5.56 up to the job?

[RicW 67]

Did anyone else see the article about the US forces getting fed up with the 5.56? Apparently, in Afghanistan the US military are finding that the 5.56 round fired from the M4 rifle is pretty well useless as a military round. The M4 is a short barrelled version of the M16, and it has a maximum lethal range of 200 metres. Ironically, the British LA , with a longer barrel, is still up to the mark at 400-500m. Mind, the Brits always have at least one man in a squad with a 7.62 gimpy, and new troops are being equipped with a new 7.62 rifle.

I have to laugh at this. In the first trials for a standard NATO round, in 1953, the British Army entered a 7mm/.280 round which would be ideal for combat conditions now. The Yanks overrode the idea, and got the 7.62x51 NATO round adopted. Then when the 7.62 proved too much for jungle combat in 'Nam, they adopted the 5.56 and later forced the other NATO countries to follow suit.

Thanks a lot Uncle Sam.

Oh, and by the way, the British entrant for the last round of trials in 1977 was a 4.85mm/.19" round which made the 5.56 look like an FAC air rifle.

 

Ric.

[SNAP SHOT 194]

i feel they need to go back to the roots of the 7.62, as said mate the range is simply not effective enough for the M4 unless maybe in an urban area,

 

As we know the 5.56 was developed so that troops could carry more ammo in combat, and it was also considered better to maim the foe rather than kill them to eat into resources, but when you got people willing to blow themselves up in modern warfare situations they need to go down With that first round

 

 

simple as,

 

 

about time things changed a little and lets hope all the countries within europe don't bow to the needs of america needs,

 

i'd rather carry less ammo into combat and know that what i pointed it at stopped, rather than just got maimed...

 

god bless to all using whatever equipment they have, but we need something just that little bit better,

 

 

Snap.

[matt_hooks 188]

i feel they need to go back to the roots of the 7.62, as said mate the range is simply not effective enough for the M4 unless maybe in an urban area,

 

As we know the 5.56 was developed so that troops could carry more ammo in combat, and it was also considered better to maim the foe rather than kill them to eat into resources, but when you got people willing to blow themselves up in modern warfare situations they need to go down With that first round

 

 

simple as,

 

 

about time things changed a little and lets hope all the countries within europe don't bow to the needs of america needs,

 

i'd rather carry less ammo into combat and know that what i pointed it at stopped, rather than just got maimed...

 

god bless to all using whatever equipment they have, but we need something just that little bit better,

 

 

Snap.

 

Unfortunately the Geneva convention forbids the use of the round that would make sense! There's no reason an expanding round will do much more damage than a jacketed round fired down an oversized bore so that it tumbles!

[SNAP SHOT 194]

yes mate i know about the geneva convention policy, but its a real sorry state of affairs i feel....

 

tali gets to use whatever they want....????

 

 

 

[clint 45]

mass produce military 5.56 round ok for spray firing, ak or similar auto weapon, mainly wolf cheep ammo, not too good for accuracy.

[RicW 67]

Seems a bit odd to me. You can burn an "enemy soldier" to death with napalm. You can disembowel him with a rifle grenade. You can tear him to bits with your tank tracks. You can smear him all over the landscape with a 60mm mortar. But you are not allowed to shoot him with a round designed to give a clean kill. Err . . . I have problems here.

 

Anyway, back to my main point, 5.56 looks a bit underpowered for modern warfare. I reckon the 7.62x51 is on the way back.

 

Bets anyone?

 

Ric

[clint 45]

7.62

[matt_hooks 188]

The 5.56 has thousands of existing weapons that use it. The 7.62 would mean re-equipping most of the NATO armed forces.

 

Knowing how the UK MOD are about spending money on the right kit, my money says that your average Joe isn't gonna get a nice spangly 7.62 any time soon!

[provarmint 25]

i feel they need to go back to the roots of the 7.62, as said mate the range is simply not effective enough for the M4 unless maybe in an urban area,

 

As we know the 5.56 was developed so that troops could carry more ammo in combat, and it was also considered better to maim the foe rather than kill them to eat into resources, but when you got people willing to blow themselves up in modern warfare situations they need to go down With that first round

 

 

simple as,

 

 

about time things changed a little and lets hope all the countries within europe don't bow to the needs of america needs,

 

i'd rather carry less ammo into combat and know that what i pointed it at stopped, rather than just got maimed...

 

god bless to all using whatever equipment they have, but we need something just that little bit better,

 

 

Snap.

 

Unfortunately the Geneva convention forbids the use of the round that would make sense! There's no reason an expanding round will do much more damage than a jacketed round fired down an oversized bore so that it tumbles!

 

The Hague Convention.

[Lewdan 17]

yes mate i know about the geneva convention policy, but its a real sorry state of affairs i feel....

 

tali gets to use whatever they want....????

 

 

 

 

 

A .223 cal ( or equiv ) is concidered ok to use to maim or kill another human, but not deemed humane to use on deer in England and Wales Where are we going

 

LD

[danw 1,748]

yes mate i know about the geneva convention policy, but its a real sorry state of affairs i feel....

 

tali gets to use whatever they want....????

 

 

 

 

 

A .223 cal ( or equiv ) is concidered ok to use to maim or kill another human, but not deemed humane to use on deer in England and Wales Where are we going

 

LD

 

If it wasn't for the bushy bearded twats at the BDS you would be using your .22 centerfires for roe now

 

 

 

I would imagine that any new round taken up by the states would be one that will retro fit into their existing platform maybe .260 or a 6.5 derivative

[Deker 3,455]

Did anyone else see the article about the US forces getting fed up with the 5.56? Apparently, in Afghanistan the US military are finding that the 5.56 round fired from the M4 rifle is pretty well useless as a military round. The M4 is a short barrelled version of the M16, and it has a maximum lethal range of 200 metres. Ironically, the British LA , with a longer barrel, is still up to the mark at 400-500m. Mind, the Brits always have at least one man in a squad with a 7.62 gimpy, and new troops are being equipped with a new 7.62 rifle.

I have to laugh at this. In the first trials for a standard NATO round, in 1953, the British Army entered a 7mm/.280 round which would be ideal for combat conditions now. The Yanks overrode the idea, and got the 7.62x51 NATO round adopted. Then when the 7.62 proved too much for jungle combat in 'Nam, they adopted the 5.56 and later forced the other NATO countries to follow suit.

Thanks a lot Uncle Sam.

Oh, and by the way, the British entrant for the last round of trials in 1977 was a 4.85mm/.19" round which made the 5.56 look like an FAC air rifle.

 

Ric.

 

I didn't see the article and I don't actually know that much about the M4, but it's horses for courses...the more Compact M4 is a great tool in close combat arenas, it's primary use is not as a long range weapon, even though it is quoted as a 500m tool.

 

The AK 47 can't hit a barn door past 300 yards but it strikes me its pretty useful!

 

The 5.56 is an accomplished military round, it had issues in the early days, but changes were made, I don't believe we should be writing off the calibre because results from one make of rifle in some situations are not ideal, the 7.62 is not perfect, neither was the .303 or 45, or muskets, time and technology moves on..... however...I do believe we should take much more notice of the views of the man using it than the armed services procurement manager!

[JonathanL 4]

i feel they need to go back to the roots of the 7.62, as said mate the range is simply not effective enough for the M4 unless maybe in an urban area,

 

As we know the 5.56 was developed so that troops could carry more ammo in combat, and it was also considered better to maim the foe rather than kill them to eat into resources, but when you got people willing to blow themselves up in modern warfare situations they need to go down With that first round

 

 

simple as,

 

 

about time things changed a little and lets hope all the countries within europe don't bow to the needs of america needs,

 

i'd rather carry less ammo into combat and know that what i pointed it at stopped, rather than just got maimed...

 

god bless to all using whatever equipment they have, but we need something just that little bit better,

 

 

Snap.

 

Unfortunately the Geneva convention forbids the use of the round that would make sense! There's no reason an expanding round will do much more damage than a jacketed round fired down an oversized bore so that it tumbles!

 

The Hague Convention.

 

The Hague Accord.

 

J.

[matt_hooks 188]

My bad. Of course I meant "Decleration III of the Hague Convention 1899" Was a bit asleep when I typed Geneva Convention, d'oh!

[Dan Newcombe 58]

I am basing this statment purely on the theory in my mind but isnt a full metal jacket round potentially better in a 'fight' due to the greater penetration it should afford.

 

Look at a varmint bullet blowing up on a fox shoulder compared to a soft nose punching through a deer.

 

Would the FMJ rounds not be better for shooting people through things like car doors, walls and flack jackets?

 

I do agree though that the .223 is a bit on the small side even if you comare them to a .22-250 they look a bit wimpy. In fact theres your solution..............the .22-250, or maybe a .270?

 

If i was hunting something that shot back i would want to be making bigger holes than a .223 would produce!