The best caliber for a battle rifle?

[Falstaff]

When I did my service in the Bundeswehr in 1997/98 my unit (it was part of the "Krisenreaktionskräfte": crisis reaction forces) just changed from the 7,62 mm G3 to the 5,56 mm G36. I always loved the G3, it sure was a piece of engineering and I dare say I wasn't a bad shooter. The punch and the recoil were tremendous.
But then I had the opportunity to shoot with the G36 twice and I instantly fell in love. Light, easy to handle, lot of rounds in the clip, low recoil and anyone could shoot a bee's eye from 400m.
So sure the 7,62mm round may deliever more punch to the enemy, but the G36 with the 5,56mm round is much easier to handle.
I think that for most units in a high intensity battlefield situation it might be better to have a lighter round and be able to get it were it belongs more easily than a heavy round that's harder to handle.
However, this shouldn't apply for special forces. Those guys should be able to shoot accurately with any calibre.

 

[Waylander]

Well put.

That's exactly what I mean.

It doesn't help you when your lethality is higher with a 7.62mm gun (Which is worth a discussion) when your hitting percentage is much lower with adrenalin in your veins. And it doesn't help you when you run out of ammo because you cannot carry the same amount of rounds.

And especially during MOUT I want to be able to put my auto-fire onto the enemy and not everywhere. And a 5.56mm is much much better to control.
Not to talk of the amount of ammo you need during normal engagements (And even more during MOUT).

And if you want something to work behind cover you have your GPMGs, DMRs and 40mm with you.

 

[old faithful]

I think that if i was in open country...dessert,or even Falklands like terrain...i would like 7.62x51. In urban or close country 5.56. Simply because in open country,contacts can start at great distances so it makes sense to be able to engage the enemy withEFFECTIVE fire, to either deny him access to gain the advantage of manouvering to attack you, or to take him out there and then etc. In close country,more ammo is needed because better concealment will mean more rounds are expended per hit.Weight reduction becomes very important in close country as well, I dont think there is a"magic bullet" so to speak,but i really know nothing about 6.5 or 6.8mm.

 

[eckherl]

I know that M60 is nearly gone, because of that I wrote "before".
But I also never heard of M240 being on its way out.
It is more the other way around. Many units in Iraq tend to carry as much GPMGs and SAWs as possible with them when going onto MOUT combat missions. This resulted in some normally vehicle mounted M240 being converted for infantry use to cover the big need.

I don't really like a round between 5.56mm and 7.62mm.
It has the problem of many multimission systems. Ok at many missions but not a master at any.

M240 also makes a excellant coax MG on a tank, it is very rare to get them to jam on you. The troops in Iraq can`t get enough of them, they are just as rugged as a AK 47. Good job goes out to the Belgians for the design.

 

[Manfred]

I argee with Waylander except for one thing- one caliber for basic weapons and another for squad support weapons.

A 6.5mm compromise is still what I would like to see, since the 5.56mm is too high-velocity to reliably do the same thing twice, especialy at long range or through foliage. I know that rifles and MGs have different jobs, but it ought to be possible to make a round that can do both in wonderful, modern 2007.

 

[Waylander]

What is your concern about 2 kinds of ammo in a squad?

That there is a logistical problem?

 

[eckherl]

Its not the handling that I'm concerned about, I simply want reassurance that the round I put down range, that I can take my target down.

If some one gets struck with a 5.56 I do not think you will be too worried about them still wanting to fight, this caliber hasn`t been a major concern of worry with the troops in Iraq. This round can and will cause a nasty wound.

 

[Distiller]

I think the 6.5 Grendel is a really interesting piece.
Lighter cartridge than a 7.62x51, better ballistics, and almost identical bullet weight.
And far better overall performance than a 5.56x45.
Question is autofeed capability (looking at the cartridge), but they say no problem here.

 

[old faithful]

If some one gets struck with a 5.56 I do not think you will be too worried about them still wanting to fight, this caliber hasn`t been a major concern of worry with the troops in Iraq. This round can and will cause a nasty wound.

true,but troops in Afghanistan have found (albeit with short barrelled M4,s) the 5.56 lacking hitting power at ranges over 200m. there have been cases where troops have been pinned down by echo forces, where returning their fire actually got "brave heart responses!" Maybe with a longer barrelled rifle,or better still,a 7.62mm weopon, they wouldnt have been pinned down as long. i might add that the taliban had 120mm morters as well,and the terrain was much in the defenders(echo,s) favour.

 

[eckherl]

true,but troops in Afghanistan have found (albeit with short barrelled M4,s) the 5.56 lacking hitting power at ranges over 200m. there have been cases where troops have been pinned down by echo forces, where returning their fire actually got "brave heart responses!" Maybe with a longer barrelled rifle,or better still,a 7.62mm weopon, they wouldnt have been pinned down as long. i might add that the taliban had 120mm morters as well,and the terrain was much in the defenders(echo,s) favour.

Are the U.S Marines still using M16A2`s, how are other NATO member battle rifles faring, the ones using 5.56mm.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Its not the handling that I'm concerned about, I simply want reassurance that the round I put down range, that I can take my target down.

Sgt Barnes. Are you or have you ever been a soldier? Just wondering...

More important than calibre of a weapon for a soldier is this: shooting well. Do this and your target will drop. In CQC training we train to shoot through the "T" an imaginary line running between a person's ear, with the middle line running from his nose down to the middle of his chest.

Put either a 5.56mm or 7.62mm round into that region and your target will drop. End of story. No-one wears body armour in that region and either round has the kinetic energy to inflict a devasting wound.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

Sgt Barnes. Are you or have you ever been a soldier? Just wondering...

More important than calibre of a weapon for a soldier is this: shooting well. Do this and your target will drop. In CQC training we train to shoot through the "T" an imaginary line running between a person's ear, with the middle line running from his nose down to the middle of his chest.

Put either a 5.56mm or 7.62mm round into that region and your target will drop. End of story. No-one wears body armour in that region and either round has the kinetic energy to inflict a devasting wound.

No I am not, but I am involved with ROTC, and I go hunting. I know that with a well manned shot you can put a round through a person's face. But I'm talking in terms of a firefight in which there is no time to pick off an enemy one at a time.

 

[Tasman]

No I am not, but I am involved with ROTC, and I go hunting. I know that with a well manned shot you can put a round through a person's face. But I'm talking in terms of a firefight in which there is no time to pick off an enemy one at a time.

My background is also one of limited military service (reserve and school cadets) and many years of hunting. IMO, it still comes back to how well trained a soldier is in being able to handle their weapon. That's why I advocate the 5.56mm as being the perfect calibre for non infantry soldiers. As a hunter, you would know that it is much easier to shoot the 5.56mm accurately than the 7.62mm, particularly in a situation where you are firing from a standing position, or firing on the move without a rest to position your rifle against. The ability to lay down high rates of fire with reasonable accuracy is also much more difficult with the 7.62mm.

I am a fan of the 7.62mm calibre and I would prefer to see a portion of every infantry section issued with this calibre. To provide high rates of fire and larger quantities of ammo I would still want a portion equipped with the 5.56mm. Ideally I would increase the percentage of 7.62mms if the unit was being deployed to an area where open country was the norm and decrease it in other situations. The practicality of this (training, weapon inventory and supply issues), however, would probably make this impracticable.

Cheers

 

[Sgt.Banes]

My background is also one of limited military service (reserve and school cadets) and many years of hunting. IMO, it still comes back to how well trained a soldier is in being able to handle their weapon. That's why I advocate the 5.56mm as being the perfect calibre for non infantry soldiers. As a hunter, you would know that it is much easier to shoot the 5.56mm accurately than the 7.62mm, particularly in a situation where you are firing from a standing position, or firing on the move without a rest to position your rifle against. The ability to lay down high rates of fire with reasonable accuracy is also much more difficult with the 7.62mm.

I am a fan of the 7.62mm calibre and I would prefer to see a portion of every infantry section issued with this calibre. To provide high rates of fire and larger quantities of ammo I would still want a portion equipped with the 5.56mm. Ideally I would increase the percentage of 7.62mms if the unit was being deployed to an area where open country was the norm and decrease it in other situations. The practicality of this (training, weapon inventory and supply issues), however, would probably make this impracticable.

Cheers

You're probably right, I doubt I will enter active military service in my lifetime. But I would like to enter some kind of reserve service later in my life, and since we'll more than likely be using the M-16A2 I might as well use 5.56mm or .223 round ammo.

 

[Waylander]

What is ROTC?

 

[LancerMc]

Waylander, it stands for Reserve Officer Training Corps. It is a program used at 4 year colleges and universities for college students to train to be military officers while in school. Upon graduation the student is commissioned into the military depending on what branch of ROTC they were in.

ROTC cadets will go through some type of basic training during breaks in school. They also visit military bases and go through different training through college. That includes rifle and pistol training.

Personally I prefer the 5.56, the AR-15 is much easier to handle and shoot then my M1A. Though I bet the new FN SCAR 7.62 takes advantage of the many new light weight metals and composites to make a comfortable heavier caliber assault rifle.

Though an ex-SEAL; who served in Vietnam, who works at my local gun store told me he always prefers the 7.62 because you hit someone he won't get up, you hit someone with a 5.56 it will take 2 to 3 shots normally to get a guy down & out.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Waylander, it stands for Reserve Officer Training Corps. It is a program used at 4 year colleges and universities for college students to train to be military officers while in school. Upon graduation the student is commissioned into the military depending on what branch of ROTC they were in.

ROTC cadets will go through some type of basic training during breaks in school. They also visit military bases and go through different training through college. That includes rifle and pistol training.

Personally I prefer the 5.56, the AR-15 is much easier to handle and shoot then my M1A. Though I bet the new FN SCAR 7.62 takes advantage of the many new light weight metals and composites to make a comfortable heavier caliber assault rifle.

Though an ex-SEAL; who served in Vietnam, who works at my local gun store told me he always prefers the 7.62 because you hit someone he won't get up, you hit someone with a 5.56 it will take 2 to 3 shots normally to get a guy down & out.

Though if you start doing CQC work in urban terrain, that 7.62mm round ain't going to be much fun for support troops or "friendlys" chewing it's way through double brick cavity walls with ridiculous ease...

5.56mm offers the best compromise between range, penetrative power, wound effects and firepower (ie: ability to carry sufficient rounds), IMHO. I've fired and used both calibres on exercise (though more extensively with 5.56mm) and greatly prefer 5.56mm.

Getting rounds on target is more important than sheer hitting power. If sheer hitting power were the most important attribute, we'd be using 338 Lapua or some such round.

All types of calibres were trialled against 5.56mm when it was introduced and it generally came out on top. I really don't think a switch to 6.5mm or some other round is going to solve the eternal question of the "best round". A mix of calibres is probably the best option, depending on the available logistical support.

Specwarries are certainly moving towards mixed calibres and don't seem overly interested in a "middle ground" calibre...

Cheers.

 

[Manfred]

Yes, Waylander, I am concerned about logistics, and I have no reason to trust the Quartermasters when they have an opportunity to make a mistake.

The 5.56mm round will kill a man, but only if it hits just right, and it rarely does that. It moves too fast and has too little mass to be as reliable as it should be. Marines in Iraq have been complaining about it, and Marines learn to fire these weapons out to 500 meters, during basic training. Trust me, they are hitting thier targets.

The 6.5mm round sounds promising,i hope to hear more about it someday soon.

 

[Waylander]

But 7.62mm is already in theater because of the dozens of vehicle mounted weapons using this weapon and changing to 6.5mm on vehicles would make no sense.
Vehicles don't have the problems of weight and due to their weapons being used with gun carriages or being coaxes they use the 7.62mm up to its range limit were 6.5mm would be inferior.

So you would have to support 7.62mm and 6.5mm in theater in contrast to 7.62mm and 5.56mm when using my mix. I see no advantage.

And a 7.62mm not hitting a vital area is not going to kill a man nor would 5.56mm do this.

 

[Tasman]

Though if you start doing CQC work in urban terrain, that 7.62mm round ain't going to be much fun for support troops or "friendlys" chewing it's way through double brick cavity walls with ridiculous ease...

5.56mm offers the best compromise between range, penetrative power, wound effects and firepower (ie: ability to carry sufficient rounds), IMHO. I've fired and used both calibres on exercise (though more extensively with 5.56mm) and greatly prefer 5.56mm.

Getting rounds on target is more important than sheer hitting power. If sheer hitting power were the most important attribute, we'd be using 338 Lapua or some such round.

All types of calibres were trialled against 5.56mm when it was introduced and it generally came out on top. I really don't think a switch to 6.5mm or some other round is going to solve the eternal question of the "best round". A mix of calibres is probably the best option, depending on the available logistical support.

Specwarries are certainly moving towards mixed calibres and don't seem overly interested in a "middle ground" calibre...

Cheers.

I think AD’s post provides a balanced argument in favour of mixed calibres. IMO, if we are going to have mixed calibres, it makes a lot of sense to stick to the two now in service.

The 7.62mm (or .308W in civilian use) was originally adopted by NATO ahead of established .30 calibres like the .30/06 which was in service with US forces and the .303 which served throughout the British Commonwealth. Whilst its ballistic qualities are slightly inferior the 7.62 x 51 had an advantage over the .30/06 in having a shorter, rimless case, which improved ammunition stowage and feeding in magazine fed semi auto and auto weapons. It also enjoyed these advantages over the .303 and was superior in ballistics as well. I'm not sure about the US military but Britain was certainly looking at smaller calibres in the 7mm class. However, the proven success of the .30 led to the adoption of the 7.62mm by NATO as its standard. I think the reason the .30 calibre has been used for so long is that it is probably the largest calibre that the average trained infantryman can shoot reasonably accurately.

A lot of hunters (deer etc) also favour this calibre, though higher velocity cartridges with flatter trajectory have been created by necking down the .30s. For example the .270W and .25/06R are necked down from the .30/06 and the .243W is necked down from the .308W (or 7.62mm x 51). These are all popular for hunting deer but usually when hunting something that can bite or claw back the larger calibre is chosen. Of course there are more powerful choices like the various .338s, .375s, .458s, along with a range of magnum cartridges, but most people just can't handle these.

Shooters hunting thin skinned game (kangaroos for example) have long favoured high powered .22 calibre (5.56mm) cartridges like the .222R, .223R and .22/250. These are easy to shoot and have very flat trajectories which mean little allowance has to be made for drop over normal hunting ranges. As humans are thin skinned it was probably natural that the military looked to these cartridges when it was desired to develop a calibre for semi auto or auto weapons that would be light and which would also enable large quantities of ammunition to be carried. Initially some saw this as a replacement for sub machine guns and carbines, like the M1 carried by US support troops, but in service it eventually supplanted the 7.62mm as the standard issue in the infantry of NATO and other western countries. The calibre adopted by NATO was of course the .223R or 5.56mm. The benefit of the 5.56mm is, IMO, that it is the lightest calibre that has a reasonable chance of bringing down its target with a well placed shot and it is comparatively easy to train people to do that.

Why not stick to the two standard calibres now in use with western forces and match the calibre issued to deploying troops to suit the situation (terrain, environment, etc)? I can't see what would be gained by developing a middle calibre that would be hugely expensive, involve massive logistical issues and probably end up being a jack of all trades but master of none.

Cheers