Should the 5.56 be replaced?
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
Diddn't the US launch an investigation because of the amount of headshots being taken they thought they might be executing people?Hit critical areas?
It is not as if one aims at specific parts of an enemie's body.
Aim for the center of mass and hope for the best.
But sure, modern optics help and replace some of the hope with ability...
I think that's taking the argument too far. Certainly the 6.8mm was designed as a 300m rifle cartridge, but it still has much better long-range ballistics than the 5.56mm M855. The 6.5 Grendel shifts the balance slightly with a higher-BC bullet which retains its velocity better (as well as a 7.62x51 M80). But there's a negligible difference in ammo size and weight between 6.8mm and 6.5mm, and should not be much difference in short range stopping power given bullets of similar construction. Put simply, the 6.8mm would be a great replacement for the 5.56mm, whereas the Grendel (or a round with Grendel ballistics) could replace the 5.56mm and the 7.62mm as well.
It has been generally accepted for a long time that the effective range for rifle fire is 300m, but that is no longer necessarily true. Not only do optical sights improve the long-range hit probabilities, but in the wide open spaces of Afghanistan, British troops are frequently being engaged by small-arms fire from PKMs and Dragunovs in 7.62x54R at ranges of up to 900m. And since the 5.56mm weapons of the standard infantry fire team are useless at such a range, all they have to respond with is a Javelin anti-tank missile - which ain't cheap.
The short-term solution to the range problem is to buy more 7.62x51 weapons off the shelf, to supplement the 5.56mm guns. The long-term solution is to select a better general-purpose calibre - but this isn't likely to happen until new technology such as caseless or plastic-cased matures.
The history and possible future of assault rifle ammo is explored in this article: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
.... Or call in a fire-mission and blow the shit out of the guys that are 900 meters away.......
Assuming that you're in artillery range, of course, and that the guns are poised ready to fire (or that you've got a CAS plane or UCAV circling overhead). The problem seems to be sudden attacks on patrols by small groups which fade away after a brief firefight. There's not a lot of point in sending out patrols only armed with weapons which are incapable of responding to that.
Not that anybody is going to react against a target nearly 1km away with anything else than full scale sniper rifles, GMPGs with good optics (and preferably a tripod), ATGMs and mortars.
No change in AR calibre is going to change that.
One can spray and pray at 1 klick as good with 5,56mm as with any other calibre.
No change in AR calibre is going to change that.
One can spray and pray at 1 klick as good with 5,56mm as with any other calibre.
IIRC they tend to carry more and more automatic weapons with them in A-stan.
Pinning the enemy in his hiding and calling in an airstrike or artillery strike as wlel as the sometimes long fighting distances seem to be the reason.
So one can expect 1-2 Minimis, 1-2 LSW, 1 MAG as well as UGLs for the rest. Sniper rifles like the L115A1 are added when needed.
Light mortars also tend to be more and more liked by the British troops in A-stan.
Javelin should be more of a wepaon carried with you on the mothership (Land Rover, etc.)
This is all out of my head so I am waiting for a much more correct answer from our british members.
Pinning the enemy in his hiding and calling in an airstrike or artillery strike as wlel as the sometimes long fighting distances seem to be the reason.
So one can expect 1-2 Minimis, 1-2 LSW, 1 MAG as well as UGLs for the rest. Sniper rifles like the L115A1 are added when needed.
Light mortars also tend to be more and more liked by the British troops in A-stan.
Javelin should be more of a wepaon carried with you on the mothership (Land Rover, etc.)
This is all out of my head so I am waiting for a much more correct answer from our british members.
The answer in the short term is to adopt the Soviet practice of issuing a 7.62 rifle as the squad DMR.
The Americans are already doing this with M14 and the SR-something...
It's a strain on logistics, sure, but it's a readily available answer that doesn't require a Javelin missile or a complete change of calibre.
The Americans are already doing this with M14 and the SR-something...
It's a strain on logistics, sure, but it's a readily available answer that doesn't require a Javelin missile or a complete change of calibre.
Last edited:
I agree - that's my thinking. The standard BA unit of four infantry consists of one with an L85A2, one with L85A2+40mm UGL, one with an L86A2 LSW and one with the Minimi - all of the guns being in 5.56mm. The LSW is not very popular, according to most sources I've heard from (makes you wonder why the USMC is busily choosing one, but that's another subject) so the logical quick answer is to replace that with a 7.62mm rifle (probably HK 417, that's available off-the-shelf now) with a decent-length barrel, a bipod and a good scope. No worries about obtaining NATO approval for a new calibre.
I should add that the BA complaints I've heard about concerning the 5.56mm aren't just about range but about barrier penetration and terminal effectiveness as well, which 7.62mm would certainly address.
But isn't there a shetload of beautiful L1A1 SLRs lying around?
I doubt that very much - the UK doesn't tend to leave obsolete stuff lying around. Some L4 Brens in 7.62mm would be even more useful IMO but they're long gone.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
I am surprised the US M14 - shelved in the 60's - are still around, but not the UK SLR?
If there are still some SLR left, there might also be remnants of a logistic tail that can be dusted off to provide support for its re-introduction.
The reason US soldiers got the M14 into action so quickly was because they didn't have to ask someone to buy something new, with predictable results.
The British army has embraced the role of designated marksman... well kind of. The minimi was bought firstly as a UOR just for operational deployment now its completly supplanted the LSW as the automatic weapon in infantry fire teams. That left the LSW without a role so kind of fell into being the marksman weapon.
The army will try and say that it put a lot more thought into it than that, but essentially that's what happened. Actually if you wanted a 5.56 weapon maksman weapon you could do worse, it's heavy but extremely stable, long free floating barral high muzzle velocity, even with the minimum of training you can engage targets accuratly out to 500 metres. Not the role it was designed for but at least its found one. Incidently the army speant years getting rid of 7.62 weapons that weren't eithere fitted to vehicles or in machine gun platoons so they're not going to issue a 7.62 weapons to infantry fire teams.
So a typical fire team now will consist (on paper) of 4 men with 1xminimi, 1xSA80 with UGL, I x LSW, IxSA80 (but carrying a law). The UGL means the platoon mortar is gone.
In any conflict where the enemy has restricted access to medical care you are much better off using a larger calibre lower velocity round.
5.56mm SS109 rounds have a nasty habit of passing right through the target (unless post ricochet) leaving a small entry and slightly larger exit wound. What you really want to achieve is a greater degree of blunt trauma, shattering bone injuries and increased ingestion of debris (clothing, bone fragments and the like) in the wound. Thus any non-fatal injury will fester and lead to the rapid demise of the wounded party. An arm or leg injury sustained by a larger round will more likely result in death through infection, than a much smaller high velocity round (simple logic).
Looking at Afghanistan, the Taliban suffer from a chronic shortage of medics, they do not benefit from a 'golden hour' system whereby injured troops are processed extremely quickly (unless captured). Injured Taliban are either left to die or moved to the Pakistan border for treatment. Those suffering 'straight through' penetration injuries stand a much better chance of survival than those suffering from the impact of much larger rounds (.308 and upwards), which have shattered bone or caused larger entry / exit wounds.
A practical example of this is the Martini-Henry .45 Caliber cartridge (480 grain bullet and 85 grains of powder) infantry rifle, which was used during the Zulu war by the British. At the opening Battle of Isandlwana in 1879, 20,000 Zulu's annihilated 850 British soldiers and around 450 African levies. It has been estimated that even though the Martini rifle was a single shot weapon it accounted for a killing ratio of 1 British / African Levy to between 3-5 Zulus. This was not just Zulu deaths on field of battle, but those poor blighters who crawled or were carried away in agony suffering bullet injuries. The .45 round caused such horrendous wounds that without modern medical care the injured had zero chance of survival.
If I was equipping a force for Afghanistan I would issue my troops with the FN SCAR, allowing for the switching of calibre (simple barrel / working parts change) between .228 and .308 depending on the situation.
5.56mm SS109 rounds have a nasty habit of passing right through the target (unless post ricochet) leaving a small entry and slightly larger exit wound. What you really want to achieve is a greater degree of blunt trauma, shattering bone injuries and increased ingestion of debris (clothing, bone fragments and the like) in the wound. Thus any non-fatal injury will fester and lead to the rapid demise of the wounded party. An arm or leg injury sustained by a larger round will more likely result in death through infection, than a much smaller high velocity round (simple logic).
Looking at Afghanistan, the Taliban suffer from a chronic shortage of medics, they do not benefit from a 'golden hour' system whereby injured troops are processed extremely quickly (unless captured). Injured Taliban are either left to die or moved to the Pakistan border for treatment. Those suffering 'straight through' penetration injuries stand a much better chance of survival than those suffering from the impact of much larger rounds (.308 and upwards), which have shattered bone or caused larger entry / exit wounds.
A practical example of this is the Martini-Henry .45 Caliber cartridge (480 grain bullet and 85 grains of powder) infantry rifle, which was used during the Zulu war by the British. At the opening Battle of Isandlwana in 1879, 20,000 Zulu's annihilated 850 British soldiers and around 450 African levies. It has been estimated that even though the Martini rifle was a single shot weapon it accounted for a killing ratio of 1 British / African Levy to between 3-5 Zulus. This was not just Zulu deaths on field of battle, but those poor blighters who crawled or were carried away in agony suffering bullet injuries. The .45 round caused such horrendous wounds that without modern medical care the injured had zero chance of survival.
If I was equipping a force for Afghanistan I would issue my troops with the FN SCAR, allowing for the switching of calibre (simple barrel / working parts change) between .228 and .308 depending on the situation.
A recent fight in Afghanistan:
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56237
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3967005&postcount=25
Different people will learn different lessons from this.
For me, it echoes what I read about Australian 8RAR in Vietnam more than 30 years ago.
The 8RAR studies confirm that enemy explosives like landmines, RPG, grenades caused far more Aussie casualties than enemy small arms fire.
I don't have the figures with me but it was something like you are six times as likely to be hit by mines than be shot. And 3 times as likely to be hit by RPG than by small arms fire. (At that point, the 8RAR faced mostly VC and did not have to deal with much enemy arty.)
Similarly, the Australians counted that vast amount of their own small arms ammo is needed to produce just one enemy casualty. I don't have the figures with me now but (while lower than the Americans') they were impossibly high.
Lots of enemy troops were killed by other weapons like arty, aircraft, mines etc not reflected in 8RAR tables.
(The Aussies concluded that a rifle with smaller calibre than the SLR, capable of fully-automatic fire was the answer.)
Past studies have confirmed the requirement for MORE ammo to be carried, not for BIGGER/HEAVIER ammo.
So instead of going for a larger cartridge/calibre, we should stick with the 5.56 so that we can carry more of it, and also more of the other stuff that have been shown to produce higher casualty numbers.
Some magazine gun writers interviewing US troops in Iraq reported troop satisfaction with the performance of both the rifle and the ammo.
People who want to forward the cause for the 6.8 - for whatever reason - will of course want to highlight the rare cases where insurgents got shot X number of times but still kept fighting.
But one writer pointed out that many people who got shot in past wars with .303, 30-06, 7.92, 7.62 etc kept on fighting, too.
But did anyone call for a larger bullet then? No.
Ironically, the VC feared the 5.56 over the 7.62. And after Vietnam both Russia and China eventually went for the smaller calibres. The 5.45 was also dreaded by the Muj in Afghanistan. Both were cited as causing horrific wounds that were often fatal.
(Disagreements are welcome but please be civil.)
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56237
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3967005&postcount=25
Different people will learn different lessons from this.
For me, it echoes what I read about Australian 8RAR in Vietnam more than 30 years ago.
The 8RAR studies confirm that enemy explosives like landmines, RPG, grenades caused far more Aussie casualties than enemy small arms fire.
I don't have the figures with me but it was something like you are six times as likely to be hit by mines than be shot. And 3 times as likely to be hit by RPG than by small arms fire. (At that point, the 8RAR faced mostly VC and did not have to deal with much enemy arty.)
Similarly, the Australians counted that vast amount of their own small arms ammo is needed to produce just one enemy casualty. I don't have the figures with me now but (while lower than the Americans') they were impossibly high.
Lots of enemy troops were killed by other weapons like arty, aircraft, mines etc not reflected in 8RAR tables.
(The Aussies concluded that a rifle with smaller calibre than the SLR, capable of fully-automatic fire was the answer.)
Past studies have confirmed the requirement for MORE ammo to be carried, not for BIGGER/HEAVIER ammo.
So instead of going for a larger cartridge/calibre, we should stick with the 5.56 so that we can carry more of it, and also more of the other stuff that have been shown to produce higher casualty numbers.
Some magazine gun writers interviewing US troops in Iraq reported troop satisfaction with the performance of both the rifle and the ammo.
People who want to forward the cause for the 6.8 - for whatever reason - will of course want to highlight the rare cases where insurgents got shot X number of times but still kept fighting.
But one writer pointed out that many people who got shot in past wars with .303, 30-06, 7.92, 7.62 etc kept on fighting, too.
But did anyone call for a larger bullet then? No.
Ironically, the VC feared the 5.56 over the 7.62. And after Vietnam both Russia and China eventually went for the smaller calibres. The 5.45 was also dreaded by the Muj in Afghanistan. Both were cited as causing horrific wounds that were often fatal.
(Disagreements are welcome but please be civil.
)Which enemy weapons pose the most danger - and which weapons you need to counter them - vary considerably depending on the circumstances. A carefully-prepared attack on a fixed base as described in the article linked to above, when weapons like RPGs and mortars get used a lot, is a very different matter from an attack on a convoy (most under threat from IEDs).
In street fighting it's small arms that matter, and it's important for them to put down your enemy quickly - something at which 5.56mm is less reliable than 7.62mm. Other attacks on foot patrols are different again, also involving small-arms fire but often from a considerable distance, where the shortcomings of the 5.56mm become particularly evident. And I recall that most recent British casualties in Afghanistan have been attributed to small arms fire when on patrol.
The 5.45mm gets mixed reviews in Russia, with some units preferring the more reliable stopping power of the 7.62x39. There's a debate raging there over 5.45mm just as there is over 5.56mm here.
The fact is that while SCHV (small calibre high-velocity) ammo can be very effective at short range, its performance is very erratic and cannot be relied on. A bigger bullet has a smaller failure rate as well as being better at long range.
Reducing the size and weight of ammo is good because more of it can be carried, but to argue that smaller ammo must therefore be better is too simplistic. If you took that to its logical conclusion, the army would be equipped with weapons chambered for .17 Rimfire. Effectiveness - in terms of short-range stopping power and long-range reach - must be maintained. The evidence seems to suggest that in moving away from 7.62x51 - too big and powerful - they went too far the other way in choosing the 5.56mm, which isn't effective enough. Something in between would seem to be the best overall compromise.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
In street fighting it's small arms that matter, and it's important for them to put down your enemy quickly - something at which 5.56mm is less reliable than 7.62mm. Other attacks on foot patrols are different again, also involving small-arms fire but often from a considerable distance, where the shortcomings of the 5.56mm become particularly evident. And I recall that most recent British casualties in Afghanistan have been attributed to small arms fire when on patrol.
The 5.45mm gets mixed reviews in Russia, with some units preferring the more reliable stopping power of the 7.62x39. There's a debate raging there over 5.45mm just as there is over 5.56mm here.
The fact is that while SCHV (small calibre high-velocity) ammo can be very effective at short range, its performance is very erratic and cannot be relied on. A bigger bullet has a smaller failure rate as well as being better at long range.
Reducing the size and weight of ammo is good because more of it can be carried, but to argue that smaller ammo must therefore be better is too simplistic. If you took that to its logical conclusion, the army would be equipped with weapons chambered for .17 Rimfire. Effectiveness - in terms of short-range stopping power and long-range reach - must be maintained. The evidence seems to suggest that in moving away from 7.62x51 - too big and powerful - they went too far the other way in choosing the 5.56mm, which isn't effective enough. Something in between would seem to be the best overall compromise.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
Grenades and/or 40mm are also indispensible.
Actually, I have no doubt the 6-point-somethings offer improvements in certain aspects.
But as in all things military, they have to be fielded as standard for a few years, preferably a few wars, before we all know better.
Unless you say "during tests, we have shot 500 people with 6-point-somethings and they all died faster than when shot with 5.56 etc".
Besides, we all know quick/instant stopping power is a myth cos lots of people fatally shot in WW2 by even bigger battle rifle calibres lived long enough to still toss the odd grenade or keep pulling the trigger etc.
An older school of thought said that the 7.62 passes clean through, due to its power, whereas a weak 5.56 tumbles, causing more grevious/fatal wounding.
But realistically, it's difficult to get rid of the deeply-imbedded 5.56 system to replace it with something new that's only slightly better.
That's why retaining 5.56, but giving 7.62 more presence in the form of the GPMG and DMR at platoon and/or squad level is the only practical solution., IMHO... don't understand the need to keep looking for a uniform standard.
The problem with that is that we won't be able to collect evidence from real wars until the 6.Xmm is in service, so that requirement could never be met before significant military use of a new cartridge.
Certainly; it's basically a matter of percentages. If someone is hit by a .50 BMG bullet there's a 99+% probability that he'll stop fighting instantly. If he's hit with a .22LR the percentage might be less than 10%? Evidence suggests that the probability of a quick stop is significantly greater with the 7.62x51 than with the 5.56mm.
We don't need schools of thought - we've got ballistic gel tests. These reveal the size of the permanent wound channel (which, other things being equal, determines the speed of incapacitation). The 7.62x51 produces a consistently large one; the 5.56mm sometimes produces a large one, but sometimes zips straight through without tumbling. I explore the issue of terminal effectiveness in this article: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/terminal.htm
I agree with you. Making more use of 7.62mm weapons is the only quick solution to the current problem. I don't think that any new cartridge is likely to be adopted until a new generation of caseless or plastic-cased ammo is accepted as suitable for service, perhaps sometime during the next decade or so. I only hope that when that happens, it's in 6.Xmm!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website