The U.S Marines are dis-satisfied with the 5.56 in Iraq, then why is it that the U.S Army doesn`t seem to be to upset with it. I can buy into what @Old Faithful told me in-regards to the M4 use in Afghanistan due to range and the shortness of the barrel, in Iraq the majority of skirmishes are located inside of urban settings. If you have engagement ranges beyond 300 meters you should be using your squad weapons systems or vehicle mounted weapons, suppression is the name of the game so that you can get in to a position as to where you can close in on your opponent and kill him. Even Russia doesn`t use 7.62X39 anymore for regular frontline combat troops. It is truly amazing that even with it`s introduction into Vietnam, 5.56mm has alway`s come up in question on it`s stopping power, but for some reason the majority of militaries seem to be going to it. And one other question I would like to throw out there, if you wound a enemy soldier how many soldiers are going to be taken out of the game to get this man back to safety, isn`t this what snipers are trained to due.
The best caliber for a battle rifle?
- Thread starter Sgt.Banes
- Start date
Snipers are NOT trained to wound soldiers,they are trained to kill their target. A .50 cal round leaves a bit of a nasty wound! One of the biggest problems with snipers is their mis-use. or more correctly,their commanders not being trained to BEST employ their snipers. This has been addressed in the Australian Army, and the value of snipers is well versed at all comd levels.
Wasn`t it a International law (Geneva Convention) some years ago that you couldn`t shoot a person with a 50 caliber, I was told the way around it was that the excuse would be that you were actually shooting at their equipment.
Yes - snipers are quite good at killing, one sniper can hold you up for quite some time before you flush him out, but couldn`t it be feasable that if you you were to wound a enemy soldier that this would take out a couple of his comrades to get him to a safe area. Maybe I am thinking way to old school on this question due to modern technology.
"honest sir,i was just trying to destroy his kevlar helmet with my .50 cal!"
nfloorl: i have never been told anything about the geneva convention and .50 cals. Dosnt mean your wrong,just never heard of it myself. I have seen footage of sinpers in afghanistan,taking out human targets with .50 cal rifles,from extreme ranges. If you are correct,then some APC,s and some IFV,s would be unarmed when confronted by enemy infantry! As for the wounding of enemy soldiers with 5.56. Aust inf are trained to target the centre of the seen mass,this ensures the greatest probibility of a "hit". A hit is way more desirable than a missed head shot! We dont train to wound the enemy,we train to "hit" the centre of the seen mass.
You dont pause during an assault to tend your wounded,unfortunatly,they (and the enemy wounded) will have to wait untill the re-org stage of a contact. Slowing the momentum of an attack will result in more wounded and dead on the attacking side,so thinking that the enemy will have to use more stretcher bearers,medics etc and one wounded man takes 4-6 more out the battle is a false assumption. When attacking the enemy,you want to eliminate the chances of being killed yourself! The best way to do this is to kill him, a wounded man can still kill you.
Russia indeed indroduced 5.45 as standard equipment, but any soldier willing to use AK-47M will get it without any questions asked. BOTH AK-47 and AK-74 are standard weapons for RUA. AK-74 is much easer to use by less trained soldiers, so that is one of major reasons why its standard training weapon.
Why is that - do they feel that the 5.45 does not have sufficent stopping power.
Well, 7.62x39 have some advantages in many cases, as 5.45 too. So its matter of personal preference what feel each soldier and squad commander as more important - ammo amount, burst controlability, ability to ricochet, wall penetration, stopping power, etc... AK-47M is used in RUA just as much as AK-74. Allthought i'll pretty much agree what should AK-74 completely replcace AK-47 it wouldn't be a big loss for RUA.
I see your point...
Trying to look 10-20 years down the line. If it is no problem for a vehicle to have a heavier MG, then why no a 50. cal (12.7mm) gun? The French used a 20mm as a co-ax in the AMX tanks, and that little gem had independant elevation!
isn't it amazing how so many threads tie in together?Both 12.7mm and 7.62mm have their advantages as vehicle mounted weapons.
While 12.7mm has a better range and penetration power I tend to say that this is not often used. You are normaly not able to use the better range of the 12.7mm because you just cannot see that far.
And even when the bigger round is more stable at bigger ranges the higher rate of fire of a 7.62mm helps you more to hit something at big ranges.
For the normal use at support vehicles (Trucks, jeeps, etc.) I prefer a 7.62mm MG because the primary mission is anti infantry and there a 7.62mm is better than a bigger calibre.
If you want something for killing light vehicles or penetrating cover during MOUT operations a 12.7mm fits better.
As a coax I a 7.62mm is also better in my eyes (IMHO the Leclerc is now the only one with a 12.7mm as a coax).
For hitting soft/semi-soft targets, groups if infantry or for power behind cover tanks and IFVs have their 120/125mm HE(SH) and HEAT warheads and 20-40mm HE and ABM ammo.
As and independent weapon station it is ok but there I begin to see the 40mm auto-grenade launchers to be a real alternative.
While 12.7mm has a better range and penetration power I tend to say that this is not often used. You are normaly not able to use the better range of the 12.7mm because you just cannot see that far.
And even when the bigger round is more stable at bigger ranges the higher rate of fire of a 7.62mm helps you more to hit something at big ranges.
For the normal use at support vehicles (Trucks, jeeps, etc.) I prefer a 7.62mm MG because the primary mission is anti infantry and there a 7.62mm is better than a bigger calibre.
If you want something for killing light vehicles or penetrating cover during MOUT operations a 12.7mm fits better.
As a coax I a 7.62mm is also better in my eyes (IMHO the Leclerc is now the only one with a 12.7mm as a coax).
For hitting soft/semi-soft targets, groups if infantry or for power behind cover tanks and IFVs have their 120/125mm HE(SH) and HEAT warheads and 20-40mm HE and ABM ammo.
As and independent weapon station it is ok but there I begin to see the 40mm auto-grenade launchers to be a real alternative.
Traceer burn out for 7.62 used to be 1100m. Has it changed?
I thought it has always been 900 meters for NATO ammunition, did I get it wrong.
U.S tankers boresight the coax machine gun at 800 meters due to a 900 tracer burn out.
You have these optics when using it as a coax but there you also have your main weapon in tanks and IFVs which is able to work behind cover.
So you need the higher rate of fire of the 7.62mm more than the bigger penetration power of the 12.7mm.
And without optics you wont attack infantry up to 1800 meters.
So for the independent weapons stations like seen on many MOUT upgrades of tanks a 12.7mm makes sense.
There you might need the penetration power and you have the optics to use the full capabilities of this weapon.
But here you have to decide if a 40mm auto-grenade launcher is not even better.
As a normal gun on a truck or a jeep (Apart from using it as a FAV) for self defense I see a 7.62mm as the better option.
So you need the higher rate of fire of the 7.62mm more than the bigger penetration power of the 12.7mm.
And without optics you wont attack infantry up to 1800 meters.
So for the independent weapons stations like seen on many MOUT upgrades of tanks a 12.7mm makes sense.
There you might need the penetration power and you have the optics to use the full capabilities of this weapon.
But here you have to decide if a 40mm auto-grenade launcher is not even better.
As a normal gun on a truck or a jeep (Apart from using it as a FAV) for self defense I see a 7.62mm as the better option.
Agreed - 1800 meters using visual eye is a tall order to accomplish, but it does work great with optics.
perfectgeneral
New Member
The 6.5mm Grendel is going into mass production and is in combat field trials. I would expect this to be the NATO round of the future.
Some interesting historical background for 6.5 mm Grendel:
'The 6.5 Grendel is best described as an improved version of the 6.5 PPC. The 6.5 PPC was created by Dr. Lou Palmisano (Dr. PPC) in the early 1980's as an expansion of the cartridge family created by Palmisano and Ferris Pindell in the mid-1970's". http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2004/03/65mm_grendel_ak.html
"The parent cartridge for the 6PPC is the .220 Russian, which in turn derives from the 7.62 x 39 mm. Brass can either be purchased, or formed from .220 Russian brass (7.62 x 39 mm can also be used, but .220 Russian brass is usually higher quality)". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_mm_PPC
The .220 Russian (5.6x39mm) cartridge was developed in the late 1950's for deer hunting in Russia. It is a 7.62x39 cartridge necked down to hold a 5.6mm bullet. It was later adopted by Finland, and by around 1965 was being produced by SAKO & Lapua. When it was introduced to the United States, Sako, & later Lapua, brass was stamped ".220 Russian". The .220 Russian was used as the parent case for the 6mm PPC cartridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.220_Russian
- In addition I'd say the standard Russian 5.45x39 mm cartrige is only the old good .220 case with longer bullet has better BC.
perfectgeneral
New Member
Mass production:
http://www.alexanderarms.com/news3.htm
Field trials:
http://www.alexanderarms.com/grendel.htm
The big minus point of the Grendel as a General Purpose round is that it doesn't lend itself to belt feed. I don't feel that the problem is insurmountable.