"New" Fn Fal being tested by the Argentine Army

[Nyles]

Originally Posted by Ermac

It's not entirely better otherwise we wouldin't be supplementing 5.56x45 weapons with 7.62x51 weapons. You could argue that with a 5.56x45 you carry more bullets, but with less effect compared to a .308. In Afghanstan, soldiers have to use more bullets to kill the enemy because of the 5.56x45's poor lethality.

Uh, yeah, I'm posting this from Kandahar and I haven't seen anything to suggest the 5.56mm is lacking in lethality, and we use the same ammo the US does. You'd be surprised what one of those little bullets will do at those velocities.

The 7.62mm is great in machine guns and DM rifles, but I don't feel it's suited to use in an infantryman's rifle, and our new .338 sniper rifles (C-14 Timberwolf) shoot circles around the old 7.62mm C3A1s. Our guys have been taking shots at some pretty impressive ranges with them.

[Ermac]

Originally Posted by Nyles

Uh, yeah, I'm posting this from Kandahar and I haven't seen anything to suggest the 5.56mm is lacking in lethality, and we use the same ammo the US does. You'd be surprised what one of those little bullets will do at those velocities.

The 7.62mm is great in machine guns and DM rifles, but I don't feel it's suited to use in an infantryman's rifle, and our new .338 sniper rifles (C-14 Timberwolf) shoot circles around the old 7.62mm C3A1s. Our guys have been taking shots at some pretty impressive ranges with them.

We have the most combat experince with the 5.56x45, more then any other country.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Last...Of_VNhtml.html

[Nyles]

We've been using the 5.56mm for 25 years now, these days the only guys who remember the FN either used it in training or are reservists who didn't get C7s until the 90s. The US doesn't exactly have a monopoly on it.

Even in uniform, you'll always get somebody pushing for their favorite pet piece of kit, whether or not it's actually necessary. That's why were told to bring tanks to Afghanistan. They sat in a FOB for 3 years as quick reaction force, only being brought out to demolish the occastional compound before somebody finally figured out something useful for them to do a few months back.

The 5.56mm issue always gets play with civilian gun enthusiats, because yes, the 7.62mm does have more range and knockdown power, so to civilians (and that includes myself before I actually joined the military) who don't realise all the other factors at play, it seems like the better choice.

Most civilians have never done a 15 kilometer forced march carrying 60lbs without their weapon. Most civilians don't realise that quite frankly, most soldiers don't actually know all that much about guns. Most serious civilian shooters, no BS, have fired more rounds than most infantry Privates (not counting machine guns, which are a completely different proposition).

Is the 7.62mm a better deer round? You bet. In the right hands can it do things that a 5.56mm simply can't? For sure. Is it a better overall combat round than the 5.56mm? No, it's not. Quite simply it's easier carry more of, makes for a lighter and easier to handle weapon, and most important, it's easier to learn shoot accurately with.

You'll always get a few soldiers complaining vocally that we should be using the 7.62mm / 6.8mm / flavour of the month. Most of them just wish the army had more carbines and could make the damned machine guns lighter.