No. 5 Accuracy

[Sentryduty]

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.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Seaspriter]

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!