and everything to do with politics and poorly defined enemies
Although the first Gulf war...how long did that last? 6 months?
The argument over lethality and wounding continues
- Thread starter mastiffhound
- Start date
- Status
and everything to do with politics and poorly defined enemies
Although the first Gulf war...how long did that last? 6 months?
mastiffhound
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 420
Found this in my inbox today, simulated bone, fat, lung, and heart tissue with most of the calibers we're talking about. Very interesting to say the least, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvo9QD0JSFE
ENJOY!
P.S. It really reinforces my idea that I don't ever want to be shot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvo9QD0JSFE
ENJOY!
P.S. It really reinforces my idea that I don't ever want to be shot!
Last edited:
HorseSoldier
Member
Whereas we used to look to the SAS and other foreign elite units, since the GWOT kicked off US Tier One SOF units have increasingly become the trendsetters in that world. SOCOM units found the SCAR H brought something useful to the table as an adjunct to the M4A1, makes perfect sense people who have been working and fighting alongside them for a decade would want to borrow ideas that work.
762 X 54r
Member
In my opinoin 308 wins all around for eveything but mag capacity and weight.
I have never liked any thing I have ever handled in 556 but in urban combat or police situations the lack of over penetration of it would be nice.
for pistol all calibers suck. its just what you can shoot better
I have never liked any thing I have ever handled in 556 but in urban combat or police situations the lack of over penetration of it would be nice.
for pistol all calibers suck. its just what you can shoot better
biohazurd
Member
Id say .300 blackout would be a good compromise for them. I dont think it would be to difficult to convert their existing rifles to that cartridge would it?
mastiffhound
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 420
I find 300 Blackout to be of no use. It doesn't have the range of 7.62 Nato. Within the range of 100 to 300 yards I use expanding .224 bullets for reloading. Far too much hype for a half-a** attempt at improving the .223/5.56. If I want more power I will go with the 6.5 Grendel or the 6.8 SPC, both of them have more power than the 300 BLK and fit in the same magwell. This 300 BLK is just really good marketing for something that doesn't do anything that 99%( +0r minus- 5%) of shooters even need.
From their own (AAC) website in Italic:
Full power 115-125 grain ammunition matches the ballistics of the 7.62x39mm AK
300 BLK 125 grain OTM= 2215 FPS and 1360 Ft lbs(from AAC site) 16" barrel
7.62x39 122 grain FMJ= 2396 FPS and 1555 Ft lbs 16.33" barrel
WRONG
Ammo and brass prices are low - Remington 115 grain UMC ammo is $12.99 a box MSRP
This is plinking ammo. I'm sure this was pre-panic.
I can get plinking 7.62x39 for $5 to $6 a box from Cabelas right now, Panic and all (I just bought some last week)
Is 12.99 a low price then? No, not really.
At 300 meters, 300 BLK has 16.7% more energy than 7.62x39mm.
I find that hard to believe unless the laws of physics changed. A slower moving projectile of the same approximate weight has more energy?
Due to the high efficiency of the cartridge, less powder is used than 5.56mm, which results in a rifle that is a comfortable to shoot - even with a short barrel.
Using less powder than the 5.56 is nice, although not completely true. 300 BLK uses 19 grains per round with most recomended powders. I can do the same with IMR 4198 in .223/5.56, 19 grains per round. Have you ever had someone tell you that your 5.56 AR "kicked" to hard and was uncomfortable to shoot? Oh, and that poorly written sentence"which results in a rifle that is a comfortable to shoot" is copied directly from AAC's sight.
The only thing that it might do better than most is sound suppession. That's all I can find that it might do better.
The unfortunate part is that 300 BLK is advertised as the reinvention of the wheel. Do you have a .223/5.56 AR? Do you have more than one? What are your chances of buying another upper or rifle in .223/5.56? Not very good for most. Well what can we as a company do to make you buy another rifle or upper? If I tell you that I have this new cartridge that is so cool and awesome that you have to have it you will probably blow me off. How about if ten people in sales tell you ten times? How about 100 people in sales tell you 100 times? And so on and so on. Unless you are suppressing the 300 BLK it is useless. You can plink cheaper with .223/5.56, you get more power with 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC.
I always find the biggest defenders of 300 BLK also sell either the ammo, uppers, rifles, or all three. My friend defended his purchase for awhile, then he sold his 300 BLK. His
four main reasons were;
1. .308 Bullets for reloading cost more than .224, so does factory ammo. Slightly less powder used but much more expensive bullets.
2. He already has an AK copy
3. He purchased an upper in 6.5 Grendel, it is a sweet shooter and better for long range.
4. At close range the .223/5.56 55 grain Nosler ballistic tip is 3240 fps with 1282 Ft lbs. 78 Ft lbs of difference between the 300 BLK 125 grain OTM and the .223/5.56. That's less than a standard .22LRs power. Some pellet rifles produce more power.
As my friends favorite band says "Don't belive the hype!".
From their own (AAC) website in Italic:
Full power 115-125 grain ammunition matches the ballistics of the 7.62x39mm AK
300 BLK 125 grain OTM= 2215 FPS and 1360 Ft lbs(from AAC site) 16" barrel
7.62x39 122 grain FMJ= 2396 FPS and 1555 Ft lbs 16.33" barrel
WRONG
Ammo and brass prices are low - Remington 115 grain UMC ammo is $12.99 a box MSRP
This is plinking ammo. I'm sure this was pre-panic.
I can get plinking 7.62x39 for $5 to $6 a box from Cabelas right now, Panic and all (I just bought some last week)
Is 12.99 a low price then? No, not really.
At 300 meters, 300 BLK has 16.7% more energy than 7.62x39mm.
I find that hard to believe unless the laws of physics changed. A slower moving projectile of the same approximate weight has more energy?
Due to the high efficiency of the cartridge, less powder is used than 5.56mm, which results in a rifle that is a comfortable to shoot - even with a short barrel.
Using less powder than the 5.56 is nice, although not completely true. 300 BLK uses 19 grains per round with most recomended powders. I can do the same with IMR 4198 in .223/5.56, 19 grains per round. Have you ever had someone tell you that your 5.56 AR "kicked" to hard and was uncomfortable to shoot? Oh, and that poorly written sentence"which results in a rifle that is a comfortable to shoot" is copied directly from AAC's sight.
The only thing that it might do better than most is sound suppession. That's all I can find that it might do better.
The unfortunate part is that 300 BLK is advertised as the reinvention of the wheel. Do you have a .223/5.56 AR? Do you have more than one? What are your chances of buying another upper or rifle in .223/5.56? Not very good for most. Well what can we as a company do to make you buy another rifle or upper? If I tell you that I have this new cartridge that is so cool and awesome that you have to have it you will probably blow me off. How about if ten people in sales tell you ten times? How about 100 people in sales tell you 100 times? And so on and so on. Unless you are suppressing the 300 BLK it is useless. You can plink cheaper with .223/5.56, you get more power with 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC.
I always find the biggest defenders of 300 BLK also sell either the ammo, uppers, rifles, or all three. My friend defended his purchase for awhile, then he sold his 300 BLK. His
four main reasons were;
1. .308 Bullets for reloading cost more than .224, so does factory ammo. Slightly less powder used but much more expensive bullets.
2. He already has an AK copy
3. He purchased an upper in 6.5 Grendel, it is a sweet shooter and better for long range.
4. At close range the .223/5.56 55 grain Nosler ballistic tip is 3240 fps with 1282 Ft lbs. 78 Ft lbs of difference between the 300 BLK 125 grain OTM and the .223/5.56. That's less than a standard .22LRs power. Some pellet rifles produce more power.
As my friends favorite band says "Don't belive the hype!".
Last edited:
HorseSoldier
Member
The reason they're interested in 7.62x51 rifles is because in Afghanistan these days many fights start at 400+ meters and never get much closer than that. Unlike Vietnam, the bad guys in this one learned early on that attempts to grab ISAF forces by the belt buckle in a firefight is a losing proposition. Since we're incredible restrictive over there with supporting air and artillery, small units are having to fight it out with what they have organic to themselves (I think almost every bad guy killed in the province I was in on my last trip was killed with a .50 cal or either an M240 or the MG3s the Italians used, for instance).
300 Blackout doesn't address the need that's presenting itself in AFG that has guys wanting SCAR Hs.
The 300 BO is just hype. It's just another "latest and greatest" from the manufacturers. Remember the 300RSAUM's or WSSM's? Everyone HAD to have them. Now? They are just rifles in need of rechambering. I'll still take my SA M1A and XD45 any day for anything from 10ft-500yds with irons, and farther with glass on top. There are better long range calibers out there like 338lap and 50bmg. But those are designated rounds out of designated rifles.
The 556 is great for suppressive fire. It's great for wounding. But it's not great for killing. Another problem is FMJ ammo. You have to have a bigger diameter bullet to have a bigger wound channel.
The 556 is great for suppressive fire. It's great for wounding. But it's not great for killing. Another problem is FMJ ammo. You have to have a bigger diameter bullet to have a bigger wound channel.
This argument has been beat to death, but I just can't help but jump in again. My .02;
The 7.62 NATO and the 5.56 are both more accurate, in general circumstances, than the vast majority of shooters and even of military shooters. The idea that equipping a modern military with 7.62 NATO rifles will suddenly turn every infantryman into the equivalent of a designated marksmen is asinine. In my time in the Marines I learned that the 5.56 is still very accurate at 500 meters which, as I've seen, is beyond the range that most Marines can make consistent hits. This is not to say that the 7.62 round wouldn't be effective in specialized roles, but supposing that an enemy IS at that range and supposing that the average infantryman at that distance misses more often than hits, wouldn't you rather ye average infantryman possess more ammo above a slightly more accurate round?
Some have commented about the supposed superior penetration and lethality characteristics of 7.62 over 5.56. I was never deployed directly in combat so I'll not pretend to have an educated opinion on the matter. I can say that the combat vets that I served with seemed more than happy with their 5.56 M16's (M4's were less loved) paired with ACOG's. One Marine told me that the ACOG was the best piece of equipment the Marine Corps has adopted in a long time, and proceded to describe just how lethal his riflemen were with that platform. His perspective was that the ACOG/5.56/body armor combination made sure that they came out on top of every stand up firefight. I never once got the impression that he was dissatisified with his weapon or round.
About penetration; the 7.62 doesn't necessarily have greater penetration than 5.56, or 5.45x39. My friends and I found this out personally plinking on my farm, and Sturngewehre illustrates this here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=547BKysByqM
Also I think this video from a Doctor specializing in treating gunshot wounds is extremely enlightening;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA
The doctor makes the point that pistol wounds, essentially regardless of caliber, are typically not lethal as long as the patient isn't allowed to bleed out. Rifle wounds, essentially regardless of caliber, are absolutely devistating. Scroll to 9:05 to see the tremendous bone damage that the 5.56 can cause.
It's hard to watch the video, but I think that it drives home the point that the human body is extremely fragile when faced with a high velocity rifle round of any caliber. I'm very sceptical of a scenerio where a 5.56 round failed to stop an individual, and an extra 2mm of bullet diameter would magically get the job done.
The 7.62 NATO and the 5.56 are both more accurate, in general circumstances, than the vast majority of shooters and even of military shooters. The idea that equipping a modern military with 7.62 NATO rifles will suddenly turn every infantryman into the equivalent of a designated marksmen is asinine. In my time in the Marines I learned that the 5.56 is still very accurate at 500 meters which, as I've seen, is beyond the range that most Marines can make consistent hits. This is not to say that the 7.62 round wouldn't be effective in specialized roles, but supposing that an enemy IS at that range and supposing that the average infantryman at that distance misses more often than hits, wouldn't you rather ye average infantryman possess more ammo above a slightly more accurate round?
Some have commented about the supposed superior penetration and lethality characteristics of 7.62 over 5.56. I was never deployed directly in combat so I'll not pretend to have an educated opinion on the matter. I can say that the combat vets that I served with seemed more than happy with their 5.56 M16's (M4's were less loved) paired with ACOG's. One Marine told me that the ACOG was the best piece of equipment the Marine Corps has adopted in a long time, and proceded to describe just how lethal his riflemen were with that platform. His perspective was that the ACOG/5.56/body armor combination made sure that they came out on top of every stand up firefight. I never once got the impression that he was dissatisified with his weapon or round.
About penetration; the 7.62 doesn't necessarily have greater penetration than 5.56, or 5.45x39. My friends and I found this out personally plinking on my farm, and Sturngewehre illustrates this here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=547BKysByqM
Also I think this video from a Doctor specializing in treating gunshot wounds is extremely enlightening;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA
The doctor makes the point that pistol wounds, essentially regardless of caliber, are typically not lethal as long as the patient isn't allowed to bleed out. Rifle wounds, essentially regardless of caliber, are absolutely devistating. Scroll to 9:05 to see the tremendous bone damage that the 5.56 can cause.
It's hard to watch the video, but I think that it drives home the point that the human body is extremely fragile when faced with a high velocity rifle round of any caliber. I'm very sceptical of a scenerio where a 5.56 round failed to stop an individual, and an extra 2mm of bullet diameter would magically get the job done.
Sambo,
The argument over 5.56/7.62x51 is debated constantly in many forms. But there is no denying that (all things being equal) a heavier projectile is going to be less effected by the elements than a smaller, less stable round. That's why the 338lap and 50bmg are designated long range rounds. They simply kill better at range. Whatever it is that they are aimed at.
Now I want to make it clear to all the AR fans out there that I'm not knocking the 5.56. With proper bullets it is a very devastating round. But it's not capable of blowing through a tree or mortar wall and killing the guy on the other side. The 308 can. I have seen it, and I've done it. In CQC the M4 on burst is almost ideal. The M14 is not going to be as fast on the draw due to its weight and length. So the debate continues. Both have clear advantages and disadvantages.
Now as far as pistols go, this guy claims they aren't typically lethal as long as the patient isn't allowed to bleed out. I'm trying not to laugh at that. Other than a shot that shuts down the CNS all wounds require bleeding out to be lethal. The issue is stopping power in an engagement, not lethality. And the round that does the most damage is the one that stops the threat the soonest. So is it your belief that 115 FMJ 9mm is going to stop someone just as fast as a 230 PDX-1 45 with the same (non instantly fatal) shot placement?
The argument over 5.56/7.62x51 is debated constantly in many forms. But there is no denying that (all things being equal) a heavier projectile is going to be less effected by the elements than a smaller, less stable round. That's why the 338lap and 50bmg are designated long range rounds. They simply kill better at range. Whatever it is that they are aimed at.
Now I want to make it clear to all the AR fans out there that I'm not knocking the 5.56. With proper bullets it is a very devastating round. But it's not capable of blowing through a tree or mortar wall and killing the guy on the other side. The 308 can. I have seen it, and I've done it. In CQC the M4 on burst is almost ideal. The M14 is not going to be as fast on the draw due to its weight and length. So the debate continues. Both have clear advantages and disadvantages.
Now as far as pistols go, this guy claims they aren't typically lethal as long as the patient isn't allowed to bleed out. I'm trying not to laugh at that. Other than a shot that shuts down the CNS all wounds require bleeding out to be lethal. The issue is stopping power in an engagement, not lethality. And the round that does the most damage is the one that stops the threat the soonest. So is it your belief that 115 FMJ 9mm is going to stop someone just as fast as a 230 PDX-1 45 with the same (non instantly fatal) shot placement?
Ehtereon11B
internet infantryman
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 983
The biggest Achilles heal in this discussion is logistics. The military by and large would rather have a one sized fits all solution as far as weapons. For example, a SDM (Squad Designated Marksman) is a shooter who has gone through extra training to farther than the standard 300 meters. The M16 is the preferred weapon for this role because it shares the same round as the M4: 5.56NATO. And depending on which manual you read, the M16 has an effective range of 600 meters over the M4's 550 meters. Now the SDM role could be better suited in 7.62 NATO which would also meat logistic requirements since M240 ammo shoots this round, you would merely unlink the rounds. The military wants a jack of all trades rifle/projectile combination for logistics purposes. On dismounted patrols our 240 gunners doubled as "snipers" for engagements where the M4 could not effectively engage, no M24 was available, but we had 240 gunners that can hit 800-900 meters. Just turned the sniper adage "One Shot, One Kill" to 5-9 round burst, possible kill.
I understand that, but the core argument seems to be where the benefits of added lethality are negated by the weight of actually carrying that ammo and mags around. Larger rounds = less ammo = less overall hit probability (assuming both the 5.56 and 7.62 are more accurate than the average infantryman). It's for this reason that a standard infantryman does not, for example, carry a handful of .50BMG rounds in lieu of his half a dozen mags of 5.56. If ye average infantryman carries 6 spare mags and one in the weapon, does the 2mm of extra bullet diameter and slightly inproved accuracy justify reducing an infantryman's combat load from 210 rounds to 140?
No pistol caliber weapon has true "stopping power" in that the force of the projectile is enough to knock down or knock back an assailant. I believe that the Dr.'s generalization still stands that, a pistol wound isn't typically going to be lethal. Obviously shot placement and medical treatment is the determining factor there, but I don't believe that if both shots are to the same area, that your body will be able to tell much difference between a 1/4 ounce and 1/2 ounce projectile.
Sambo,
Ok I understand the argument of carry capability. Can't dispute that one. And no reasonable person can make the claim that they just need to be more proficient with their weapons and then the lack of ammo wouldn't matter. They have no idea what "under duress" is. So, more rounds equal more potential hits, or more suppressive fire. But it doesn't equal more lethality. So the solution would be a small case with a bigger bullet. So the 6.5 or 6.8 is a better option. Agreed??
Now, to the body not being able to tell the difference between a hit from a 9mm or a 45....
http://www.chuckhawks.com/45_back_military.htm
Ok I understand the argument of carry capability. Can't dispute that one. And no reasonable person can make the claim that they just need to be more proficient with their weapons and then the lack of ammo wouldn't matter. They have no idea what "under duress" is. So, more rounds equal more potential hits, or more suppressive fire. But it doesn't equal more lethality. So the solution would be a small case with a bigger bullet. So the 6.5 or 6.8 is a better option. Agreed??
Now, to the body not being able to tell the difference between a hit from a 9mm or a 45....
http://www.chuckhawks.com/45_back_military.htm
Torian
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 1,016
If we were issued 75 grain BTHPs as our standard 5.56 loading, I would likely be very happy with it. However, since we get the M855, which is great for light armor piercing, but that's about it...I'd go for the 7.62 in an M14/M25 platform.
Since we are also restricted to FMJ for 9mm...I'd swap it out for a .45 in a second.
Since we are also restricted to FMJ for 9mm...I'd swap it out for a .45 in a second.
beatledog7
Member
The main thing that has caused US forces difficulty in recent armed conflicts is the rules of engagement imposed on them. It doesn't matter what round your gun fires if you're not allowed to shoot.
I'll take any proof of this. Thanks.
For the umpteenth time, here's the 1968 report that led to the adoption of the M16. The Vietnam users not happy with the M16 were typically concerned about reliability, not lethality.
John
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Different ballistic coefficients mean the 7.62x39 loses energy faster. You notice how they measured at 300m? Laws of physics.
mastiffhound
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 420
Ballistic coefficient of 7.62x39 122 gr fmj .266 BC
Ballistic coefficient of 300 BLK 125 gr otm .338 BC
at 300 meters(FMJ vs OTM) I will use 300 yards because the extra 28 yards are of no consequence(300 meters equals 328 yards)
7.62x39 energy 654 at 300 yards.
300 BLK energy 684 at 300 yards.
Energy difference is 9.5% better for 300 BLK with premium bullets to surplus 7.62x39 fmj not 16.7% as they claim, 9.5% is not that impressive, so yes laws of physics didn't change. Speed is an equalizer in this case. What is 30 ft-lbs of energy going to do so much better?
Now let's make this even, "premium" ammo to "premium" ammo not cheap surplus to "premium" ammo.
Again to repeat from before
Remington Express 300 BLK 125 gr otm 2215 FPS/ BC .338/ 684 ft-lbs at 300 yards/ cost $29.99 per 20 at Brownells
Fiocchi 7.62x39 124 gr fmj 2375 FPS/ BC .295/ 713 ft-lbs at 300 yards/ cost
$11.99 per 20 at Sportsman's Warehouse
(This is per Hornady's ballistic calculator)
Funny, now the 7.62x39 has 9.5% more energy. Ahh yes, the laws of physics indeed. Who would have thought that all things being close to equal would have this outcome? Not only that but the "Premium" brass cased 7.62x39 costs $18 dollars less.
Like has been stated before, the 300 BLK is only useful if it's suppressed. Other than that not only are better rounds available for the STANAG magazine( 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC) it's not superior to 7.62x39 in cost or performance. As many have stated before it's kind of a pointless round, an answer looking for a question that didn't need answered.
Ballistic coefficient of 300 BLK 125 gr otm .338 BC
at 300 meters(FMJ vs OTM) I will use 300 yards because the extra 28 yards are of no consequence(300 meters equals 328 yards)
7.62x39 energy 654 at 300 yards.
300 BLK energy 684 at 300 yards.
Energy difference is 9.5% better for 300 BLK with premium bullets to surplus 7.62x39 fmj not 16.7% as they claim, 9.5% is not that impressive, so yes laws of physics didn't change. Speed is an equalizer in this case. What is 30 ft-lbs of energy going to do so much better?
Now let's make this even, "premium" ammo to "premium" ammo not cheap surplus to "premium" ammo.
Again to repeat from before
Remington Express 300 BLK 125 gr otm 2215 FPS/ BC .338/ 684 ft-lbs at 300 yards/ cost $29.99 per 20 at Brownells
Fiocchi 7.62x39 124 gr fmj 2375 FPS/ BC .295/ 713 ft-lbs at 300 yards/ cost
$11.99 per 20 at Sportsman's Warehouse
(This is per Hornady's ballistic calculator)
Funny, now the 7.62x39 has 9.5% more energy. Ahh yes, the laws of physics indeed. Who would have thought that all things being close to equal would have this outcome? Not only that but the "Premium" brass cased 7.62x39 costs $18 dollars less.
Like has been stated before, the 300 BLK is only useful if it's suppressed. Other than that not only are better rounds available for the STANAG magazine( 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC) it's not superior to 7.62x39 in cost or performance. As many have stated before it's kind of a pointless round, an answer looking for a question that didn't need answered.
JShirley,
If you're referring to "It's not great at killing", I mean just that. It's not GREAT for killing. There are many rounds that are better suited for killing than the 5.56. Taking a 5.56 to the head or heart will be fatal. So will a 7.62. But the 7.62 causes more trauma to the internal organs than a 5.56 of same bullet design. It simply has to based on bullet diameter, weight, and velocity. More damage=More lethality. Every caliber is potentially lethal. Some are simply MORE lethal than others.
There's no question though if I'm in a run and gun scenario I want the 5.56 M4. It's simply easier to be more mobile.
If you're referring to "It's not great at killing", I mean just that. It's not GREAT for killing. There are many rounds that are better suited for killing than the 5.56. Taking a 5.56 to the head or heart will be fatal. So will a 7.62. But the 7.62 causes more trauma to the internal organs than a 5.56 of same bullet design. It simply has to based on bullet diameter, weight, and velocity. More damage=More lethality. Every caliber is potentially lethal. Some are simply MORE lethal than others.
There's no question though if I'm in a run and gun scenario I want the 5.56 M4. It's simply easier to be more mobile.
One thing to remember about 'lethality' is the construction of the bullet. Since military rounds are limited to FMJ, how they are constructed plays a great deal into the rounds' potential. Here are a few points to consider:
The MK262 77 grain 5.56 will fragment with devastating results when it hits its target, within it's envelope (fragmentation range). The M855 penetrator round leaves a .22 caliber hole (it fragments very little). In this particular case, the MK262 round is more 'lethal', even though they are both 5.56 Nato rounds.
The same holds true for 7.62 nato rounds. Some 7.62 nato rounds fragment more than others, simply because of the construction of the bullet, and the fact that so many countries produce them. I think the West German Patrone 7.62 nato round is known for it's high fragmentation.
If a 7.62 nato round and 5.56 nato round both fragment, of course the 7.62 round will be more lethal. If the 5.56 round fragments, and a 7.62 nato round does not fragment, the 5.56 round will be more lethal. The 7.62 nato round will leave a .30 caliber hole.
If neither round fragments, then of course, the 7.62 round will be more lethal.
The aforementioned points are exclusive of things like temporary and permanent wound cavities, and whether the target is armored. It also assumes either good round fragmentation, or a clean pass through penetration.
The MK262 77 grain 5.56 will fragment with devastating results when it hits its target, within it's envelope (fragmentation range). The M855 penetrator round leaves a .22 caliber hole (it fragments very little). In this particular case, the MK262 round is more 'lethal', even though they are both 5.56 Nato rounds.
The same holds true for 7.62 nato rounds. Some 7.62 nato rounds fragment more than others, simply because of the construction of the bullet, and the fact that so many countries produce them. I think the West German Patrone 7.62 nato round is known for it's high fragmentation.
If a 7.62 nato round and 5.56 nato round both fragment, of course the 7.62 round will be more lethal. If the 5.56 round fragments, and a 7.62 nato round does not fragment, the 5.56 round will be more lethal. The 7.62 nato round will leave a .30 caliber hole.
If neither round fragments, then of course, the 7.62 round will be more lethal.
The aforementioned points are exclusive of things like temporary and permanent wound cavities, and whether the target is armored. It also assumes either good round fragmentation, or a clean pass through penetration.
Last edited:
No, the 7.62x51mm will not automatically be more lethal- it depends on terminal ballistics. Yaw potentially increases destruction.
That was my point to BigBore. Yes, the 7.62x51mm has a larger bore and more raw energy, but bullet construction makes a huge difference.
That was my point to BigBore. Yes, the 7.62x51mm has a larger bore and more raw energy, but bullet construction makes a huge difference.
InkEd
Member
I think it depends on the combat theatre and roll of the unit.
There are no perfect for everything calibers. The SAS is an elite group and can get whatever they want anyway.
I don't care for bullpup rifles like the standard British soldiers are issued. However, I would take their new Glock 17s over our M-9s
There are no perfect for everything calibers. The SAS is an elite group and can get whatever they want anyway.
I don't care for bullpup rifles like the standard British soldiers are issued. However, I would take their new Glock 17s over our M-9s
Bill_Shelton
member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 115
A long while back, I figured this was the case just from watching combat footage posted on Youtube and other sites. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
As far as comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan, it does seem like they are very different. You said that the Vietnamese fought close where the Afghans fight far out, but also hinted that the Vietcong never figured out that fighting close is a losing proposition. I not so sure. The Vietcong learned that they could surprise American Troops (they took initiative the majority of the time) engage for a few minutes, and then disperse into the jungle before the air support arrived. In this case, if the Vietcong are still there when the air support arrives - if they misjudge the timing, it behooves them to be close because air support does not get credit for hitting their own troops.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
