Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Should the 5.56 be replaced?

This is a discussion on Should the 5.56 be replaced? within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle Can anyone tell me which has more gunpowder, the 5.56X45 NATO or the Russian 7.62X39mm? ...


View Poll Results: Should the 5.56 be replaced?
No the 5.56 is good enough. 43 28.29%
Replace it with 6.5mm or 6.8mm. 76 50.00%
Just go back to the 7.62mm. 27 17.76%
Unsure. 7 4.61%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 152. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 4.17 average.
Old August 21st, 2008   #46
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,989
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle View Post
Can anyone tell me which has more gunpowder, the 5.56X45 NATO or the Russian 7.62X39mm? One is slightly fatter and the other is slightly taller but which has more volume for gunpowder?
Don't have any loading tables available, but going the simplistic way with case dimensions, 7.62mm M43 has about 20% more volume than 5.56mm NATO (case diameter 11.25 vs 9.55 mm, length 38.65 vs 44.7mm).
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2008   #47
Defense Professional / Analyst
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 432
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gryphon View Post
Perhaps they should have been, but they were not dropped effectively especially when wearing body armor designed to stop the lame 5.56mm. As I mentioned earlier, headshots render the argument moot. Still, the chest is a bigger target and why not equip our guys with weapons that defeat that defense?
I'm curious about how the US soldiers can know that their enemies are on drugs?
Do they drug test the dead bodies of the insurgents or do they force those captured alive to do so? Are there publicly available numbers on how many percent of all insurgents are actually on drugs? That whole argument has sounded very "urban mythy" to me since I heard it the first time. Not that I doubt that there are really insurgents who consume drugs before going into battle, but this whole "All the hajjis down there are so stoned they don't feel any pain." sounds very fishy.

G.I. #1: "Oh, man, I'm so sure I hit him, but he just kept on running."
G.I. #2: "Then he must be on drugs, for sure."
DavidDCM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2008   #48
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Singapore, Shanghai
Posts: 653
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidDCM View Post
G.I. #1: "Oh, man, I'm so sure I hit him, but he just kept on running."
G.I. #2: "Then he must be on drugs, for sure."
Exactly.

Also...

Surprise, excitement, fear, firing un-aimed, and the enemy being unhelpful by moving... can cause your shots to miss even if the enemy is just a few meters away.
Chino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2008   #49
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,842
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chino View Post
Exactly.

Also...

Surprise, excitement, fear, firing un-aimed, and the enemy being unhelpful by moving... can cause your shots to miss even if the enemy is just a few meters away.
I'm sure adrenaline and shock can also keep someone moveing towards you (for a second) even after takeing a hit. Anyway what mirraculous "drugs" are these jihadii's taking anyway that can make them seemingly immune to 5.56mm full metal jacket rounds? Kryptonite? Spinnach?
Ozzy Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2008   #50
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Singapore, Shanghai
Posts: 653
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy Blizzard View Post
I'm sure adrenaline and shock can also keep someone moveing towards you (for a second) even after takeing a hit. Anyway what mirraculous "drugs" are these jihadii's taking anyway that can make them seemingly immune to 5.56mm full metal jacket rounds? Kryptonite? Spinnach?
In some docos I saw when we enlisted, 3 different people whom were shot with AK47 didn't stop moving immediately. And they weren't even running.
Chino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2008   #51
Defense Professional / Analyst
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 432
Threads:
The whole "One shot and you drop"-thing is basically a Hollywood myth. Every sports hunter can tell you that only hits in the brain or spinal areas will cause an animal to die instantly (except you use a caliber that rips half of the Bambi apart, of course). Even after direct hits to the heart an animal can still start to run for several seconds, and in this time cover a distance of dozens of meters, often causing difficulties to find it if it's dark and you have no dogs etc. And that with a shredded heart!
And, of course, the same goes for humans. You just don't drop at the very second the bullet hits you, even if it's a deadly wound right into the heart, lung, stomach etc. the hit person will often have enough ressources left to run for the next cover and out of the line of sight of the shooter before he collapses.

I have an FBI article about that issue somewhere on my PC. Gotta find it, than I'll upload the thing.
DavidDCM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2008   #52
Defense Professional / Analyst
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 432
Threads:
Okay, here it is, on rapidshare. Of course, as it is a FBI thing, it's about cops, handguns and criminals rather than soldiers, rifles and insurgents, but basically it works for both.

One-Shot Drops
Surviving the Myth
By ANTHONY J. PINIZZOTTO, Ph.D., HARRY A. KERN,
M.Ed., and EDWARD F. DAVIS, M.S.
Federal Bureau of Investigation Law Enforcement Bulletin - October 2004 Issue

http://rapidshare.com/files/13900129...ythos.pdf.html

For those who don't wanna read the whole thing, one story out of it:
"In a final case, the subject shot the victim officer in the chest with a handgun and fled. The officer, wearing a bullet-resistant vest, returned gunfire. The officer’s partner observed the incident and also fired at the offender. Subsequent investigation determined that the individual was hit 13 times and, yet, ran several blocks to a gang member’s house. He later said, “I was so scared by all those shots; it sounded like the Fourth of July.” Again, according to the subject, his wounds “only started to hurt when I woke up in the hospital.” The officers had used 9-millimeter, department-issued ammunition. The surviving officers re ported that they felt vulnerable."

And to finally get back to topic: Wwith a 6,8 Grendel or even a 7,62 NATO you wont necessarily achieve better "drop-rates" than with a 5,56 round. The difference is not that huge.
DavidDCM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2008   #53
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Singapore, Shanghai
Posts: 653
Threads:
Those guys in the doco we saw were shot pointblank range execution style.

- AK47 is bigger in calibre than either the 6.5 or 6.8.
- The range was close to point blank.
- The victims knew they were going to meet god, unlike a still fighting man. Yet, it took many AK rounds to put them out of action.

A study I read long ago said that people shot with 7.62 NATO had more chances of survival because the powerful bullet often passed clean through. Whereas the VC feared the 5.56 for the horrific and often lethal wounds it caused. And the Soviets immediately copied the 5.56 resulting in 5.45.
Chino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2008   #54
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 29
Threads:
I never liked the 5.56 and would much rather use the 6.5 Grendle, many reasons one of the big ones is the Grendal has a tapered shell similar to the AK-47 or AK-74 this means as the shell is retracted it is free of the sides of the chamber as soon as it begins to move. This aids reliabliity because the shell is not shaped like a cylinder which is dragged against the walls of the chamber the AR platform is known for having tight chambers so any dirt or residue is an issue.


The tapered shells is the reason for the shape of AK magazines and is a major reason for the legendary reliablity of the AK platform.

Using a tapered down casing you can have a very tight chamber and not have reliablity issues I hope I explaned this so it could be understood.

From the Alexander Arms website:

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE 6.5 Grendel® CARTRIDGE.


The origin of the Grendel® may be traced back to the Soviet 7.62x39. This was modified for European competition,
being necked down to form the 220 Russian. From here Dr Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindel took the case and blew out the
shoulder to create the 22 PPC and the 6mm PPC which currently dominate the bench rest competitions. In designing the
Grendel® the starting position was the PPC design, but it became quickly apparent that the caliber of the PPC was not as
flexible as was needed. Early research with a wildcat 6.5 PPC also showed that the case lacked powder capacity which in
turn created pressure problems. The final Grendel® design draws on the PPC but it is very much it’s own cartridge. The
internal capacity was expanded by shifting the shoulder forward and the wall thicknesses in the neck and shoulder were
increased to provide a more robust case capable of being fed within a semi automatic rifle. Finally the external taper of
the case was adjusted for reliable feed in the magazine
.

Last edited by Topmaul; August 21st, 2008 at 05:22 PM.
Topmaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2008   #55
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 819
Threads:
Fired thousands of rounds through SLR's, M16's and Steyr's and didn't find any particular issue with using standard NATO 7.62 and 5.56 cartridges except for crappy blank cartridge quality.

The reliability of the M16's working parts is largely due to the design of the weapon and the original cleaning instructions issued with the weapon(basically - don't clean!). These issues were ameliorated by reviewing the cleaning instructions, introduction of the dust cover over the ejection port and the addition of the bolt assist. Gas system still is a source of unreliability, but again its an issue for the weapon, not the design of the ammunition.

Its quite a long time ago I realise, but when we traded in our SLR's for Steyrs we were sceptical of the ability of the smaller round to do the job. We were told that the SS109 round would go through both sided of the (then) West German army's kevlar helmet as proof of its ability to penetrate cover.
Marc 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2008   #56
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Threads:
the 5.56 should be replaced. it doesnt have enough kinetic energy to punch through objects on an urban street and this should be a huge concern. and it cant puncture body armor. the 7.62 can and kill the guy behind the guy w/ the body armor
SpanishPride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2008   #57
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Threads:
also the m16 sucks and we should get a new rifle
SpanishPride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2008   #58
Senior Member
Colonel
F-15 Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,296
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gryphon View Post
Laugh all you want, the Marines bought 9000 of them in 2006. I doubt they are carrying these and machine guns. 9000 isn't a prototype buy, or a test, they are integrating them into their baseline structure. That's why I asked the question.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...e-field-02042/
Yes they did buy 9000 of them but they did NOT replace machine guns with them. They have both the M32 and the M249 SAW and the M16/M4 with the M203. By the way the M203 is planed to be replaced by the new M320, but they will still use the M32, but the M32 wont replace any machine guns.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

-- Albert Einstein
F-15 Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2008   #59
Junior Member
Private First Class
Onkel's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 76
Threads:
Hello Everybody,

I´m from germany and served with AA Forces and light infantry.

I used the old G 3 firing 7,63 rounds and the sophisticated G 36, using 5,56.

Keeping in mind that the G3 is a nearly 60 year old design using the recoil for reloading, while the modern G 36 uses only part of the powdergas-pressure, the firing with the smaller rounds was more accurate, the shooting exercises for the G3 were too easy for a G 36- user. The recoil of the G3 makes the weapon difficult to handle.

I guess it´s better to have a smaller caliber making targeting easier than a big one that goes through walls but not through the ones you wanted. For hitting targets behind walls you can use the groupe´s maschine guns.
Onkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2008   #60
Defense Professional / Analyst
Corporal
sgtgunn's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 189
Threads:
While I was stationed in Germany with the US Army I had the oportunity to train with the 4./PzGrenBtl 112 in Regen and shoot for my Schutzenschur badge. It was the last time the unit was going to qualify with the G-3 before switching to the G-36. Being used to the M-16, shooting the G-3 was a very different experience for me. My friends (who had fired it before) warned me about the recoil, and not to place my eye to close to the stock. Like a dummy, I ignored them, and applied the same "cheek-to-stock" poistion that I used shooting the M-16. By the end of the day, I had a pretty good black eye, which all of the Bundeswher soldiers thought was pretty funny. Lesson learned! (I still shot Gold though!)

Adrian



Quote:
Originally Posted by Onkel View Post
Hello Everybody,

I´m from germany and served with AA Forces and light infantry.

I used the old G 3 firing 7,63 rounds and the sophisticated G 36, using 5,56.

Keeping in mind that the G3 is a nearly 60 year old design using the recoil for reloading, while the modern G 36 uses only part of the powdergas-pressure, the firing with the smaller rounds was more accurate, the shooting exercises for the G3 were too easy for a G 36- user. The recoil of the G3 makes the weapon difficult to handle.

I guess it´s better to have a smaller caliber making targeting easier than a big one that goes through walls but not through the ones you wanted. For hitting targets behind walls you can use the groupe´s maschine guns.
sgtgunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:12 PM.