot is good, but the succeeding shots become very challenging. Most of the 7.62 rounds land in the dirt to the sides of the target when fired rapidly. When he switches to the M16, the shooter is easily able to deliver deadly rapid successive rounds down on the target. When the video is slowed down, the M14 demonstrates lots of kick/shake whereas the M16 remains fairly stable.
So the M14 is good for long-medium range sniping, but the M16 is better for that close-in work. If I might say, I have fired the M16 many times and have never had an issue delivering rounds to the target from a football or so out. At 3 football fields, it does become more challenging to hit the target, but its still possible with the M16. Thats a considerable distance...
BT; good points. Never having been an MG operator I could be wrong, but I think part of it may be to control barrel heat? Then again, don't MG crews often have spare barrels with them? What is current doctrine with the M249 or M240?
I will say that there is variation in cinder block and concrete when you go around the world. Oftentimes on the other side of the pond, the block contains larger aggregate and less fill, but that's not a given. Likewise, you find far fewer steel or otherwise reinforced or clad structures in the mid-east and Africa.
I will say that there is variation in cinder block and concrete when you go around the world. Oftentimes on the other side of the pond, the block contains larger aggregate and less fill, but that's not a given. Likewise, you find far fewer steel or otherwise reinforced or clad structures in the mid-east and Africa.
Here is a video in Iraq or Afghanistan. The shooter with the M4 fires the weapon much like a paint-ball gun. The M4 is smoother and easy to fire faster.
The shooter with the M14 is fast too, but not as fast as the shooter with the M4. It seems like the M14 shooter has to fire, quickly re-zero and then fire again. The kick is more obvious with the M14 where as the M4 seems more like a paintball gun.
http://youtu.be/xCn0HnBLBmk
The shooter with the M14 is fast too, but not as fast as the shooter with the M4. It seems like the M14 shooter has to fire, quickly re-zero and then fire again. The kick is more obvious with the M14 where as the M4 seems more like a paintball gun.
http://youtu.be/xCn0HnBLBmk
In Vietnam, supposedly the Australians had squads or sections equipped with both FN SLRs and AR-15s (or M-16s). It sort of makes nonsense of any problems that may have been incurred with the ammunition supply but all through WWII, the British, the Americans and the Germans all fielded low level units (squads, that is) equipped with weapons using two different cartridges. I couldn't possibly say if it made a difference but it was done.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"In Vietnam, supposedly the Australians had squads or sections equipped with both FN SLRs and AR-15s (or M-16s). It sort of makes nonsense of any problems that may have been incurred with the ammunition supply but all through WWII, the British, the Americans and the Germans all fielded low level units (squads, that is) equipped with weapons using two different cartridges. I couldn't possibly say if it made a difference but it was done."
Actually, no, it doesn't.
Having two, three, or even four separate and distinct cartridges (rifle, machine gun, handgun) isn't that great a difficulty as long as you have that composition throughout the entire force structure in the field.
You ship everyone a mix of everything, and generally your people will be sufficiently armed.
It's when you get into a situation like what they faced during the Civil War that things start to get REALLY screwy.
In one cavalry division you might have troops armed with Morse, Sharps, Peabody, Gallagher, Burnsides, and Smith carbines, each of which requires a different cartridge.
In an infantry division you might have troops armed with .58 cal. Springfield rifled muskets, .69 cal. smoothbores, foreign contract purchase rifled muskets, Spencer carbines, and few others thrown in for good measure.
The fact that small arms supply even worked at all for the Union during the Civil War is a frigging miracle, but every new gun thrown into the mix made the situation even worse.
Actually, no, it doesn't.
Having two, three, or even four separate and distinct cartridges (rifle, machine gun, handgun) isn't that great a difficulty as long as you have that composition throughout the entire force structure in the field.
You ship everyone a mix of everything, and generally your people will be sufficiently armed.
It's when you get into a situation like what they faced during the Civil War that things start to get REALLY screwy.
In one cavalry division you might have troops armed with Morse, Sharps, Peabody, Gallagher, Burnsides, and Smith carbines, each of which requires a different cartridge.
In an infantry division you might have troops armed with .58 cal. Springfield rifled muskets, .69 cal. smoothbores, foreign contract purchase rifled muskets, Spencer carbines, and few others thrown in for good measure.
The fact that small arms supply even worked at all for the Union during the Civil War is a frigging miracle, but every new gun thrown into the mix made the situation even worse.
I'd be inclined to disagree, but the points on which I'd do so involve splitting some pretty fine hairs. Doc TH really nailed it: it's easier to carry more ammunition, lower recoil translates into quicker training and faster follow-up shots, and the range at which infantry engagements take place has shrunk.
That's not to say that there's not a place for long-range marksmanship and heavier calibers, but I've always considered the M16 platform to be a carbine, not a rifle.
That's not to say it can't do a rifle's job. It sure can. But taken as a short-length, lightweight, medium-range firearm, it's truly remarkable. The 5.56 is a good match for the platform, and a fair sight more accurate and deadly than .30 Carbine.
Especially if one is attacked by poodles! Ok, ok...I'll stop
My point is, for its intended purpose, it's a great round. Outside its intended purpose (like shooting through battleships), it may suffer, but that's beside the point.
This comment may make more sense in the thread about the 6.5 Grendel (or is it the 9mm Thor?). Some countries before WWII fielded rifles and machine guns in various 6.5mm calibers. Some also use more powerful cartridges in what were termed heavy machine guns (which would now be called medium machine guns) at the time. One, Sweden I think it was, used an 8mm cartridge (this is all from memory, understand) that was more powerful than the 8mm (7.9mm) Mauser widely used in Europe at the time, but not in Sweden. For the sake of ammunition compatibility, they also used rifles in that caliber for their machine gun crews. It makes sense but that represented an unusual action both then and now. If memory serves, the rifle seems to have had a muzzle break.
Another possible discussion might be around the value of the 5.56mm in belt fed machine guns, which have been widely adopted and not all of them are FNs, either, so I guess somebody liked the idea. While the Russians do not use a belt fed machine gun in 7.62x39mm, they do use a sort of squad automatic in that caliber and I think perhaps they actually did use one many years ago (does RPD sound right?). But they have updated their general purpose machine gun recently, so that concept is still going strong, proving that the 5.56mm (and the 7.62x39) are not expected to do everything, if nothing else.
Another possible discussion might be around the value of the 5.56mm in belt fed machine guns, which have been widely adopted and not all of them are FNs, either, so I guess somebody liked the idea. While the Russians do not use a belt fed machine gun in 7.62x39mm, they do use a sort of squad automatic in that caliber and I think perhaps they actually did use one many years ago (does RPD sound right?). But they have updated their general purpose machine gun recently, so that concept is still going strong, proving that the 5.56mm (and the 7.62x39) are not expected to do everything, if nothing else.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
All spitzer shaped bullets will eventually tumble in flesh (though in some it may take a lot of flesh before that happens which means that the bullet usually exits first). It is just a question of where they tumble and what happens when they do tumble. At higher velocities, the small 5.56 bullets literally tear themselves apart when they tumble, which can cause some dramatic wound cavities.
7.62x39 rounds tumble as well; but they don't tend to break apart like 5.56x45 - and they tend to require a longer distance before they start to tumble (depending on the type of bullet).
thesheepdog
New member
With today's tactics and operations in the military, a battle rifle is becoming less and less necessary; this is due to most of combat being fought in urban environments.
The 5.56 fills the gap between the 9mm Submachine Gun and a full-blown
M1A EBR.
Yeah, the M1 Garand and such weapons were very effective for trench wars (where combat could consist of shots anywhere from point blank to several hundred meters); but the environment for most battles has changed to very dense urban areas and the military favors SBR weapons to be effective.
I will agree that the current military has moved from "well placed shots" to "firepower only" and that's why we hear a lot internet gossip and false information; bashing the 5.56 round.
Are there better rounds out there that fit into the "intermediate cartridge" lineup? Of course! The 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel are both great rounds and more potent than a 5.56 is MOST aspects. But ammo is hard to come by-especially on the latter-so this "higher performance" round is not always the BEST option for combat.
The 5.56 has my full confidence in stopping a threat out to 500 meters with one well placed shot.
The 5.56 fills the gap between the 9mm Submachine Gun and a full-blown
M1A EBR.
Yeah, the M1 Garand and such weapons were very effective for trench wars (where combat could consist of shots anywhere from point blank to several hundred meters); but the environment for most battles has changed to very dense urban areas and the military favors SBR weapons to be effective.
I will agree that the current military has moved from "well placed shots" to "firepower only" and that's why we hear a lot internet gossip and false information; bashing the 5.56 round.
Are there better rounds out there that fit into the "intermediate cartridge" lineup? Of course! The 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel are both great rounds and more potent than a 5.56 is MOST aspects. But ammo is hard to come by-especially on the latter-so this "higher performance" round is not always the BEST option for combat.
The 5.56 has my full confidence in stopping a threat out to 500 meters with one well placed shot.
Achilles11B
New member
No, the 5.56 won't take down the Death Star and it may or may not stop a charging Terminator in one shot. I don't think there is a cartridge out there that meets every single minute requirement of what most of us would agree is good for combat, from the trigger-puller side to the logistic side and all points in between. However, I think we're missing one key aspect here and it's the user himself. We have been researching the 5.56 since the Vietnam-era and have constantly been tweaking and tuning both the round and the platform. We take this data and translate it and distribute it to our guys in the form of training. The 5.56 round won't put a man down like a 7.62 will, got it. But with good training and shot placement, it will do the job nicely.
I would personally like to see the Mk262 become the standard rifle round, but that's just one guy's opinion.
I would personally like to see the Mk262 become the standard rifle round, but that's just one guy's opinion.
One question I never see asked in all this, is what does the other side think of the 5.56?
Don't forget the Soviets/Russians and the Chinese have all gone to rounds very similar to the 5.56, and they did it why?
Remember "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
Don't forget the Soviets/Russians and the Chinese have all gone to rounds very similar to the 5.56, and they did it why?
Remember "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
The Soviets/Russians found the same thing.
That's what the 45 is for
Last edited:
sheepdog; you make some good points.. although let's look forward.
1) Afghanistan is not Iraq. The CQC so prevalent in Iraq is not the same in OEF, and longer-range encounters and isolated ambushes are far more frequent. The importance of the squad-designated-marksman has been highlighted as a result.
2) N Korea is bitterly cold in the winter and has mixed terrain. Difficult for somebody who isn't in intelligence/war-planning to predict what types of conflicts we might see there. Given the new military, joint air, sea, artillery, and infantry movements would be coordinated to project maximum force in the shortest time. What that means in terms of requirements for rifles is tough to predict.
3) Africa is yet again a different terrain, highly irregular opposing forces at varying ranges.
4) Iran is a mix, like Afghanistan but the structures are generally more robust.
5) Where else might be wind up?
1) Afghanistan is not Iraq. The CQC so prevalent in Iraq is not the same in OEF, and longer-range encounters and isolated ambushes are far more frequent. The importance of the squad-designated-marksman has been highlighted as a result.
2) N Korea is bitterly cold in the winter and has mixed terrain. Difficult for somebody who isn't in intelligence/war-planning to predict what types of conflicts we might see there. Given the new military, joint air, sea, artillery, and infantry movements would be coordinated to project maximum force in the shortest time. What that means in terms of requirements for rifles is tough to predict.
3) Africa is yet again a different terrain, highly irregular opposing forces at varying ranges.
4) Iran is a mix, like Afghanistan but the structures are generally more robust.
5) Where else might be wind up?
Stevie-Ray
New member
Seriously? Why, sell it to us for 10 cents a round, of course.
- Status