"New" Fn Fal being tested by the Argentine Army

[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.

[Ermac]

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.

The little 5.56x45 will get blown around by the wind more then the 7.62x51 will, which is one reason why it's not used by snipers. Against barriers, the 7.62x51 will tear through trees and concrete better. Not to mention the 5.56x45 will be deflected more easily. To be fair, the 5.56x45 was given more chance to mature then the 7.62x51.

Originally Posted by 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.

That I will agree with you on.

[Jcordell]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's a neat little load. Makes me thing of Bolshevik agents sneaking around Instanbul in the 1930's. Don't know why that particular city is in my imagination.