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

[Thomas]

Considering then terrain to which Pakistan usually finds itself fighting in the 7.62 NATO round is the best choice. Try reaching out to touch someone with a 5.56 across a mountian valley. Which is why US Special Operation Troops in Afghanistan have switched to the FN SCAR.

 

[jhungary]

From a grunt point of view, i have been in Iraq carrying a M4 in my shoulder and a SR-25 on the back of my Humvee.

Let me "correct" some of the common misunderstanding on rifle round.

1.) The round itself will NOT kill anyone, unless it tumble and break off, the projectile will not kill you, but the shrapnel will.

If the bullet pass clean thru, doesn't matter where you were hit (Even brains), there are still chance to save you. But if the bullet disintergrated upon impact, ie, the exit wound is a size of a base ball. You WILL DIE, doesn't matter which projectile hits you.

2.) When you got hit by small arms and it does not touches any important organ, you will not feel anything for the first few minutes. Shock and Adrenaline took care of you, even if you were hit, you only feel the slightest sensation. I saw a guy lose an arm after a mortar attack. He just sit there and keep eating his lunch as if nothing happened.

3.) 5.56 DOES NOT have more range than 7.62, 5.56, however, have a better effective range than 7.62 Those are different.

4.) 5.56 are accurate within its effective range (About 4-500 meter) but 7.62 have a lower accuracy (Contributed to heavier projectile and larger recoil) Even within close range (<100 Meter)

5.) 7.62 have more stopping power, while 5.56 have more penetrating power.

There are no definite answer to answer your question, as in war, people wear body armor, which limit the damage done to you. And if you do not wear a body armor, then there are no say on what the bullet will do to you.

You die when you die, does it matter had you been hit by a .17, .223 or .308?

Don't use sniper rifle to compare the round, marksman rifle are designed to be accurate, better barrel rifling, better support equal to less recoil, better scope, better adjustment to ballistic fall off, it WILL NOT be the same as in a normal assault rifle. If you have to compare the two will be like you comparing a Machine Gun to a Assault Rifle using the same round. How about M60 vs M14??

I personally perfer M4 with 5.56, in war, you don't just go full-auto to anyone you see, and spray and prey are not really encourage in build up environment.

Take it from an Infantry officer.

 

[Koovie]

Welcome to the forum!

Might want to introduce yourself.

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

Actually the main round of the Indian Army is the 5.56 mm round for the INSAS, but the 7.62mm is also widely used, especially in CT/CI ops.
But both have their pros and cons, thats why the Army is currently testing multical rifles to replace the INSAS.

 

[MilSpec]

Good explanation....just one question....wasnot INSAS inducted into IA in 90s ?.....if it was existing for 35 years ....why there was such a delay......i think you meant that research on INSAS started 35 yrs back .

]Insas rifle system has been a very effective low cost solution that utilized the best to offer from three rifle systems, viz. AK47, FN FAL, and the M16.

The action, long stroke gas system, rotating bolt, and stamped steel receiver gives it the ruggedness and reliability of an AK47, the Gas regulator from the FAL give it the ability to cycle rounds, even if the rifle’s gas piston is clogged. Although It has a stamped receiver, the tolerances are kept significantly tight along with the lesser reciprocating breach axis offset compared to AK, gives it reliable accuracy.

Although 5.56x 45 Nato attracts a lot of flak from critics, it is the most flat shooting round upto 300 yards, and is effective up to 600 yards. Although 7.62 x 39, the AK round has better terminal ballistics, the rounds justs drops too much. When 7.62 x 39 is zeroed at 100 yards, the compensation at 400 yards is nearly 60 inches making the target nearly disappear from the sight picture( which is the engagement range for IA positions in LOC), With a 5.56 you will have to compensate lesser, but compromise on terminal ballistics which a fair tradeoff, as you are hitting the target (if not completely neutralizing him).

Insas is controllable in full auto like the m16, whereas FAL becomes an ack ack in full auto and ak you spray and pray. Please bear in mind when the Insas came out, there was no 6.8 SPC or the 6.5 grendel options hence 5.56 was lesser of evil when it came to developing a battle rifle.
All these mix and match features gave you a reliable, low cost, accurate rifle borrowing on best features of contemporaries and minimizing drawbacks of the each mentioned systems.

Future of Insas rifle system:

Now India is in a position where stamped low cost rifle is not the need of the hour. New Insas or the F-Insas needs to have a solid machined receiver with high quality metals and precision machining.

New rifle system needs to be modular with 4 barrel systems and 5 quick change receivers, One barrel system can fire both 7.62x 39 and with change in receiver on the same barrel should accommodate the 7.62 x 51 nato (both the cartridges have same bullet but different casing lengths)

There should be dedicated receiver and barells for , 5.56 Nato, 6.8 SPC and a short barell system for OFB 5.56 x 30 round as a cqb carbine.

The system needs to be a bullpup system.

Rifle needs to have integrated peep sights, picatinny optics rails on and a quad rail system on the forward grips.

Rifle should also have tapped barrels and should come with a breaching flash hiders, a muzzle brake (for 7.62x 51) and a suppressor (for 5.56 x 30).

 

[gambit]

Currently, the most useful and versatile caliber is the smaller 5.56 NATO. It does not mean it is 100% effective at everything. Being useful and versatile mean you can do many things well enough above average that you can accomplish many missions and most of them in that list require immediate results. That is why it is a flawed comparison between the general purpose 5.56 and the highly specialized 7.62 sniper version. Does anyone really think a soldier or terrorist armed with an AK-47 is going to laugh and flaunt personal safety when he knows the American opponent is armed with the smaller caliber?

 

[Progressive Conservative]

A guy in the RAF Regiment told me that the reasoning behind using a 5.56 is that if you injure an enemy, you take 3/4 people out of the battle as those extra people will tend to and try and get the injured guy out of harms way. If you kill the enemy, he's dead and the others will realise and continue the firefight hence you have only removed one guy out of the equation.

 

[jhungary]

Currently, the most useful and versatile caliber is the smaller 5.56 NATO. It does not mean it is 100% effective at everything. Being useful and versatile mean you can do many things well enough above average that you can accomplish many missions and most of them in that list require immediate results. That is why it is a flawed comparison between the general purpose 5.56 and the highly specialized 7.62 sniper version. Does anyone really think a soldier or terrorist armed with an AK-47 is going to laugh and flaunt personal safety when he knows the American opponent is armed with the smaller caliber?

That's the point of Multi-Threater of Operation or Mission oreintated something (I forgot)

In another word, 5.56 is what you will called an "Allrounder" or All purpose bullet.

Hence the OP points is actually and simply wrong, if you perfer 7.62 round because of the destruction power within range, then every soldier in the field should be fitted out with 40 mike-mike instead of 7.62, you would have maximum damage with respectable range.

And as i said before, you cannot really compare a round using different purpose weapon. Weapon design itself played an important role on its function, when you use different weapon platform which using the same bullet. The bullet itself will not play an important role toward the situation, but the weapon platform itself did.

A guy in the RAF Regiment told me that the reasoning behind using a 5.56 is that if you injure an enemy, you take 3/4 people out of the battle as those extra people will tend to and try and get the injured guy out of harms way. If you kill the enemy, he's dead and the others will realise and continue the firefight hence you have only removed one guy out of the equation.

This is part correct, wounding 1 guy will take out 2 other guys in the field, but generally the "take out" is not permanent, when you move the wounded to safety, you go back to fight (Well, you don't go to the BAS or role 3 with the wounded)

Modern Battlefield medicine designed to use minimum effort to take care of the wounded while enjoying the best chance of survival. Hence we generally take out Medievac but ninstead using Casevac instead.

I don't know if they do it in RAF, but in the US Army, no one get left behind, even with the KIA, we will try and get thru to him/her first. How do you know if he/she is dead if he/she is not tended to??

In the old day. A nasty way to take out soldier and zap morale is to kill the medic, combat medic used to carry a large red cross on his helmet, the reason we don't do that anymore is because what it is supposed to save him/her in battle make them become priority target to the enemy. If you were in a war, you will know how hard it taste to hear the word "Medic Down", You know, when you get shot, you will just be lying on the ground and bled to death, i feel the chill even if i type the word now.

 

[Babbar-Khalsa]

That's the point of Multi-Threater of Operation or Mission oreintated something (I forgot)

In another word, 5.56 is what you will called an "Allrounder" or All purpose bullet.

Hence the OP points is actually and simply wrong, if you perfer 7.62 round because of the destruction power within range, then every soldier in the field should be fitted out with 40 mike-mike instead of 7.62, you would have maximum damage with respectable range.

And as i said before, you cannot really compare a round using different purpose weapon. Weapon design itself played an important role on its function, when you use different weapon platform which using the same bullet. The bullet itself will not play an important role toward the situation, but the weapon platform itself did.



This is part correct, wounding 1 guy will take out 2 other guys in the field, but generally the "take out" is not permanent, when you move the wounded to safety, you go back to fight (Well, you don't go to the BAS or role 3 with the wounded)

Modern Battlefield medicine designed to use minimum effort to take care of the wounded while enjoying the best chance of survival. Hence we generally take out Medievac but ninstead using Casevac instead.

I don't know if they do it in RAF, but in the US Army, no one get left behind, even with the KIA, we will try and get thru to him/her first. How do you know if he/she is dead if he/she is not tended to??

In the old day. A nasty way to take out soldier and zap morale is to kill the medic, combat medic used to carry a large red cross on his helmet, the reason we don't do that anymore is because what it is supposed to save him/her in battle make them become priority target to the enemy. If you were in a war, you will know how hard it taste to hear the word "Medic Down", You know, when you get shot, you will just be lying on the ground and bled to death, i feel the chill even if i type the word now.

Now this is what i call an unbiased explanation. Thanks .

 

[mdcp]

5.56 is better in close combat, cities and for security agencies where quick action with less time required
Now time has changed, ppl dont like bulky, heavy and hard thing, ppl want light, efficient and effective F.A.
There is no reason to carry heavy load all the time when u can do with less
Should go for 5.56 and saving should be spent on training

 

[airomerix]

jhungary,

Amazing explanation (Y)

 

[500]

------------ 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.

 

[jhungary]

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.

 

[500]

We are talking about ideal round for infantry.

9 mm is not suitable for infantry. It has very little effective range, very lofted trajectory, low speed (hard to hit moving targets), it can be stopped by helmets and very light kevlar jackets.

Indeed when it comes to limbs without hitting a bone 5.56 does little damage. But when 5.56 hits the body it makes very hard injuries. And chance to hit limb without hitting a bone is very low. Also 5.56 can be stopped only by very heavy and expensive ceramic jackets.

9 mm is good for police/hostage release operations etc.

 

[jhungary]

We are talking about ideal round for infantry.

9 mm is not suitable for infantry. It has very little effective range, very lofted trajectory, low speed (hard to hit moving targets), it can be stopped by helmets and very light kevlar jackets.

Indeed when it comes to limbs without hitting a bone 5.56 does little damage. But when 5.56 hits the body it makes very hard injuries. And chance to hit limb without hitting a bone is very low. Also 5.56 can be stopped only by very heavy and expensive ceramic jackets.

9 mm is good for police/hostage release operations etc.

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.

 

[untitled]

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 ?

But then PA prefers AK variants