What's new

Is 5.56 mm bullet a wrong choice over7.62 mm ?

Infanty did do MOUT operation. Close range house to house fighting is what we have been doing for about 6 years in Iraq and still doing them in Afghanistan today. MOUT is part of Soldier responsibility.
5.56 is good in MOUT operations too. Since u need to penetrate kevlar wests and sometimes to fire at ranges beyond 150-200 m. In regular warfare 5.56 has absolute advantage over 9 mm.

5.56 is no good in hostage rescue operations because of excess penetration and ricochets, but thats not something that regular infantry do.
 
Welcome to the forum!

Might want to introduce yourself.

Western Armies use 5.56mm while Pakistan/Indian Armies still use 7.62 mm bullets....

INSAS and M 4 operated by Indian army use 5.56mm bullets.
 
Just take Ma deuce with you, game over.
 
5.56 is good in MOUT operations too. Since u need to penetrate kevlar wests and sometimes to fire at ranges beyond 150-200 m. In regular warfare 5.56 has absolute advantage over 9 mm.

5.56 is no good in hostage rescue operations because of excess penetration and ricochets, but thats not something that regular infantry do.

I don't know where you do your CQB that require you to fire with direct LOS of about 150-200 meters, maybe inside bill gates house :)....House to house fighting normally does not involve anything even more than 50 meter. 20 meters i would say is the maximum.

In conducting Operation inside Populated and Build up area, you require more accuracy as you need to follow the rules of engagement, it's not like you do them in ww2 or in nam, when you just chuck a grenade and get it over with. There maybe civilian inside a hot room, and the fact that generally any weapon chamber 5.56 would go over 80cm does not help your case as you need to move around your weapon pretty quick to aim and shoot at any hostile. Enemy can just grab the hand guard of the rifle and shoot at you with their pistol in close range if you stick your rifle up too high around corner. I have seen this happen before, twice.

Maybe this is how we do thing in America, or maybe this is how i would do, this is just my personal experience, you can use 40mike mike to clear a house if you want (Which some people do). I just say this is what i do and what i perfer. You don't have to believe or even agree with me.

The fact
 
------------ cartridge weight -- energy --- impulse -- muzzle velocity -- effective range
5.56 NATO ----- 12.31 g ------- 1740 J ---- 3.74 ------ 930 m/s --------- 500-600 m
7.62x39 -------- 16.2 g -------- 2020 J ---- 5.65 ------ 715 m/s --------- 400-500 m
7.62 NATO ----- 25.47 g ------- 3425 J ---- 8.17 ------- 838 m/s ---------- 800 m

So 5.56 is definitely better than 7.62x39: it is 30% lighter, it has 1.5% less recoil, it has slightly more effective range. 7.62x39 has more stoppage power and less ricochets, but that cant compensate.

If compare 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO, we can see that 7.62 has 50% more effective range, but its 2 times heavier and has two times more recoil. For regular infantry men 5.56 effective range is more than enough. 7.62 need marksmen, snipers and special forces in some cases.

Now there are also new rounds 6.8 Remington and 6.5 Grendel. They have weight and impulse of 7.62x39, but the effective range of 7.62 NATO. Some claim they are ideal compromise between those two, also they are problematic to use in automatic fire.

Thanks . but why they have been named "grendel" and "Remington" .....any special reasons ?? Have they been battle tested ?
 
If you are talking in the context of the Pakistan Army. There is only one answer. We have heaps of 7.62 NATO rounds and it will be too costly to shift to 5.56 NATO ammo

The only solution that I can think of is why does not PA introduce a G-3 7.62 Carbine ?

HK_G3.jpg


But then PA prefers AK variants :agree:

Ok .. but somebody from your country was saying that PA uses 5.56 generally ? do you want to say that PA never used 5.56 ?
 
I don't see it this way, i don't think there are one bullet better than the other, you can just say one type of bullet are needed or excel on some situation, but that does not mean they are absolutely better than others.

I don't think 5.56 is best at Close combat AT all, if i have a choice, i will more definitely use 9mm, perferably JHP.

Things is within CQB range, 5.56 is literally useless unless you can hit bone, otherwise it just cut clearn thru. When a bullet cut clean thru, it touches few nerve and don't do as much damage to muscle, in close range, you can probably take 3 or 4 round before you literally feel anything.

9mm is different, when you go close with 9mm, projectile usually lodge inside your body and will not even have an exit wound. Granted the most downside is coming from most bullet Proof vest can provide protection with 9mm. But still sidearm will be my weapon of choice in close quarter.

Study show most engagement are done within 50-200 meters. Outside this range, a standard human (your target) will be smaller than 4 inchs projected to you. And anything smaller than this will need a bit of luck to hit them, yes, scope today extended some range with average weapon but still, it will become "Beyond Visual Range" for human if the target appear 500 + meter away from you (If you are carrying an assault rifle) So there are no need for a heavier projectile and better equipment for an average grunt to carry 7.62 (Which it's major selling point is range and power). But by no mean i will say 5.56 is better than 7.62.

WHen you go after stand-off engagment, i will not use 5.56 anymore. As 5.56 will not have enough punch to hit a stand off target in range. Then it will be a perfect job for 7.62. But the fact to the matter is, not everyone have a stomach for stand off engagment, i know i wasn't one of them, so going by this logic, not everyone should use 7.62. That is my opinion.

Suppose there is a situation ....there are 3 rooms ....every room may or may not have hostiles (armed with AKs of 7.62 caliber) . There are hostages also . Your team is ordered to rescue the hostages and netrulize the hostiles . Will you still go with your sidearm only ? Will you still avoid using 5.56 or 7.62 ?

Also ,would like to mention that in an attack on a russian school by Chechan rebels , the rebels were heavily armed with machine guns and wearing kevlers .(They were also using humans as shields).
 
I don't know where you do your CQB that require you to fire with direct LOS of about 150-200 meters, maybe inside bill gates house :)....House to house fighting normally does not involve anything even more than 50 meter. 20 meters i would say is the maximum.
I look right now outside of my window and I can see many targets beyond 150-200 m.

Thanks . but why they have been named "grendel" and "Remington" .....any special reasons ?? Have they been battle tested ?
Grendel is name given especially for 6.5 mm cartridge while Remington is name of the company which designed the 6.8 mm cartridge.
 
Ok .. but somebody from your country was saying that PA uses 5.56 generally ? do you want to say that PA never used 5.56 ?

Yes we we do have weapons firing the 5.56 such as the M-4, M-16, FN-2000, Steyr AUG (mostly with special forces) but like I said PA prefers the AK 7.62s
 
I look right now outside of my window and I can see many targets beyond 150-200 m.
MOUT is more than just Street fighting, It can be underground battle, close quarter house to house, it can be rooftop battle, Street battle is only one part of MOUT. And not all the time you get target within 100-200 meters inside your home. And if you have to operate, you operate within the lowest envelope. That is you prepare for the closest quarter battle. Rifle of course are good in street fighting, but when you go under cover, it suddenly become too large to manuver.

Again, you may have a diffenent set of doctorine in Israel, we may have a different set of Doctorine regarding MOUT. Our doctorine are MOUT can be fought within surface, subsurface and supersurface. I cannot comment on yours as i have not been trained in Israel.

And my comment on 9mm better than 556 is based on CQB. Not MOUT. Check my previous post again :)
 
Suppose there is a situation ....there are 3 rooms ....every room may or may not have hostiles (armed with AKs of 7.62 caliber) . There are hostages also . Your team is ordered to rescue the hostages and netrulize the hostiles . Will you still go with your sidearm only ? Will you still avoid using 5.56 or 7.62 ?

Also ,would like to mention that in an attack on a russian school by Chechan rebels , the rebels were heavily armed with machine guns and wearing kevlers .(They were also using humans as shields).

I am a soldier, not a police officer, the situation is too delicate for Soldier to go in. If this kind of thing happened you generally call Special Operation. YOu are asking a Soldier to Perform a Police Operation, that's the same as asking a Doctor of Internal Medicine to perform a surgery on you. It WILL only ended in tears, or maybe worse.

I do not have an answer for you as i am not a trained HRT Member, you need to ask people with SWAT, FBI HRT, DELTA oir DEVGRU member to answer you that question.

If i were to go in with 556 or 762, i can only assure you one thing, EVERYONE WILL BE DEAD, hostile, hostage, and some of my guy,

What i know is, in a normal CQB and MOUT operation. When you started go cover to cover, it is not in your best interest to use a rifle, any rifle either 556 or 762. I saw personally with my own eyes some my my team got wounded because they stick their rifle around corner too high and the insurgent inside grab it by the handguard and just yank it away and follow by a busy hand with a 9mm/45 or even AK47 sticking out and shoot at them. This happen a lot ( I saw twice and heard a lot of report.).

If you canchamber a 556 or 762 round in the size of a handgun or SMG, i would be the first one to use it.

If you are expecting a firefight with hostage, then the situation is too complicated for me to answer.
 
I am a soldier, not a police officer, the situation is too delicate for Soldier to go in. If this kind of thing happened you generally call Special Operation. YOu are asking a Soldier to Perform a Police Operation, that's the same as asking a Doctor of Internal Medicine to perform a surgery on you. It WILL only ended in tears, or maybe worse.

I do not have an answer for you as i am not a trained HRT Member, you need to ask people with SWAT, FBI HRT, DELTA oir DEVGRU member to answer you that question.

If i were to go in with 556 or 762, i can only assure you one thing, EVERYONE WILL BE DEAD, hostile, hostage, and some of my guy,

What i know is, in a normal CQB and MOUT operation. When you started go cover to cover, it is not in your best interest to use a rifle, any rifle either 556 or 762. I saw personally with my own eyes some my my team got wounded because they stick their rifle around corner too high and the insurgent inside grab it by the handguard and just yank it away and follow by a busy hand with a 9mm/45 or even AK47 sticking out and shoot at them. This happen a lot ( I saw twice and heard a lot of report.).

If you canchamber a 556 or 762 round in the size of a handgun or SMG, i would be the first one to use it.

If you are expecting a firefight with hostage, then the situation is too complicated for me to answer.

Ok .. In that case SMG would be a good option .The Fabryka Broni "Łucznik" - Radom Mini-Beryl 5.56 mm submachine gun (polish armed forces ) . It uses 5.56 mm rounds , its quite small and easy to move with .
 
The M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle
The changing nature of the war in Afghanistan led to the re-issue of the 7.62x51 mm NATO M14 rifle.
By Maj. John Plaster, U.S. Army (Ret.)



2/24/2011


2011223161635-army-ebr-afgh_m.jpg


Not long after U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies came to realize that America’s 5.56x45 mm NATO infantry rifles lost most of their lethality beyond 500 meters. Demonstrating their adaptability, the insurgents exploited Afghanistan’s sprawling valleys and distant mountainsides to seek engagements beyond the M16’s and M4’s effective ranges.

This is borne out by U.S. Army data, which reveals that more than half of the war’s small arms engagements are now beyond 500 meters, with the enemy employing heavier weapons and then withdrawing before air support or artillery fire can arrive.


One solution, military planners could see, was employing a more capable cartridge already in the system: the 7.62x51 mm NATO. Today’s standard U.S. sniper cartridge, the 175-grain, M118 Long Range load, delivers four times the foot-pounds of energy as the standard 62-grain, 5.56 mm round at extended ranges. In other words, at 600 meters the 7.62 mm round packs about as much energy—1,000 ft.-lbs.—as the 5.56 mm round at 100 meters.

Although M14 rifles were pulled from depot storage, fitted with scopes, shipped to Afghanistan and issued to Army and Marine designated riflemen, the guns proved less than ideal for today’s warfare. First, their fixed stocks could not be adjusted to fit the length-of-pull needed for today’s body armor. And second, the 40-year-old rifles could not accommodate modern accessories such as lasers, night vision scopes and lights, which require MIL STD 1913 Picatinny rails. Fortunately, a solution had already been developed by the U.S. Navy’s Surface Warfare Center at Crane, Ind.

The SEAL CQB Rifle


One year before the 2001 terrorist attacks, U.S. Navy SEALs had gone to Crane to request an updated version of the 42-year-old M14. Great believers in the M14’s reliability and the 7.62x51 mm NATO cartridge’s lethality, they wanted a shortened version with a pistol grip and adjustable-length buttstock for close-quarters use.

The design task fell to David Armstrong, an accomplished small arms engineer who previously had developed the well-received SOPMOD (Special Operations Peculiar Modification System) for the M4 carbine. A mechanical engineer, machinist and recreational shooter, Armstrong began by searching for an off-the-shelf collapsible buttstock.

After trying several, he chose a Sage Int’l collapsible, pistol-grip stock made for the Remington Model 870 shotgun. The telescoping design offered five lengths of pull, in 1-inch increments, that worked well with body armor. Armstrong connected the Sage buttstock to the forward section of a modified M14 fiberglass stock. He also replaced the rifle’s standard 22-inch barrel with an 18-inch unit, reducing its overall length by nearly 10 inches, to 35 inches.

The fiberglass stock, however, did not satisfy him. “The [M14] design has always been tough to beat for reliability, but required laborsome bedding and tuning for best accuracy,” he explained. Earlier sniper versions of the M14, especially the M21 Sniper System, which used a resin-impregnated stock with epoxy bedding, proved so temperamental that snipers were instructed not to remove the action from the stock while cleaning it.

Armstrong took the bold step of designing his own chassis stock, machined from aircraft-grade aluminum. Not only would this be more rigid than fiberglass, but it would include an aluminum bedding block and an assortment of Picatinny rails for optical and illumination accessories. The result was a true “drop-in” stock, requiring no bedding or special fitting. “This stock floats the gas system through a replacement operating rod guide screwed to the rigid stock fore-end and a simple spacer replacing the front band,” he said. He also modified the Sage buttstock’s cheek rest to give it 2 inches of vertical adjustment in 1/4-inch increments.

In addition to installing quad Picatinny rails around the fore-end, he attached a short-rail scope mount that replaced the M14’s stripper clip guide. The final additions were a more effective flash suppressor, three ambidextrous 1 1/4-inch sling slot locations, and a Harris Engineering S-LM Series S bipod. Patented to the U.S. Navy with Armstrong as its inventor, the chassis stock is now produced under license by Sage Int’l in Oscoda, Mich.

“Simply adding the chassis stock system cut the group size of a basic M14 in half without the need for glass-bedding,” he reports. Firing five-shot groups with M118 ammunition at 600 yards, Naval technicians at Crane recorded 2 to 2.5 minute-of-angle (m.o.a.) extreme spreads—meaning 12 to 18-inch groups. Standard M80 ball ammunition shot nearly as well.


The EBR & EMR


When the U.S. Army and Marine Corps later sought modernized M14s, Armstrong merely switched the Navy’s Mk. 14 Mod 0 rifle’s short barrel for a full-length 22-inch version to create the Army’s Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) and the Marine’s M39 Enhanced Marksman’s Rifle (EMR). These versions measure 38.5 inches overall, with the stocks collapsed, and 45 inches when fully extended.

Although 3 pounds heavier than the standard M14, the EBR and EMR compare favorably to America’s current 7.62 mm sniping platforms, such as the Army’s M24 and M110, and the Marine Corps’ M40A3. The Army is issuing two EBRs per infantry squad, while the Marines have placed the EMR at platoon-level.

The Army EBR is fitted with a Leupold 3.5–10X scope, and the USMC’s EMR optic is the Schmidt & Bender M8541 Scout Sniper Day Scope, the same scope used by Marine snipers. Thus equipped, these designated riflemen have the ability to engage enemy personnel to 800 meters.

Each service is now building its own rifles, with Navy Mk. 14 Model 0’s being produced at the Crane facility, while Army rifles are assembled at Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., and the USMC version at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.

Some 5,000 EBRs have been produced at Rock Island Arsenal, with funding for another 1,200. A further 2,000 Sage stocks have reportedly been sold directly to military units and individuals for conversion of M14s. Still more rifles issued to Marines and SEALs suggest that perhaps 10,000 of these modernized M14s are now in service.


Firing The EBR



Thanks to Fulton Armory of Savage, Md., I was able to test fire a platform nearly identical to the EBR. Available to civilian shooters, this semi-automatic-only rifle incorporates Fulton’s own M14 Receiver, installed on the same Sage Int’l chassis stock that David Armstrong designed.

Examining the rifle in my shop, I found that its military two-stage trigger broke cleanly at 3 pounds, 7.5 ounces—about perfect for me. For test-firing, I mounted a Bushnell Elite 6500 4.5–30X Tactical Scope, which was a simple task with the rifle’s Picatinny rails.

Ergonomics had concerned me because of the stock’s square edges. Nonetheless, I found its balance and heft surprisingly good with the center-of-balance at the magazine well. Having trained on the M14 in the 1960s, I already appreciated the reliability of its gas piston and operating rod system, and the action’s resistance to sand and carbon buildup. Of course, I experienced no stoppages or malfunctions of any kind.

Weighing 14 pounds with a scope, a bipod and a loaded 20-round magazine, this weight plus the straight-line stock resulted in a mild recoil “push,” making it very comfortable to fire. This also assisted target reacquisition for follow-up shots.

The basic difference between the military EBR and Fulton Armory’s version is a National Match barrel—and that really showed on the range. Accuracy with the Fulton Armory EBR was impressive. Firing off sandbags at 100 yards, my Federal Gold Medal Match, .308 Win., 168-grain ammunition punched a three-round group measuring 0.721 inches. Switching to the U.S. military’s load specifically designed for sniping—the 175-grain, M118 Long Range round—the rifle fired even better, scoring a 0.50-inch three-round group.

In the hands of a trained marksman, the EBR—especially with a National Match barrel—is more than capable of dealing with insurgents to 800 meters and beyond. Perhaps the Taliban and its allies have proven adaptable; but, as demonstrated by these 21st century M14s, so have we.

The M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle
 

Back
Top Bottom