I have done a lot of research on various firearm cartridges and read a few things about the 5.56x45 NATO. The United States military swapped the 7.62 NATO for the 5.56 NATO in the 60s due to the fact that it produced less recoil and was lighter so more rounds per soldier could be carried. However I have been reading a few articles and listening to some people in the military and the 5.56mm although accurate has some problems with stopping power... I have heard many stories of US troops complaining about the stopping power of the 5.56mm round but due largely to good marksmenship of NATO troops any weakness of the 5.56mm in stopping power if voided if you get a head/heart shot. However I have been reading and hearing complaints of insurgents being hit by the 5.56mm and not going down.



However the 7.62x39 Soviet that that AK-47 fires is much more damaging due to it being both larger and slower. It is also a much better at cutting through body armor the 5.45mm aka 'poison bullt' is basically the same story. Although the the 7.62mm is slower and less accurate at long ranges it still does more damage than the 5.56mm.



Yes I know the 5.56mm can create some nasty wounds when it tumbles or fragments and I am not saying I would wanna get hit with one, but I would much rather get hit with it than the 7.62mm Soviet. US military officals came out and said that the 5.56mm was designed to wound rather than kill its target for two reasons:



1. you might wanna ask the guy some questions

2. ties up more troops to carry him way to get medical attention



Although that all said and good it is possible for a wounded enemy to fire his AK and kill you. the gap and design trade off between the two rounds (5.56mm vs 7.62mm) has sparked a debate has been going on for a long time. However work began to close that gab and create a round that gave the soldier in question accuracy and stopping power thus solving the problem and allowing everyone to move on to another topic.



Say hello to the 6.8mm Remington SPC and 6.5mm Grendel



6.8mm Remington SPC





6.5mm Grendel





Both rounds are accurate and deadly. Which one do you think it should be? Me personally I think I will go with the Grendel.

6.8mm

quote:

However the 7.62x39 Soviet that that AK-47 fires is much more damaging due to it being both larger and slower. It is also a much better at cutting through body armor

Wrong on both counts, there is no quantifiable evidence that the 7.62x39 is any more ,or any less, lethal than 5.56 NATO. It is definately worse at armor penetration due to its lower velocity and cross sectional density. There is a reason why 5.56 rated armor inserts are slightly thicker than 7.62x39 rated inserts..

quote:

US military officals came out and said that the 5.56mm was designed to wound rather than kill its target for two reasons:
1. you might wanna ask the guy some questions
2. ties up more troops to carry him way to get medical attention

No, "they", have not came out and said anything of the sort: that is a myth; a myth that many people both inside and outside the military believe, but I defy you to point to people involved in the procurement of the 5.56 floating the "wounded enemy" theory.

While that theory has put into practice in the design of some very specified "toe popper" land mines. It was NOT a consideration in the design of military ammo. While adopting a 5.56 round as a replacement to the full power 7.62X51 round may have, unfortunately, had this effect, it was NOT a design parameter. If any procurement specialist put a rifle in the hands of the American soldier specifically designed to leave wounded and potentially deadly enemy personelle on the battle field, they would, deservedly, have been put in jail.

All that being said, both the 6.5 grendel and the 6.8SPC seem to offer advantages to the 5.56NATO. More tests have to be done and more numbers have to be crunched before we know definitively.
Once the statistics and tests shut the naysayers up (which I do think will happen) then you still have to get past the finanacial and logistical hurdles of a changeover. These are BY FAR the biggest hurdles. Expect several more years before we see any takeup. Id say 5, but probably as many as 10. I hope I'm wrong but I doubt I am...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: schmiddc,

quote:

Originally posted by schmiddc:
Wrong on both counts, there is no quantifiable evidence that the 7.62x39 is any more ,or any less, lethal than 5.56 NATO. It is definately worse at armor penetration due to its lower velocity and cross sectional density. There is a reason why 5.56 rated armor inserts are slightly thicker than 7.62x39 rated inserts..

I have seen videos of the 7.62mm Soviet and the 5.56mm being fired into body armor. The larger 7.62mm seemed to have less trouble penarating the armor. Also their are many a combat veteran who have told me of the 7.62mm being more lethal than the 5.56mm, and I am sure they were talking about the round the AK-47 fires. Their words... not mine.

I know what its like to be 19 and know everything, been there done that. You will be amazed at how much smarter the older generation seems in a few years...

quote:

I have seen videos of the 7.62mm Soviet and the 5.56mm being fired into body armor. The larger 7.62mm seemed to have less trouble penarating the armor.

Videos on youtube are not a replacement for rigourus testing and the laws of physics. You think body armor manufactures make 5.56X45 rated inserts thicker than 7.62X39 inserts just for the hell of it? Long thin projectiles going really fast do better at penetrating armor than short fat projectiles going slower; this is simply not debateable.

Now, 7.62X39 might provide better results in deflection resistance in heavy foilage, but that is a entirely different ballgame than body armor penetration... You simply have to decide what is more important...

quote:

Also their are many a combat veteran who have told me of the 7.62mm being more lethal than the 5.56mm, and I am sure they were talking about the round the AK-47 fires. Their words... not mine.

Making long term procurement decisons based on anecdotal evidence just won't fly. If that was the case, we would have entered WW2 with a bolt action rifle.

"Many a veteran" said that the padded cotton coats of the Chinese in the Korean conflict would stop a FMJ round from an M1 carbine. Test, after test, after test has proved this to be utter horse-poop. We owe a lot to combat veterans, and believe-it-or-not combat results are taken into account in procurement decisions. Hovever their perceptions can be altered by group-think and urban legends just like everybody else.

In God we trust, all others must produce the numbers.

The phrase "out with the old in with the new" really applies here. We may not know much about the newly developed 6.5 Grendel or the 6.8 Remington but we have decades of experience with the 5.56 and what it can and especially what it can't do. It can't always get the job done- it lacks stopping power. Since the Army is seriously considering replacing the M4 we might as well get rid of the 5.56 as well.

I would say Replace the M4/M16 with the Remington ACR, The Gun can go from a 14.5" barrel 6.8x43mm SPC workhorse, to an 18" 6.5 Grendel Marksman rifle, to an 10.5" 6.8mm SPC or 7.62x39 room entry gun in about a minute. the REC7, SCAR, Hk416, and XM8 can't beat that. Along with an Ambidextrous design, and Short Stroke gas piston operating system you got a winner. Not to mention it's an American rifle .

quote:

Originally posted by CurlyGangster:
I would say Replace the M4/M16 with the Remington ACR, The Gun can go from a 14.5" barrel 6.8x43mm SPC workhorse, to an 18" 6.5 Grendel Marksman rifle, to an 10.5" 6.8mm SPC or 7.62x39 room entry gun in about a minute. the REC7, SCAR, Hk416, and XM8 can't beat that. Along with an Ambidextrous design, and Short Stroke gas piston operating system you got a winner. Not to mention it's an American rifle .

Aaannnnnnd since you can easily swap the upper receiver on a M16/M4 to any of those calibers and barrel length...what exactly is the reason to go with a brand new, and initially expensive, weapon system?

I'll help you...there is no real good reason. The M16 family runs just fine in the desert, and kills hajji just fine when hit correctly, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BULLET.

Hit in the hand with a .50, and you have a wound. Hit in the chest with a 5.56, and you have a body.

well in an urban environment, can you hit the guy behind the wall? or thru the door? I agree w/ Stars, you just swap uppers. The 6.8? I never fired it, I know I can buy one from Bushmaster, but its $1,600+..this debate will never end. By the way, why does SOCOM have a monopoly on the M-3 Carl G? Damn, that would come in real handy for front line units. BUY MORE. 6 rnds a minute? Damn, the Rangers got a winner there.