77grain 5.56mm ammo in The Land Forces Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

77grain 5.56mm ammo

Author	Comment
JBodnar39	77grain 5.56mm ammo	Lead	[-]
Posts: 948 Oct 21 10 10:12 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I've read here and there that the 77grain bullet for the 5.56mm has gotten some use in Iraq and Afghan with good results. I was wondering if anybody had info on how extensively it is being used - just Special Forces? other countries besides the US? Thanks
	Remove this ad
Larrikin22		#1	[-]
Posts: 4331 Oct 21 10 10:57 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Short ranged conscript round, why bother with it. If we were shooting it at coyotes etc it might be a good round. You can lead a leftard to knowledge, but you can't make them think
Burmese Bandit		#2	[-]
Posts: 796 Oct 21 10 3:10 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	http://www.quarry.nildram...%20Next%20Generation.htm 'nuff said!
JBodnar39		#3	[-]
Posts: 948 Oct 22 10 4:54 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Burmese Bandit wrote: http://www.quarry.nildram...%20Next%20Generation.htm 'nuff said! Great Link. Thanks
seasick		#4	[-]
Posts: 9659 Oct 23 10 5:36 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"One gun fits all" is the problem. The M-16 isn't great in mountain combat, surprise . . . surprise. A longer barrel higher muzzle velocity. How about saying if someone isn't wearing a military uniform you can shoot bullets without a full metal jacket at them. Dig out the M60 machine guns from storage. Use "dumb-dumb bullets" they are actually mortar rounds for the M16 mortar.
Craiglxviii		#5	[-]
Posts: 265 Jan 26 11 4:14 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Why not just dig out the 7.62mm LMG? There must be hundreds kicking around in armouries all over the UK. I'm sure my old school CCF armoury still has 4... Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?
IcelofAngeln		#6	[-]
Posts: 5898 Jan 26 11 6:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's no surprise that the Pentagon has pulled a bunch of M-14s out of storage and issued them to 'designated marksmen', together with developing the M-14 based "Enhanced Marksman Rifle." A 5.56 carbine just isn't the weapon to 'reach out and touch someone' at typical Afghan engagement ranges. The real problem, of course, is that NATO needs a new assault-rifle cartridge; a glorified varmint round just doesn't cut it. The Brits were absolutely right with their postwar .280 Enfield (7x43mm Mk IZ), and the US Army was boneheaded in imposing first the .308 Winchester (too big) and then the .223 Remington (too small). Of the current contenders, the 6.8x43mm SPC appears the most promising, since it will feed in existing 5.56 actions with a barrel swap and new return spring. But will politics and budget allow it? I doubt it. 45 years of the M-16/5.56 combination is drearily like the 19th-century Army's adherence to the obsolescent trapdoor Springfield.
IcelofAngeln		#7	[-]
Posts: 5898 Jan 26 11 6:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Craiglxviii wrote: Why not just dig out the 7.62mm LMG? There must be hundreds kicking around in armouries all over the UK. I'm sure my old school CCF armoury still has 4... Actually HM Forces in AfPak have already deployed the L7A2 MG, which is the good old FN MAG (the US calls it the M240).
Dcnwilltex		#8	[-]
Posts: 2845 Jan 26 11 9:02 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A 72 grain 5.56 round is not going to be common among any conventional units. 1. The round is not found in the supply system. Units would have to have a special distributor send it to them directly. 2. The rifling on barrels utilizing such munitions will be ruined after a hundred rounds. Pushing a 77 grain bullet through a barrel designed for a 62 grain bullet is going to wear out the rifling much quicker unless you slow down the bullets velocity. A Battalion commander is not going to be given permission to trash 600 rifles and 54 SAWs by utilizing unauthorized munitions. Units with specialized armorers who can alter weapons can overlook such a problem.
Cody2		#9	[-]
Posts: 1557 Jan 27 11 2:18 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	How often do these 900 m shots actualy hit anything? The 300 m range studies were based around injuries. It was long known that shots up to 1000m were possible but with traditional iron sights and infantry training rarly hit anything. Thus the thinking was why design a heavy and expensive weapon that will early hit anything because the human condition doesn't allow for it? Other only thing that really is different now is the possibility of computerized sights that allow long range shots to be made more easily. If they actualy allow infantry to take such long range shots successfully then maybe a longer ranged cartrage is needed. I'm not at all convinced that the new computerized sights will be all that effective one the human factors are taken into account. Last Edited By: Cody2 Jan 27 11 2:34 AM. Edited 1 times.
Cody2		#10	[-]
Posts: 1557 Jan 27 11 2:31 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Delete a double post
	Remove this ad
bgile		#11	[-]
Posts: 3569 Jan 27 11 3:58 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Cody2, You did read the part about suppression, right? And the different effect of larger rounds? 900m is exceptionally long, but it your soldiers can't shoot well enough to display increased effectiveness at somewhat shorter range with a 7.62mm round compared with a 5.56mm round from a shorter barrel ... there is something wrong with your training regimen. I agree that many soldiers are not trained well enough to take full advantage of a 7.62mm rifle.
Cody2		#12	[-]
Posts: 1557 Jan 27 11 6:12 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I did read the part about long range supression, but remain somewhat unconvinced. For supression fire, you want the biggest round possible, with as many as possible. The problem comes back to supply. If the common rifles are 5.56, then it makes sense to make the MG's 5.56, simply to help with supply, and weight constraits. What ever is the optimum round for the assult rifles will likly end up being used by some or all of the MGs. That's even if they're not the optimum cartrage for the MGs. The studies of World War II, Korea, and Veitnam were pretty clear about the results from the rifles. Beyand 300m the common infantry man with common, iron sights on a rifle had very very small chances of actualy hitting any targets. Not simply because the training was such that he couldn't, but also because of the tactics of the enemy and geometry of the shot. Even at at long ranges both sides would not expose themselves for extended peroids of time. A shooter would have to identify the target at a great range, sight it properly, and then shoot it, with a sigificant delay between the time that he fires and the bullet arriving. That is hard as hell to do properly, and both the US and the USSR came to the conclusion that it was senseless to build a gun to attempt to allow him to do so. 300m is a fairly long way to shoot under such conditons, 900m is WAY long. These studies resulted in the AK-47, AK-74, M-16 etc. What has changed that would allow the enemy to pull off the shots, and actualy hit something that the troops before couldn't do? The Afgan's equipment seems to be obsolete, with much of it being the same equipment that was studied by the US in the origional studies. The US's equipment is if anything worse at long range shots that it was back in the 1950s when the studies were first started. To me this looks a bit like an over reaction to an enemy that adopted this tactics because he has no choice, not because they are potentialy effective. It also allows some of the groups that origionaly championed the larger rounds to rechampian the same old arguements again. Maybe the new computerized laser sights will change everything. If and when they do, then it will be time to build a new round to take advantage of the new sights. Untill them, I'd like to know what changed since the origional studies.
CliffS	Back To The Future?	#13	[-]
Posts: 2084 Jan 27 11 7:14 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	IcelofAngeln wrote: Craiglxviii wrote: Why not just dig out the 7.62mm LMG? There must be hundreds kicking around in armouries all over the UK. I'm sure my old school CCF armoury still has 4... Actually HM Forces in AfPak have already deployed the L7A2 MG, which is the good old FN MAG (the US calls it the M240). I think Craig is referring to the L4 version of the Bren (converted from the curved-mag .303" in the early 60s IIRC). Agreed, the Jimpy is excellent, but L4 is lighter. I suspect this debate is similar to the discussions on alternative energy supplies. There's a helluva lot of 5.56 out there; the US is not likely to be enthusiastic about a replacement cartridge until they've established a monopoly on supply of same. (Just as the oil companies sit on the patents for AE generation until the oil runs out.) As Tony Williams points out, the Brits had the answer 60 years ago, but the Americans steamrollered them with the adoption of 7.62 for all NATO armies. Cheers, Cliff
Larrikin22		#14	[-]
Posts: 4331 Jan 27 11 7:55 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I could regularly hit upper torso targets at 800m with a SLR L1A1 on rapid fire. Decent range training will enable you to consistently put rounds in the the appropriate target space with a decent rifle. During WWI the BEF and large numbers of AIF diggers were quite capable of, and consistently did, hit targets out to 1,000yds. Why, because they could actually shoot. Whilst conscript armies aren't going to produce those sort of results, modern all professional armies should be able to replicate what the BEF could do 100 years ago. You can lead a leftard to knowledge, but you can't make them think
bgile		#15	[-]
Posts: 3569 Jan 27 11 8:14 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Agreed.
IcelofAngeln		#16	[-]
Posts: 5898 Jan 27 11 8:47 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There's a helluva lot of 5.56 out there; the US is not likely to be enthusiastic about a replacement cartridge until they've established a monopoly on supply of same. And how would that work? The patent on the 5.56 expired years ago, and that on the 6.8 Remington is already half used up. Every ammo company in the world makes 5.56/.223 Remington. There's no monopoly beyond patent rights in ammunition, just the willingness to put it into production. The only way for the US to establish a "monopoly" on 6.8 or any other cartridge is to adopt the thing, quickly, and let Remington collect royalties for a very few years. (Just as the oil companies sit on the patents for AE generation until the oil runs out.) Oh, dear, this one again. "Sitting on" the patents? You mean patents "hidden from the world" on the online searchable US Patent Office site? Rather the whole point of a patent- you have to disclose the invention publicly. Sorry- no Evil Capitalists are sitting on a big pot of Magic Green Leprechaun Energy. There isn't any (unless those Italian cold fusion guys aren't actually lying their butts off).
Craiglxviii		#17	[-]
Posts: 265 Jan 27 11 11:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Cliff, yes, that's exactly what I meant. L4 LMG with the straight 7.62mm 30 round box mag. Top notch bit of kit, proper warry and a few 3-round bursts out to 800m would take down charging Tallytubbies I'm pretty sure. Probably with big pieces missing off them too. It got me thinking, when we deployed for Op Corporate, am I right in recalling that there was a heavy preponderance of automatic weapons deployed over the FN L1A1? Something about each inf section drawing an LMG in addition to its GPMG gun group? Just makes me wonder if a similar system could be used today. De la Billiere's autobiography gives an interesting account of borrowing- actually with permission- a .30 Cal browning from the nearby armoured car detachment when in Aden (or somewhere sandy, at any rate) to give an attack a weight of fire at long range greater than would be achievable over the 7.62mm NATO rounds his men were using. Strikes me that we are now in the same sort of predicament now with 7.62mm over 5.56mm. Cody, did an exercise in Minnesota a few years back, well OK a few more than a few years back, with the Red Bull infantry division. I remember the Americans were all amazed at our Toms marksmanship capability using just the standard SUSAT over the M16's iron sights, and I never found difficulty in getting torso hits out to 500m using it, or out to 800m with the LMG or FN. Training, regular effective range training with plenty of rounds, really does help. The .303", .30" cal, 7.92mm et al controversy that was solved with 7.62 short and then replaced with 5.56mm was really based around a Western European battlefield (the Red Horde rolling over the IGB) tempered with the Americans experiences in a certain hot wet green place. Certain weapons, as with everything else, are more effective in certain conditions as opposed to others, remember. US soldiers in the highlands of Vietnam found that their M16s couldn't effectively engage NVA at maximum range, so opted to draw M14s instead (forget the name of the book, but a British boy growing up in America, went through ROTC and volunteered into the US Army to go to Vietnam as an officer, without becoming a US citizen. Good book too, he was captured but escaped, and mentions he regularly patrolled with a 7.62mm sniper rifle instead of his M16, and urged his platoon to do the same). So the weapon/ round combination that we're using now is really based around a war fighting enviroment that looks either like Germany or Vietnam. Pretty short ranged engagements, and not many long open flat spaces. I'm sure I heard years back that the Swiss had introduced a new 5.56mm bullet to give maximum terminal effectiveness at maximum range for their G3 (?) rifles, as all their expected inf firefights would be out to 400-500m or more. I'm also sure I heard that one of the hardest to deal with problems in the Stan was Taliban armed with the SMLE... so maybe we should go back to .303"? Grr. Get the Vickers out! Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?
CliffS		#18	[-]
Posts: 2084 Jan 27 11 2:47 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Craiglxviii wrote: Cliff, yes, that's exactly what I meant. L4 LMG with the straight 7.62mm 30 round box mag. Top notch bit of kit, proper warry and a few 3-round bursts out to 800m would take down charging Tallytubbies I'm pretty sure. Probably with big pieces missing off them too. It got me thinking, when we deployed for Op Corporate, am I right in recalling that there was a heavy preponderance of automatic weapons deployed over the FN L1A1? Something about each inf section drawing an LMG in addition to its GPMG gun group? Just makes me wonder if a similar system could be used today. De la Billiere's autobiography gives an interesting account of borrowing- actually with permission- a .30 Cal browning from the nearby armoured car detachment when in Aden (or somewhere sandy, at any rate) to give an attack a weight of fire at long range greater than would be achievable over the 7.62mm NATO rounds his men were using. Strikes me that we are now in the same sort of predicament now with 7.62mm over 5.56mm. Cody, did an exercise in Minnesota a few years back, well OK a few more than a few years back, with the Red Bull infantry division. I remember the Americans were all amazed at our Toms marksmanship capability using just the standard SUSAT over the M16's iron sights, and I never found difficulty in getting torso hits out to 500m using it, or out to 800m with the LMG or FN. Training, regular effective range training with plenty of rounds, really does help. The .303", .30" cal, 7.92mm et al controversy that was solved with 7.62 short and then replaced with 5.56mm was really based around a Western European battlefield (the Red Horde rolling over the IGB) tempered with the Americans experiences in a certain hot wet green place. Certain weapons, as with everything else, are more effective in certain conditions as opposed to others, remember. US soldiers in the highlands of Vietnam found that their M16s couldn't effectively engage NVA at maximum range, so opted to draw M14s instead (forget the name of the book, but a British boy growing up in America, went through ROTC and volunteered into the US Army to go to Vietnam as an officer, without becoming a US citizen. Good book too, he was captured but escaped, and mentions he regularly patrolled with a 7.62mm sniper rifle instead of his M16, and urged his platoon to do the same). So the weapon/ round combination that we're using now is really based around a war fighting enviroment that looks either like Germany or Vietnam. Pretty short ranged engagements, and not many long open flat spaces. I'm sure I heard years back that the Swiss had introduced a new 5.56mm bullet to give maximum terminal effectiveness at maximum range for their G3 (?) rifles, as all their expected inf firefights would be out to 400-500m or more. I'm also sure I heard that one of the hardest to deal with problems in the Stan was Taliban armed with the SMLE... so maybe we should go back to .303"? Grr. Get the Vickers out! Craig, I have no issue with any of your points. I go back a couple of soldiering generations more than you, but the LIAI was a staple of my training. We proved the longer-range superiority of the SLR over the (then) AR-15 in trials against the US Air Force in Berlin. Targets, ISTR, were 44-gallon drums filled with whitewash. Made the Armalite round look much more destructive with a huge gush of liquid out the back of the target: the 7.62 OTOH, kept on hitting the target (dribble of whitewash out of the back) long after the 5.56 dropped short. Op Corporate (I was with I Cdo Coy, Aust Army Reserve, at the time) really attracted my attention. Seeing fellow Green Beret wearers in action gave us a real boost. From my reading at the time, the British combed the stores for every available MG. Old .30" and .50" Brownings (some dismounted from decomm'd armoured cars) were not ignored. The Brits were determined to win the firefight at all costs - and they did. L4s played a major role in this plan. Cheers, Cliff
bager1968		#19	[-]
Posts: 7585 Jan 27 11 8:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Craiglxviii wrote: The .303", .30" cal, 7.92mm et al controversy that was solved with 7.62 short and then replaced with 5.56mm was really based around a Western European battlefield (the Red Horde rolling over the IGB) tempered with the Americans experiences in a certain hot wet green place. Certain weapons, as with everything else, are more effective in certain conditions as opposed to others, remember. ..... So the weapon/ round combination that we're using now is really based around a war fighting enviroment that looks either like Germany or Vietnam. Pretty short ranged engagements, and not many long open flat spaces. Actually, if you look at the dates, the 5.56 was designed between 1957 and early-1959 (the US Army first tested it in March 1959, when there were less than 1,000 US "advisers" in Vietnam {900 as of Dec. 1960}), ordered by the USAF when there were only some 3,000 US "advisers" (summer 1961), and adopted by the US Army at a time when there were only 16,400 US "advisers" there (June 1964). The 5.56 came out of the earlier fighting in a cold, rocky, snowy place, as well as from plans for stopping Bulganin's boys. See Project ALCLAD (1948), Project SALVO, and Project SALVO II, and especially the report that recommended the 5.56 calibre in the first place: Hall, Donald L. (1952). An Effectiveness Study of the Infantry Rifle. Maryland: Army Ballistic Research Lab, Aberdeen Proving Ground. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Foai.dtic.mil%2Foai%2Foai%3Fverb%3DgetRecord%26metadataPrefix%3Dhtml%26identifier%3DAD0377335&rct=j&q=An%20Effectiveness%20Study%20of%20the%20Infantry%20Rifle&ei=DrhBTb_sNYSglAeWjq0d&usg=AFQjCNGvz3e7HN7Vo0rMq0DxhTWdBj91cA&sig2=Sxrq6Pcb2cu99AP-dlQRag&cad=rja . http://www.stormingmedia.us/53/5337/0533773.html In the summer of 1961, General Curtis LeMay had been promoted to the position of USAF Chief of Staff, and requested an order of 80,000 AR-15s for the U.S. Air Force. Procurement of the M14 was abruptly halted in late 1963 due to a September 1962 report by the comptroller of the Department of Defense, which had stated that the weapon was even deemed "completely inferior" to the World War II M1 Garand, and that the AR-15 (soon to be M16) was superior to the M14 (DOD did not cancel FY 1963 orders not yet delivered). After the report, a series of tests and reports by the United States Department of the Army followed that resulted in the decision to cancel the M14. The M16 was then ordered as a replacement for the M14 by direction of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in 1964. Who'd have thought 30 years ago Hermes would still be in active service when Invincible was at the breakers yard? Last Edited By: bager1968 Jan 27 11 8:24 PM. Edited 2 times.
Cody2		#20	[-]
Posts: 1557 Jan 27 11 8:54 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I do not dought that 900m shots are possible on the target range. I have no question that a reasonably profession unit can hit targets the size of a man can be hit at ranges past 1000m. After all, the 45-70 goverment was used with falling breach block rifles in 1000 yard shoots as long ago as the late 1800s. Hitting a 900m target is difficult, but deffently do able. The problem is not the ability to put a bullet on a human sized target at that range. The problem is to put it on a human sized target that refuses to stay out in the open long enough to do it. The enemy doesn't just stand there while you find him, sight him, and then shoot him. If he has to be in the open, he's moving. He's jumping between cover spots. He's staying the HELL out of the way of any lead that is coming for him. Again, how many times are the Afgans actualy hitting the soldgers? Not supressing them, not shooting at them, but actualy hitting them? How often do the allied units 7.62 or 5.56 cartrages actualy hit the Afgans? If the trends from the last 100 years of war continue to be observed, it will be rarly at all. If that has changed, then it's important to note.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

77grain 5.56mm ammo

77grain 5.56mm ammo