02-06-2012, 12:09 AM
Tony Williams Wrote:Well, we all know that 7.62mm ammo weighs twice as much as 5.56mm, and that the guns are generally heavier too. No news there.
The problem with this comparison is that it assumes that 5.56mm and 7.62mm are equally effective, when there is clear that they are not - in terms of neither suppression nor range (leaving terminal effectiveness out of it). Why else would dismounted and already overloaded troops in Afghanistan be happy to carry the great lump of the GPMG/M240 and its heavyweight ammo? Because it gets the job done when 5.56mm can't.
5.56 & 7.62 NATO are about as equally ineffective if we're talking about soldiers just returning fire upon contact, since it is rare that guys connect. The 7.62 does have a bit of an advantage as far as its convincing power to keep your head down, but within typical engagement distances, I'd much rather get hit with a 7.62 than a 5.56. In 7.62's defense, it punches through barriers very well, but longevity of your fighting load will be a huge determining factor, if not the biggest factor-combined with marksmanship & small unit tactics if small arms are the only tools in play.
Even in semi-auto, it is extremely difficult for most soldiers to control the 7.62 NATO, so follow-up shots are unlikely. Can a seasoned veteran manage one better than most first-term soldiers can run an M4? Yes, but then we get into the training issue, and we'll never solve that without complete institutional overhaul. Then you look at guys that weigh 150lbs soaking wet, and they aren't humping a 7.62 battle rifle plus its basic load for very long at all. You also look at magazine capacity/prone considerations, and a 7.62 NATO rifle for a standard service rifle stays where it belongs...a footnote in history.
In a GPMG that fills a role of reaching out to 800m+ or providing local support by fire, 7.62 NATO makes sense has done a fairly good job of it, weight penalties and lack of maneuverability aside. The Mk48 is attractive in this regard since it is more maneuverable and much lighter, but now we're talking machineguns again.
It's interesting that the MARS and 6x35 KAC PDW are mentioned in that article, because that caliber would do just as well as 5.56 in close-range engagements, although it lacks the terminal ballistics of 5.56 unless expanding tip projectiles are used. I wonder if a propellant could be developed to get it to match 5.56 velocities out of a 16" barrel, because I could carry 20-24 mags of that and be totally fine. It has the ability to lighten up a soldier's load, while reducing space taken on his kit. If the hybrid polymer/metal cases could take the pressures, weight could be significantly reduced.
We want a lot out of technology, and we're at the edge of capability and performance with 5.56 NATO, which is an awesome cartridge for its size/weight, that will be difficult to exceed considerably. We want .50 BMG API or Roufouss terminal performance, with .22 LR recoil and ammo weight.