No. 5 Accuracy

You have it in one. In my opinion - and it is only an opinion, the system was too complex and totally too closely toleranced for field use. The notion that even well trained Infantry soldiers would be sitting at the back of the range, say, between range details, stripping the bolt into its parts, several of which were spring loaded and user strippable to clean and maintain the rifle ready for the next detail is as laughable as it is laudable.

Given that the actual round is the weapon and the rifle part is just the means of accurate delivery, then the EM was over the top in complexity compared with the other offerings, Plenty of good ideas in the EM idea but totally outclassed by the FN and the L1A1. We did try a 7mm FN too and 2(?) examples exist at Warminster.

Some weapons enter the pages of folklore as great could-have-beens. Like the DeLisle and the EM's. But strip away the glitz and shiny paper and they're mediocre could-have-beens.

As for the brilliant 7mm round, then time and time again, the 7.62mm NATO round has proved itself a great, reliable and capable all-rounder. All my own opinion of course

7.62 everytime agree totally your last paragraph. The stopping power of a high speed train, leaving you in no doubt, that if you took the shot, the person at the other end wasn't going to be a threat to you again, regardless of where he was hit. Surely that is what warfare is all about..........ensuring you inflict more casualties on your assailants than you take yourself, and winning the firefight at all costs.

The issue with the 5.56 was, it was great in CQB Jungle Warfare type scenarios, because it was light and could chuck something into the foliage quickly, but beyond that, and certainly as proved in Afghanistan and Iraq it took more rounds to the do the same job, as one solitary 7.62mm would.

Politicians and Scientists through cuts in finance and practicial reasoning, arrogance and sheer doggedness, took away the common sense of pure science, which was, the force of power used in a round is everything in the battlefield to defeat your enemy, and it was this attitude that lost us the EM series of weapons, way ahead of its time!

If we hadn't had the 7.62 round right across the board on ALL weapons in the Falklands War, it would have been a completely different outcome.
You can be as brave as you like, but without the right combined weapon system, there is in my opinion only one outcome.......defeat!

Wasn't the EM2 also fantastically expensive too because of it's complex machining requirements.
There's a "forgottern Weapons" vid on youtube of a gorgeous cased 7.62 EM2 with kit, I'm sure you've all seen it, bit violent in that calibre!
Of course I can't watch it anymore cos it p!?#es me off I can't have it in my safe!

But a 7mm variant can be yours without any form of licensing due to its obsolete calibre category. Strange but true! I have fired the 7mm and 7.62mm versions and they're really boingy - boingy things with springs everywhere that you can hear operating. Just glad that I had an L1A1 when the going got tough.

There's a thought....... I wonder how the EM's would have fared in the silt laden, salt-water mangrove swamp areas of Johore or the monsoons at Grik, Kroh and Alor Star. I doubt if the wood laminate of the era would have lasted more than a few weeks. Yep, glad we had L1's

In the discussion of 7.62mm NATO vs 5.56mm I will offer a couple of thinking points, as you may have guessed I am a product of the modern combat era and my experiences have shaped my opinions.

When I first joined, I wished for 7.62mm and the return of the C1, a real rifle firing a real caliber, after being in for awhile I understood that weapons have changed because combat has changed.

5.56mm may not have that knockdown that is claimed by the 7.62 but that is given the "perfect example" of the soldier takes careful aim and fires at another soldier, but that is commonly not the case. In today's battlefield volume of fire is the most important, the concept of individual marksmanship while still very important, is not what wins firefights. Using volume of fire to first fix, then maneuver to destroy an enemy is pretty much rule of the day, fast air, artillery and AFV are a big part of the mix as well. If you don't fix an enemy, he shoots until the tide turns and then will withdraw and disperse, returning hours days or weeks later, when ambush conditions are again in his favour. Volume of fire will help fix the enemy in place.

In short we expend a lot of ammunition, and ammunition is heavy. My frontline ammunition called for 300 rounds of 5.56 ball and 30 rounds of tracer in magazines in my LBV , included in this loadout was 18 rounds of 40mm HE for my M203, 2x M67 Fragmentation grenades, 1x HC Smoke grenade, 1x "9-banger" Distraction Grenade, in my daybag 1x Claymore, and 2x HE rounds for the 60mm mortar and an additional 100 rounds of 5.56 ball. Carrying 400 rounds of 7.62 is much heavier and bulkier than the same amount of 5.56.

The knockdown power of 7.62mm is becoming negated by the proliferation and use of effective plated body armour, it is something you expect to encounter now, our training has adapted as well, center of mass shooting has transitioned to a double tap in the center and then shoot for the upper body and head until the target drops. Great emphasis has now been placed on shoot until the target drops, bodyarmour is saving lives on both sides of the fight. The light recoil of 5.56 rounds and 30 round magazine capacity allows a soldier to rapidly fire a large number of rounds at a target without fighting a lot of recoil.

7.62mm was thought to provide superior barrier penetration over 5.56mm turning cover into concealment as it were, but in Afghanistan, mud is the main building material, usually in 12" thick walls, huts, compounds, and fences. 5.56mm will not penetrate it, neither will 7.62mm, nor would our LAV 3 25mm HEIT rounds, a 25mm Sabot would, but a steel dart isn't the best anti-infantry round. Even a full belt from a GMPG wouldn't usually be enough to chew through a typical wall, and it was just a waste of precious ammunition. This is where indirect weapons like the 40mm grenade launchers and mortars would shine, go over the cover, not through.

I won't say one is better than the other, but each has advantages and drawbacks, and make no mistake, either round will kill, that much I know for certain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

I won't say one is better than the other, but each has advantages and drawbacks, and make no mistake, either round will kill, that much I know for certain.

---

Thanks Darren for your very informative post -- and thank you for your service in Afghanistan. Obviously with all the gear you had to carry, weight is still a very big issue.

The dialogue is vaguely familiar -- just the dates and places have changed. In WWII the debates would have been about the value of a .303 or .30-06 versus a German STG versus a M1 Carbine, etc. Each has its pros and cons, and each has trade-offs.

To this day there are still many members of Milsurps that contend, with good reason, the M1 Carbine is the best "universal" gun for under 200 yds. At 5 1/2 lbs. (with sling) it still amazes me how it's only 1/4 lb heavier than my .22 Marlin carbine (with sling).

The M16/5.56 mm was, essentially, a next generation M1 carbine. It's a good design for what it is. While it still didn't have the stopping power of the 308/NATO, it is easy to handle and more powerful than a .30 carbine, which was reputed to have penetration problems in Korea. But all weaponry is a tradeoff -- perfection, even when close at hand, can quickly become obsolete with the march of technology.

During my officer training in the mid 1960s I was trained on the M14 -- a great gun, but I wouldn't want to tread through a jungle with one -- a No.5 "jungle carbine" or M16 would be preferable. The No.5 fires a potent .303 and is nothing to scoff at. But Wandering Zero wasn't its biggest evolutionary drawback -- by the Korean War, semi/full automatics would be destined to reign.

But long range in war -- I'd still take my M1 308 National Match or 303 with a scope.

As for the best "compromise" rifle, I would vote for the HK G-3 full automatic. (I have the PTR-91 semi-auto version). It's chambered for 308/NATO, weighs in at 9 lbs, takes a 20 round magazine, and with an 18 inch barrel it's accurate, powerful, reliable, simple, and very easy to handle with the built in hand grip. It's a gem to fast to field strip -- the butt stock and trigger assembly can be removed in just over 5 seconds. And parts are both available and cheap (a mag today can be had for less than $5 USD).

Guess all these will become obsolete with star-wars weaponry on the way! The future ain't what it used to be!

Well......... as likely the person with the least amount of real military time in the room, having never fired a round in anger, with nothing more than basic BRM, and familiarization exercises on various weapons now obsolete, the opinion below has no real world merit, but I cannot resist putting it down in print.


My respect for the 7mm EM2 round comes from firing downloaded 7.62 NATO rounds in competition. Specifically 135 gr Sierra Matchkings @ 2500 fps...which pretty much matches the recoil of the 7mm EM2 loading. Quite effective out to 600 yards. While on paper the recoil is only about 78 percent of the 7.62 NATO, (compared to the M855 53 percent) it seems that the lower recoil really makes the cartridge much easier to shoot well, especially from a rifle with a straight stock. Of course that load is not all that effective past 600 M, due to the low BC, the actual EM2 round is a lot more impressive due to the better bullet BC.

True the 7mm EM2 load goes subsonic at around 780 M vs. the 875 for the L2A2, but the lower recoil just seems to offer a much better overall fit for the battlefield of the 1950s. Combined with the straight stock and short bursts AKA assault rifle style becomes practical.

The cartridge operated at a lower peak pressure, so the rifle construction and demands made upon the action much less.

Now had that load been adopted in 1951/52 and been the NATO round post Korean war, I very much doubt the 5.56 would have gotten its start, the need for such a cartridge being drastically less apparent. After all the 5.56 was really developed in the late 1950s, right after the 7.62 NATO was adopted.

I am also of the opinion had the .276 Peterson been adopted in 1932 US small arms would have gone a different path as well.

We don't go into a Rugby match with a flat ball, nor do we go into battle with an under performing weapons system like the SA80.
It has been modified that many times it is basically laughable. The same comparison as the AWAC Nimrod or two aircraft carriers with no aircraft. We seem to throw good money after bad, instead of buying the correct item for the job in hand.
I used 5.56 in the jungle, and can vouch for it's hopeless performance, if it saw simple undergrowth or foliage on its way to the target, it did in your view as the shooter, deflect badly.
So in short as I said earlier, line of sight in jungle scenario's, no problem, as it was the rate of fire from the Armalite that did the trick. Many of us would simply revert to the L2A1 Sterling for fire power and comfort, or the L4 7.62 Bren for sheer brute force and ACCURACY and ALWAYS win the fire fight with those two babies by your side.

However, I do think and sorry to say it again, the decision makers of the day, made a big mistake kicking the EM programme into touch. Yes it had its bad points initially but it needed refining, no different to every weapons system since the bow and arrow was invented. They all need fine tuning before delivery as a finished product IMHO.

If you are carrying a No5, why would you need a Gras? :madsmile:

At a different time, the No5 excelled in the Jungle, which it was designed for afterall, and did the lads proud.