UK says 5.56 is TOO small...to defeat Taliban

[dsk]

Originally Posted by PeterB

Just to play devils advocate and stir the pot a bit...

I'm sorry... using a 5.56 to shoot effectively beyond 300 meters???
Yes I am sure a good quality rifle with a good shooter will do it, but we are talking GI issue and GI's here.
In a thread about hunting rifles and various calibers the comment was made that below 3-400 meters the difference between calibers was marginal, and beyond that the skill of the shooter had far more relevance.
Expecting your standard GI to hit anything between 500-900 is pointless.
That is what the squad light or medium machine gun is for.
In that scenario, shooting your rifle is just to make a loud noise and improve your moral. Maybe encourage the enemy to keep their head down... maybe.
Any expectation of hitting anything at long range is laughable. (in a combat situation with standard levels of training) Even if troops were issued 7.62 weapons, that would still apply.
Issuing troops rifles is so they have some use in shorter range situations, urban and CQB fighting. For long range encounters the troops are just there to support the heavy/specialised weapons like the designated marksman(7.62) or the SAW or GPMG (M240G), even mortars.

If the guys with their 5.56 rifles are complaining bitterly about their weapon not doing the job at 800 meters, then they are failing to understand that they aren't really expected to achieve anything in that scenario.

One of the main reasons why smaller, intermediate-range calibers like 7.62x39 and 5.56mm were adopted was because it was discovered that few soldiers ever hit their mark with aimed shots beyond roughly 300 meters. Both the Russians and the Americans came to this conclusion independently following WW2. In the old days of the .30-'06 soldiers were given rifles that would supposedly allow them to hit enemy soldiers up to 1000 yards away (remember the ladder sights on the 1917 Enfields?), but it was completely unrealistic. At that range, if you were hit by enemy fire you were either unlucky or being extremely careless, and the bullet was less likely marked with your name on it than simply "to whom it may concern". I'm not sure how the action is in Afghanistan, but if Allied and Taliban forces are trading fire at 500 yards and beyond I suspect there's a lot more shooting than hitting going on.

[dcsans]

Originally Posted by dsk

At that range, if you were hit by enemy fire you were either unlucky or being extremely careless, and the bullet was less likely marked with your name on it than simply "to whom it may concern".

Good post.

[RobMoore]

Originally Posted by Emanon

I don't think you even can pass rifle qualification without the points from the 500m shots.

When I was in, you could. I'm not familiar with the new "table 1, table 2" course, but the 65 point and 250 point course it was possible to pass without the 500 yard line. I remember not even needing the 500 to get expert.

[Emanon]

Originally Posted by RobMoore

When I was in, you could. I'm not familiar with the new "table 1, table 2" course, but the 65 point and 250 point course it was possible to pass without the 500 yard line. I remember not even needing the 500 to get expert.

When I was in, it was the 250 point course.

I've never done the math, and don't remember how to score, but I remember our shooting coaches at Parris Island telling us that we needed to hit at 500m or we wouldn't qualify.

I guess maybe he was just trying to motivate us.

[Cameron]

Originally Posted by Greyshot

And for the record, a 7.62x39 mm would have more stopping power than the smaller 5.56, the same way a .45 ACP has more stopping power than the smaller 9mm. This, of course, is because a heavier, slower round dumps it's energy into the target more quickly, rather than penetrating. Of course, the difference isn't of great importance if I'm firing more than one shot at a time.

These few statements are completely false and run absolutely counter to conventional wisdom and expert testing and evaluation regarding terminal ballistics.

The primary wounding factor of the 5.56 round is velocity, causing fragmentation, and the 5.56 round at typical engagement ranges shows superior terminal performance than the 7.62x39.

Pistol rounds both 9mm and .45ACP do not have sufficient velocity to be compared the rifle rounds.

The heavier rounds do not "dump energy more quickly, rather than penetrating". In fact the heavier 7.62x39 penetrates significantly further then the lighter 5.56 loads.

Cameron

[RobMoore]

Whenever I see "dumps its energy", I stop reading.