Standard Rifles why 5.56mm ?

[OdoTheGreat]

I'm sure there is a load of discussion about this, but i would like to start a new thread with the basic questions, why and is it still valid to use the 5.56mm rounds?
I wonder with rifle materials becoming ever lighter is it really such a big deal to have 30 rounds of say 7.62mm which I know was one of the reasons the 5.56 was introduced more lead on target in Vietnam ?
And if we are talking about this, what makes a 5.56mm better or worse then a 7.62mm?
Let increase further and ask why aren't armies using assault rifles with the .50 BMG rounds you currently see being used in some of the anti-material sniper rifles?
They are already semi-automatic and they are light enough to be carried by 12 year olds and fired from the hip.The new bulpup design anti-material sniper rifles are even better then that.
I think it's a small step to introduce assault rifle versions of these rifles.
So how come armies are sticking with the 5.56mm round? Is it just that they don't need the extra firepower?

 

[OpinionNoted]

I'm sure there is a load of discussion about this, but i would like to start a new thread with the basic questions, why and is it still valid to use the 5.56mm rounds?
I wonder with rifle materials becoming ever lighter is it really such a big deal to have 30 rounds of say 7.62mm which I know was one of the reasons the 5.56 was introduced more lead on target in Vietnam ?
And if we are talking about this, what makes a 5.56mm better or worse then a 7.62mm?
Let increase further and ask why aren't armies using assault rifles with the .50 BMG rounds you currently see being used in some of the anti-material sniper rifles?
They are already semi-automatic and they are light enough to be carried by 12 year olds and fired from the hip.The new bulpup design anti-material sniper rifles are even better then that.
I think it's a small step to introduce assault rifle versions of these rifles.
So how come armies are sticking with the 5.56mm round? Is it just that they don't need the extra firepower?

7.62v 5.56?Logistics,ones heavier than the other.With.50 callibre rounds im guessing they would cause to much collatoral damage to be appropriate for an assault rifle if they could be turned into such...and on another note,when did then replace than?

 

[OdoTheGreat]

7.62v 5.56?Logistics,ones heavier than the other.With.50 callibre rounds im guessing they would cause to much collatoral damage to be appropriate for an assault rifle if they could be turned into such...and on another note,when did then replace than?

You don't think personal body armor requires an increase in firepower?
Most body armors can handle the 7.62 rounds so it seems logical they increase in firepower. But so far i've not seen anything it's almost like the world has decided 5.56mm is good enough for warfare.
But I don't see why a larger caliber wouldn't work. Again the weight issue i think has become kind of redundant now with ever lighter materials. I mean the weight increase can be compensated.It's not like the old days.
And ever more ways of reducing weight are becoming available like powered exoskeletons.I think you don't even need those btw.

 

[OPSSG]

But I don't see why a larger caliber wouldn't work. Again the weight issue i think has become kind of redundant now with ever lighter materials. I mean the weight increase can be compensated.It's not like the old days.

There's quite a few threads that already exist in DT on the same subject or on a similar subject. I would strongly recommend that you read them (using the search function) before starting a new thread, like this one. In fact, there is a thread called: "Should the 5.56 be replaced?" and also a thread called "The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States".

BTW, there's also a link to a monograph called 'Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer' and I note that William F. Owen writing in RUSI has said:

Recent articles in Jane’s Defence Weekly and followed up by the popular press, suggested that the UK and NATO-standard small arms round of 5.56mm is under-performing on current operations, to the extent that a case for replacement can be made. This argument again highlights a vast field of woolly thinking and opinion that has traditionally informed infantry equipment decisions in the UK.

He sees it as a framing issue in 'True but Irrelevant: Small Arms Performance in Afghanistan' and notes that:

"The crux of the argument to replace 5.56mm rests on framing the imagined problem at the section level, thus promoting the idea that infantry capability is somehow tied to section weapons. This is a popular but unfounded and rather new idea. Autonomous section capability has been recognised as largely irrelevant in every serious shooting war, with platoon, company and battlegroup weapons always being more decisive."​

I'm of the view that you don't have agree with everything he says but what he says and his reasoning needs to be seriously considered. Further at other occasions, he has also clarified the following:

"Having now talked to lot of UK guys back from A'stan, I have to say I am very un-surprised at what they actually say, which is that personal weapons are really just for self defence and under 200m and what does the killing is platoon weapons/section weapons, like GPMG, LRR and Projected HE. In other words all the lessons from the past 60 years hold true."​

As I understand, there's quite a bit of changes in tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) due to the lessons learned process. The jury is not quite out yet but do read William F. Owen's article as a counter point. We are not very keen on people who do not bother to read existing threads and start asking the same questions again and again. At least read the links I've provided before going over the same issues again.

There's also some developmental efforts on different types of ammo design, such as the cased telescoped and the caseless designs. There is an article called "Lightweight small arms technologies" that would serve as a backgrounder and a ppt on the topic.

 

[MM90]

Range, ammo and fire mode

I'm quite interested in 3 things:
1) Is 5.56 NATO (ss109) ok or is it necessary to adopt a new cartridge?
2) Wich is the best fire mode (possibly in different situations) of an assault rifle: semi-auto, full auto or burst fire?
3) It is usually believed that modern warfare is urban warfare and then short-ranged, but there are those who say desert environment (Iraq, Afghanistan) has made long range capabilities very important.

Of course the three things are closely linked. My question is also: if the most common firearm in the world is by far the AK-47 with an effective range of 400 m (optimistic) how is it possible that 50% of Afghani firefights are beyond that range?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I'm quite interested in 3 things:
1) Is 5.56 NATO (ss109) ok or is it necessary to adopt a new cartridge?
2) Wich is the best fire mode (possibly in different situations) of an assault rifle: semi-auto, full auto or burst fire?
3) It is usually believed that modern warfare is urban warfare and then short-ranged, but there are those who say desert environment (Iraq, Afghanistan) has made long range capabilities very important.

Of course the three things are closely linked. My question is also: if the most common firearm in the world is by far the AK-47 with an effective range of 400 m (optimistic) how is it possible that 50% of Afghani firefights are beyond that range?

Well to answer your first question is one as far as the US Military is concerned I believe they no longer use SS109 ans instead are replacing them with the new M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round. They say is has better and more consistent terminal velocity and stopping power, how much better it is over previous 5.56 rounds remains to be seen. Should they adopt a new round? Sure, 6.8 or 6.5 would be nice but I'm not going to get into that as that topic has been beaten to death already.

Which is the best fire mode? All three are equally good for different situations. Modern warfare IMO will vary from place to place, its a lot more dynamic today than it used too be...cyberwarfare being a perfect example of that. There is both short and long range combat which is why its important for our troops to have the proper weapons depending upon again the situation.

My question is also: if the most common firearm in the world is by far the AK-47 with an effective range of 400 m (optimistic) how is it possible that 50% of Afghani firefights are beyond that range?

And most of the time at that range to my understanding they are just spraying bullets in the general direction of US troops without really hitting anything.

 

[winnyfield]

Harassing fire is often used to force coalition troops into IED traps


The Weakness of Taliban Marksmanship
The Weakness of Taliban Marksmanship - NYTimes.com

 

[ngatimozart]

Well to answer your first question is one as far as the US Military is concerned I believe they no longer use SS109 ans instead are replacing them with the new M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round. They say is has better and more consistent terminal velocity and stopping power, how much better it is over previous 5.56 rounds remains to be seen. Should they adopt a new round? Sure, 6.8 or 6.5 would be nice but I'm not going to get into that as that topic has been beaten to death already.

Which is the best fire mode? All three are equally good for different situations. Modern warfare IMO will vary from place to place, its a lot more dynamic today than it used too be...cyberwarfare being a perfect example of that. There is both short and long range combat which is why its important for our troops to have the proper weapons depending upon again the situation.



And most of the time at that range to my understanding they are just spraying bullets in the general direction of US troops without really hitting anything.

Yep I know it's been done to death but I far prefer the 7.62mm over the 5.56mm any time.Longer reach and more hitting power. I was taught way back in the 70's to shoot the enemy dead & make sure they stayed shot dead. True the rounds are heavier but your just hardened up and carried them. I was trained on the SLR (FN) and had no issues with it.


[Mod Edit: I've closed this thread and if anyone is keen to continue the discussion, I would suggest posting in the threads linked. There must be real interest in reading prior to posting before I'll repen this thread.]