Why did NATO adopt the 5.56 when it's hitting power was worse than the 7.62 ?

[say1988]

The thing is that you can't really compare an AK-47 to an AR-15. They are designed very differently. The AK typically has a shorter effective range than an AR-15 derivative, due to the construction and tolerances, which were design choices. As you said, they are totally different weapons, by design, and you can't compare the ballistics of bullets fired from them.

You may be able to compare a 7.62mm model in the AK-10X series, but I don't know much about them, beyond that one is chambered in 5.56mm NATO and they are composite constructs. As far as I know the M-14 and other Western battle rifles would provide the best comparison between the capabilities of the rounds (even fired from the same model, jsut rechambered wouldn't be great since you usually build the rifles different depending on the round).

Overall, I would say, it is complex and there are trade-offs and both large and small rounds have their place (though I wouldn't be surprised by an eventual move to an in-between rounds, say 7mm, the logistics of it would be a PITA). I suspect you will find higher quality troops leaning towards the large rounds (I recall reading that US special forces have a strong preference for the M-14 over the M-16), especially those that can take advantage of the better range and accuracy, while your average front-line infantry will stick with the smaller cartridges.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Compare the max effective range of the M-16 with the M-14 or FN FAL.

With their standard sights? Probably not much of a difference.

600+ yards is pushing the limits of iron sights on any rifle as well as the limits of the the human eye. At that range the accuracy will depend more on the shooter's skill and how good his eyesight is.

Beyond that you'll probably need optics just to see the target.

Yeah heavy bullets will not be as affected by wind and will carry more power but what good is it if the target is so far away that you need (x)powered optics? Maybe suitable for specialists but not very practical as a standard all purpose rifle for combat.

(I recall reading that US special forces have a strong preference for the M-14 over the M-16.)

From what I've read the biggest fan of the M16 when it was introduced were special forces. The SAS made it their standard weapon even before the US military, even when the legendary FAL was the British service rifle, and and have used them ever since. I can't remember exact numbers but when SOG forces in Vietnam started using M16s, the amount of ammo that a single soldier could carry went from a few hundred rounds to over a thousand which came in handy because special forces often had to rely on firepower to make up for their small numbers.

 

[Masada]

I'm surprised nobody has pulled you up on this.

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.

Is it even possible to use full auto on an M16 any-more? Australia for instance has, to my knowledge, never had an assault rifle capable of firing full auto. Bugfatty300 can probably tell us what the American standard is, but I'm fairly sure they aren't capable of firing full auto - just burst and single shot.

600+ yards is pushing the limits of iron sights on any rifle as well as the limits of the the human eye. At that range the accuracy will depend more on the shooter's skill and how good his eyesight is.

A man size target is mighty small at that range. Throw in even light cover and short of being painted ten types of garish pink you won't pick it out.

 

[say1988]

From what I've read the biggest fan of the M16 when it was introduced were special forces. The SAS made it their standard weapon even before the US military, even when the legendary FAL was the British service rifle, and and have used them ever since. I can't remember exact numbers but when SOG forces in Vietnam started using M16s, the amount of ammo that a single soldier could carry went from a few hundred rounds to over a thousand which came in handy because special forces often had to rely on firepower to make up for their small numbers

I believe the favouring the M14 came from Black Hawk Down book, so not the best source and has been a while. So I will belive you.

Is it even possible to use full auto on an M16 any-more? Australia for instance has, to my knowledge, never had an assault rifle capable of firing full auto. Bugfatty300 can probably tell us what the American standard is, but I'm fairly sure they aren't capable of firing full auto - just burst and single shot.

The M16A2 and M16A4, the current and previous primary, front-line rifle (the former adopted in the 80s) and the standard M4 are just that, Safe-Single-3 Round burst. Meanwhile the M16A3 and some special variants of the M4 have Safe-Single-Auto, these are used in limited numbers by specific units. The idea being that the burst will provide most of the advantages of full auto while not wasting ammunition with inexperienced or less skilled troops who would fire a sustained stream.

However, there are plenty of automatic variants out there, for example the Canadian C7and C8.

In comparison, the M14 and FAL were usually limited to semi-automatic fire.

 

[Masada]

The M16A2 and M16A4, the current and previous primary, front-line rifle (the former adopted in the 80s) and the standard M4 are just that, Safe-Single-3 Round burst.

So that criticism simply isn't warranted now?

 

[say1988]

For the vast majority of US riflemen, no it is not.

 

[Masada]

Misread.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I read the other day about the Australian experience in Vietnam with the FAL. The NVA, having become so used to the lack of penetrating power of the M16's 5.56 round, sought cover behind the rubber trees, expecting them to shield them as they had against the Americans. The Aussies engaged them at close range with their FALs by shooting through the trees. The captured NVA thought they had been engaged with multiple .50 cal units.

 

[vogtmurr]

600+ yards is pushing the limits of iron sights on any rifle as well as the limits of the the human eye. At that range the accuracy will depend more on the shooter's skill and how good his eyesight is.

I don't disagree with this statement, but many modern rifles have some kind of optical battlesight. I think it is a stretch to say the max. effective range of the M-16 derivatives is 550m as some have suggested, 400m is more often quoted. I don't have the ballistic tables handy, but I'm pretty sure the drop is significant, as well as instability and susceptibility to other factors mentioned, that there is neither the accuracy nor residual energy to consider it effective beyond that range, except maybe in a longer barreled squad LMG on bipod. What constitutes 'effective' nowadays ?

Is it even possible to use full auto on an M16 any-more? Australia for instance has, to my knowledge, never had an assault rifle capable of firing full auto. Bugfatty300 can probably tell us what the American standard is, but I'm fairly sure they aren't capable of firing full auto - just burst and single shot..

Is the Steyr AUG in Australia not full auto capable ? If not it should be.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I don't disagree with this statement, but many modern rifles have some kind of optical battlesight.

Most of which are 1x reflex sights designed for quicker target acquisition rather than long range 600+ yard shooting. But yeah since most modern rifles are lightweight compact 5.56mm rifles you can get away with putting low/variable power scopes on them. On something like a typical 9 to 10 lb 7.62 rifle? A step backwards for a standard infantry weapon IMO. Sure you can probably get a typical 7.62 rifle down to the size and weight of a typical 5.56 rifle but recoil, muzzle jump, noise, etc becomes even more of an issue.

I think it is a stretch to say the max. effective range of the M-16 derivatives is 550m as some have suggested, 400m is more often quoted. I don't have the ballistic tables handy, but I'm pretty sure the drop is significant, as well as instability and susceptibility to other factors mentioned, that there is neither the accuracy nor residual energy to consider it effective beyond that range, except maybe in a longer barreled squad LMG on bipod. What constitutes 'effective' nowadays ?

Well the US military trains and requires its rank and file grunts to regularly hit silhouettes at 550 meters, I'd say that's a pretty good point at which to establish max effective range of at least an M16. So we know the 5.56x45mm NATO can achieve that level of accuracy in an M16 (which is already an extremely accurate platform to begin with). If similarly trained shooters with other 5.56 NATO chambered rifles can't achieve the same accuracy then that is more likely a limitation with the rifle rather than the round.

And yeah at 500-600 yards a marksman with an iron sight factory M14 probably will do better than he could with iron sight M16 because of superior long range ballistics of the 7.62 but I don't think it would be that much of an upset.

Of course that would be on a closed range shooting at stationary inanimate silhouettes.

In real combat with the enemy running around, camouflaged, taking cover, shooting back, etc? I wouldn't expect much long range effectiveness with just a rifle regardless of what it was chambered in. Maybe if I were a highly trained sniper or a designated marksman or whatever but of course not every one can be one of those.

 

[Flying Pig]

If I may add my own opinion? I've never had to fire the 5.56 round in anger but I used a .303 as a cadet, before using 7.62mm SLR for most of my life and being issued a 5.56mm SA-80 which luckily I never had cause to use.

5.56 rounds are not less dangerous at all. Basically, because they're smaller, they go faster, and the increased speed not only makes them a little more accurate - imagine you were passing a rugby ball; faster balls fly flatter for longer - but causes major shock on impact with the target which really is deadly. A good hit will typically deal a fatal wound but may not kill instantly, which is a further advantage as the enemy will be in no position to fight back but his mates may well go to his aid and maybe use manpower trying to get him off the battlefield. The reason that they're though of as less dangerous is that for 'bad hits' such as managing to get through a flap of nothing on a half-starved Afghan or hitting a drug-crazed Liberian in the leg, the wound isn't always enough to immediately incapacitate the enemy although they may well die later - however this sort of thing is very rare indeed at 'effective range'.

This brings on the next point - yes, they're effective to a shorter range, but how many firefights happen beyond about 400m? Beyond that range if the enemy's any good at concealment you can barely see them when they're pointed out to you! The old school of thought was that a rifle needed to be able to shoot accurately to 800m, but that's not actually required of a whole section, and the .308 rounds are big and heavy - an SLR with its twenty round magazine was a right pig to carry, let me tell you; and that's not counting extra magazines for your kit or your share of the GPMG ammunition; also .308 (still is, although 5.56mm is used as well).

At close-quarters, 5.56 is a godsend: the Aussies went to Vietnam with their SLRs and filed down the sear and cut short the barrel, making it into an incredibly effective weapon for fighting enemy up to about six feet away - it could put out automatic fire with huge rounds; problem was (and this still exists with the original FAL and the Kalashnikov rifles) that after the first round the recoil was too large to get more than about two rounds off with any degree of accuracy. 5.56, being light and to us old sweats almost without recoil is fantastic for this job: FIBUA drills are so much better when you can just round a corner and put off a burst of three rounds which you know will hit the enemy like a tank - at short range 5.56 actually hits harder than 7.62 for the reasons already discussed. On the ranges as well I found it far easier to hit the targets at up to 400m - in the days when SA-80 effective range was supposed to be 600m (it was recently downgraded to 400m) - with my 'little' L85 than with the old L1.

In real combat with the enemy running around, camouflaged, taking cover, shooting back, etc? I wouldn't expect much long range effectiveness with just a rifle regardless of what it was chambered in. Maybe if I were a highly trained sniper or a designated marksman or whatever but of course not every one can be one of those.

Indeed. As I already said, you rarely see the enemy past 400m unless they're particularly poorly camoflaged, and even though a good soldier probably could hit them at further distances he rarely has to. And what do you mean 'just' a rifle? I wouldn't try for pin-point accuracy at 600m with a MILAN or similar.

 

[Bugfatty300]

And what do you mean 'just' a rifle?

 

[Flying Pig]

Good luck with accurate fire from one of those - although for levelling a grid square and fun factor I quite agree

 

[Bugfatty300]

Good luck with accurate fire from one of those - although for levelling a grid square and fun factor I quite agree

Doesn't need to be accurate like a rifle, it just needs to put a lot of lead into a relatively confined spot to get the same job done.

Although those Browning M2s can be pretty accurate in semi-auto. Carlos Hathcock mounted a scope on one in Vietnam and used it pick off targets over a mile away.

 

[Cutlass]

Good luck with accurate fire from one of those - although for levelling a grid square and fun factor I quite agree

I seem to recall that one of the best US snipers from the Vietnam War used a M2 Browning in single shot mode.

The M2 machine gun has also been used as a long-range sniper rifle, when equipped with a telescopic sight. Soldiers during the Korean War used scoped M2s in the role of a sniper rifle, but the practice was most notably used by US Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock during the Vietnam War. Using an Unertl telescopic sight and a mounting bracket of his own design, Hathcock could quickly convert the M2 into a sniper rifle, using the traversing-and-elevating (T&E) mechanism attached to the tripod to assist in aiming at stationary targets. When firing semi-automatically, Hathcock hit man-size targets beyond 2000 yards—twice the range of a standard-caliber sniper rifle of the time (a .30-06 Winchester Model 70). In fact, Hathcock set the record for the longest confirmed kill at 2,460 yards or 1.3 miles (2,250 m), a record which stood until 2002.

 

[Glassfan]

I don't disagree with this statement, but many modern rifles have some kind of optical battlesight. I think it is a stretch to say the max. effective range of the M-16 derivatives is 550m as some have suggested, 400m is more often quoted. I don't have the ballistic tables handy, but I'm pretty sure the drop is significant, as well as instability and susceptibility to other factors mentioned, that there is neither the accuracy nor residual energy to consider it effective beyond that range...

I fired both the M-14 and M-16 at the Paris Island Range. While the -14 may have greater accuracy due to it's weight (Stability) and it's greater sighting distance, the -16 routinely hit torso targets at 500 yards with ease.

Having said that, the M-16 was adopted because fighting seldom occurs at 500 yards - rather, you need a lot of bullets at closer ranges. The M-16 is lighter as several have pointed out, and it's ammunition is smaller and lighter so you can carry more of it. Though I certainly think it's about time for a new weapon.

And having said that too, has anybody read the splendid article in the recent MHQ about "The People's Gun", - the AK-47?

 

[Flying Pig]

I seem to recall that one of the best US snipers from the Vietnam War used a M2 Browning in single shot mode.

Sorry; I was unclear. The weapons themselves are accurate, but when used 'in role' the rate of fire is such that their accuracy is not comparable to a rifle. When firing rounds by the belt, you're not too concerned about two-minute groupings.

Having said that, the M-16 was adopted because fighting seldom occurs at 500 yards - rather, you need a lot of bullets at closer ranges. The M-16 is lighter as several have pointed out, and it's ammunition is smaller and lighter so you can carry more of it. Though I certainly think it's about time for a new weapon.

I used the M-16 a fair bit and it's lovely; decent enough on the ranges at quite long distances - I did better with it than with the SA-80, but that's probably something to do with the shooter getting on a bit - but very good indeed at short ones. The only reason I can think for getting a replacement would be its size; the SA-80's selling point is that it's tiny and so in CQB, travelling in vehicles and for air assault it's fantastic. Only real criticism I had was that with a bayonet on it's a bit... girlier than the big, butch SLR which if the bayonet didn't work you could just use as a club.

 

[vogtmurr]

the new thing

 

[say1988]

Except the XM8 was cancelled 5 years ago in favour of switching to the M4 (firmly planted in 5.56) as the primary infantry rifle.

 

[Masada]

Is the Steyr AUG in Australia not full auto capable ? If not it should be.

I don't think it is. And I don't know why you would want it to be. (Correction, there's a blocker that disables the feature, but can be manually disengaged).