Which do you think will serve the average grunt the best: 5.6mm, 6.8mm, or 7.62mm?

Question

Our boys in Afghanistan reported back pretty quickly in 2001 that it took three or more center-mass hits with their .223s to stop the Afghani tribesmen. I'm inclined to think that a move up to 6.8mm or .30 cal. is warranted.

Any thoughts on this? Do you know if the military is considering a larger caliber for general issue?

Answer 1

6.8 is probably best. As far as 7.62, are you asking about 7.62x39 (Russian) or 7.62x51 (nato) or 7.62x57(Russian)? Part of the theory behind the 5.56 is that most engagements happen at less than 200m, except when they don't, like in Afghanistan. Even out of a 20" barrel the 5.56 loses effectiveness past 200m. The standard sniper round is 7.62x51 but that doesn't really have the range necessary in the mtns of Afghanistan so troops have been using .338 and .50 cal. In Bahgdad 5.56 and 7.62x51 seem to be adequate. One of the other problems with 5.56 is that it is dependent on fragmentation for effectiveness, and so it needs to be going quite fast. The spec ops guys found that (among other problems) the shorty M4s with 11.5" and 14" barrels could not generate the velocity necessary to achieve fragmentation. If a short barrel is necessary then a heavier round should be used. I thing something right around 100gr and mv ~2800 fps would be best.
As far as carrying it, 5.56 is much lighter than the others. I think it is less than 1/2 the weight of 7.62x51. Of course if you have to shoot the target 3 times as much to incapacitate him then the weight advantage goes away.

Answer 2

I had a marine friend in Vietnam, He told me it took up to six center mass shots with his m-16 before a vietcong went down. He also told me that the Viet Cong used to work themselves up into a mad frenzy before charging, which he contributed to as some of the reason. Very similarly the moores did the same thing when the marines stormed tripoli and the result was the upgrade from the standard .38 pistol to the .45 1911. I would pick the 5.56 over the 7.62 x51 preferably if they changed the type of round from a fmj to a ballistic tip, hollowpoint or soft point 62grain or above.

Anywho,

The 7.62x51 although an effective round is too heavy. Would you rather have five clips of effective rounds or 12 magazines of semi-effective rounds?

The 6.8 is the optimized round theoretically, and the one I would choose overall. Not only for its weight vs. effectiveness, but also because it has a flatter trajectory. I haven't shot it yet, but I look forward to it when the price comes down.

Oh, also Mr. Griffinpilots1965 don't waste your money on the sks, even though it is priced cheaply, there is a reason. Some of them malfunction, they fire automatic occasionaly when you realease the bolt it and its a heavy gun, inaccurate and puting on accessories would cost you just as much as spending a little extra dough on a good ak clone or better yet a mini-30. If you like the 7.62x39 I would opt for one of those over the sks anytime. You will probably be happier with one them.

Answer 3

It depends on what you want to do. A heavier round requires a heavier rifle and creates more weight per round. With spray and pray a lighter round would work better, because 100% of the bullets might not hit a thing. Many European forces are taught zone shooting, which is to all shoot in a zone and not to actually aim the weapon. That requires a lot of rounds so again a lighter round is more useful.

For a zone, sit and wait defense, against minor forces, I'd say a heavier round would be better. The .30 cal elk round, the 9mm elk round or even a 10 mm elk round (elk refering to the powder load used by hunters to bring down an elk) would probably be more effective. Powder in the brass also achieved better firepower. You wouldn't think a .17 bullet could do much, but in a .30 cal sized brass and that bullet creates some major holes that look like they were created by larger sized rounds. More powder also creates more kick which hurts the accuracy with a multi burst and target changing (hiting one target and adjusting to hit another target) speed of the shooter. That's why cops carry 9 mm pistols with short brass and not .45 cal pistols with long brass.

A weapon change would require a total revamping not to mention making unforseen adjustments of the military. Remember that the new AK rifles are downsizing theri round and after 60 years or so of trials to replace the M-16, the U.S. military is still looking. The new weapon system (yep a whole system including electronics that attaches to the soldier's clothing, helmet and rifle) uses the M-14 and its 7.62 round.

Answer 4

The 5.56 round has the famous "full metal jacket"

It is not designed to be a movie star round. It as previously stated is designed to wound. The logic being that most "hits" will not be center mass.

This round is designed to hit bone and tumble.
I once saw a full bird Colonels son shoot him self in the foot to get out of training.

Well obviously the Private E-1 with a silver spoon in his mouth did not expect what happened next.

We were on a range that used concrete culvert pipe for "foxholes" There was a cement floor. The bullet passed through his boot, foot, sole of boot and hit concrete. Bullet then richocheted and reentered sole, foot and found lower leg bone. The round (now a crushed sharp edged mass of copper and lead) continued tumbling along the bone and lodged in Jr GI's knee.

He lost his leg from the knee down. He never had to train again.

Point is the round is designed to wound. It takes two able bodied soldiers to carry one wounded one. Thus one shot, three people not shooting back at you.

Of course this only holds true if the men on the other side respect their fighting friends as much as the American military does. We have a creed, No Man Left Behind.

And yes the fact the round is lighter is a huge advantage. When I was in Iraq 15 years ago. All we carried into combat was ammunition, spare radio batteries, mortar rounds and water.

No food, no socks, no sleeping bags etc etc.

Answer 5

The trouble with the .223 is that the velocity is so great and the ordinance is so small that the round easily passes through the target. I will be purchasing some rifles soon and am opting for the SKS using the 7.62 round because I believe it (7.62) is the average best for most situations including self defense and hunting.

Answer 6

I always prefer a bigger caliber weapon, just do to physics. I keep hearing rumors the Army is going to go back to the .45 ACP for a sidearm because the 9x19MM is underpowered from what they are finding in Afghanistan.

To be honest, I know that the M-16 and the M-4 are supposed to be accurate but can be jam-o-matics. And as rugged as the Kalashnikov is I'm surprised we haven't discussed adopting it as our service weapon.

Answer 7

As I understand it the .223 is the NATO standard round. Actually I have been told that it was chosen precisely because it is less lethal that other choices. The theory is that it costs an enemy much more to take care of a wounded solder than a dead one.

Answer 8

I'd be interested in knowing where you got that info. the 5.56 round will put you down "donotpassgo" much better than the 7.62 will. also a soldier can carry more ammo with the smaller round.

Answer 9

7.62