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

[RickB]

Why don't they just take all those FALs out of storage and issue them? Oh, they cut them all up, like we did our M14s? Nevery mind.

[WhyteP38]

Whenever I see these "5.56 v. Everything Else That's Bigger" threads, I can't help but think that no one rifle can do it all. Either the lighter weapon is too small for long-range work, or the heavier weapon is too heavy and large for close-in work.

Given the M16/M4's modular design, I would think the military could maintain two different uppers for each lower and deploy the suitable combo where appropriate. Certainly, that would be costly in terms of stocking the uppers and supplying the correct ammunition. But in the long run, it might save money in terms of increased combat effectiveness (such as less ammo used and more enemy killed to accomplish the task) and decreased loss of our soldiers' lives.

Seems to me that much of our logistics thinking is still stuck in the past.

[dcsans]

Originally Posted by TJS500

I find it interesting on a 1911 forum were most members would choose the .45acp loading in a 1911 because bigger is better or some other bravado statement. But when it comes to their rifle they defend one of the smallest rounds you can get. Not trying to start a flame war just thinking out loud.


Todd

Well it might be because some of us have had to hump ammo, weapon, body armor and everything else in the heat. The fact is if you do your job 5.56 will do it's. I can promise you it is much easier to carry 210 rounds of 5.56 than 210 rounds of 7.62x51. I have humped an M60 with ammo and I'm here to tell you it sucks. There is a reason they carried less ammo when they were issued L1A1s.

I like my FAL and it is dependable and powerful, but depending on the situation I would pick my AR. I don't think there is a better close range/urban/ CQB weapon than the M4. YMMV

[TJS500]

Originally Posted by dcsans

Well it might be because some of us have had to hump ammo, weapon, body armor and everything else in the heat. The fact is if you do your job 5.56 will do it's. I can promise you it is much easier to carry 210 rounds of 5.56 than 210 rounds of 7.62x51. I have humped an M60 with ammo and I'm here to tell you it sucks. There is a reason they carried less ammo when they were issued L1A1s.

I like my FAL and it is dependable and powerful, but depending on the situation I would pick my AR. I don't think there is a better close range/urban/ CQB weapon than the M4. YMMV

I have too. I have also humped m-16\m203 with a radio and carried a spare barrel and ammo for the 60. You do what ya gotta do to complete the mission.

Todd

[BoulderTroll]

I don't mean to give people the impression that I think 5.56mm sucks. I don't. Given the choice between an FAL or and M4, I'll take an M4 thank you. I like the lighter wieght of both the weapon and ammo, just as dcsans said. On the other hand, I'm not fighting bad guys at 700m either. If I was I'd choose the 7.62 or some other caliber.

The point I'm simply trying to make is that the newspaper article, while flawed, brings up a valid concern. 5.56 is not ideal for every use.

[LW McVay]

Originally Posted by TJS500

I find it interesting on a 1911 forum were most members would choose the .45acp loading in a 1911 because bigger is better or some other bravado statement. But when it comes to their rifle they defend one of the smallest rounds you can get. Not trying to start a flame war just thinking out loud.


Todd

Because they work???

[LW McVay]

Originally Posted by BoulderTroll

The point I'm simply trying to make is that the newspaper article, while flawed, brings up a valid concern. 5.56 is not ideal for every use.

A valid point. Neither is 7.62x39,x51 or x54.

Which is why the US military fields both 5.56 and 7.62.

[WhyteP38]

Originally Posted by TJS500

I find it interesting on a 1911 forum were most members would choose the .45acp loading in a 1911 because bigger is better or some other bravado statement. But when it comes to their rifle they defend one of the smallest rounds you can get. Not trying to start a flame war just thinking out loud.


Todd

The comparison seems like comparing apples to orangutans. Even the .308 round is smaller than the 230-grain .45 ACP, but I have not yet seen anyone prefer 230-grain .45 ACP over .308. This result is not so confusing when one bears in mind that size is not the only important factor to consider. Velocity is also important. (And probably a host of other differences between pistol and rifle ammo.)

[Kamau]

Originally Posted by Caspian17

I think most of the anti-5.56 comes from the armchair commandos that wish everyone would run around with an AK.

Tell us all again, how much combat have you seen?

No, what your friends have been through doesn't count.

Originally Posted by TJS500

I find it interesting on a 1911 forum were most members would choose the .45acp loading in a 1911 because bigger is better or some other bravado statement. But when it comes to their rifle they defend one of the smallest rounds you can get. Not trying to start a flame war just thinking out loud.


Todd

It's not about size. People here choose these things based on what they were issued in the military, what they think is cool because the military issues it, and what they see on t.v.

I remember someone here once saying 556 is better than 308 because they can carry more rounds, as if they're going on a 25 mile hump around the gated neighborhood they live in. ppfft. There's few opinions on this forum that I value when pertaining to rifle calibers.

[Caspian17]

Or they just like it.

And what does it matter if my friends like it or not? I can't serve due to a flaw in my genetics. Are you saying that my friends don't know what they are talking about? Again, being rude doesn't get you anywhere. I was just saying that I hear the LEAST complaining about the round from those that actually use it.

[RobMoore]

I liked it while I was in to, but it wasn't until after I got out that I started collecting guns, and had a chance to try something other than a 5.56. Now I prefer my M1A.

[SHAFT]

"It's not about size. People here choose these things based on what they were issued in the military, what they think is cool because the military issues it, and what they see on t.v."

OK. Your profile states you are in the Military. Do you not fit in the above? If not, what makes your experience different from thousands of other combat vets? Just curious.

"I remember someone here once saying 556 is better than 308 because they can carry more rounds, as if they're going on a 25 mile hump around the gated neighborhood they live in. ppfft."

So if you live in a gated neighborhood, having more ammo with less weight would be a bad thing? I'm not following.

"There's few opinions on this forum that I value when pertaining to rifle calibers."

Here we agree. Not because I think posters a full of crap, but because you may have two guys who fought right beside each other and have different opinions. Again, your opinion counts as much or as little as everyone else's. No one has a lock on this.
The 5.56 will eventually go away, like the 1911 in service. Like the 1911, it's demise will have nothing to do with weather or not it was effective.

[EX CATM]

Originally Posted by SHAFT

The 5.56 will eventually go away, like the 1911 in service. Like the 1911, it's demise will have nothing to do with weather or not it was effective.

+1. Kinda like when we replaced the 870 with the 590. No real advantage. Hopefully it will be replaced with something a bit more intermediate like the 6.8. But I doubt we'll see a change anytime soon.

As to the weight vs effectiveness argument. I'd say it all depends on your area. I'd rather have a .22" barreled .308 if in the mountains or desert, where you are more likely to take a long range shot. I'd also rather have a light recoiling 16" .223 if I were in an urban enviornment. Around here I'd carry more weight to get better penetration. But I live out in the woods and the odds of being attacked by a pack of feral dogs, wolf or panther are a lot better than thoose of being attacked by a group of insurgents. But If I'm n the house or the truck a M4 is a lot handier. When I was in the service I much prefered humping an M249 to a 60.

[RobMoore]

Originally Posted by EX CATM

Hopefully it will be replaced with something a bit more intermediate like the 6.8

6.8 owners everywhere feel the same way

[SHAFT]

I too think 6.8 is a good idea for a service rifle. Just as I think the M4 is far from perfect. However, since nothing available today is perfect, pick a good platform and train. Every choice is compromize. It always amuses me that if you have two GIs standing next to one another, one very well trained and one run of the mill, the trained guy didn't have issues with the 5.56/platform. Conversly, the so-so guy thinks it is the biggest POS in the world. It seems to be a pattern. Is there better? Maybe. Just remmember that you can't both have you cake, and eat it too.

[LW McVay]

Thats because one man doesn't believe in himself probably due to a lack of training, and therefore fills that void with 'things'. The other knows that what he is capable of and his need for 'things' is secondary to training on perfectly capable weaponry at hand.

[SHAFT]

LW,

You had me at "that's because..."!

I'll admit that I only agree with you 110% this time, though.

[Greyshot]

I'd like to point out a few things.

First, no cartridge can do everything. A round simply cannot be effective engaging targets at both 8 meters and 800 meters, but that's exactly what's happening. We need to get away using a single weapon to do everything, and start issuing weapons better suited to the task.

Second, in the late 50s, Project SALVO concluded that a burst of 4 shots in a 20 inch circle would be more effective than true full-auto, regardless of the size of the bullet. Thus, the decision was made to develop a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry ammunition, because it made little difference when 3-4 round bursts were being fired. Unfortunately, 3-shot-bursts don't really work at long ranges, and the 5.56 isn't a particularly good round for killing with one shot at those ranges. It's a very good round for what it was meant to do. It just isn't meant for what it's being used for in Afghanistan. The still commonly-used 7.62x51 mm NATO is better suited for that type of combat.

Third, a 7mm (.280 British) was proposed, but NATO decided to side the US and the 5.56 in the belief that standardization was more important than finding the ideal round at the time. Unfortunately, the commitment to existing rounds makes in very difficult for new weapons with new ammunition to get a fair chance, no matter how good it may be. Combined with the fact that people in charge tend to like the light weight of the 5.56, it's probably going to be around for a while longer.

Finally, the British were upset when NATO adopted the 7.62x51 in 1954, as they wanted a smaller round (for more controllable full-auto fire). Just a few years later, in 1963, the M-16 and 5.56x45 mm were adopted, based largely on the prior research of the British military. The Brits were unhappy about it, as they wanted a heavier round. I'm not trying to criticize anyone, just illustrate that thoughts about weapons and ammo are based mostly on the combat taking place at that time.

Personally, I'd take a 5.56 M4 for CQB if I knew I'd have the time to clean and maintain it. Otherwise, I'd want a AK-47, due to it's ruggedness and reliability. 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.

[guysmith]

The whole trick here is to use the correct caliber for the specific application. A 5.56 is good in the jungle out to 300 to 400 yards, if you can see that far in a jungle. A 5.56 is not the best chose for beyond 500 yards, that's 30 caliber action. Our military needs to get off the PC wagon and start issuing weapons of capable caliber to get the job done at the distances that we are encountering the enemy. There is no one caliber that is good in every instance. Weapons and caliber should be chosen based on mission requirements. Which has always been the problem, some rear area a hole telling the grunts what we should be using.

[gunfighter45]

The 5.56 is adequate at ranges MOST of US can justify for self defense...

[WhyteP38]

Originally Posted by Greyshot

I'd like to point out a few things.

<snip>

Personally, I'd take a 5.56 M4 for CQB if I knew I'd have the time to clean and maintain it. Otherwise, I'd want a AK-47, due to it's ruggedness and reliability. 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.

For the most part, I am with you until this point.

For one thing, I'm not aware of any study that shows the 7.62x39 has more stopping power than the 5.56. Second, the .45 ACP v. 9mm analogy doesn't work when applied to the 7.62x39 v. 5.56 debate because the 5.56's lethality is due largely to fragmentation. Fragmentation is not typically the main concern I see voiced in the .45 ACP v. 9mm debate. My understanding, based on the materials I have read, is that the Russians have either largely or entirely phased out the 7.62x39 in favor of the smaller 5.45x39 due to the results they saw from our 5.56. If the 7.62x39 was superior overall, I would not expect the Russians to have done this.

As for energy dumps and penetration, my understanding is that for pistol rounds the more important factors are permanent tissue damage and sufficient penetration. I'm also a bit surprised you would suggest the 7.62x39 has less over-penetration potential than the 5.56 because the 7.62x39 is larger, slower, and thus dumps more of its energy into the target. Isn't one of the main criticisms of the 5.56 is its lack of penetration ability through obstacles or at long range when compared to the 7.62x39? How does the 5.56 suddenly become the greater penetrator? Not only does that not make sense, but it is contrary to the wound ballistics profiles that I've seen in Fackler's studies.

[TRSOtto]

Is this something to consider as well?????

The Brits now have at least 2 generations with either limited or ZERO experience in firing a weapon until they join the service.

Having never served in the military I have no clue as to what level of marksmanship training is provided for our own troops, much less the Brits.

So 2 guys join the military. One having grown up his entire life shooting firearms and being comfortable/proficient in handling them. The other guy grows up in the subburbs of London. He saw a picture of a gun on a magazine cover once. As a general rule, who would you rather have shooting at you after whatever training the military provides???

Any of you who have served shed your opinion on my question??

[SHAFT]

I have very little experience with British Soldiers other then some from a cool guy unit. However, I am inclined to agree with where I "think" you are going. The US is a gun culture. I mean we are the culture that created the cow boy.
I have two very good friends that served as exchange officers. With out getting into specifics, they simply don't do it like we do. When it comes right down to it, how could they?
These are some of the reasons I don't much care what they do, what they think about or how they train with firearms. I absolutely love their TTPs and their combat history. But when it comes to firearms training as a whole, I'll pass.

Back on topic. As has already been stated, if you use a weapon outside its design parameters, you are asking for problems. Using an 1911 as your primary weapon in a trench line would not be the best use for that pistol. Using an MP5 in an Infantry assault on a taliban strong hold would make as much sense as using an M4 to shoot from one ridge to the next. It would be like trying to use the 7.62 much past 1000 yards. There are better tools for that. These statements do not mean that the 1911, MP5, M4 or the M24 is a POS. However, they will be less effective when you use them outside how they were designed.
Of course in a place where long distance shots are the norm, a 5.56 may not be the best choice. No one will argue that. This is why we took the mothballed M14 out of retirement. It was done to fill a very specific role. Of course no one will choose an M4 to make a 750 yd shot. But only an idiot would blame that on the 5.56. That would be akin to believing the 1911 is an ineffective weapon because it is hard to hit a man at 200 yards. Conversly, within 300 yds, the 5.56 and M16 FOW seem to be effective. Very much so. It alse seems to true that it is less effective is you miss your intended target.
We can't forget that the 5.56 and the M16 FOW have met the challenges of the last 40 years. Other then teething problems, like those experienced by almost every weapon ever fielded, the M16 FOW has served with distinction, like it or not. We are all tracking that the first wide spread issues we herd of, and the basis for the current M16 bashing surfaced only AFTER we when to fight in A'stan. This is largely due to the fact that we were trying to engage targets that were beyond it's design parameters. We needed a larger, further reaching capability. We got it. Just remember that what is needed in A'stan may not be the same thing that is needed during CQB or fighting from house to house. There is no ONE answer. You will note that soon we may repace the M16 FOW. However, there are NO plans to replace the 5.56

[natpro7420]

Hello all,

I have read this thread with great interest and it seems everyone here is much more experienced with AR's than I am at this point. I'm trying to build my 1st one piece at a time because that's all I can afford to do (and it's very slow going).

Anyway, my Dad is a disabled vet (I blew my knee out and missed my opportunity) and he has never been fond of the 5.56 snd we get into about it sometimes because I'm interested in the lower cost, light recoil, and accuracy of the 5.56 but he has always disliked the stopping power of the round but I find a few of the points he makes intersting and thought I would share whether right or wrong.

He claims the 5.56 was accepted as round designed to injure and not kill. The belief was that the enemy has the same moral integrity as we do. If one soldier goes down 4 more will stop to help him thus removing them from combat. This has proven anything but true consider our opponents do not think in this manner. He thinks thing should be redirected towards stopping power due to the kamakazie (sp?) nature of the current situation. He also claims that the back supply of existing parts for the AR would make it hard to over turn. He is in favor of the AR-10 .308 and is starting to follow the 6.8spc tests that are coming out. I've always thought the "designed to wound" theory was interesting.

[Kamau]

Originally Posted by TRSOtto

So 2 guys join the military. One having grown up his entire life shooting firearms and being comfortable/proficient in handling them. The other guy grows up in the subburbs of London. He saw a picture of a gun on a magazine cover once. As a general rule, who would you rather have shooting at you after whatever training the military provides???

Any of you who have served shed your opinion on my question??

If I HAD to choose which of these chaps will be trying to kill me I would pick the lad that's been shooting his while life. The reason I say this is because I believe the mate that started training with no previous experience will be easier to teach and absorb the training more than someone who has been doing it their whole life and may have picked up some bad habbits that they can't shake, along the way.