Why 5.56?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Supposedly the Soviets developed the 5.45x39mm in response to our fielding the 5.56mm in Vietnam and it is the standard round in use in Russia today and a few other countries but it didn't even begin to replace the 7.62x39 worldwide. Opinions vary on the cartridge, even within Russia, which still has lots of 7.62x39 rifles on hand. I couldn't comment on the Chinese and the development of their new cartridge but it also hasn't replaced all of their older weapons.

Notice how the Russians have not replaced the 7.62x54r.

Did you know that Stoner and Kalashnikov had met? And that Kalashnikov visited Northern Virginia a few years ago, even going to a gun shop?

And if you ever happen to be in Washington, DC, and go to the Kennedy Center, look around the hall where all the flags are. Somebody's flag even has an AK-47 on it. I've never noticed an M-16 on any flag so far.
 
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?
Click to expand...

So we should issue a caliber for each country we invade?
 
What some people seem to expect out of a combat round, this is just off the top of my head so bear with me.
1) it must instantly stop/kill
2) it must excel in short range combat
3) it must excel in long range combat
4) it must penetrate most wearable body armor
5) it must penetrate most light vehicles
6) it must penetrate most heavy vehicles
7) it must be light enough to enable carrying large amounts
8) it mush be cheap enough to produce in large amounts
9) it must have light recoil to enable controllable full auto fire
10) the weapon using the round must be light
11) the weapon using the round must be compact.
12) it must begin with a 4 :rolleyes:

Am I leaving any out? The big one is #1, but numbers 7,8,10,11 keep getting in the way.
Seems some declare a round a failure if it doesn't meet just one condition. Sorry but until some new breakthrough in firearms comes about, and it hasn't, all of these cannot be met by one round, the laws of physics just keeps getting in the way. Maybe when Starfleet starts issuing phasers but I'm sure someone will complain even then.

Is the 5.56 the best round for any and all combat conditions, no. Is any round the best for any and all combat conditions, again no. But the 5.56 seems to meet most conditions.
 
Last edited:
Have to avoid oversimplifying the issue beyond any recognition.

Consider the DOD Logistics Roadmap:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/roadmap.html

Then do some searching (I can't at the moment) and find the purchase description an Key Performance Parameters for the ammo. It'll give you a full list of what's evaluated and tested before ammo is accepted for fielding.
 
And if you ever happen to be in Washington, DC, and go to the Kennedy Center, look around the hall where all the flags are. Somebody's flag even has an AK-47 on it. I've never noticed an M-16 on any flag so far.
Click to expand...

So we are suppose to choose a weapon based on what rifle Mozambique or some other "fourth rate" country puts on their flag.................I think not. They can't even feed their people.
 
What some people seem to expect out of a combat round, this is just off the top of my head so bear with me.
1) it must instantly stop/kill= .50 BMG
2) it must excel in short range combat = .50 BMG

3) it must excel in long range combat = .50 BMG

4) it must penetrate most wearable body armor = .50 BMG

5) it must penetrate most light vehicles = .50 BMG

6) it must penetrate most heavy vehicles = .50 BMG

7) it must be light enough to enable carrying large amounts = .50 BMG+steroids for soldiers

8) it mush be cheap enough to produce in large amounts = .50 BMG using steel cased ammo

9) it must have light recoil to enable controllable full auto fire = .50 BMG M2
mounted to a Humvee
10) the weapon using the round must be light = .50 BMG pistol

11) the weapon using the round must be compact. = .50 BMG M82A1 SBR

12) it must begin with a 4 = okay you got me here :D

Am I leaving any out? The big one is #1, but numbers 7,8,10,11 keep getting in the way.
Seems some declare a round a failure if it doesn't meet just one condition. Sorry but until some new breakthrough in firearms comes about, and it hasn't, all of these cannot be met by one round, the laws of physics just keeps getting in the way. Maybe when Starfleet starts issuing phasers but I'm sure someone will complain even then.

Is the 5.56 the best round for any and all combat conditions, no. Is any round the best for any and all combat conditions, again no. But the 5.56 seems to meet most conditions.
Click to expand...

Look at edits ^^^^^
 
I take it you like the .50 BMG? That's it, we have our answer, start replacing the 7lb M4s with 30lb .50 BMGs. :p You've never carried one + ammo very far have you? On A humvee doesn't count!
 
I take it you like the .50 BMG? That's it, we have our answer, start replacing the 7lb M4s with 30lb .50 BMGs. You've never carried one + ammo very far have you? On A humvee doesn't count!
Click to expand...

My intentions of my sarcasm were to hopefully kill this dang thread.
I love the 5.56 and the M4.

I have handled a BMG before, so I know all about the weight! :D
 
As far as the military is concerned, both calibers are obsolete. The Army would rather hit the target with a missile, rain down a shell upon it or even pepper it with the .50 caliber before they get close enough to use the 7.62 or the 5.56. Every chance will be taken to use an explosive missile, shell or large caliber weapon to get rid of the threat. How many times has the Army used the Apache to hit the enemy with its 30mm or when a Hellfire missile was used to hit the enemy?

The 7.62 vs. 5.56 debate is mainly confined to the police and SWAT teams or the homeowner concerned with home-defense. The military is going to do whatever it can to blow the threat apart before it puts one center mass.
 
JT, with all due respect, you're really far off. I suggest you read up on "Full Spectrum Operations." Start with Clausewitz and go from there, including FM 3-0 and FM 7-0. Then dig into some doctrine & organization documents regarding unit and squad composition, the AUTL FM 7-15, and perhaps some research on weaponeering and collateral damage.
 
Yea, according to JT why use a ten or twelve cent bullet when you can just fire a fifty thousand dollar rocket!!

On fortified positions, yes hit them with heavy ordinance. But you will always need to put boots on the ground and clear out the dug in enemy.

"As far as the military is concerned, both calibers are obsolete."

Come on JT. :rolleyes:
 
I am intimately familiar with the costs of the current war. I say with confidence that one $60,000 Hellfire missile is far less expensive then a round of either 5.56 or 7.62. Here is why...

There are about 20,000 Hellfire missiles in the stockpile which are already *paid for*. Firing that missile costs $60,000. Since it is a guided missile then chances are that it will always hit its target and with only 20 lbs of explosive onboard its not that big of an explosion. Therefore, you wont have much collateral damage as a result. Guided missile, shaped blast of 20lbs=less collateral damage. As for the "boots on the ground", well, thats not really needed anymore. I believe the Apache pilots can see very well whats moving on the ground, behind the ground and in the ground without boots on the ground. They have had that ability for a long time. Even if whats behind the ground is breathing, I believe they can see that and if it is moving then it wont for very much longer. So no boots are needed and that 30mm cannon or the hellfire missile will get at whats behind the ground easily.

Now lets say you had a soldier go after the enemy with their 5.56 or 7.62mm rifle, your choice. Then that soldier would probably have to be accompanied by at least 2 squads of men. One squad would overwatch while the other squad travels with that man. Each soldier costs $1 million per year or $2700 per day approximately, and those two squads then cost us $43,000 just for the day. Lets say one of the soldiers is shot and wounded, then the costs will shoot up into the millions depending upon the injury. Then lets say a soldier gets killed, in addition to the millions spent on the death there is also the reduced credibility of the mission, reduced morale, and trauma to the family etc. Besides the physical injuries, there is also the mental injuries that the United States has to pay as a result of the other 15 soldiers seeing their buddy killed or wounded. Then you have the other 15 men having a large shootout where thousands of rounds flying everywhere hitting innocents (more collateral damage)...

I could go on and on. Lets just say it is a lot cheaper for an Apache helicopter to loiter and fire Hellfire missiles at individuals on the ground then to have a few squads engage the enemy. In fact, 6000 Hellfire missiles have been fired from the inventory since 2001. If the Hellfire missile had not been used during the war then there would have been a lot more soldiers killed or wounded.

So I say again, the 5.56/7.62 is outdated. What replaces it is the Hellfire missile which is cheaper to utilize...
 
A soldier costs a million dollars a year? No wonder we're having budget problems. But the whole thing about missiles sort of makes the kill ratio of rounds fired immaterial.

As for the flags in the Kennedy Center, I was hardly implying that because any given gun is on someone's flag, that I recommend it. But I take it you've seen it. I have but I don't know whose flag it is.

Mr. JT is on to something, I think, although he is surely wrong about those calibers being obsolete. In WWII in the Pacific, the army preferred to pound the objective to dust, if at all possible. The army did serve in the Pacific, in case you thought only the Marines fought there. The Marines supposedly were much more willing to engage the enemy at close quarters. That seemed to still be the case in Vietnam, too. The only problem was the Marines tended to have a higher casualty rate than the army. But the whole thing may be totally false anyway.
 
Great analysis JT. Now, what if one of those birds gets shot down, half the crew survives and is captured, and we have to go in to 1) retrieve/destroy sensitive equipment, 2) retrieve fallen airmen, 3) rescue or trade for the POWs, and 4) accomplish the original mission? How much does that cost?

Furthermore, guided munitions have their place, but even with modern Precision Guided Mortar Munitions and similar indirect artillery, attacking hard-to-identify targets in urban canyons embedded with non-combatants will always require boots on ground.

And sometimes, we don't want to just kill and destroy, we want to take people alive and gather both human and material intelligence.

The ineffectiveness of sustained Naval bombardment or bombing campaigns is fairly well documented. From WWII through Iraq (Shock and Awe?), there are countless examples of when "pounding them to dust" actually resulted in the enemy truly waiting it out. Even the highly effective blitz of London didn't break the British military nor the spirit of its people, in many ways, quite the contrary, despite large sections of London being completely razed.

In addition to the above reading I mentioned, let me suggest you skim over GEN Tommy Frank's autobiography, American Soldier. He details how his invasion of Iraq was quite different from that of Schwartzkopf and others before him, with the leverage of joint operations, which is far superior to initial artillery, air (and sea, when possible) bombardment for a variety of reasons, including maintaining the initiative and determining the battlefield.

There is an additional benefit, which is tough to wrap up, but it has to do with the value of battle-hardened troops, NCOs, and combat commanders. Prior to 2001, the vast majority of our troops across the services hadn't seen combat, hadn't been around combat, hadn't had to live through combat. They were green inside and out. Fighting a fierce, determined, battle hardened opponent (after decades of fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, Chechnya and the Northern Caucasus, whose tactics were likely far less Geneva-friendly than our own) on their home terrain showed the weaknesses inherent in sending our young men and women straight from Ft. Hood into the mountains of Afghanistan...

...oh by the way, the same mountains where those Russians, with their 7.62mm, were repelled year after year, for decades of intense warfare.
 
Last edited:
This is an argument of the efficacy of the 5.56 and not the general theory of firepower in war.

Drop the silly we don't need small arms because of Apaches and B-2s, would you!

Hint!
 
From my not overly vast knowledge.

I thought that soldiers were only trained to shoot accurately too about 300yards. But as a squad 500-600yards, the point being to suppress the enemy while a designated marksmen or machine gun team is brought up?

Instead of rearming the whole army and whole of NATO, wouldn't it be better to train more designated marksmen.
If a man can't hit a target at 600yards with a 5.56 hes not going to hit it with a 7.62 either.
The British army has started training a DM for ever squad, not sure about the US, but wouldn't it make more sense just to train a few capable soldiers instead of them all?
 
Yes Marines do a 500 meter qualification.
Last Marine buddy I spoke with said he was shooting apple sized groups at that distance with his M16A4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top