Is it time to rethink 5.56mm rounds?
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Don't look down on the bow and arrow. I can hit a human at 100m with those.I fully agree that the 7.62 has a hitting power advantage. But I disagree with the 5.56 being called to be only suitable for shooting rabbits. If you'd like to volunteer to be a rabbit, I'd gladly demonstrate.
Don't look down on the bow and arrow. I can hit a human at 100m with those.
wow ! ... the olympics archery event is only 70 meters ....
you're our medal hope ! ... someone call the Singapore Sports Council now ! ....
-
No, Olympics event is 90meters i think. Last SEA Games they did 90, 70, 50, 30.
100meters is just a +10 Meters nia. Under nice conditions... hitting a 122cm face is very much possible.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
No, Olympics event is 90meters i think. Last SEA Games they did 90, 70, 50, 30.
100meters is just a +10 Meters nia. Under nice conditions... hitting a 122cm face is very much possible.
it is 70 meters now ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery_at_the_Summer_Olympics
which makes you ... our olympics hopeful ....
-
LOL! Almost anyone that has spent a few years in Target Archery can hit 90 meters with mostly +5 score per arrow (within blue rings, about the size of a man standing face front) under optimal conditions ( Low wind, just the right amount of sun).
Unfortunately, Olympics or Sea Games standards require pretty insane scores to stand a chance. I'm not that level yet... maybe some day I hope.
-
Aiyah we all know bow and arrow are extremely deadly weapons, like I mean did you see how Rambo used it? Can satay people like siao and also explode sia.
Also his arrows don't have a ballistic fight path, they seem to straight fly like hypervelocity railgun rounds.
-
this is cute ...
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Don't look down on the bow and arrow. I can hit a human at 100m with those.I fully agree that the 7.62 has a hitting power advantage. But I disagree with the 5.56 being called to be only suitable for shooting rabbits. If you'd like to volunteer to be a rabbit, I'd gladly demonstrate.
I was born in the year of the rabbit. So I had better not volunteer :)
-
Hrm?
7.62mm rounds are certainly more lethal.... but they're heavier too....
If you ask me to choose between carrying 120x 5.56mm rounds and 90x 7.62mm rounds.... give me the former, anytime.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
this is cute ...
Yeah man, saw this video before... really awesome. The bean was just crazy.But the arrow on arrow one is not unheard of. I've seen it happen twice in the past 2 years already. And on both occassions, the nocks for the first arrow were shattered by the 2nd arrow, resulting in a shaft-in-shaft type of penetration. Cos the nocks are still in place, its even harder to achieve this kinda "stunt."
This is a nicer video in my opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLSXS4cRFFI
Back to topic!
7.62 definitely hits harder and penetrates more. But the 5.56 still has greater wounding effect when it penetrates flesh.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
OMG! Was David Hasselhoff one of the judges in that video??? -
Originally posted by Meia Gisborn:
The problem with shooting steel or steel-jacketed projectiles in a firearm is you are going to increase the wear in the bore of the barrel by several orders of magnitude vis-a-vis traditional copper-jacketed projectiles, as steel is significantly harder than copper.
That's true. But u dun have to issue or use steel projectiles during training. Only use them in war time. That's why our sm1 tank is issue AP-wing rnd at war time only. Beside, sg isnt gg to fight a war lasting more then a yrs.
-
I remember one of my instructor in OETI telling us that 1 hit from a 7.62 round will most likely kill but for a 5.56, you may kil, you may not kill the fella, leaving the fella hit in agony and pain.
Wounding more enemies have a greater pychological and logistical impact than killing more enemies. as the cries and screams from fallen comrades are demoralizing than dead comrades and the logistics involved to evacuate and care for the wounded will put a bigger strain on the enemy.
This may sound cruel but which war isn't. And believe it or not, this is also one of the reasons (never officially acknowledged) the US chose the 5.56 over the 7.62.
-
Some people are looking to the 6.5mm Grendel, and it looks promising.
But personally I think each round has its advantages and disadvantages, with current conventional propellent technology there's only so much performance you can get out of a bullet for each kind of round, so if you want hard hitting you've to give up ammo space and face harder recoil and vice versa the other way.
-
-
Originally posted by BabyRex:
I remember one of my instructor in OETI telling us that 1 hit from a 7.62 round will most likely kill but for a 5.56, you may kil, you may not kill the fella, leaving the fella hit in agony and pain.
Wounding more enemies have a greater pychological and logistical impact than killing more enemies. as the cries and screams from fallen comrades are demoralizing than dead comrades and the logistics involved to evacuate and care for the wounded will put a bigger strain on the enemy.
This may sound cruel but which war isn't. And believe it or not, this is also one of the reasons (never officially acknowledged) the US chose the 5.56 over the 7.62.
Depends on 7.62 fired from what. 7.62 shot from an GPMG would probably take limb clean off. But a 7.62 from an AK might not be as wounding as you think. Its about the muzzle velocity if i am not wrong.
-
http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/chinacomplex.htm
Interesting finding.... 5.8mm rounds?
-
no paragraphing very hard to read leh...
-
Originally posted by eagle:
no paragraphing very hard to read leh...
Read the link , better la... -
Depends on 7.62 fired from what. 7.62 shot from an GPMG would probably take limb clean off. But a 7.62 from an AK might not be as wounding as you think. Its about the muzzle velocity if i am not wrong.
The AK 7.62mm is a different round from the NATO 7.62mm (your GPMG ammo), it is a cut-down round designed to be fired from Assualt Rifles and hence has far less energy then the NATO 7.62, which is a "full" sized round.
But it still packs more wallop then the 5.56mm, though it might be less wounding because sometimes it just goes right through the target as opposed to the fragmentation effects of some 5.56mm rounds at some engagement distances.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
The AK 7.62mm is a different round from the NATO 7.62mm (your GPMG ammo), it is a cut-down round designed to be fired from Assualt Rifles and hence has far less energy then the NATO 7.62, which is a "full" size round.
But it still packs more wallop then the 5.56mm, though it might be less wounding because sometimes it just goes right through the target as opposed to the fragmentation effects of some 5.56mm rounds at some engagement distances.
yepp. NATO and east bloc 7.62 shld be diff if remb correct... the 7.62 "Long" and 7.62 "short" rite? i think the FNFAL used the 7.62 long and the aks use the short....the long had better range and killing power..
read it off wiki on rhodesia-smth if i remb correct....some time ago...
------
noo..... there goes my 100th post.... T_T
-
Yeah but the recoil on the full NATO 7.62mm has always been an issue, and there's the issue of the 5.56mm causing more tissue damage if it fragments.
7.62mm is powerful, but it tends to go all the way through the target unless it strikes bone or something like that, unless you drive it at higher speeds it will not fragment.
I imagine double tapping would be tougher on 7.62mm given it throws the rifle about more, but a single hit from it will be pretty bad.
-
YEah! the NATO round is in 7.62x51mm usually on a 144 grain to 147 grain depending on the country of origin!
RUssian ammo is 7.62x39mm ( they claim to be 7.62 but it is not in .308" but .310" diameter bullet) and AK bullet usually comes in 122 grain!
DaveC!
-
YEah Agree that the recoil of hte 7.62 NATO is good in semi auto but beyond that on a shoulder handheld rifle like a G3, L1A1 or other MBR ( main battle rifle) the full auto is not very controllable compared to the 5.56 equivilent ! Even for me, the AKM in 7.62x39 is not very controllable in full auto compared to say an M4 or AUG in 5.56.
Again! it is also in the training and the type of weapon implemnted! defeintly need a heavier bullet for the 5.56 ... maybe a 68 or 77 grain bullet instead of the 55 and 62 grain currently use!
DaveC
-
Perhaps 6mm is the best compromise. More lethality but without too much an increase in weight.
[quote]..
The 6mm round would probably weigh between 90 and 100 grains, and utilize a cartridge case between 40 and 45mm. The basic idea is that the 6mm would give infantry rifles...
greater reach and penetration against hard targets, and it would allow machine gunners to carry more ammunition. It would also give the latter group lighter recoil than the 7.62x51mm. Supposedly, the 6mm rounds the Army has experimented with have equal or better penetration than the 7.62x51mm round at normal infantry combat distances. One common caliber would also simplify supply.Anyway, for years, the 6mm concept has been put way back on the proverbial back burner, due to the laws of inertia and the fact that other NATO countries seem to be perfectly happy with the status quo--a status quo, by the way, that we, the United States, basically forced on them. Since then, our military has been hesitant to try to force yet another caliber of our choosing on them. However, now might just be the time. Recently, the 6mm concept has come back under the military's radar as a result of the rather lackluster performance of the 5.56mm against Al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, not to mention the equally problematic effectiveness against hostile Somali gunmen in Mogadishu back in '93. Our 62gr M855 round, hyperstabilized by a very fast 1 in 7 barrel twist rate, has apparently been zipping right through the skinny Al-Qaeda, just like it did the Somali's, instead of yawing or going frangible inside them. It's therefore been taking multiple rounds, as many as 4-5 rounds, to put a single man down. Needless to say, this is not what you want in a CQB scenario....[/quote]
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=282
Or maybe the 6.5mm grendel?
I think arguments that the 5.56 wounds and therefore increases the burden on the enemy is nonsense. When I shoot someone, I want him to go down and stay down! Besides, the argument that the 5.56 is superior because it wounds instead of kills can only be made if the 5.56 consistently wounds - which it doesn't. It sometimes kills and sometimes wounds, like most other rounds out there.
-
Originally posted by BabyRex:
I remember one of my instructor in OETI telling us that 1 hit from a 7.62 round will most likely kill but for a 5.56, you may kil, you may not kill the fella, leaving the fella hit in agony and pain.
Wounding more enemies have a greater pychological and logistical impact than killing more enemies. as the cries and screams from fallen comrades are demoralizing than dead comrades and the logistics involved to evacuate and care for the wounded will put a bigger strain on the enemy.
This may sound cruel but which war isn't. And believe it or not, this is also one of the reasons (never officially acknowledged) the US chose the 5.56 over the 7.62.
Actually the US free admits that the potential to wound was a factor in choosing the 5.56mm round. The logic is that if you kill a man you take one man out of the fight. But a wounded man will need two other men to evacuate him. But the main reason the US went with such a light round is the weight. Pound for pound you can carry about 3 of the lighter rounds for every 7.62x51 round.
Also the 7.62 round is worthless for selective fire. But I still prefer it over the lighter round. Even though it takes a lot more training to master the heavier rifle.