Is 5.56 mm bullet a wrong choice over7.62 mm ?

[Babbar-Khalsa]

Actually NO.

The 5.56 will travel more because of the higher velocity and higher kinetic energy.
the 5.56 will travel more because of lower wind resistence.

7.62 will have a more stable trajectory. i.e it is more difficult to change the trajectory of a 7.62 round compared to 5.56.

Disagree here also ......its a proven fact that 7.62 travels more (500-800 meters) while 5.56 is (300-500 meters)....also because of higher mass , 7.62 will have more power and more K.E.

 

[gambit]

Disagree here also ......its a proven fact that 7.62 travels more (500-800 meters) while 5.56 is (300-500 meters)....also because of higher mass , 7.62 will have more power and more K.E.

If the round's accuracy is bad enough at that 500-800 meters, then 'spray and pray' is the best tactic supported by plenty of ammo, which we know is not likely with the average soldier-shooter.

For urban environment, the most likely and therefore reasonably 'typical' combat distance will be around 10-20 meters. At this distance, the 5.56's ability to tumble and rapidly deform upon impact have the same physical effect as that of the larger caliber. Keep in mind that the first priority in combat is not to kill but to remove a fighter from the fight. Of course killing him is desirable but not always possible. More like most likely not possible. So if you can remove him from the fight by severing his leg with the smaller 5.56 then what is the point of carrying the larger and heavier load of 7.62? Larger is not always more efficient at performing a specific task.

But once the distance is out to several hundreds meters, then accuracy and precision rules the day. The Geneva Convention demands that medic treats all combatants. Does not matter if the wounded is from the other side. If the fighter is hors-de-combat...

Hors de combat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...refer to soldiers who are incapable of performing their military function.

...Then the medic is morally and legally obligated to treat the wounded.

Our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan proved beyond any doubt on the effectiveness of the 5.56 in real combat, not target shooters talking hypothetical situations. Our medics treated Taliban fighters and Iraqi insurgents. The exit holes were horrific. Not many survived. Not one medic doubt the efficacy of the 5.56 in removing a fighter from a fight.

 

[MilSpec]

Disagree here also ......its a proven fact that 7.62 travels more (500-800 meters) while 5.56 is (300-500 meters)....also because of higher mass , 7.62 will have more power and more K.E.

Do you know how much the bullet will drop at 500- 800 meter?... 7.62x 39 engagement range usually is around 250 yards, I shoot this round quite often and I find shooting anything 400 yards is big challenge, whereas 5.56 will shoot with ease at 500 yards. Although it can be argued that terminal ballistics of 7.62 is higher than that of 5.56 Nato. you need to understand that Insas rifle was developed 35 years ago when 6.8 grendel and 6.5spc intermediate cartridges which have better ballistics, recoil and drop ratio.


Btw you stated 7.62 (x 39 i assume) used in sniper rifles, I have never seen any sniper rifle with this round.

 

[ashok321]

I have never seen any sniper rifle with this round.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-w...wrong-choice-over7-62-mm-2.html#ixzz2GWKnUj7Q

there are several....

 

[gambit]

I debated the caliber versus effects versus goal with a young cop once a very long time ago when I was living in Florida. He complained about the issued 9mm as being inadequate because he had to use two rounds to kill an angry and possibly rabid pit bull living on an abandoned property with a nearly wrecked house.

The dog came at him and the first round felled it. Then it got up and hobbled/gimped towards him, still angry and intending to bite. The second round killed it. His point was that if he had a .45 or even a .40, he probably could have killed the dog with the first round.

My counterpoint was that the dog was a threat and the first round severely negated the possibility of that threat being realized, no matter how much the dog wanted. That mean killing the dog was essentially an option. He could have left the dog to die on its own. He could have called animal services and let them deal with it. Or he could have tried to save it, which would have been stupid anyway. The first goal of the fight, which was to remove the fighter from the fight, was accomplished by the first round. The dog was no longer as mobile as it was. It was only its primitive and possibly diseased brain that compelled it to try to continue the fight.

 

[MilSpec]

I have never seen any sniper rifle with this round.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-w...wrong-choice-over7-62-mm-2.html#ixzz2GWKnUj7Q

there are several....

like...please do enlighten.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

In 5.56, bullet fragmentation is the key due to its small size.
I personally use 75 grain HSM ammo. The fragmentation
threshold is about ( to ) 185 yards and can be lethal .
77 grains is even better . It is all about fragmentation / wound
channel & wound depth. 75 grain bthp ammo has a muzzle velocity
of approx 2700 and after the threshold limit, it wont be fast enough
to fragment to lethal level but
I would be very comfortable with my AR with the ammo that i have
and for longer distance , I would have to take more precise shots
to hit a vital organ in lieu of general fragmentation.

Not really getting into the comparison . Just wanted to share my
5.56 round opinion and preference to use it .

 

[Babbar-Khalsa]

I debated the caliber versus effects versus goal with a young cop once a very long time ago when I was living in Florida. He complained about the issued 9mm as being inadequate because he had to use two rounds to kill an angry and possibly rabid pit bull living on an abandoned property with a nearly wrecked house.

The dog came at him and the first round felled it. Then it got up and hobbled/gimped towards him, still angry and intending to bite. The second round killed it. His point was that if he had a .45 or even a .40, he probably could have killed the dog with the first round.

My counterpoint was that the dog was a threat and the first round severely negated the possibility of that threat being realized, no matter how much the dog wanted. That mean killing the dog was essentially an option. He could have left the dog to die on its own. He could have called animal services and let them deal with it. Or he could have tried to save it, which would have been stupid anyway. The first goal of the fight, which was to remove the fighter from the fight, was accomplished by the first round. The dog was no longer as mobile as it was. It was only its primitive and possibly diseased brain that compelled it to try to continue the fight.

A dead enemy is much better than a wounded enemy ...or should i say .. a wounded enemy pose a bigger threat ...because he has been hit and will put 200% effort to hit you by whatever means.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

for 5.56 :-

1. light and small round , so can be carried in more numbers .
2. people have reported that they are more accurate in automatic mode.
3. Less metal is used so more numbers of bullets can be made given same quantity of lead.
4. People argue that it doesnot kill , it injures and the pain is unbearable...
5. Currently a NATO standard and used by modern armies ....

for 7.62 :-

1. Heavy and bigger round .
2. They are highly accurate when used in snipers ....but in automatic mode ..they give much recoil.
3. a time tested bullet used since world -war 2.
4. Its a killing ray .....a shot at right spot till about 500 m and the target is dead.
5. currently used in limited numbers by armies around the world but extensively used in ak-47 and its variants which is choice of weapons for terrorists.

Are we losing our soldiers because of choice of bullet ?

Ahhhh.... The endless debate of which Cartridges is the best. If you ask me all bullet round is more or less the same. It's true that each round offer a certain advantages over the other, but after all it's going back to this old maxim;

"It's not the Gun, but the men behind the Gun" or on this case a bullet.

Over all though because I practices with 5.56 NATO I am very bias toward the 5.56. So I cannot give you an objective answer.

In India cases though the Gun is the problem not which kind of bullet they uses.

 

[Babbar-Khalsa]

Do you know how much the bullet will drop at 500- 800 meter?... 7.62x 39 engagement range usually is around 250 yards, I shoot this round quite often and I find shooting anything 400 yards is big challenge, whereas 5.56 will shoot with ease at 500 yards. Although it can be argued that terminal ballistics of 7.62 is higher than that of 5.56 Nato. you need to understand that Insas rifle was developed 35 years ago when 6.8 grendel and 6.5spc intermediate cartridges which have better ballistics, recoil and drop ratio.


Btw you stated 7.62 (x 39 i assume) used in sniper rifles, I have never seen any sniper rifle with this round.

Good explanation....just one question....wasnot INSAS inducted into IA in 90s ?.....if it was existing for 35 years ....why there was such a delay......i think you meant that research on INSAS started 35 yrs back .

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

A dead enemy is much better than a wounded enemy ...or should i say .. a wounded enemy pose a bigger threat ...because he has been hit and will put 200% effort to hit you by whatever means.

Not true, a wounded enemy is a lot better than a dead enemy. If you manage to take a single enemy out of action by wounding them, his friends will try all they can to save him. So you can have 2, 3 people or even more out of combat.

For example, there is a story of a sniper who purposely wound a person & then someone is trying to help the wounded person, the sniper shoot the person that are trying to help him & wait until someone else come closer to wounded person so that the Sniper can repeat the process.

 

[gambit]

A dead enemy is much better than a wounded enemy ...

Sure.

or should i say .. a wounded enemy pose a bigger threat ...because he has been hit and will put 200% effort to hit you by whatever means.

A wounded enemy is a fighter removed from the fight. No matter how temporarily. This give me an advantage. The exploitation of which is my burden and if I fail it is my fault. When my life is at stake, do you think I am going to give any less than 100%? Sorry, but that 200% is nonsensical hyperbole.

 

[Penguin]

The Next Generation

See under ARMY the Assault Rifles group of articles
BOOKS BY ANTHONY G WILLIAMS

 

[Babbar-Khalsa]

Thanks a lot Penguin.....i recommend everybody on this thread to read it. Some really serious stuff...

 

[Sinnerman108]

Disagree here also ......its a proven fact that 7.62 travels more (500-800 meters) while 5.56 is (300-500 meters)....also because of higher mass , 7.62 will have more power and more K.E.

Sir ... the assumption was based that the 5.56 and 7.62 have the same amount of propellant.

I am pretty sure of the physics.

Sure.


A wounded enemy is a fighter removed from the fight. No matter how temporarily. This give me an advantage. The exploitation of which is my burden and if I fail it is my fault. When my life is at stake, do you think I am going to give any less than 100%? Sorry, but that 200% is nonsensical hyperbole.

I remember talking with some infantry and ordanance fellows, they talked otherwise.

According to them a wounded soldier ( with a landmine filled with nails, nuts, bolts) is much more valuable than a dead one.

A dead soldier is gone, end of story.
Whereas the wounded soldier needs to be carried, given medical attention etc etc. and his constant demands are moral killer.
A wounded soldier will slow the platoon and drain the platoon.

Another technique they told me was the difference in Indian and Pakistani rifles. Both of them have G3s. However Indian G3s come with muzzle compensators while the Pakistanis don't use them.

The reason they gave was that due to the numerical imbalance, and the geographical size imbalance the Pakistani school of thought believes it is more effective to "spray" rather than to pick and shoot.

based on the formulae that if accuracy is constant K, than number of kill = K * # of available targets.