Lloyd90 Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 I saw a dcoumentary that said it was chosen becauce it was flat shooting, Much lighter (they could carry 3x the amount of ammo) and because the recoil was so light they could fire it in full auto or bursts and still be accurate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 I meant look at the reply above from Blunderbuss. I would just like say I have never been in the Marines or the SAS, and wasn't at the Iranian Embassy Siege etc etc.... Let's see what Zapp is typing, it's taking him long enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 (edited) I saw a dcoumentary that said it was chosen becauce it was flat shooting, Much lighter (they could carry 3x the amount of ammo) and because the recoil was so light they could fire it in full auto or bursts and still be accurate All true I was serving during the change over from 7.62mm SLR to 5.56mm L85. Annual personal weapons test scores improved massively across the board overnight. I loved the SLR, but the truth is the average squaddie found it very hard to shoot accurately. The "SA80" has many faults, but accuracy (for a military rifle) is not one of them. Edited September 22, 2009 by Blunderbuss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyr8 Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 thought it was also to standerdise the round size,nato rounds.the americans had problems with each branch of there forces using different calbres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 I saw a dcoumentary that said it was chosen becauce it was flat shooting, Much lighter (they could carry 3x the amount of ammo) and because the recoil was so light they could fire it in full auto or bursts and still be accurate I think it is absolutely ludicrous that our lads are armed with 223, & fighting the Taliban with 30 calibre, as for the ammo being lighter & can carry more,...........it doesn't seem to bother the Taliban firing Ak47's. BJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 I shall take back my fact of the day I will find a better fact, with citations too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 The whole 5.56 issue was and is a NATO ammunition standardisation thing to 5.56 for rifles and 7.62 link for machine guns. Everything to do with logistics in the event of the Reds invading and nothing to do with the good old "one wounded, three to tend) story. All western tank guns went to 105mm and then 120mm at the same time for the same reason, to rationalise supply considerations. The Warsaw pact used 5.45 and 7.62 in their small arms, but early on used "heavy gun" calibres fractionally larger than NATO weapons so that stores from captured NATO ammunition dumps could be pressed into service if required, but not the other way round. A big (coincidental) plus with a smaller round though is that it also allows enough ammunition to be carried for squad-member weapons to be made fully automatic. The wounding thing is an urban myth. ZB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 All true I was serving during the change over from 7.62mm SLR to 5.56mm L85. Annual personal weapons test scores improved massively across the board overnight. I loved the SLR, but the truth is the average squaddie found it very hard to shoot accurately. The "SA80" has many faults, but accuracy (for a military rifle) is not one of them. HAD many faults, since Heckler & Koch got their mitts on them there are much better I thought that NATO decided 5.56 was going to be the standard caliber (for various reasons) and the 7.62 had been relegated to a secondary support role, therefore Britain being part of NATO, we had to change over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 There was a story floating about during the Kuwait skirmish, telling how one side was using hollow point bullets that had the hollow point filled with mercury. DISCUSS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 There was a story floating about during the Kuwait skirmish, telling how one side was using hollow point bullets that had the hollow point filled with mercury. DISCUSS! And what would be the point of that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harnser Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 (edited) The whole 5.56 issue was and is a NATO ammunition standardisation thing to 5.56 for rifles and 7.62 link for machine guns. Everything to do with logistics in the event of the Reds invading and nothing to do with the good old "one wounded, three to tend) story. All western tank guns went to 105mm and then 120mm at the same time for the same reason, to rationalise supply considerations. The Warsaw pact used 5.45 and 7.62 in their small arms, but early on used "heavy gun" calibres fractionally larger than NATO weapons so that stores from captured NATO ammunition dumps could be pressed into service if required, but not the other way round. A big (coincidental) plus with a smaller round though is that it also allows enough ammunition to be carried for squad-member weapons to be made fully automatic. The wounding thing is an urban myth. ZB Absolutely correct . How are you going to shoot somebody with a high velocity 5.56 round and try to wound them . Shoot them in the hand or in the leg . No you want them dead so that they carnt shoot back . Harnser . Edited September 22, 2009 by Harnser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 Switch to 5.56 as I understand it was due to needing a lighter cartridge for an assault weapon. Simple fact, despite Hollywood, is unless you have a gun very well supported and set up, automatic fire with a recoiling calibre means you will hit **** all. So you use 5.56 which gives you - 1. enough energy to kill (because funnily enough, in a firefight, you want the enemy DEAD, so there is no way he can shoot back) 2. decent velocity and 3. limited recoil. All of which means that potential is : 1. Carry more rounds, 2. shoot more accurately, 3. effective assault rifle with full automatic fire, meaning easier suppressing fire. Now, they took a while to make it work (M16 was awful too, in its Mk1 version) and the bullet heads were a bit naff (Vietnam saw US troops complaining of limited stopping power and penetration with 55gr FMJ heads, hence the increase in weight and faster twist barrels we see now), but work it did. Finally, here is a cartridge which can be used in the main assault rifle of the day but can also be used in a carbine for urban work and CQB. Regarding the Soviet/Eastern/Russian weapons, the AK47 uses 7.62x39 ammunition, which is much lighter than NATO 7.62x51. It is more comparable to 5.56 in terms of energy but is very slow by comparison, making it harder to shoot accurately. However, it does have good stopping power (I'd be quite happy to shoot deer with one, with the right bullet, of course) and has been a reliable cartridge for many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) Very interesting. Our of interest Mr. Logic, what is your background, you appear well informed and errrm quite logical. EDIT: Incidentally, StuartP, I wasn't involved in storming the Libyan embassy, primarily because I was 12 at the time. Mind you so were the rest of my team Edited September 23, 2009 by Mungler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) Interesting thread, actually Dum Dum was a place in India where the British had a factory that made all sorts of ammunition including soft point .303 which is where the name evolved from. The British Government believed in those days that the Hague Convention did not extend to people in far flung corners of the world like India. A bit like your Pikie question. Its interesting that a lot of police forces around the world still use soft point pistol ammunition. You only have to read Guns & Ammo to realise that. I've seen soft point ammo on police ranges in this country in the past. Edited September 23, 2009 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Ditto Vince Green - what's your background out of interest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) I'm a nosey busybody. Been shooting all my life, ex secretary then chairman of quite a big club. Now shoot mainly at Bisley but more involved in coaching and training others. Edited September 23, 2009 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 And what would be the point of that? Mercury bullets are part of the folklore where this sort of ammunition is concerned. Mercury is heavier than lead and the theory goes that when it hits you the mercury spatters into the wound causing mercury poisioning and preventing the wound from ever healing etc etc. 99% myth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyb Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 So just to confirm... .223 is great for both foxes and ragheads then ? Who needs a 308 anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I shall take back my fact of the day I will find a better fact, with citations too How about ducks quack doesn't echo? Nobody needs a .308, apart from Harnser of course.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wookie Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 When you hit with .308, the hitee stays hit. It's a big round and there are stories of arms coming off floating around the web. Going back to using soft point ammunition on terrorists for a moment, they are criminals that have chosen to be treated as such, and are judged to be exempt from the Geneva convention covering the use of such ammunition. Hence plod and other people can use bullets that are more effective at transferring their energy to the target. By the way, Terry uses the AK round because: they have AKs coming out of their ears and the amunition to go with them. Why change to something that's smaller? They don't realy have a concept of aimed fired AKs don't really break they are cheap to run and find ammo for all over the world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEFTY478 Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) That is something alot of soldiers did not just with rubber rounds but also full metal jackets. My neighbour was in the army during the 60/70's or something like that, not sure exactly. He told me a story of when he was guarding a post office when the standard issue weapon for that was a shotgun Anyways he said they used there knives to cut an X into the tips of every 2nd FMJ's in the mag so they would expand like a soft point. Better knock down power There are so many things wrong with your statement that, if I bothered on to rip it the new 'un it deserves, I would I'm sure, lose the will to live. At best, you've been treated to a 'dit'. Suffice to say, I once met a man in a pub, who said his dog had no nose. Edit to add: >>This<< IMO, is a far greater 'burning' issue, for today's military... Edited September 23, 2009 by LEFTY478 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casts_by_fly Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 As a side note, when the US was looking at rounds to replace the 7.62, they explored a bunch of different bullet diameters and cases. The 222/222Mag was picked as the case, but then they tested diameters from 14 to 25 caliber. The best performer in terms of trajectory and energy transfer was the 19 caliber. However, that would have required issuing new cleaning rods. The 22 caliber variant was chosen instead (with similar trajectory and energy transfer ability). Thanks, Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harnser Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 How about ducks quack doesn't echo? Nobody needs a .308, apart from Harnser of course.... Any body with any sense will know that the .308 is the jack of all trades rifle and master of them all . And do you know what Stuart ,I am known to be ( in Norfolk parlance ) a half tidy old shot with my .308 . It may take me a little longer to get on to the target like most things when you turn 65 years old but I can still do it . Harnser . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldous Huxley Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 So just to confirm... .223 is great for both foxes and ragheads then ? Who needs enemies when shooting sports have friends like you. I happened to have several Iranian friends at school, they were moderate, well behaved and pacifists. Are they rag heads as well because of their ethnic descent or religion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libs Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Who needs enemies when shooting sports have friends like you. I happened to have several Iranian friends at school, they were moderate, well behaved and pacifists. Are they rag heads as well because of their ethnic descent or religion? woooo calm down. . Not allowed to giggle at another cultures way of dressing anymore.. Anyone would think we're under a Labour govern... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.