5.56 up to the job?

[RicW 67]

According to the Times today the American forces are seriously considering replacing the 5.56 with a heavier round for long range combat. If you know about ballistic capability, it is soon clear that the M4 rifle has too short a barrel to allow full burning of the charge before the bullet exits the barrel. The SA80 bull-pup is inherently so short that it does not need a short barrel to fit inside an APC, so remains lethal to 450m.

Mind you, the Taliban are still using .303 Lee-Enfields as long range sniper rifles. What goes around comes around!

 

Ric.

[matt_hooks 188]

The 5.56 is plenty of round. Consider it from the point of view of your average soldier, who has to carry everything he needs onto the field of battle.

 

Now, do you think he'd prefer a big, heavy round that he can carry relatively few of, or a smaller, lighter round that will still make holes in the enemy, and he can carry oodles of them?

 

The FMJ rounds will tend to carry on through, leaving a narrow wound track and not transferring a lot of their energy, so in theory they should be "less lethal"

 

Of course if the round goes in the right place then you're just as f####d!

[RicW 67]

Well . . . OK but! The 7.62x51 NATO round had a probability of 90% for a one round knockdown. The 5.56 requires 3 rounds to give the same probability of a knockdown. So a soldier carrying twice as many rounds of 5.56 as his oppo with 7.62 has 2/3rd the chance of a knockdown. Maths looks a bit dodgy to me.

 

Anyway, there are other issues here. The M4 is a short barrelled version of the M16. As such, it has a maximum effective range of 300m. As I said above, the SA80 retains the longer barrel and has a maximum effective range of 450m. Nonetheless and eventhestill it seems to me that the 5.56 was a perfect choice for 'Nam. There really is no point lugging round a rifle with <1000 m range when you can't even see 100m. It was a superb round for the Army in Belfast, where the ability of the 7.62x51 to shoot through brick walls could be embarrassing to say the least. It was well suited to combat in the cities of Iraq.

 

BUT! In the open country of Afghanistan a piss-willy little round that hits the deck at 500m is a bit pointless. Apparently the Taliban are still using Enfields and Mausers as long range guns and our armies have to bring in the pro snipers with .338 Lapuas and .50cal BMGs to take them on level terms.

 

Meantime, as Snap says, all the best to our young lads out there. Generals always set out to fight the last war.

 

Ric

[Lurchandhistribe 0]

in an ideal world we would have a kit room with a tool for every job. something for open conflicts, something for jungles, urban e.t.c the problem is the cost of having 10k or more lots of everything and then a stash of the right ammo e.t.c. then you really need to be balancing your kit with other Nations to simplfy logistics e.t.c the reality is if we adopt a 7.62 you can bet we will be in north korea or somewhere next and bemoaning the lakc of ammo or we stick with 5.56 and find ourselves still in afgan needing a 7.62.

 

sod being the procurement fella you cant win.

[Lurchandhistribe 0]

should also add we would be much better equipped if we didnt 1, overpay for items, 2 buy the wrong things when better tools are on the market and 3 delivered on time and to budget.

[RicW 67]

should also add we would be much better equipped if we didnt 1, overpay for items, 2 buy the wrong things when better tools are on the market and 3 delivered on time and to budget.

Ah come on pal. We're Brits! you expect efficiency? Dream on!

Mind, I still reckon that the 7mm/.280 we entered for the first NATO trials would have been the dogs dodgy bits. Make a great hunting round as well with fragmenting bullets . . . Yeah, and if my grandma had balls she'd be me grandad.

Ric

[trooperman 73]

in actual fact the Americans have been field testing the 6.5x55 Grendal or Grendel what ever they call it and are going to re barrel the M4 for this round by all accounts it only costs the US army $17 to re barrel an M4 the 6.5 has been used by certain US service men in the Afgan areas for the last 12 months and it is certain to go fully into 6.5 by this time next year.

 

paul

[RicW 67]

Paul -

Thanks for that! Ironic ain't it. The British round was 7mm/.280". Now the Americans are taking up a round that is virtually the same.

Ho hum. Larf? Or cry?

 

Ric

[shottyscotty 3]

there is nothing wrong with the 223 round its plenty powerfull enough and the us troops carry 6.8mm m4a1`s wich is a brilliant round and saw`s wich have changable barrels and can fire 5.56 or 7.62

[Aaron Proffitt 142]

Ric does every post you make have to come down to a latent hatred for anything US ? If you have that much of a problem with me and my countrymen just come out and say it. Obviously you wil cause you figure your protected by country and sea.But probably not if I were sitting across from you on a bar stool.

 

Anyway, .the 5.56 is a fine round in some regards and not so in others. Certainly not my first choice when shooting animals whom I'd like to preserve their fur for market like fox, coyote, or bobcats . However , it can be handloaded to velocities and bullet combos that are great . Even more so, I love the .17's atop a .223 case and the .19's for the same app. . As a LEO, I love the .223 for an entry gun should the situation turn into a hostage situation. With a short barrel on full auto, it's an attention getter. With the right glass, the same gun could be used for a 'thread the needle 'shot. I like the 6.8 , and think it will add just a tad more 'umph' .

 

 

BTW, I still stand by that a knife in the heart beats a bullet in the ass anyday of the week.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Aaron Proffitt

[Aaron Proffitt 142]

there is nothing wrong with the 223 round its plenty powerfull enough and the us troops carry 6.8mm m4a1`s wich is a brilliant round and saw`s wich have changable barrels and can fire 5.56 or 7.62

 

 

Exactly my friend....

[RicW 67]

Aaron - Sorry if I gave offence. (I have managed to resist the temptation to say "Nothing latent about it" . . .!)

I did say that the 5.56 was ideal for the fighting in 'Nam, for Belfast, Iraq and similar comparatively close combat. The article I read said that the 5.56 in general, and especially fired from the short barrelled M4, had been found to lack long range accuracy and lethality. It is outgunned by the old AK47 in 7.62 x 39. The British Army has 400 Sharpshooter rifles in 7.62 x 51, and the US Army is planning to designate 9 men in each infantry company as specialists with M110 rifles, also in 7.62 x 51.

 

It shows that Santayana got it spot on when he said that those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. The British Army in particular has no excuse. During the 1st Afghan War of 1839-1842 the Brown Bess musket was outranged and out powered by the Jezail flintlocks. Coupled with some outstandingly bad generalship, we quite frankly got the sh*t shot out of us. After the 3rd Anglo Afghan War, the Army decided that a invasion of Afghanistan would never succeed. Then during the Russian occupation of the '80s the AK74 in 5.45 x 39 was outranged by the Lee-Enfields the Afghan had captured from us.

 

Bit off-topic but if I want to hijack my own thread I will. So there :tongue4:

 

Ric

[mangy1983 51]

Ric does every post you make have to come down to a latent hatred for anything US ? If you have that much of a problem with me and my countrymen just come out and say it. Obviously you wil cause you figure your protected by country and sea.But probably not if I were sitting across from you on a bar stool.

 

Anyway, .the 5.56 is a fine round in some regards and not so in others. Certainly not my first choice when shooting animals whom I'd like to preserve their fur for market like fox, coyote, or bobcats . However , it can be handloaded to velocities and bullet combos that are great . Even more so, I love the .17's atop a .223 case and the .19's for the same app. . As a LEO, I love the .223 for an entry gun should the situation turn into a hostage situation. With a short barrel on full auto, it's an attention getter. With the right glass, the same gun could be used for a 'thread the needle 'shot. I like the 6.8 , and think it will add just a tad more 'umph' .

 

 

BTW, I still stand by that a knife in the heart beats a bullet in the ass anyday of the week.

 

Hi Aaron

Just out of interest what is a LEO. Is this your star sign or is it the initials of your job? We have FEO's as in Firearms Enquiry Officers so I'm guessing its something along them lines, just couldn't quite figure out what the L stood for.

 

cheers Callum

[Aaron Proffitt 142]

Ric does every post you make have to come down to a latent hatred for anything US ? If you have that much of a problem with me and my countrymen just come out and say it. Obviously you wil cause you figure your protected by country and sea.But probably not if I were sitting across from you on a bar stool.

 

Anyway, .the 5.56 is a fine round in some regards and not so in others. Certainly not my first choice when shooting animals whom I'd like to preserve their fur for market like fox, coyote, or bobcats . However , it can be handloaded to velocities and bullet combos that are great . Even more so, I love the .17's atop a .223 case and the .19's for the same app. . As a LEO, I love the .223 for an entry gun should the situation turn into a hostage situation. With a short barrel on full auto, it's an attention getter. With the right glass, the same gun could be used for a 'thread the needle 'shot. I like the 6.8 , and think it will add just a tad more 'umph' .

 

 

BTW, I still stand by that a knife in the heart beats a bullet in the ass anyday of the week.

 

Hi Aaron

Just out of interest what is a LEO. Is this your star sign or is it the initials of your job? We have FEO's as in Firearms Enquiry Officers so I'm guessing its something along them lines, just couldn't quite figure out what the L stood for.

 

cheers Callum

 

 

Sorry Callum, Law Enforcement Officer.

[Aaron Proffitt 142]

Aaron - Sorry if I gave offence. (I have managed to resist the temptation to say "Nothing latent about it" . . .!)

I did say that the 5.56 was ideal for the fighting in 'Nam, for Belfast, Iraq and similar comparatively close combat. The article I read said that the 5.56 in general, and especially fired from the short barrelled M4, had been found to lack long range accuracy and lethality. It is outgunned by the old AK47 in 7.62 x 39. The British Army has 400 Sharpshooter rifles in 7.62 x 51, and the US Army is planning to designate 9 men in each infantry company as specialists with M110 rifles, also in 7.62 x 51.

 

It shows that Santayana got it spot on when he said that those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. The British Army in particular has no excuse. During the 1st Afghan War of 1839-1842 the Brown Bess musket was outranged and out powered by the Jezail flintlocks. Coupled with some outstandingly bad generalship, we quite frankly got the sh*t shot out of us. After the 3rd Anglo Afghan War, the Army decided that a invasion of Afghanistan would never succeed. Then during the Russian occupation of the '80s the AK74 in 5.45 x 39 was outranged by the Lee-Enfields the Afghan had captured from us.

 

Bit off-topic but if I want to hijack my own thread I will. So there :tongue4:

 

Ric

fair enough, ric, fair enough.