7.62 v 5.56

[RittWitt]

As I remember, the 5.56 round was orginally adopted by NATO countries because it is designed *not* to kill immediately. Once in tissue, the 5.56 (which, if you are unaware, is basically a long-cased .22 round) has a tendency to drastically slow and begin a tumble, thus creating extremely painful, debilitating, but not immediately lethal wounds. The mentality behind this strategy was that by incapacitating a single soldier, you take out at least one more, because someone has to remove the injured from the battlespace. If any of you have read Blackhawk Down, there are several passages dicussing the use of so-called "green-tip" rounds for Delta's CAR-15's. The "green-tip" as described was a higher-velocity, so-called armor penetrating round. In the same passages, it is vividly described as passing right through an enemy, in fact taking several rounds to kill a charging, khat-crazed Somali rebel. It's my experience that short of a head-shot, a single wound from a 5.56 is not immediately lethal, and that can be a serious problem in a fire-fight where single shots can count.
Another point I would make about the adoption of the 5.56 round is that it is exceedingly easy to train on. The round (especially when fired from a M-16/M-4 series rifle) has amazingly low-recoil, but an amazingly high muzzle velocity of 921 m/sec / 3,020 ft/sec. The 7.62x51mm round, on the other hand, can be more difficult to shoot for untrained marksmen due to its stronger recoil and correspondingly increased muzzle climb in most weapons. The 7.62x51mm round has a lower muzzle velocity of 838 m/sec / 2749 ft/sec, *but* as it is a heavier round (9.33g to the 5.56's 3.95g) carries vastly more kinetic energy to the target - 5.56x45mm - 1,830 J compared to the 7.62x51mm's 3,275 J. That's a huge increase in stopping power over the smaller round.

For me, this debate is the same as the 9mm vs. .45 ACP discussion. The M9 (Beretta 92FS) offers more rounds per magazine, a faster rate of fire, and less muzzle climb. The 1911A1 offers fewer rounds, a slower cycling rate, and drastically increased muzzle climb. It takes more skill to shoot accurately, but one round will put an assailant on his ass. A double-tap to the chest with a M4 will eventually kill an assailant, but may not immediately stop him. A single round from a M-14 will drop an assailant, if not kill him outright from systemic shock. For my money (and in my profession, my life) I'll take the 7.62x51mm over the 5.56x54mm any day, just as I swear by a .45 ACP round over the 9mm M9. I have no experience with the 6.8mm round mentioned earlier in this forum, but anything with more kinetic energy is a step in the right direction.

V/R

RittWitt

[[R-MOD]KP]

Guess that we Norwegians should chip in here, as Norway's just about the only NATO country that still fields 7.62 NATO rifles as standard issue. From what I've heard, the Norwegian forces in A-stan are happy with the G3s, particularly because of the "knock-down-power" of the 7.62s. It's the same 7.62 NATO cartridge that's used in the DMRs of other countries, AFAIK, and soldiers from said other countries are apparently a bit jealous at the G3-carrying Norwegians. Also, the G3's a quite a robust rifle (God knows it has to be to operate properly in Norwegian conditions). Personally I like the idea of carrying a big, sturdy rifle that kicks and knocks people down, but I'm no expert in performance when it comes to calibres; I guess we'll have to get Bob to do a proper comparison.

That said, the Norwegian military's switching to the HK416 and HK417 DMRs. And as I'm supposed to join the army around the time when they're all supposed to have entered service, I guess I'll get some first hand experience with the thing.

Oh, and we're upgrading a few (2500) G3s, too:

[D_LaMz]

So that mean you guys are phasing out the G3? If so that means you guys demill them and sell them to us as parts kits! I can foresee cheap G3 mags and Norwegian surplus 7.62 NATO ammo.

[[R-MOD]KP]

Yep, we are. Starting right about now, and supposed to finish in 2008. No idea what's going to happen to the old rifles, though.

I'm joining in January '09, so I guess I'll get to see if the 416's any good in cold weather. When my Dad was in the army, a few times, it was so cold - he claims - that they had to use butane heaters to heat up the G3s to get them working.

[MrDow123]

In my opinion, guns are getting to high tech and crazy looking (for example, the OICW)

We should start going back to basics

[$kelet0r]

pointy sticks for everyone!!!

[xW0LFx]

that deserves a quote

[Lampshade111]

At the moment I want to see the XM25 be finalized as the M25 and start being issued to troops in the combat zone. That should be a capable piece of gear.

[gazzthompson]

Originally Posted by RittWitt

has a tendency to drastically slow and begin a tumble, thus creating extremely painful, debilitating, but not immediately lethal wounds.
RittWitt

that's what ive always thought tho but kenway i think has always said the NATO 5.56 dosnt tumble , cant remember y tho maybe he could post

[G.Drew]

i once saw a programme on the evolution of the rifle, and it mentioned that the 5.56 fired from an M16 tends to shatter upon impact, but still continues to enter the subject, this creats a hell of a lot of damage, almost like shrapnel wounds.

i also remember the guy speakin about the M16 saying he had never seen a guy get shot from an M16 and survive