"New" Fn Fal being tested by the Argentine Army

[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.

[Ermac]

I can defenetly understand the weight thing. Weight was the biggest reason why the M14 got replaced. I suppose the recoil advantage of the 5.56x45 might be negated if those recoil reducing designs like Para Ordanence rifle become more popular.

[Markost]

As Nyles said, the 308 is a good cartridge, but it´s heavy and you can´t carry much ammo. Anyway, our army won´t change this cardtrige because there´s no money for buying new rifles or ammo machines for make the 5,56.

But seriously, before changing caliber I´d change the WWII M1 helmets and other old stuff that is still in use.

[Excalibur]

Ppl still use those somewhere in the world?

[Nyles]

Hell, the US used them into the 80s, we had them into the 90s. Is it really that surprising it'd still be in use elsewhere?

[Markost]

The M1 is still the predominant. But recently, some units are using the Rabintex RBX:



(601 Air Assault Regiment during exercises, september 2009)

[Ermac]

Originally Posted by Markost

As Nyles said, the 308 is a good cartridge, but it´s heavy and you can´t carry much ammo. Anyway, our army won´t change this cardtrige because there´s no money for buying new rifles or ammo machines for make the 5,56.

But seriously, before changing caliber I´d change the WWII M1 helmets and other old stuff that is still in use.

I think modern technology could negate most of the issues with the 7.62x51 cartridge. Mind you that almost all the loadings of the 7.62x51 haven't changed since the 1950's. It was never looked into to improve the cartridge. The 7.62x51 is a much more versatile cartridge then the 5.56x45 is. The
5.56x45 will fail in every area when it tries to be like a 7.62x51. I'm not saying the 7.62x51 is the ideal combat cartridge, but changes can be made to it to make it more applicable to modern combat.

[Nyles]

The only areas the 7.62mm beats the 5.56mm is range (but not by much - that little bullet goes pretty far at those velocities, that's why it tends to be the round of choice for varmint hunters), punching through brush and penetration of hard surfaces. I will caveat that by saying the 5.56mm is far more effective at chewing through sandbags, and that not even a .50 cal can penetrate the walls in Kandahar. We literally have to use the APFSDS rounds from the 25mm.

Are there potentially better combat rounds than the 5.56mm? Definately. I'd be very curious to get some real-world experience with the 6.8mm SPC for example. Is it the 7.62mm NATO? No. It's a good machine gun cartridge, I don't see anything better on the horizon. As a combat round in an automatic rifle? It was a compromise in 1954, when even then there were better rounds in development. I'd like to see a man in every section with a 7.62mm DMR, but it is long obsolete in a select-fire infantryman's rifle.

[Jcordell]

Originally Posted by Nyles

The only areas the 7.62mm beats the 5.56mm is range (but not by much - that little bullet goes pretty far at those velocities, that's why it tends to be the round of choice for varmint hunters), punching through brush and penetration of hard surfaces. I will caveat that by saying the 5.56mm is far more effective at chewing through sandbags, and that not even a .50 cal can penetrate the walls in Kandahar. We literally have to use the APFSDS rounds from the 25mm.

Are there potentially better combat rounds than the 5.56mm? Definately. I'd be very curious to get some real-world experience with the 6.8mm SPC for example. Is it the 7.62mm NATO? No. It's a good machine gun cartridge, I don't see anything better on the horizon. As a combat round in an automatic rifle? It was a compromise in 1954, when even then there were better rounds in development. I'd like to see a man in every section with a 7.62mm DMR, but it is long obsolete in a select-fire infantryman's rifle.

Ohhhhh be careful. The .308/45acp Mafia will hunt you down for such blasphemy.

[Nyles]

Well, as long as we're on that note, I'd just like to state publically that my first choice for a military handgun round is 7.62 x 25mm Tokarev.