One of the things that persuaded the Americans to switch from 7.62 calibre to 5.56 was the lower cost of manufacturing the 5.56 round many of the troops preferred the M14 to the M16 because of its better knock-down capability and longer range - it seems the bean counters strike again
Just been browsing through this thread. We were bored on the firing range one day and wanted to see the difference between a R1 rifle (7.62) and R4 (5.56). Someone managed to get some watermelons and put them out on the range at ±300m The heavier 7.62 went right through it, the 5.56 absolutely destroyed it. Apparently it's has something about the lighter round falling out of its trajectory and tumbling causing more damage.
The instability of the 5.56 round means that if it hits a twig or something like that it goes off at a tangent however with the 7.62 Nato round you can kill something hiding behind a double thickness of brick or about 6 - 8 inches of wood.
I see the Mail is printing rubbish again Cheers Andy Ha, Your papers are as bad as ours. A little knowledge is a bad thing Looks like they saw '7.62' and assumed 7.62 x 51 Nato = 7.62 x 39 Ruskie As the great thespian Felix Unger said in the Odd Couple: "When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me!"
the marines who took Top malo House during the Falklands in 82 could have told you how ineffective a lesser round than the 7.62 is at stopping the enemy half of them where carrying M16's with their lighter weight rounds, and taking at least three rounds to stop an enemy - whereas those who carried the SLR said the job was done with one round. This information was brought to you by the 'Office of Wheel Reinvention'
I've heard this argument many times about the larger round and I'm indifferent to it. All I can say is I've seen a few chaps stopped with a 5.56 and I'd rather carry a A2 into a fight that an SLR.
Hello all, I don't know anything about the stopping power of the cartridges but I've seen the long range accuracy of the 7.62 Nato at Camp Perry. They can hit a 3 foot target at 1000 yards all day long with iron sights. I can't, of course Dave
Ah yes - the new Sharpshooter rifle and we seemed to have devolved into 5.56mm and SA80 bashing The Sharpshooter weapon has been issued as an operational requirement as has an automatic shotgun (so both ends of the range spectrum covered!). I saw a great website that goes in to great length about the L85/SA80 without any of the cliches etc.... SA80: MISTAKE OR MALIGNED? Also can l just say that the currently serving military types that I know no longer talk about the SA80 at all.....before the A2 came out....it was pretty much moaned about all the time....and I have not seen it mentioned in the Daily moral Panic (aka Daily Mail/Express) so maybe it is as good a they say it is. As for the calibre debate we seem to have gone full circle in 60 years Britain and Germany had by the end of WW2 come to the conclusion that the machine gun cartridges were too powerful for an infantry rifle especially as they found that most infantry engagements took place at less than 300m and often involved FISH (Fighting In Someone's House) which required a weapon capable of being controlled when fired on automatic etc. The Germans in a bit of a rush compromised with the short cartridge 7.98mm in their STG44 assault rifle. This weapon was a great success and fortunatly for the allies developed too late in the war to make much of a difference. The British in not so much of a rush spent more time and in the opinion of many in subsequant years since, decided correctly that the 'optimum' cartridge was a 7mm / .280" round and the government of the day was ready to push ahead as were the Canadian's with the .280 EM2 or Enfield Mk7 and a GPMG that we would all recognise as the FN GPMG but chambering for the same round as the EM2 to replace the Sten gun/Lee Enfield and Bren Gun/Vickers Respectively. However 2 things happened that stopped what was the most advanced rifle of its day in its tracks. Firstly the US Brass decided that they rather liked the winchester .308 round (effectively the same bullet as the .30 cal) and ignoring all the hard won evidence to the contrary chose the 7.62mm 'machine gun' bullet and the M14/M60. The second thing that happened is the sudden change of goverment in the UK and once again we had Winston at the helm. He in his infinite wisdom and lacking a Gen.Alanbrook to reel him in decided that we would be better off using the same bullets as the Americans. In the interest of common resupply etc. FN had been ready for this and very quickly the Stirling SMG, FN FAL and MAG (SLR and GPMG) were brought into service instead. So now having been adopted for all the wrong reasons 7.62mm became the Standard NATO round. So while its allies in NATO settled down with 7.62 and started building their SLRs and G3s etc the American Suddenly discovered to their horror that in their war in southeast asia that 7.62 was overpowered for the types of battles they were fighting which were (I can copy and past this bit from above!) that most infantry engagements took place at less than 300m and often involved FISH (Fighting In Someone's House) which required a weapon capable of being controlled when fired on automatic etc. For some reason the US army instead of re-looking at the 7mm/.280 went instead for the shiny new plastic weapon that the US airforce were using. The 5.56mm M16. This they decided was perfect for their needs (low recoil, light, automatic, easy to train reluctant conscripts to shoot etc) and after several trials the M16 replaced the M14. Ultimately this replaced the 7.62mm Round and the Nato allies followed developing a new generation of weapons. Britain choose the L85 / L86 which was not a dusted off EM2 (as has been suggested elsewhere) but is instead a copy of Stoners AR18 in a Bullpup config - allowing a sufficiently long barrel in a shorter weapon (the SLR and its ilk being too long for APCs/Helicopter/FISH) etc etc. All new weapons have problems when first issued but piss taking was brought to a new high as it took 20 years to get all the faults ironed out - which was a criminal offence as far as I am concerned - the mistakes were identified very early on in the weapons life, some before it was issued, no excuses for not fixing them earlier other than sandbagging by those who introduced it and changes only happening once those individuals were safely retired. So eventually our boys have a good rifle (with the US by comparison apparently experiancing lots of reported problems with their M4 carbines!). Also the 5.56 round is an accurate killing round at the engagement ranges that it was intended to be used at - ie 300m or less. At these ranges it will cause very nasty wounds - beyond this its power drops off fairly quickly due to its weight although it is still fairly accurate at 600m. Now it would appear that the Americans in light of their experiances in the middle east and Somalia are looking at a new universal round this time choosing a bullet almost identical to the characteristics of the 7mm /.280 round that Enfield and FN proposed in 1950. So the British Army might be getting that EM2 rifle after all
Hello Havoc, I'm not sure if you thought I was bashing the 5.56 cartridge. I'm not. I love it. And I think it is highly accurate as well. The only thing I was bashing is the long range accuracy of the AK-47 I don't know anything about the SA80 but I generally don't like bull pup designs, but then again, I'm a luddite and like my rifles made out of steel (blue, of course) with wooden stocks and bolt actions. Of course, I don't have to go into combat with one either. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
Hello Havoc, I'm not sure if you thought I was bashing the 5.56 cartridge. I'm not. I love it. And I think it is highly accurate as well. The only thing I was bashing is the long range accuracy of the AK-47 I don't know anything about the SA80 but I generally don't like bull pup designs, but then again, I'm a luddite and like my rifles made out of steel (blue, of course) with wooden stocks and bolt actions. Of course, I don't have to go into combat with one either. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Hello Dave55, No worries I was "writing at" the general thread rather than any individual. I could comment about "Bullpup hate" but the following site does a far better job than I could. WHY BULLPUPS As for your comments on the vaunted AK47 being used at long range - no completely agree with you there. The Daily Moral Panic strikes again.
I servrd with 1st bn the royal scots, i trained with the slr and upon arrival at the battalion retrained straight away on the sa80, the slr was by far the better weapon, if you hit someone with that they went down and stayed down, the sa80 was a big disapointment amongst the lads.
Can't go wrong with the old elephant gun, I started with the SLR, was miffed when I got an SMG and was totally peed off when I found that the base of the magazine for my new SA80 fell off during a shoot - mmm how embarassing to have all that brass around me boots! -I believe that was the start of several tens of thousands of £s worth of Mods (not MoDs) that had to be implemented before it was worth using, although we kept using it as there was nothing else available. I think the government made a few bob by selling the SLRs to the odd African state. At the current rate of cost savings the next weapon for the British Army will be a catapult (slingshot, for our Atlantic viewers) if we can streatch to buying reasonable elastic of course, after all the wood and stones should be free! Back to Einstein!!
The 5.56 round is the standard NATO round which all NATO forces use. The round used by the British in their current rifle has a very round nose to it so it acts rather like a Dum Dum bullet and is designed to cause maximum injury. When it hits you it rattles around inside of you chewing you up. This ties up the a lot of people looking after those that have been hit by a SA80. Now the SA 80 is a very compact weapon to haul around also with the smaller round you can carry more of them. The SLR may have had more hitting power but it was a very long weapon and not so good for working in confined spaces. The change of weapons is more of a specialised thing as 1 Para is spacial forces and they have a permanent presence in Afghanistan and they are doing a lot more sniping than the regular forces there fore have many of their weapons changed to give them a greater kill ratio
This is the SA80 ammunition and that which I have fired. Standard rifle ammo. Unless it has been changed recently. Being such a 'pc' country as ours, I do not think the powers that be would allow manufacture of a 'dum dum' type ammo.
The round used by the British in their current rifle has a very round nose to it so it acts rather like a Dum Dum bullet and is designed to cause maximum injury. No it does not-Who told you that?
The talk about new weapons has hollow ring about it...We are virtually defenceless.I see one report that stated that we have less defence now than in the 1880s. No ships Carries No planes many thousands of servicemen sacked. It worries me as the world is in a real flux of change
The .303 and 7.62 NATO pound was very pointed and would pass through a body. The 5.56 round was designed for the American M16 Rifle and has a very flat rounded nose that makes it tumble through the air. The idea is it causes maximum damage to the person that it hits, and 5.56 is the standard round now for all NATO Forces and they all use the same size round. It is rather like the old Thompson Sub Machine Gun that fired rounds at a low velocity so that they would do more damage when they hit some one. The Germans at one time thought that Dum Dum bullets were being used as the damaged caused was so much worse than they expected.
