The thing is, while the M14 was a great rifle (my dad refused to accept the M16A1 the Marines tried to swap for his M14 in Vietnam in the late 60s so he took a shotgun instead. He really missed that M14), the U.S. long ago abandoned the 7.62mm round.
I think the U.S. military only uses the 7.62mm round for some sniper rifles and mechanized weaponry on tanks and such (like the M60 on the M113 APC, but they might have even retired those by now).
This is the thing about the 7.62mm: Fired out of crew-served weapons it does a bang up (no pun intended) job. Out of a long range, precision rifle (and we're talking 500+m) it also does a great job. Out of a close to medium range automatic rifle, it's horrendous. The round is heavy (less ammo), kicks like a mule (less accuracy) and hard to control on full auto fire (again less accuracy). At the engagement ranges typical of modern infantry combat (out to 300m) it's overkill, and the cons outweigh the pros. Now the 5.56mm is effective at those ranges, if a bit on the weaker side of effective. But you get lighter weapons, MORE ammo, and MORE accuracy. The days of an individual rifleman taking long range pot-shots at the enemy is long gone (that pretty much died after WW1). Volume of fire, manuever and shock effect is how modern engagements are played out.
It is also important to note that the M16 was also hard to control on fully automatic fire, (which had the 5.56) and no matter how good the person is, you can’t really fire a fully automatic weapon with good accuracy unless it’s on a stand or bolted to something (if your really good you can be pretty decent in controlled burst, but not nearly as accurate as if you use the 3 round burst). While it is true that the M-14 has more recoil than the m-16, if both were modified to fire in three round burst, both would be exceptional weapons in a trained soldier’s hands. Don’t get me wrong, the m-16 is more accurate at close range, and in most areas in the Middle East right now, that’s what matters due to urban combat. However, the frame of the m-16 was pure genius for the time, and its accuracy was greatly improved with the concept of a strait but-stock, and I think that the frame contributes greatly in giving the m-16 the advantage over the m-14 in combat. As for the 7.62mm fired from the m-14, I would have to say it would be the superior round to use statistically (but in reality, it would suck to carry a heavy assault rifle with heavy bullets) here is why:
The M-14 has a muzzle velocity of 3,200 feet per second. This is slower than the M-16A4’s muzzle velocity of 3,500 feet per second. Slower and bigger bullets drag tissue along with it as it enters flesh, making it more lethal than if it were to rip past so quickly that it practically slices through the target. (In other words, bigger, slower bullets make bigger entry and exit wounds than smaller bullets, excluding the rare tumbling factor.) The M-16A4, on the other hand, is said to fire its 5.56 into the target, and tumbling and/or shrapnel will be significant. Tumbling depends on many factors, such as humidity, and even the slight variations in the densities in an individuals flesh, making it an unreliable result. Officially the M16A4’s shrapnel is said to increase the overall lethality of the weapon compared to the M-14. This is true, BUT that does not indicate it will get your target to stop firing at your face in the same way the M -14 will. Lethality from the shrapnel of a bullet can (and often does) occur in a surgery room, not on the battlefield were it matters. The shrapnel of a bullet is said to slow down the speed of the bullet, and it does. Here is the catch, only after the bullet has gone into the target a considerable depth, will its shrapnel begin to slow down the bullet. This means that arteries and/or vital organs that could have been damaged by a slower moving bullet would not be damaged by the shrapnel of the 5.56. So while the M-16 may have more over all lethality than the M-14’s 7.62mm, the M-14 has a better chance of killing your target relatively instantly compared than the M-16A4. (I’m pretty sure that this is what Mac means when he refers to “stopping power.”)
One might say “If this were the case, then why would we focus on making branches of extremely good rifles that fire the 5.52 instead of the 7.62? The answer is the cost of money; expensive rifles are meant to last more than one shot, a round however, is not. Despite this, I think that the 7.62 will not die because its usefulness in overwhelming. The round is old, but it is still effective, and all that is missing is a proper firearm to discharge the round in an effectively accurate manner (the bullpup thing is a good try though.)
So what’s my point? The 7.62 round may suck to carry and you can’t carry as much, but in a combat situation, the round is more useful than the 5.52. Of course this is an opinion, and many flaws do exist with the 7.62 round as well. Anyways, just thought id post the other side of the argument to give a balance to Armynursebio’s very well thought out argument. Thanks for reading
Have you ever fired either weapon? You can carry 2rd of 5.56mm for every rd of 7.62 NATO. I think this is significant. Also 7.62 M80 ball has a mv of 2750 fps, M855 does 3050 fps.
Google on Martin Fackler, he has done most of the good work on wound ballistics. And you got almost everything twisted. An aorta doesn't care whether it is severed by a 15 gr fragment or a 147 gr bullet, you will bleed out now, not in surgery, later. The problem with 5.56mm is that sometimes the bullets are too light to go through walls and such. And sometimes they yaw late and never fragment.
7.62 NATO has lots left at long range good for snipers and GPMG
Originally posted by horcen: It is also important to note that the M16 was also hard to control on fully automatic fire, (which had the 5.56) and no matter how good the person is, you can’t really fire a fully automatic weapon with good accuracy unless it’s on a stand or bolted to something (if your really good you can be pretty decent in controlled burst, but not nearly as accurate as if you use the 3 round burst). While it is true that the M-14 has more recoil than the m-16, if both were modified to fire in three round burst, both would be exceptional weapons in a trained soldier’s hands...As for the 7.62mm fired from the m-14, I would have to say it would be the superior round to use statistically (but in reality, it would suck to carry a heavy assault rifle with heavy bullets) here is why:
First off, the M16 is very EASY to control in both full auto and burst modes. Not true with the M14 (it's too light, and even in 3rd burst, you'll have an AA gun after the 3rd round). As for training, MOST soldiers who are well trained will still only use semi- unless they are conducting final protective fires. But in any case, the M16 is easier to shoot which garuntees more hits. Yes, the 7.62mm has better ballistics (no one is arguing that), but those ballistics don't mean squat unless you hit your target. And as I stated before, at normal engagment ranges, 7.62mm is overkill and even it's vaunted stopping power does not justify the extra weight or associated recoil.
quote:
Originally posted by horcen: The M-14 has a muzzle velocity of 3,200 feet per second. This is slower than the M-16A4’s muzzle velocity of 3,500 feet per second. Slower and bigger bullets drag tissue along with it as it enters flesh, making it more lethal than if it were to rip past so quickly that it practically slices through the target. (In other words, bigger, slower bullets make bigger entry and exit wounds than smaller bullets, excluding the rare tumbling factor.) The M-16A4, on the other hand, is said to fire its 5.56 into the target, and tumbling and/or shrapnel will be significant. Tumbling depends on many factors, such as humidity, and even the slight variations in the densities in an individuals flesh, making it an unreliable result. Officially the M16A4’s shrapnel is said to increase the overall lethality of the weapon compared to the M-14. This is true, BUT that does not indicate it will get your target to stop firing at your face in the same way the M -14 will. Lethality from the shrapnel of a bullet can (and often does) occur in a surgery room, not on the battlefield were it matters. The shrapnel of a bullet is said to slow down the speed of the bullet, and it does. Here is the catch, only after the bullet has gone into the target a considerable depth, will its shrapnel begin to slow down the bullet. This means that arteries and/or vital organs that could have been damaged by a slower moving bullet would not be damaged by the shrapnel of the 5.56. So while the M-16 may have more over all lethality than the M-14’s 7.62mm, the M-14 has a better chance of killing your target relatively instantly compared than the M-16A4. (I’m pretty sure that this is what Mac means when he refers to “stopping power.”)
The only advantage that 7.62mm has over the 5.56mm when it comes to ballistics is more energy available (and thus penetration) and a slightly bigger entry hole. ALL spitzer shaped bullets will yaw, and that includes both the 7.62mm AND the 5.56mm. The 7.62mm actually has poorer wounding potential than the 5.56mm as it will only yaw once in the body and will not fragment leaving a very small wound channel when it finally exits. The wounds caused by a proper 5.56mm round fragmentaion will kill the enemy much faster as it's a much bigger wound track as well as causes significant amount of damage to the tissues. The current problem with the 5.56mm's 'ineffectiveness' is 2 fold: 1) it's being used out of a platform that it was not optimized for (ie the short barreled carbine, which has the effect of too much velocity loss to fragment reliably at distances) and 2) that platform is being used in an application that it was never designed for (ie being issued as a general infantry weapon instead of being used only by specialized troops who dont' need a full sized rifle, but are still trying to shoot people at 300m). It's funny that as soon as we get a round that was actually optimized for short barreled carbines (the Mk262 mod 1) the lethality issues disappeared.
"Stopping power" is somewhat of a myth. As we've seen on other shows, a bullet lacks the KE and momentum to knock a man off his feet. Any movements made by the person are reactions to being shot, not energy transfer from the bullet. Instant stops are created by shot placement to instant kill target (central vasuclature such as the heart, aorta or vena cava; the central nervous system to include brain and spinal cord). A hit anywhere else from a small arm is not going to do much in the way of 'instant stops'. Bleed out effect will come into play after being hit, and the bigger the hole the more the blood loss. A properly fragmented 5.56mm will cause a hole MUCH bigger than any 7.62mm could create.
First off I would like to clarify that I am not saying that the m-14 is better than the m-16, the combat range has changed dramatically, and the m-16 does provide better shot placement at closer ranges. But its like comparing apples to oranges in a way, the accuracy is going to be effected greatly by the but-sock's shape. I will say again, that I agree with you 100% when you say that the 7.62 has more kick than the 552. I will also agree with you in saying that the 552 is more accurate at closer ranges. But it’s also not fair to say that a round will do this or that type of damage period, any gun will change the muzzle velocity of a round, look it up on Wikapedia on how the M16 muzzle velocity changes for every variant. With this being said, my data from my previous post was using the muzzle velocities from the M16A4 and the M14. I chose the M16A4 because this seems to be the favored variant that’s currently in use. (And I’m a fan of the vast majority of Eugene Stoner's weapons so naturally I selected my favorite of his weapons)
Secondly, (and I know what I’m about to say will spark up some debate) if you are relying on Martin Fackler’s data, then your relying on bias data. Martin Fackler was at first an AMERICAN army surgeon. He retired as a colonel, which means he knows his politics. Of course he is going to support the 552 because he knows what is good for his career (capability to reduce costs of defense budget when needed. I stress the emphasis on "when needed" because at the time we thought we were going to enter WWIII with Russia). I do not have a degree in ballistics so I cannot defend my statement in the same way as he can, but I do know that the Soviet Union had there own people defending there larger caliber ammunition with the same style of bias data that Martin Fackler has (and no I’m not confusing the AK ammunition with M14). One of the reason that you see other countries outside of NATO using the 552 is because it’s still a very good round, but it’s cheaper than the slightly better 7.62. To be fair, however, he was the person that started the entire world in ballistic gel, and I am not saying that he didn't know his stuff, in fact he probably knew more about a single bullet than I could ever know in a lifetime. However, he was also smart enough to know that soldiers don’t want to hear that there round is simply cheaper to make, they want to know its lethality. Fackler didn't lie to anyone, he just told half the truth. If you look at his chart comparing flesh wound damages, he has the 552 doing what its best case scenario is (splitting into two pieces and fragmenting heavily) which brings me to repeat what I said earlier.
When this fragmentation happens, then the 552 is more all around lethal than the 7.62. BUT, this is not a reliable result; there are too many factors that interfere with that data to make it an every time thing. I am not saying the bullet will not yaw; all I’m saying is that the fragmentation of the bullet is unreliable. Yes, it is seen relatively common on the actual field, but it is not 100% of the time split in half fragmentation guaranteed (the same could be said with any round). To be fair, when it does happen, its extremely effective, in fact is disgustingly, horribly effective and I don’t want to see that ever done to anyone again- but the fact remains that it is a question of when it fragments.
As for the M16 being a easy weapon to control, I wasn't talking in comparative terms, I’m just saying that its a hard weapon to control on fully automatic period, but this is an opinion based on my skill with the weapon, thus I will retract my statement with the conclusion that you are a much better shot than me by far. (I’m really sorry, I’m a poor editor.)
I would also like to clarify one of my statements regarding the damage to arteries. The quantity of damaged arteries will be greater with the bigger, slower 7.62 than a malfunctioning 552 round. Thus, you will bleed out faster in this situation. I am sorry for the confusion. (Again the poor editing is shown.)
In a funny way, we are both saying similar things, although you’re much better at advocating your statements. I agree with you when you say the cons outweighs the pros with the 7.62, but only if you’re using them in assault rifles available at this current time. I am trying to defend the round itself, not the weapons that use them. The reason I am not arguing about penetration issues and sniping capabilities is because you people already know this, and its screaming obvious that you are professionals. That is why I am focusing on the often ignored lethality of the 7.62.
Even with all this disagreement, we can both agree that the bullpup M14 is not going to be a leap in technology, and that’s kind of were I think we are having our miscommunication troubles (and largely my poor editing skills.)
And the only difference between an M16A2 and an M16A4 (which currently only the Marines are using) is the A4 has an RIS forward grip and removable carry handle.
The fragmentation chances for the M193 and M855 rounds are HIGHLY predictable. Out of a 20" barrel, both bullets will fragment at impact velocities at 2700fps or higher (and those velocities will stay that high out to 250m).
Major error on my part yet again. When i said "552" in my post I meant to say 5.56. I was thinking of the 5.56 of the m16 and the .223 of the AR-15 so I got the number jumbled up.
As for the M16A2 and the M16A4, select army personnel also have the weapon, not just the Marines, although this is very rare. Also, the M16A4 has the MIL-STD 1913 Picantinny rail, which allows the rifle to be equipped with other scopes or sightings; the M16A2 has a peep site.
As for the rounds, I looked over our previous posts, and realize that you are right. You get better shot placement with the m16, and more shots can potentially enter the target. There is a very good chance that at least one of the bullets you hit your target will fragment, and will commonly have more than one bullet fragment. The combination of the two make the 5.56 much more lethal than the 7.62 at this accepted range.
I am still reluctant, however, to rely on a single 5.56mm bullet to fragment, even though it probably will, I don't like that added to the plethora of "what if" factors that exist in a combat situation. I know this is kind of unrealistic, because chances are your going to hit your target more than once at a close range with a 3 round burst anyways. However, I still think that the 7.62 is more suited for sniping because of its reliability, not so much for its close quarter’s capabilities. I also still think that the 7.62 bullet has an underrated lethality as part of its reputation; the round can be used to take down elk, so it’s lethal enough for my standards. (There are 5.56 weapons that are used for long range engagements, but that’s were I draw the line for the 5.56.)
You have been saying all of this, and you make the most sense out of anyone else I have debated this over with. I am persuaded by your argument and I thank you for taking the time to explain this in great detail to me.
Originally posted by horcen: I am still reluctant, however, to rely on a single 5.56mm bullet to fragment, even though it probably will, I don't like that added to the plethora of "what if" factors that exist in a combat situation. I know this is kind of unrealistic, because chances are your going to hit your target more than once at a close range with a 3 round burst anyways. However, I still think that the 7.62 is more suited for sniping because of its reliability, not so much for its close quarter’s capabilities. I also still think that the 7.62 bullet has an underrated lethality as part of its reputation; the round can be used to take down elk, so it’s lethal enough for my standards. (There are 5.56 weapons that are used for long range engagements, but that’s were I draw the line for the 5.56.).
Again, no one is questioning the lethality of the 7.62mm, only it's practicality for general issue.
And in combat, no one (except maybe snipers and sharpshooters) shoots a person just once. The whole 'one shot kill' notion is actually a bunch of crap.
Sorry for being gone, after my ...intemperate? response. Thanks for being here, armynurseboi.
I will note that GK Roberts has documented cases where individual 5.56 M855 failed to yaw of fragment. This may be related to variations in bullet construcion, but AFAIK no-one knows for sure.
I will say few hunters will go after elk with military FMJ bullets
