The problem with the 7.62x51 is it's excessively powerful. More recoil then needed. Heavier ammo weight and magazines reducing the amount the soldier can carry. Usually only 20 rounds because 30 round .308 magazines are too big. And the weapons made to chamber them are heavy. The problem with the 5.56x45 is it's not always powerful enough. Many reports suggest the rounds is lacking in lethality, and barrier penetration. The 6.5 grendel and 6.8 SPC seem like the ideal "goldilocks" rounds. Not too powerful, and not too weak. In Afghanistan, they are fielding more and 7.62x51 to make up for the 5.56x45's short comings. A round like the 6.5 grendel could do the role of both rounds and simply logistics and training.
Evolution of warfare and bullet calibers
- Thread starter Faneca
- Start date
The M193 actually suffered from lethality problems also. An excerpt from Dr.Martin Fackler's report.
"
Practically speaking the difference in total weight say between 5.56 and 7.62 and ammo carried is not as critical as even with 5.56 your infantryman would burn through the total standard ammo load under a single minute if they would just start "spamming" burst and reload magazine after magazine while firing like crazy, as ammo conservation and fire discipline regarding that is still a concern to this day. If we're considering major ammo load say 10 boxes of 250 bullet 7.62 MG belts then the weight difference would be notable, but then again soldiers don't carry that kind of load (which makes it more manageable in the long run despite being heavier by some extent) unless you're willing to argue logistical point that say 2500 bullets of 7.62 is heavier and therefore consumes more petrol to lorry around with trucks or you could load more ammunition in trains and ships of 5.56 than you could 7.62 would be a dealbreaker, and in case of ships and trains it would make even less difference unless you're overloading it with holypileofammunition and taking comparasion between time vs fuel consumed to the extreme.
(Also as much as too much weight is obviously a problem when it comes to basic ammunition setup and adjusting your gear it's mostly about distributing the weight correctly\properly, so 2 to 3kg total weight difference to a properly trained soldier that has reasonable endurance... well, it's not going to suddenly make him pass out or be grossly inefficient unless we'd take yet another fairly extreme comparasion of how long it takes to run 10 miles with standard gear w/ 5.56 magazines and same w/ 7.62, I'm willing to bet that the general difference would be rather small.)
Last edited:
I thought that now i might add this in to complement what i said about 6.8mm and 7mm earlier.
So far my favourite for best round is 6.8x43mm SPC or 7x43mm NATO. Both would've filled the roles that 7.62x51mm and later 5.56x45mm NATO fill now.
So far my favourite for best round is 6.8x43mm SPC or 7x43mm NATO. Both would've filled the roles that 7.62x51mm and later 5.56x45mm NATO fill now.
You do realize that it wasn't ever actually adopted by NATO, right? I mean, people can call it whatever they want, but it doesn't make it true.
If you'll read what i posted before, you'll realise that i indeed called it different names. In this case i called it 7mm NATO because it was considered for adoption but ultimately strong-armed out by the more vocal competition.
The problems our boys are having right now regarding too short an effective range of a typical squad, esp. if the enemy is behind cover or is wearing body armour, can quite easily be solved by adding atleast two battle rifles pr. squad.
Two of the new modular G3's (Currently used by Norway) or FN SCAR H's pr. squad and the effective range of our squads would be significantly increased.
Ofcourse having two std. calibers pr. squad will put more stress on logisitics, but unless we switch to an entirely new std. caliber then that's the best we can do for our boys.
Personally I think the best that can happen is if the 6.5mm Grendel is accepted as the new std. NATO caliber sometime soon.
Two of the new modular G3's (Currently used by Norway) or FN SCAR H's pr. squad and the effective range of our squads would be significantly increased.
Ofcourse having two std. calibers pr. squad will put more stress on logisitics, but unless we switch to an entirely new std. caliber then that's the best we can do for our boys.
Personally I think the best that can happen is if the 6.5mm Grendel is accepted as the new std. NATO caliber sometime soon.
Saying that "X" is the best in the world is always amusing. (replace X with anything)
But nevertheless RK-series weapons are excellent. Old school, yes. Not the "best", no. But I would go as far as to say that they are indeed excellent when one has to really fight with the weapon. It is a very good tool to destroy the enemy by shooting or by beating him into pulp.
They are very low maintenance, very reliable, mechanically sturdy weapons. They are also accurate enough to compete with the top AR's and fire a bullet that is an excellent compromise to our little conditions where engagement ranges are almost always short. Modularity in terms of picatinny has been often complained about, but these days you can add all the possible rail you might want as there are many companies producing compatible railed fore-ends.
Main negatives are the weight (of course) and the thin non-freefloated barrel. Latter is not an issue on set range, but in variable conditions where methods of shooting and support vary a lot there can be an amazingly large shift in the point-of-impact depending on how you grip and support the weapon.
7.62x39 gets often bad rep for being an inaccurate cartridge, but in my experience getting under 1.5 MOA with SAKO/Valmet rifle and Lapua cartridges is nothing out of ordinary. IMHO anything under 3MOA is anyway sufficient for an AR.
But overall, very good gun.
It's not bad weapon at all by any means, it would be rather accurate to say (pardon the pun) that in my case I've heard the joke too many times to the point it ceased being funny in its original context.
You guys also have to keep in mind that warfare evolved. It's not about using the biggest caliber you can to kill every people you aim at. For example in the Swiss army (which is mandatory for every young men 18+) we are teached that aiming for any vital part of the body is only a last resort and we should always first try to incapacitate the enemy.
It's rather obvious thing to aim at the centre of the mass, regardless what kind of target we're dealing with as unless you have accurate weapon, you're a good shooter and the conditions are favourable you could go "hurr imma shooting the guy's left half of brain off, or durr trickshot to puncture his lung while cracking the ribcage and causing extra lethal wound" (which still would be awfully impractical for the most part), let alone the simple fact it doesn't need to be lethal wound for soldier to combat ineffective or possibly out of action.
I recommend reading this: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/The Next Generation.htm
It's funny that we ended up with the 5.56 when the British almost had it spot on in the 50's with their 7mm EM2 round, something people are now starting to realize with the very similar 6.5mm Grendel.
It's funny that we ended up with the 5.56 when the British almost had it spot on in the 50's with their 7mm EM2 round, something people are now starting to realize with the very similar 6.5mm Grendel.
I'd have to say that playing long missions on arma gives you a taste of the caliber wars. I am and will state it now, biased towards one hit wonders .
I've found it easy enough to stay under the limits, usually 45KG with all gear or lighter depending on the situation with either caliber. In my humble opinion if you have the ammo conservation and trigger control then you are fine with either. I am the one guy in my unit who can count the times ive run out of ammo on one hand.
Lighter ammo is great if it works, Im well aware that 5.56 seems to be under effective in ARMA 2 ACE, some times to the point of ridiculous. (in one case 30 rounds on the torso of a russian spetz wearing heavy body armour does not even throw the guy off kilter. 1-3 7.62x51's later and he is sipping vodka with stalin in hell ). At least in the context of ARMA i find it to be diminishing returns, you take .223 and then grab some 300-500 rnds of ammo, or you take 7.62x51 and take ~200. the 7.62 I find myself placing one or two shots on any target under 400M, more if over. With 5.56 the 1-2 shot guaranteed range is about 75-150M. Beyond that you'r looking at firing 2-5 rnds.
To me, ammo weight aside that just means more time spent concentrating on one target, more time spent reloading, and more time not scanning for the guy you don't see.
edit: @ Unus, its actually surprising how close the .280 british was/is to the grendel/spc.
.I've found it easy enough to stay under the limits, usually 45KG with all gear or lighter depending on the situation with either caliber. In my humble opinion if you have the ammo conservation and trigger control then you are fine with either. I am the one guy in my unit who can count the times ive run out of ammo on one hand.
Lighter ammo is great if it works, Im well aware that 5.56 seems to be under effective in ARMA 2 ACE, some times to the point of ridiculous. (in one case 30 rounds on the torso of a russian spetz wearing heavy body armour does not even throw the guy off kilter. 1-3 7.62x51's later and he is sipping vodka with stalin in hell ). At least in the context of ARMA i find it to be diminishing returns, you take .223 and then grab some 300-500 rnds of ammo, or you take 7.62x51 and take ~200. the 7.62 I find myself placing one or two shots on any target under 400M, more if over. With 5.56 the 1-2 shot guaranteed range is about 75-150M. Beyond that you'r looking at firing 2-5 rnds.
To me, ammo weight aside that just means more time spent concentrating on one target, more time spent reloading, and more time not scanning for the guy you don't see.
edit: @ Unus, its actually surprising how close the .280 british was/is to the grendel/spc.
An interesting point I'm learning about is that most countries are starting to out develop the 5.56 design and are going for the more classic 6mm ballistics
For example:
Chinas national calibre is now the 5.8mm DBP87 which is now being used for everything from squad support, to designated marksmen.
A lot of Russian companies are now pushing for the heavier 9x39mm cartridge which has more stopping and penetration power than the older 5.45
For example:
Chinas national calibre is now the 5.8mm DBP87 which is now being used for everything from squad support, to designated marksmen.
A lot of Russian companies are now pushing for the heavier 9x39mm cartridge which has more stopping and penetration power than the older 5.45
7.62x39 actually has a less flat trajectory than 5.56. The .303 Enfields are what they use to take pot shots at long ranges if I recall correctly. 9x39mm has an even less range and accuracy than 7.62x39 as well (correct me if I am wrong).
And 6.8 SPC was made before the ACR was if I recall correctly.
Your right about the first fact, got a bit carried away there, second one, I don't know the full comparisons between the 7.62x39 and the 9x39, its main competitor i was comparing it to was the 5.45
In any modern army you'll be taught that incapacitated enemies are the best ones since they take up more of the enemies ressources than dead ones.
Also, as an Afghanistan veteran I can assure you that the 5.56 has more than enough power as you hardly have engagement ranges beyond 200 m.