Should the 5.56 be replaced?
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
Deadmanwalking
New Member
The 7.62 is super heavy, even the rifle is heavier (stronger Breech, longer barrel, Heavier spring) the Magazine more often than not has a strong spring which adds to the weight. Ask anyone who has lugged around a 7.62 it tires you faster than anything. Moreover the 7.62 rifles have an excellent amount of recoil( firing it using your shoulder, forget it...after the first mag in semi auto mode, you will not even feel it...it goes plain numb.) It is effective and even the good old ball ammo will create an exit wound at 600-700 yard range.
The 5.56 is a round suited for the soldier who is on a long deputation, has to walk a lot (foot patrolling) also the weapon is lighter. The round is not the traditional ball ammo, but a shaped round which on penetration 'tumbles' through inside the body creating a lot of internal damage.
A TRB (three round burst- INSAS) is perfect for achieving a kill. The 5.56 is effective against light BPJ's till about 100 yards and can achieve an effective kill till about 600-700 yard range (whereas normally soldiers will be fighting at the 350-500 yard range).
Firing the weapon is eminently easier, cleaning and maintaining is also easier.
The 6.8 round will not make much of a difference in the normal fighting radius, but will impose a weight penalty and will not make much of difference in replacing the 7.62.
The 5.56 is a round suited for the soldier who is on a long deputation, has to walk a lot (foot patrolling) also the weapon is lighter. The round is not the traditional ball ammo, but a shaped round which on penetration 'tumbles' through inside the body creating a lot of internal damage.
A TRB (three round burst- INSAS) is perfect for achieving a kill. The 5.56 is effective against light BPJ's till about 100 yards and can achieve an effective kill till about 600-700 yard range (whereas normally soldiers will be fighting at the 350-500 yard range).
Firing the weapon is eminently easier, cleaning and maintaining is also easier.
The 6.8 round will not make much of a difference in the normal fighting radius, but will impose a weight penalty and will not make much of difference in replacing the 7.62.
A three round burst is not going to ensure that all three rounds hit the target above 100-200m. The natural dispersion of the burst is such that the three rounds are going to be very far apart from each other after a very short distance. To make the burst controlled so as to provide a good dispersion to cover aiming deviations you need super fast firing rifles like the G11 with >2,000 rpm.
5.56x45 even through 16 inch barrels is great for plonking people at under 100m. One round is highly lethal at this range thanks to its high terminal velocity leading to fragmentation of the bullet and you can fire repeats into them until they go down. But at ranges over 100-200m 5.56x45 is severally degraded. While a 5.56x45 can kill at long ranges it needs to intersect with a vital part of the human central nervous system or blood system (ie a major artery or the heart) to do so. Since the human body is mostly other stuff the odds of this are pretty rare even if you get a hit.
At these kind of ranges you are only going to hit with one bullet and need to fire a few to make sure of it, even from a LSW, so you want that one bullet to incapacitate. For this you need something like the 6.8x43 or 7.62x51. That will likely fragment (increasing the wounding size and the chance of piercing something vital) and generally cause more damage.
Of course the best solution is a high tech explosive bullet that is one round lethal to the end of its ballistic arc, doesn't ricochet (which causes civilian casualties) and can even wound from a near miss.
Explosive bullets are illegal even the US has signed the relevant treaties. Arguably the .50 API is illegal as well most european countries classify it as an anti material round while the US line is that its incindeary not explosive. Anyway there's little military need to make small arms any more leathal at the expensive of tearing up what few arms limitation treaties that have stood the test of time.
An arms treaty that also banned the dropping of bombs from aircraft...
There is actually a military need for increased lethality because of the changing nature of warfighting. Infantry armies are no longer banging away at each over in massed fires from 500m and running through machine gun beaten zones. All the time respecting the red cross and allowing the evacuation of the wounded (WW1). They are fighting up close and personnel surrounded by civilians against an enemy that will set off a bobby trap with his last breadth (Iraq). What made a lot of sense in WW1 actually makes the contemporary battlefield more lethal for civilians.
Also contemporary exploding rounds don't cause unnecessary suffering through wounding they cause instant death (no suffering). Its a changed dynamic that deserves changed laws rather than disarmament one weapon at a time.
There's no military need for explosive rifle cartridges, the technology exists that makes them a possibility but simply because you can make something doesn't mean you should.
One of the first thing I got told in basic training is don't tamper with your rounds, No 1 its illegal No2 if you're ever captured and someone finds you with them they'll shoot you out of hand, there were cases of germans captured in Normandy with wooden tipped low power practice ammunition, the allied soldiers didn't know what they were assumed they were some sort of modified ammo and executed them.
In training we just got told its illegal but apparently it goes back to treaties signed in the 19th century, which is one of the reasons the smallest artillery shell used to be 37mm although its gradually been eroded in recent times.
Anyway without getting into details, how about just because its immoral. The same way cluster bombs and napalm are. Its easy to get caught up in the specs and performance of military kit but there's always right and wrong to consider.
Incidently I'm no ammunition guru but there are bullets designed to disintegrate inside someone that removes the possibility of a richochet or a round going through the target. Police marksmen use them, they're not general british army issue though too expensive.
There is indeed a need. When soldiers complain about shooting insurgents with multiple magazine loads of ammunition and suicide bombers run towards the crowd of civilians after taking multiple shoots to the torso you start to see why a one shot, total incapacitation round is needed.
Morality? Don’t confuse it with propaganda. It is perfectly legal under the Hague Conventions to shoot specially designed bullets that tumble in the human body like the 5.45x39mm with its hollow nose bullet. The Swiss tried to change the rules to a joules limit but no one would sign up. Cluster bombs are perfectly moral to use if they work – it’s just that most are built cheap with a single fuse so you have large numbers of unexploded ordnance on the battlefield. What's wrong with using dual mode DPICM or clusters that leave less UXO on the battlefield than the targets they destroy? Napalm burns but so too does a huge number of other weapons. Is it any nicer to be burned by Napalm than by Phosphorous, DU or good ole fashion gasoline bombs?
High Explosive small arms ammunition will not create excessive wounds and suffering it will simply kill everyone it hits. Killing combatants on the battlefield is perfectly moral. Especially when they don’t follow the rules of law in any way.
These frangible rounds achieve this effect by expanding and many would be ruled illegal under the Hague Conventions. They also cut wounding potential and are fine for police use at extreme close range but not military use.
I don’t take kindly to being accused of being caught up with specs and so on. I’m very serious about this kind of thing. Also if your intent is to come online here and call all weapons bad and immoral I suspect you may not last long.
I’m all for disarmament and world peace but it is all or nothing. Disarmament one weapon at a time for the sake of any apparent reduction in the arsenals of the world only makes war more dangerous for the good guys. Until everyone is willing to back it they should remain nice ideals otherwise they are very dangerous.
Deadmanwalking
New Member
A three round burst like you say is difficult to get on a target...i have used a rifle which has a TRB capability. We are trained to aim on an offset to achieve the kill, the time difference in the shots is long enough for a trained soldier to reorient the gun. Though, seconding your point, Also TRB's are preferably used at long range only when the target is injured using the semi-auto mode(single shot) then follow up with the TRB to ensure kill. The TRB also sometimes helps for moving targets.
Also you dont really need to go against the convention to use 'explosive bullets' I remember once I was shown a bullet, which has a small hollow at the front filled with something (mercury??) and capped off with a solder. This bullet depends on the different way in which the bullet will react on hitting the opponent. (Dont know if I exactly remember the whole thing, but twas something like this) --- Forgive the memory.
Perhaps they should aim better then, and use targeted bursts instead of spraying-and-praying?
A full magazine of ammunition pumped into a torso on a relatively average spread should at least severely damage the spine of the hit person with a few of the 30 rounds, leading to near-instant collapse - even if just say 6 or 7 rounds of the magazine hit the torso. No matter which caliber, as long as it doesn't get stuck in bone.
Whether a few hits to the torso are fatal is irrelevant in this of course; untreated, they will always be fatal. Being treated they take up hostile resources.
However, why do you think a number of rather small splinters would collapse a person faster than a spread of tumbling/yawing bullets? In fact, a tumbling bullet will have a better chance at ripping holes into vital organs. And collapse of this hit vital organ will happen faster with a single bigger hole through the lung, not two dozen tiny holes, potentially even with the splinters still stuck in the holes.
Again, the same thing comes into play again of course. We're talking a wish for near-instant permanent collapse, right? A collapsing lung won't provide that, no matter how it's done. Neither will a punctured stomach. Or a destructed heart really. All of these deadly injuries will still provide the hit person with at least between 5 and 60 seconds of active motor functions and consciency to achieve its goal. This isn't the movies after all.
The only way to achieve such is to severely damage or sever components of the nervous system, cutting the connection to motoric functions. And, if you want to be able to shoot someone from any angle in such a way, the only way to achieve that - in torso shots - is by using a projectile that will still deliver destructive energy after puncturing at least two thirds of the body.
Of course you can build a FRAG warhead suitable for this purpose that would deliver fragments through the torso with enough energy to damage the spine. Likely even in a .50-caliber shell. What's questionable though is whether you can successfully build this in a rifle-/carbine-sized round with nominal ranges well beyond 300 meters - after all, you'd want it deployed by infantry. And whether this round would still be useful against other soft targets - lets remember, a decent anti-personnel round of bigger caliber typically forms fragments of at least 2 mm diameter, preferably bigger - AHEAD and derived ABM shells for example use pre-fragmented splinters with almost exactly the size, weight and velocity of a 5.56mm bullet.
For humanities sake, some considerations: A discriminating triggering mechanism would likely be on the wishlist, only exploding the shell after hitting a target in a certain spectrum of angle (well, you'd want that because of ricochets anyway). Same for a set pattern of explosion, preferably only forward. Oh, and let's better form the fragments to such a shape that they don't travel too far after explosion.
So what you're saying that the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and the multi national forces have some sort of moral equivalence? Iraq and Afghan are in the midst of an insurgency it’s not going to be improved by abandoning one the few international humanitarian agreements that's stood the test of time.
Anyway Its a moot point The united states and every other civilized nation has signed a declaration saying they won't use small arms firing explosive ammunition. .50 cal API rounds escaped because firstly .50 cal rifles fall somewhere between heavy weapons and rifles and secondly because the round is classed as anti material and most European nation including the UK tell their operators not to use against personnel although the Americans think its fine.
Otherwise nobody is deploying explosive rifle rounds because they're illegal and there’s no need to add to the barbarity of the modern battlefield for no good reason.
As for my point regarding cluster bombs and napalm I realise they're not illegal my objection is that instead of being a weapon of last resort they tend to be the first thing they merrily load onto the plane.
I'll make one other point again I'm sure they could design a suitable 5.56 explosive bullet and I'm sure it would be way cool and have loads of brilliant characteristics etc etc. But just because we can manufacture a weapon like that doesn't mean we have to.
If you want to save Lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, then push for better body armour and better ECM.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #131
The 40mm launched from the MK-19 and M203 are explosive and that treaty is only limited to bullets it does not include all of the bombs, missiles and rockets that U.S. forces use all with high explosive warheads. I myself has no problem with explosive bullets and I think that treaty's are useless when it comes to limiting any type of weapon but I'm one just of those hawkish type of people.
Not at all! You’ve really manipulated my argument to find this explanation which is unfortunately to be expected from the disarmament at any cost mob. The same principal that applies to the acceptance of collateral damage through air strikes to destroy a terrorist group that would cause more damage if not attacked applied. If you use a FMJ bullet to shoot a terrorist chances are you will cause a clean wound without undue suffering but they will be able to continue their mission and kill several civilians through bombing. If you use an exploding bullet there is a chance you may cause a gruesome wound causing lots of suffering but you will insure their mission is unsuccessful and the civilians remain safe.
I believe that technology is such that even 4g 5.56x45mm bullets can be built with a high explosive warhead and fusing system that would ensure instant incapacitation through death or unconsciousness from fatal wounding from any torso, upper limb or head hit. The level of suffering from the target would correspondingly be very low compared to being hit be either a fragmenting or non-fragmenting 5.56x45 FMJ bullet.
Weapon’s treaties come and they go. While the Hague Convention only covers combat between lawful combatants and the US has certainly ruled that the Taliban and co are unlawful it would realistically take a new treaty to allow HE SAA.
That’s not the point its about saving lives of our soldiers and civilians in the battlefield by ensuring one hit, instant incapacitation of the enemy and removal of ricochets from the battlefield. If you don’t realise how those two achievements would be make for a much safer battlefield then you don’t know what you are talking about.
Yeah sure like killing the enemy never helped anyone. Why don't we get rid of all our weapons and just roll around in heavy armour, that will work?
That only works in short ranges (<100m) against non-moving enemies. In such a situation you could be armed with a muzzle loaded musket and you would still take down the enemy. In the real world of infantry combat against enemies doing their best to avoid getting shoot single round hits from multiple rounds fired are the norm. And not because of spray and pray but because of time of flight and moving targets.
Which is fine if you are talking about army vs army but in CQB against the Taliban and AQ it isn't. Because there a wounded soldier becomes an intelligent mine and is not a burden on the enemy but a continued threat to your force. Warfare changes
2 grams of TNT exploding in your chest cavity would release over 8000 joules of energy inside the body. This more than twice the energy potential of a 7.62x51 has at point blank range at contact with the outer surface of the target (ie before penetrating into the body).
Soldiers using explosive weapons like 40mm grenades, 25mm guns and so on are technically not allowed to target them at individuals. They are to be fired as area weapons to defeat groups of individuals. Of course in combat it is possible for an explosive round to "accidentally" hit an individual.
In 1999, in an incident in Kosovo, German soldiers were attacked by two Serbs in an automobile firing an AK47 while driving towards them (one soldier injured) and were readying to throw a hand grenade.
Response fire at 100+m consisted of 15 rounds 9mm (pistol), 120 rounds 5.56mm (from multiple rifles) and a finishing 40 round 7.62mm continuous MG burst (aimed at driver primarily). Of the 160 longer-range rounds, between 40 and 50 hit the driver and passenger; the driver was killed through terminal damage to his spine, the passenger had his lungs collapsed with around 15 bullets through him and died a few minutes later.
What i'm trying to say is - i'm aware that "hit rates", especially against moving targets, will be low. That's why i said earlier "if just say 6 or 7 rounds of the magazine hit the torso". Even using 3-round-bursts only, that would be a 60% hit rate from each burst. With a more usual semi-auto and burst mix, that'd be more along the lines of 40%, should be achievable on a moving target, especially with multiple people firing.
The above represents a typical potential high-threat target as faced pretty much daily in Iraq by US Forces, the (suspected) suicide bomber that needs to be dropped immediately. A "regular", i.e. an insurgent with a rifle or similar, does not warrant the same kind of immediacy.
Yes, but as i said - what kind of damage would that cause? Would this energy entering at the front of the torso spread sufficiently to sever the spinal cord? Because if it doesn't you'll still have people clamoring for a bigger charge because "it still doesn't do the job".
Sidenote for other people: 33 grains (2 grams) of TNT isn't exactly small. It's about the maximum you could likely pack into a carbine-caliber bullet, without sacrificing safety and ballistics.
Ahh the one German infantry encounter (well it was a tank) since WW2... I remember this on TV the range of engagement was far lower than 100m. Try 20m at the most.
There is a lot more far more relevant combat experience coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan where insurgents are being 'clipped' by single rounds of 5.56x45 and going on fighting.
You are assuming a contact fuse. The round would not detonate until within the body. Its a safe bet to assume that 2g of TNT surrounded by 2g of metal going off in your stomach is not something a human can take and remain conscious and then alive for more than a few minutes.
Initial engagement was at between 100 and 120m, the vehicle kept coming towards them and stopped at around 30m with dead driver, some flat tires and the engine pumped full with bullets.
Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan is more relevant. And yes, a single 5.56mm bullet to the torso won't stop anyone unless with very lucky hits - that's not what the round was built for anyway. I mean, that's why we're discussing all this.
Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan is more relevant. And yes, a single 5.56mm bullet to the torso won't stop anyone unless with very lucky hits - that's not what the round was built for anyway. I mean, that's why we're discussing all this.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #139
Yeah I've seen troops fire them at the enemies before I guess their fingers slipped.
He has a point, this is ROKs latest little invention that will be getting fielded.Yeah I've seen troops fire them at the enemies before I guess their fingers slipped.
Designation K 11 5.56mm matched with a 20mm.