Why did NATO adopt the 5.56 when it's hitting power was worse than the 7.62 ?
- Thread starter kiwitt
- Start date
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Essentially. Many European countries continued to use 7.62 ammunition long after the US switched over. As a consequence, most of the better assault rifles and assault pistols of the last 50 years have been Belgian and German, not American.
There are other things, too, though. One can carry much more 5.56 ammo, because its lighter. But that reduced weight also means reduced lethality, and the bullet's greater speed doesn't come close to matching the hitting power of 7.62 bullets. Supposedly (meaning, while speaking to a Marine), the size of the bullet doesn't matter since a bullet to the head is a bullet to the head...but who has time to do that outside of a shooting range? Most engagements happen <300 yards, and at that range what you depend on is increased lethality, not accuracy. Also, supposedly, the 5.56 bullet is "more likely to bounce around inside the body, which does more damage." Except that they aren't proven to do so any more than a larger bullet will. They are, however, more likely to fragment upon entry, which leaves a much wider wound, but is less likely to cause death unless taken to the gut. Which brings me to the third argument, which is that by wounding rather than killing, more strain is put on the enemy's force overall, as his support units and medics struggle to treat and deal with wounded soldiers. A decent argument, but not particularly useful to a grunt with a dozen enemies bearing down on him, who may not be entirely motivated to stop their assault just because of a single bullet. And you generally must hit each soldier several times before you can stop him. Soldiers in Iraq, for example, have encountered insurgents so doped up that they are completely unfazed by anything less than having a magazine emptied into them. That's not exactly efficient, and not exactly comforting to the man holding the gun.
So in short, I think that small caliber ammunition is a waste of time and money, and does more harm than good.
There are other things, too, though. One can carry much more 5.56 ammo, because its lighter. But that reduced weight also means reduced lethality, and the bullet's greater speed doesn't come close to matching the hitting power of 7.62 bullets. Supposedly (meaning, while speaking to a Marine), the size of the bullet doesn't matter since a bullet to the head is a bullet to the head...but who has time to do that outside of a shooting range? Most engagements happen <300 yards, and at that range what you depend on is increased lethality, not accuracy. Also, supposedly, the 5.56 bullet is "more likely to bounce around inside the body, which does more damage." Except that they aren't proven to do so any more than a larger bullet will. They are, however, more likely to fragment upon entry, which leaves a much wider wound, but is less likely to cause death unless taken to the gut. Which brings me to the third argument, which is that by wounding rather than killing, more strain is put on the enemy's force overall, as his support units and medics struggle to treat and deal with wounded soldiers. A decent argument, but not particularly useful to a grunt with a dozen enemies bearing down on him, who may not be entirely motivated to stop their assault just because of a single bullet. And you generally must hit each soldier several times before you can stop him. Soldiers in Iraq, for example, have encountered insurgents so doped up that they are completely unfazed by anything less than having a magazine emptied into them. That's not exactly efficient, and not exactly comforting to the man holding the gun.
So in short, I think that small caliber ammunition is a waste of time and money, and does more harm than good.
the 303.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
EDIT I think I should answer the OP more clearly.
Because the other advantages associated with with the 5.56x45mm were considered to outweigh the disadvantage of it being a smaller and lighter round.
The biggest advantage of the 5.56x45mm over the 7.62x51mm is reduced recoil. You can put more rounds into one area far faster and with far more consistency than you can with a 7.62x51 or x39.
The 5.56 cartridges are much smaller so you can cram more rounds into a smaller magazine and thus you can carry more of those magazines on you as well.
It basically boils down to: Firepower > lethality.
This was a doctrine that the US learned (the hard way) in Korea and perfected in Vietnam with the development of the M16.
5.56mm, hell even .22 long rifle will stay lethal at well over a mile. 600 yard shots isn't that difficult with an AR15, it depends on the shooter, but it's not impossible. You'd probably never get the same ability from any AK-47-type rifle. I wouldn't even bother trying to shoot past 300 yards with mine, unless I wanted to see if I could get lucky or something but I don't have the money to waste ammo like that.
There have always been some accounts of the standard service rifle/caliber not being "lethal enough" and it's always seemed to be a particular fixation for Americans. There is no such thing as a one hit one kill caliber that is practical for use in a standard weapon.
In 1776 the standard caliber in the US Army was .69 inches, eventually it was reduced to .58, reduced again to .40, again to .30 and finally to .22. And every time it shrank there was controversy.
The only thing that can be definitely established about the effectiveness of bullets throughout history is that "your experience may vary" and more importantly: that human beings are far more physically resilient than we credit them for.
Because the other advantages associated with with the 5.56x45mm were considered to outweigh the disadvantage of it being a smaller and lighter round.
The biggest advantage of the 5.56x45mm over the 7.62x51mm is reduced recoil. You can put more rounds into one area far faster and with far more consistency than you can with a 7.62x51 or x39.
The 5.56 cartridges are much smaller so you can cram more rounds into a smaller magazine and thus you can carry more of those magazines on you as well.
It basically boils down to: Firepower > lethality.
This was a doctrine that the US learned (the hard way) in Korea and perfected in Vietnam with the development of the M16.
5.56mm, hell even .22 long rifle will stay lethal at well over a mile. 600 yard shots isn't that difficult with an AR15, it depends on the shooter, but it's not impossible. You'd probably never get the same ability from any AK-47-type rifle. I wouldn't even bother trying to shoot past 300 yards with mine, unless I wanted to see if I could get lucky or something but I don't have the money to waste ammo like that.
There have always been some accounts of the standard service rifle/caliber not being "lethal enough" and it's always seemed to be a particular fixation for Americans. There is no such thing as a one hit one kill caliber that is practical for use in a standard weapon.
In 1776 the standard caliber in the US Army was .69 inches, eventually it was reduced to .58, reduced again to .40, again to .30 and finally to .22. And every time it shrank there was controversy.
The only thing that can be definitely established about the effectiveness of bullets throughout history is that "your experience may vary" and more importantly: that human beings are far more physically resilient than we credit them for.
Didn't Europe (at least Britain comes to mind) want the smaller round to begin with, but they followed the US with the 7.62mm?
While the larger round has its place, and the 5.56 may not be the best smaller cartridge, I there seems to be a pretty clear preference towards the smaller cartridges with the Russians, and Chinese both adopting one.
Which is why people picked the smaller round. While each shot isn't as lethal, it is designed to put more rounds on target due to reduced recoil. First round accuracy would actually be greater with the 7.62mm.
While the larger round has its place, and the 5.56 may not be the best smaller cartridge, I there seems to be a pretty clear preference towards the smaller cartridges with the Russians, and Chinese both adopting one.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
The Brits had a great 7mm bullpup design but it was trashed due to the US insistence on the 7.62x54mm.
So the Brits gave in and decided on the FAL but not long after that the US said: "Now we're gonna use the 5.56mm" and the Brits just said F it and stuck with that rifle until the SA-80.
So the Brits gave in and decided on the FAL but not long after that the US said: "Now we're gonna use the 5.56mm" and the Brits just said F it and stuck with that rifle until the SA-80.
Essentially, the 7.62, and the rifle to fire it, were just too big and heavy for the task. There were moves to smaller rifles even in WWII. You can't make a 7.62 full automatic and have any control over it. It was found that quantity of fire mattered more with the average soldier than accuracy of fire. And to get more bullets downrange, they had to be smaller bullets. Both so the soldier could carry more, and so that he could control the gun at high rates of fire. Long range well armed shots is the realm of specialized troops, not common infantry. So the extra range and hitting power of the 7.62 was lost.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Yes I suppose that is true.
I would still rather hit something once and know that if it isn't dead, its writhing on the ground missing a grapefruit sized part of itself, and unable to advance, than count upon being able to hit it again. That still takes time, time soldiers might not have.
The FAL provides reasonable control over a 7.62 on automatic. As much as you can consider to be "control," since 1. no one ever fires on full auto and expects to hit anything, and 2. there's no such thing as a controlled automatic fire.
Most 7.62 rifles, however, were semiautomatic, like the M-14 and M3. And that is devastatingly lethal.
There is another unfortunate side effect of the lighter, smaller round. Combined with mostly plastic weapons, it has made for some very light guns, guns which could not be handled before by smaller hands and arms.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Which you can't guarantee even with a 7.62x51mm which itself is an intermediate round. Maybe buckshot at close range.
When you're talking about stopping a threat then proper shot placement (center mass) is far more important than caliber or stopping power.
The psychological effect from being shot alone will likely cause incapacitation but drugs or altered mental states can make humans into tanks but no matter how hopped up they are no one is going to keep fighting with a burst lung, shattered spine, exploded heart and I can't imagine that a 5.56 to center mass would be any less incapacitating than a 7.62.
I have to add my two ounces of lead to this discussion
First off the NATO round is 7.62 x 51 mm (.308), the 7.62 x 54 is Russian.
It was supposedly a downsize from larger .30 caliber rounds, but many of the old guards were unprepared to sacrifice range and hitting power, sufficient to create a lighter bullet suitable for a fully automatic assault rifle - though the HK G3 and Swiss SiG are notable exceptions. Since then, the switch to 5.56 was a far more drastic change, and in my opinion overdid it.
The supposed advantage of carrying twice as much 5.56 ammunition seems to be outweighed by the tendency to spray on full auto, instead of well placed shots. I know there are times when that is what is called for, especially when surprised at closer ranges, street fighting, ambushes etc. But overall, the tendency to adopt such small calibers seems like a poor substitute for good training and marksmanship if you have the time to develop it. Having a rifle light and fast shooting for the semi-trained masses, may not be the best choice for a smaller cadre of professional soldiers. As an historical example, the peacetime British Army before WWI had as basic rifle qualification, the ability to hit a target ten (or fifteen ?) times in a minute at 900 yards, with iron sights, and 10 rounds on target in 30 seconds at 600 yards. The Germans thought they were coming under long range MG fire when they first encountered the Lee Enfield at Mons. Not everyone aspires to that performance, but myself I would rather not be caught dead armed with a 5.56mm rifle in some tactical situations.
1. greater range - I would put my money on a good shooter with an FAL at >600 yards, over two guys armed with AR-15s.
2. windage - in a modest cross-wind, load up some tracer and see what happens to your 5.56mm bullets on full auto vs .308.
3. bush light cover - even at the shorter ranges, lighter faster bullets will be deflected by twigs, whereas the .308 can go through the bole of 4-6" diameter softwood trees.
4. hitting power - Supposedly the tendency of the .223 to tumble on impact equalizes this somewhat, but I would not count on wounding enemy soldiers to tie down adversaries in battle conditions. Numerous stories of assailants with six 5.56 wounds still standing. One hit from a .308 in the center of mass or even a limb, and that man is down. They don't even allow .22 caliber arms for hunting for that reason, its considered 'inhumane'.
5. Flak vests, light composite armors - substantially reduce the impacts from light bullets at ranges that would not stop a .308.
Now the AK-47 with 7.62 x 39 is something else, and comparing that to an AR-15 5.56mm isn't quite so favourable. The right compromise ? The Swedes had it close with the Ljungman 6.5mm semi-auto, also the Czech 7.62 x 45, or the 7mm British bullpup mentioned. A well designed modern rifle could handle something like a 6.5mm on full auto or burst with a reasonable amount of control, giving the most lethal combination for most situations.
First off the NATO round is 7.62 x 51 mm (.308), the 7.62 x 54 is Russian.
It was supposedly a downsize from larger .30 caliber rounds, but many of the old guards were unprepared to sacrifice range and hitting power, sufficient to create a lighter bullet suitable for a fully automatic assault rifle - though the HK G3 and Swiss SiG are notable exceptions. Since then, the switch to 5.56 was a far more drastic change, and in my opinion overdid it.
The supposed advantage of carrying twice as much 5.56 ammunition seems to be outweighed by the tendency to spray on full auto, instead of well placed shots. I know there are times when that is what is called for, especially when surprised at closer ranges, street fighting, ambushes etc. But overall, the tendency to adopt such small calibers seems like a poor substitute for good training and marksmanship if you have the time to develop it. Having a rifle light and fast shooting for the semi-trained masses, may not be the best choice for a smaller cadre of professional soldiers. As an historical example, the peacetime British Army before WWI had as basic rifle qualification, the ability to hit a target ten (or fifteen ?) times in a minute at 900 yards, with iron sights, and 10 rounds on target in 30 seconds at 600 yards. The Germans thought they were coming under long range MG fire when they first encountered the Lee Enfield at Mons. Not everyone aspires to that performance, but myself I would rather not be caught dead armed with a 5.56mm rifle in some tactical situations.
1. greater range - I would put my money on a good shooter with an FAL at >600 yards, over two guys armed with AR-15s.
2. windage - in a modest cross-wind, load up some tracer and see what happens to your 5.56mm bullets on full auto vs .308.
3. bush light cover - even at the shorter ranges, lighter faster bullets will be deflected by twigs, whereas the .308 can go through the bole of 4-6" diameter softwood trees.
4. hitting power - Supposedly the tendency of the .223 to tumble on impact equalizes this somewhat, but I would not count on wounding enemy soldiers to tie down adversaries in battle conditions. Numerous stories of assailants with six 5.56 wounds still standing. One hit from a .308 in the center of mass or even a limb, and that man is down. They don't even allow .22 caliber arms for hunting for that reason, its considered 'inhumane'.
5. Flak vests, light composite armors - substantially reduce the impacts from light bullets at ranges that would not stop a .308.
In essence, there is still a place for both.
Now the AK-47 with 7.62 x 39 is something else, and comparing that to an AR-15 5.56mm isn't quite so favourable. The right compromise ? The Swedes had it close with the Ljungman 6.5mm semi-auto, also the Czech 7.62 x 45, or the 7mm British bullpup mentioned. A well designed modern rifle could handle something like a 6.5mm on full auto or burst with a reasonable amount of control, giving the most lethal combination for most situations.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Ah yes, wind and foliage were two things I forgot to mention. Good points all around.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Thanks for catching that (and boo to all of you who didn't correct me the first time
). Way too many .30 cals out there.Well actually 5.56 will easily penetrate all levels of soft armor and come out the other side at quite a distance.
And the hard armor that most modern armies use today will stop 7.62x51mm.
Assuming the threat is truly in a state of mind where they don't care about dying, if the x number of shots don't damage vital organs such as the heart, lungs, ect, then it really isn't too surprising that immediate incapacitation doesn't happen.
But this is as true for 7.62mm and just about any other rifle cartridge/caliber. If the wounds are superficial or not immediately life threatening then what does "hitting power" matter? Yeah generally the bigger, heavier and faster the round, the more energy transferred to the target, the bigger the wound channel but it still has to be put in the area of the body where the major organs are for it to truly be immediately effective.
Then again the mental shock of being shot alone would cause most men to drop immediately. That's probably why there are many reports and accounts of incapacitation with shots to arms, legs, flesh wounds and grazes. You're mind is telling you that you're shot and are dying and all of a sudden killing that nearby enemy isn't nearly as important.
Ultimately: Shot placement = stopping power > [insert caliber/cartridge] = stopping power.
As for hunting, hunters are primarily concerned with immediately killing the animal and minimizing its suffering as much as possible which requires a good degree of accuracy, power and penetration over long distances which, as you noted, the 5.56/.223 is unsuited for.
Though any hunter will tell you that even with a .300 win, if you don't get the animal in the right spot with the first shot, then they're going to be tracking that wounded animal for quite a while.
Well its true some of these smaller calibers have impressive penetration against Kevlar, at some ranges anyway.
And yeah +
nobody can say hitting the target first isn't more important than hitting power. Being able to sweep an arc on full auto at first contact is a definite advantage.
cav scout
The Continuum
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- Messages
- 2,630
The NZ Brigadier quoted in the OP isn't quite right with his facts. As you guys have rightly pointed out, there is a big difference between:
7.62x51 Nato- medium/gp machine guns and some sniper/designated marksman rifles.
7.62x54 Russian- machine guns(pkm) and sniper rifles(svd).
7.62x39 Russian- assault rifles like the ak-47/akm.
5.56x45 Nato- assault rifles like the M16A2, M4 carbine and Steyr AUG.
Saying that the max effective range of the 5.56x45 is 300 meters is just plain false.
*The M16A2 has max effective ranges of 550m for point targets (a person) and 800m for area targets (groups of people).
*An M4 (with a shorter barrel and different rifling twist) has a slightly less stable bullet (more lethal on impact because it tumbles better btw
) than the M16A2 and has max effective ranges of 500m (point) and 600m (area).
*For the Steyr Aug in question it's 450m and 500m.
So how does the 7.62x39 assault rifle cartridge compare? It's bigger so it must have a greater max effective range right? Not so much... The AK-47/AKM has a max effective range of 300m for point targets. Why? Because this is how it is designed. The Soviet Union wanted an assault rifle that emphasized firepower and reliability. You can drop the thing in mud and get it all fouled up and it will still fire because of the loose tolerances. The sights are also pretty basic and not designed to be zero'd to the individual shooter (Soviet doctrine had 1 soldier zero the weapons for his entire platoon).
Overall the ballistics between 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 are pretty similar. The rounds that are hitting our soldiers from a distance in Afghanistan are coming from 7.62x54 PKM's and SVD's.
7.62x51 Nato- medium/gp machine guns and some sniper/designated marksman rifles.
7.62x54 Russian- machine guns(pkm) and sniper rifles(svd).
7.62x39 Russian- assault rifles like the ak-47/akm.
5.56x45 Nato- assault rifles like the M16A2, M4 carbine and Steyr AUG.
Saying that the max effective range of the 5.56x45 is 300 meters is just plain false.
*The M16A2 has max effective ranges of 550m for point targets (a person) and 800m for area targets (groups of people).
*An M4 (with a shorter barrel and different rifling twist) has a slightly less stable bullet (more lethal on impact because it tumbles better btw
) than the M16A2 and has max effective ranges of 500m (point) and 600m (area). *For the Steyr Aug in question it's 450m and 500m.
So how does the 7.62x39 assault rifle cartridge compare? It's bigger so it must have a greater max effective range right? Not so much... The AK-47/AKM has a max effective range of 300m for point targets. Why? Because this is how it is designed. The Soviet Union wanted an assault rifle that emphasized firepower and reliability. You can drop the thing in mud and get it all fouled up and it will still fire because of the loose tolerances. The sights are also pretty basic and not designed to be zero'd to the individual shooter (Soviet doctrine had 1 soldier zero the weapons for his entire platoon).
Overall the ballistics between 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 are pretty similar. The rounds that are hitting our soldiers from a distance in Afghanistan are coming from 7.62x54 PKM's and SVD's.
cav scout
The Continuum
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- Messages
- 2,630
Well the way I read the op it sounds like this thread is about comparing nato and russian assault rifles:
I'd say that the days of the battle rifle are well behind us. They started being supplanted by assault rifles during wwII and the world hasn't looked back... except with the relatively recent development of the squad/section designated marksman which I think is a very good thing.
