Comments on: Brits Getting into the 7.62 vs 5.56 debate http://defensetech.org/2010/01/08/brits-getting-into-the-7-62-vs-5-56-debate/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:29:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: PMIhttp://defensetech.org/2010/01/08/brits-getting-into-the-7-62-vs-5-56-debate/#comment-245916 PMI Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:06:21 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5377#comment-245916 Damnit I should pay more attention to the age of some of these threads. Damnit I should pay more attention to the age of some of these threads.

]]> By: PMIhttp://defensetech.org/2010/01/08/brits-getting-into-the-7-62-vs-5-56-debate/#comment-245915 PMI Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:05:17 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5377#comment-245915 Beyond 200 yards 5.56x45 retains more energy than 7.62x39 due to the superior ballistic coefficient. Beyond 200 yards 5.56x45 retains more energy than 7.62x39 due to the superior ballistic coefficient.

]]> By: Tvarohhttp://defensetech.org/2010/01/08/brits-getting-into-the-7-62-vs-5-56-debate/#comment-245906 Tvaroh Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:21:10 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5377#comment-245906 L129A1 a good idea, why? 7.62 mm vs. 5.56 mm = 7.62 winner !!!!!!!!!!!!! DMG + range + accuracy + look cool. : D bullpup design (SA80) is unreliable, difficult, ugly, weak, and they range! + DMG is the shit! : D L129A1 is a great idea! In battle is better!! L129A1 a good idea, why?
7.62 mm vs. 5.56 mm = 7.62 winner !!!!!!!!!!!!!
DMG + range + accuracy + look cool.
: D
bullpup design (SA80) is unreliable, difficult, ugly, weak, and they range! + DMG is the shit!
: D
L129A1 is a great idea! In battle is better!!

]]> By: Samuel Dighanhttp://defensetech.org/2010/01/08/brits-getting-into-the-7-62-vs-5-56-debate/#comment-225146 Samuel Dighan Sat, 12 Mar 2011 17:57:59 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5377#comment-225146 The 5.56 is to rifles and carbines what the 9mm is to handguns. Most LE have concluded 40 S&W to be superior to 9mm. The handgun debate is now on 45 ACP (stopping power) versus 40 S&W (capacity + power). Regarding rifle rounds, I'd choose the 7.62x51 (.308) or x39 any day over 5.56 (.223) for a LE or home defence situation. If I had to worry about providing suppressing fire, weapon control while full-auto, AND humping around a full load for an entire day, 5.56 MIGHT win. Army support logistics would need completely re-evaluated for squads w/ 7.62. Right now might not be a good time for that. However providing 7.62 (distance) and 12 gauge shotgun (house-to-house) to our troops would be optimal. The right tool for the right job every time is what they deserve, but improvise/adapt/overcome is the reality. The 5.56 is to rifles and carbines what the 9mm is to handguns. Most LE have concluded 40 S&W to be superior to 9mm. The handgun debate is now on 45 ACP (stopping power) versus 40 S&W (capacity + power).

Regarding rifle rounds, I’d choose the 7.62x51 (.308) or x39 any day over 5.56 (.223) for a LE or home defence situation. If I had to worry about providing suppressing fire, weapon control while full-auto, AND humping around a full load for an entire day, 5.56 MIGHT win.

Army support logistics would need completely re-evaluated for squads w/ 7.62. Right now might not be a good time for that. However providing 7.62 (distance) and 12 gauge shotgun (house-to-house) to our troops would be optimal. The right tool for the right job every time is what they deserve, but improvise/adapt/overcome is the reality.

]]> By: markhttp://defensetech.org/2010/01/08/brits-getting-into-the-7-62-vs-5-56-debate/#comment-206929 mark Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:48:58 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5377#comment-206929 GRENDEL! Sorry. the SA 80 is anecdotally effective at circa 500, 550 metres. The most accurate basic service rifle going, i belive. Thoughts this side of the pond include something like 7mm with extra power charge, maybe even 6.5mm with extra charge. Who knows. Most british procurement involves looking long, lovingly and hard at what works: then choosing the **** option. GRENDEL!
Sorry. the SA 80 is anecdotally effective at circa 500, 550 metres. The most accurate basic service rifle going, i belive.
Thoughts this side of the pond include something like 7mm with extra power charge, maybe even 6.5mm with extra charge.
Who knows. Most british procurement involves looking long, lovingly and hard at what works: then choosing the **** option.

]]> By: jayhttp://defensetech.org/2010/01/08/brits-getting-into-the-7-62-vs-5-56-debate/#comment-201029 jay Wed, 19 May 2010 22:48:35 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5377#comment-201029 The person that wrote the article is a bit confused I think. QUOTE: "It means insurgents – who use 7.62mm ammunition for their AK47s – back off and shoot at British troops from greater distances." The 7.62x39(ak round)is not going out distance the 5.56 and be used as some kind of standoff sniper rifle. The AK has many strengths and is certainly well known for is reliability and durability but it has never been been an accurate flat shooting sniper like rifle. The 7.62x51(.308) like the L1A1, M14, or G3 will out distance the 5.56(especially with a 20" barrel), but the 7.62x39(ak round) is not the same as the 7.62x51 The person that wrote the article is a bit confused I think.
QUOTE: “It means insurgents – who use 7.62mm ammunition for their AK47s – back off and shoot at British troops from greater distances.”

The 7.62x39(ak round)is not going out distance the 5.56 and be used as some kind of standoff sniper rifle. The AK has many strengths and is certainly well known for is reliability and durability but it has never been been an accurate flat shooting sniper like rifle.
The 7.62x51(.308) like the L1A1, M14, or G3 will out distance the 5.56(especially with a 20″ barrel), but the 7.62x39(ak round) is not the same as the 7.62x51

]]> By: deathhttp://defensetech.org/2010/01/08/brits-getting-into-the-7-62-vs-5-56-debate/#comment-197801 death Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:10:30 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5377#comment-197801 Everyone hates the 5.56x45mm but what about the, 7.62x39 Does ANYONE know why NOBODY complns about it? BECAUSE THERE ALL DEAD! Everyone hates the 5.56x45mm but what about the, 7.62x39 Does ANYONE know why NOBODY complns about it? BECAUSE THERE ALL DEAD!

]]> By: Ryanhttp://defensetech.org/2010/01/08/brits-getting-into-the-7-62-vs-5-56-debate/#comment-196223 Ryan Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:33:22 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5377#comment-196223 You don't need optics for 400M, The US used to train out to 500M. I have taken a 750M shot with a M16A2 and hit the target with out optics (I said hit the target, it was at a range not combat, I know the 5.56 is not effective at that distance). so why would they need optics? learn how to use the sights again, service men are getting too use to optics. You don’t need optics for 400M, The US used to train out to 500M. I have taken a 750M shot with a M16A2 and hit the target with out optics (I said hit the target, it was at a range not combat, I know the 5.56 is not effective at that distance). so why would they need optics? learn how to use the sights again, service men are getting too use to optics.

]]> By: Mike Weberhttp://defensetech.org/2010/01/08/brits-getting-into-the-7-62-vs-5-56-debate/#comment-194221 Mike Weber Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:36:40 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5377#comment-194221 When you get down to it, there is probably no better weapon to use in this type of situation than the M-14 (which the M-16 replaced) in .308 Cal. The civilian version is the Springfield Arms M1A1. As for the 5.56 mm round, maximum effective range is approximately 1,375 meters! A tiny round, but it travels a long way down range with amazing speed. But it's more likely to go through a person rather than knock him/ her down, and is easily deflected. You need the heavy knockout punch of a 7.62X54 mm if you want to get serious.. When you get down to it, there is probably no better weapon to use in this type of situation than the M-14 (which the M-16 replaced) in .308 Cal. The civilian version is the Springfield Arms M1A1. As for the 5.56 mm round, maximum effective range is approximately 1,375 meters! A tiny round, but it travels a long way down range with amazing speed. But it’s more likely to go through a person rather than knock him/ her down, and is easily deflected. You need the heavy knockout punch of a 7.62X54 mm if you want to get serious..

]]> By: chihenehttp://defensetech.org/2010/01/08/brits-getting-into-the-7-62-vs-5-56-debate/#comment-193955 chihene Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:41:57 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5377#comment-193955 If I had a choice, I would prefer the 7.62....you have more choices for bullet components....heavy for shorter ranges as in jungles or lighter for flatter trajectories for longer distances as in open terrain...and the 7.62 packs more energy ...but if someone is shooting at me. I will slay him with the m16.....or anything else I can get my grubby hands on including a beat up AK...nothing beats a well trained soldier....hitting the target is number one... If I had a choice, I would prefer the 7.62.…you have more choices for bullet components.…heavy for shorter ranges as in jungles or lighter for flatter trajectories for longer distances as in open terrain…and the 7.62 packs more energy …but if someone is shooting at me. I will slay him with the m16.….or anything else I can get my grubby hands on including a beat up AK…nothing beats a well trained soldier.…hitting the target is number one…

]]>