MilitaryForums.co.uk

the current NATO round is a pussie ass 5.56mm I think but thats not the point in Iraq our soldiers are having problems becaus it is taking two or three hits to even knock a rag head down but if we still used a 30. cal round at most or at leas a 7mm mid sized round we would not have this problem do you agree? and why dose NATO use such a small round?

well I think the problem started in vietnam at the beginning the US used the M14 which contrary to popular belife it funciond and preformed very well but macnemara like the idiot he was decided we needed a new rifel and the rest as they say is history

Well to be honest we got smaller caliburs for smaller people, soldiers nowdays are made up of boys, girls and others who need a smaller kick, the old weapons you speak of are mens weapons, Like the USMC and RM is a man's service.

The official reason is so you can carry more ammo.

Oh how simple are the young. Mikkel .30 is about 7mm, one is old english imperial measurement and the other one is metric the two sizes are almost exact, and if you think 5.56 is pussie may I be the one to show you the error of your thoughts.Ask an old oppo of mine shot by an IRA twat with an AR16 5.56 ( probable supplyed by some uninformed American via Noraid) He will let you know just how pussie it felt .
In a normal war situation it is better to wound a man than kill him, For every man wounded it takes two men to look after him tieing up the enamy's man power and his ability to fight.
I'm free next Friday so if you want to do the 5.56 pussie test give me a call.

Mikkel,

This is a problem that has caused some of the US Navy SEALS to revert to carrying the M14 instead of the M16 variants.

Although it is true that wounding an enemy causes problems for his mates and his medical cover, consider Africa.

The enemy there is liable to be drunk, doped up or both and have an amulet from the local witchdoctor that he knows will turn your bullets to water plus his mates don't care if he is wounded or not.

What you need is a round that will knock him down and keep him down, so there may be an argument for dual training in weapons.

The majority of US Marines like to carry the M14 simply because it is a 7.62 mm weapon,accurate light, reliable, and similar to the M1 Garand which packs a punch, and when it hits you,you will stay down.

If I can remember the old AR 15 Armalite was prone to stoppages occasionally, and the US marines are experiencing similar problems in Iraq.

our soldiers are having problems becaus it is taking two or three hits to even knock a rag head down

I think the 'rag heads' are proabably one of the toughest people in the world. they can take shot all day and still keep coming. thats what i heard on the grape vine anyway

Good points...
Ginge, it takes more than 2 men now! In the initial instance I would say 2 but then watch the number increase as he goes back through the system...
Bloke gets shot=2 Oppo and medic
Extraction= 5 or more... 1 covering and four carrying, possibly a chopper at the end.
RAP= nurses doctors etc etc
Back in blighty= a whole hospital.
What was it the Viet Cong said?

"Shoot one man and another comes to rescue him. Shoot that man and another 2 come to rescue them".

Different situations require different outcomes so different weapons are used. The 5.56 bounces around inside the body causing internal injuries. If you are shooting a terrorist you want him dead so he can do no more harm. If you want to tie up the enemy's resources you want to injure.

Well this all goes back to end of WW2. America wanted a stanard NATO bullets, for pistols and sub machine guns is was the 9mm which was agreed. For rifles it was to be the .300 as America had tons of the stuff left over from WW2 and they helped block the development of the British Rifle TN 7 which has returned as the SA .80. No sooner had we purchashed
the FN SLR, America had a change of mind brought another calibur rifle throwing the whole system into confusion. Also it is better not kill the other soldiers but to badly wound them, this take more time and effort to look after them and needs even more man power, sick I know but a fact.

All very interesting, but the question is, as you advance to contact and are in iminent danger of attack would you personally choose a weapon with serious stopping power, e.g. 7.62 or a light calibre weapon with a dubious capacity to stop the enemy?

Read the report of the group of MLs in FI when they were equipped with Armalites and the Argies had FNs. Long story short, one ML is said to have hit an Argie 4 or 5 times in the torso with his Armalite, and then got one shot back into his own chest from the oppositions FN, which pretty much finished said MLs involvement in the operation.

But Archie, that does also suggest the ML's chose the Armalite in particular, so it must have had something over the standard SLR, same goes with SF and I'd have thought they wouldn't be lacking in experience to learn from. They also use 5.56 now even though clogging up the supply lines isn't incredibly effective against guerillas (ala Afghanistan), and I'm sure they would be allowed to use 7.62 weapons if they wanted.
What I'm basically getting at is, there must be something about 5.56 if it's routinely chosen over 7.62 by those who have both a choice in the matter, and the experience to know what counts.

don't know much about bullets other than bang bang, but hes my 2 cents, the bigger the better, if there was some way of getting a Trident missile (looks like a big bullet) into a rifle i'd use it.

Before you know it folks, the Armed Forces will be back to bows and arrows,and throwing bricks at the enemy!!!!!!!

catapulting a dead sheep (killed on the shooting range) into enemy bases is the way forward

Voodoo,
Good points, at present SF can and do choose the M16 over the SA80 on grounds of PERCEIVED reliability.

The reason SF prefer the 5.56 round for the M16 and Minimi is simply weight. Also in theory they would be closer to the enemy when everything suddenly goes loud and the likely hood of fatal hits are greater. Plus of course it can have a grenade launcher attached something you can not do with the SA80 o SLR, and please do not mention the bloody Energa.

You will notice in the Oman conflict the Regiment actually preferred the SLR and the No4 sniper rile in 7.62, because of the greater ranges of contacts.

Another point, although most people can use an AK47 or 74 in a fire fight, it is dangerous to so as the sound is very distinctive and you are likely to end up with incoming 'friendly' fire.

I guess the key here is "horses for courses". Every weapon and every round has its pros and cons. The 5.56 round is very small and very light, as a result you can carry more of them. A double ammo pouch will hold 6 x L85 5.56mm magazines each holding 30 rounds (thats 180 rounds at your disposal) or alternatively will hold 4 x L1A1 7.62mm magazines each holding 20 rounds (80 rounds total!). That is 100 more rounds of 5.56 and the difference in weight between the 6 x loaded L85 mags and 4 x loaded SLR mags isn't much at all. The numbers speak for themselves.

I don't see how you can dismiss a round as being "pussie", if it hits you in the right (or wrong, depending on perspective ) place it will kill you. Be it a .22 Rimfire or a .50BMG.

Also, a burst of fire from a 5.56mm rifle is a lot easier to control than a burst of fire from a 7.62mm rifle. Something else to consider perhaps?