Infantry combat ranges, an interesting graphic

[Reagans Rascals]

Bigger is better. I do not know if I agree.

With a bigger projectile/cartridge comes many negatives:

Increased weapon weight (depending on materials used)
Increased recoil
Increased ammunition weight

The incapacitation potential of any given projectile is more dependent on bullet placement, than on caliber. Also, the way the projectile behaves in tissue is a major factor (yaw, fragment, expand).

Also, training is an issue in this debate. At what range can you hit a stationary target? A moving target? An obscured target? How many rounds does it take to hit the different targets at different ranges? How good are troops at estimating range? The "one shot stop" gun will not be effective unless you can hit (not that it will ever exist). If you have a caliber that results in a major increase in recoil, follow up shot speed and precision will be reduced.

In the norwegian military, we have seen a drastic change in how quickly our soldiers become good shooters. With the HK416 in 5.56 it takes less time than with a G3 in 7.62.

Also, in my eyes the assault rifle is not the primary casualty producing weapon a unit has. Take this in the context it is meant, coming from an NCO in a conventional infantry battalion. It's not an argument for stopping ammunition development of course, but how big a difference will we actually see between a 5.56 and a 6.8 for example, in real life? Will the complaints still be there for the 6.8 after 10 years, old or new complaints?

The ideal round is a round that provides good accuracy out to a certain distance (600-800 meters), consistent yawing and fragmentation while still producing adequate penetration depths. Also needs to have good barrier penetration abilities.

I am not very familiar with the newer US ammo types, MK262 and MK318, so I do not know how they perform. I do not have big issues with 5.56 however, as I know it can be effective.

yes I do agree the 5.56 is and has been an effective cartridge. What the just of my original statement was getting at was the cartridge has been in place for 50 years. And there has yet to be much by way of innovation.

Smaller calibers offer higher magazine capacities, allow carry of more ammunition overall, and reduce recoil, however; they are less effective at range in both terminal ballistics and accuracy than their larger counterparts (7.62, .338, etc.), key phrase is less effective, they are still more than fine for the current job, just not as effective as other viable options.

Most would concede the switch to MK18ish platforms came by concern of encountering armored targets. And the velocity of the 5.56 lends itself better than 9mm against those targets. That being said, that scenario is based on the hypothetical what-if situation. So its just as logical to ask the question--- what if you are required to engage targets both at close range and beyond 700m within the same firefight. A higher-powered cartridge lends itself favorably to both types of engagements, at ranges beyond 1000 meters and well below 100.

I'm just of the school of thought... its better to have it and not need it... than to be in the shit without it... just simply the confidence in knowing the round you are carrying can successfully do any job you ask it to... within reason..

Most people would favor a round that packs the punch of a .338 Lapua, while utilizing a casing the size of a 9mm... if it was available.

So I was simply stating that efforts should be placed elsewhere, such as case designs and powder compositions, rather than attempting to improve a 50 year old design... so one day there doesn't have to be a compromise between recoil, magazine weight, and performance.

perhaps a longer, thinner projectile. Instead of increasing diameter up to 7.62, increase length by 2mm, to create a larger tumbling action once it impacts soft tissue... but once again this is dependent on casing and powder innovations.

The entire problem is the size of the case, which obviously comes from the amount of powder they require. If we could create newer powder compositions that could theoretically reduce the size of the casing required, carrying a larger round such as the 7.62 would not be the burden it once was, causing the creation of the 5.56 in the first place....

[wild_wild_wes]

At what range can you hit a stationary target? A moving target? An obscured target?

That is the biggest limiting factor, I think. The target just can't be seen past certain ranges due to intervening obstacles and terrain. And of course they will be moving to...

[wesprt]

From personal experiance, I can say that 100% of shots in an urban enviroment do not occur at less then 100 m.

Well, there's lies, damn lies and statistics

[Heavy Metal]

Most troops could not estimate a range if it ran over them, so the chart is going to get dicked by garbage in, garbage out...

I made the mistake of doing the short drive thing and using the public range two weeks ago. A good ole boy who showed up asked if he could use the target I set at 100. I was on the far end with a buddy working the pistol targets at 7, 10 and 15 and told him to go ahead.

I got back and found out he shot up my 50M target. I bet he thinks something else is 6 inches long too!

[John Hearne]

Also, training is an issue in this debate. At what range can you hit a stationary target? A moving target? An obscured target? How many rounds does it take to hit the different targets at different ranges?

It was interesting to read in "Trigger Men" the difficulties trained snipers with bolt action guns had engaging targets under these circumstances. Suddenly, the need for a semi-automatic sniper rifle makes sense. Again, these are the best shooters we have and they're not producing the same results that their performance on the range would predict.

[Heavy Metal]

It was interesting to read in "Trigger Men" the difficulties trained snipers with bolt action guns had engaging targets under these circumstances. Suddenly, the need for a semi-automatic sniper rifle makes sense. Again, these are the best shooters we have and they're not producing the same results that their performance on the range would predict.

I tell you what, it is damn hard to see someone in decent camo more than a few hundred yards away. Add the dust and smoke of the battlefield and it only gets worse.

[lamarbrog]

I think that the Russians seeing the advantages of the SCHV concept and switching to the 5.45x39mm shows that, while we can debate exactly which is better, that SCHV definitely is a valid principle.

My personal preference is for the 5.56x45mm, out of the current selection available. This is coming from a guy who started out as a 7.62x39mm and AK fan.

While 6.8SPC and the like might offer some minimal advantages in some areas, the minor benefits are not worth the shortcomings. This is what I would think in the 1950s when this could be looked at in such a simple way. I'd still prefer 5.56mm over 6.8mm.

Now, the situation is much more complicated. The minor benefits that may exist are not worth the expense and logistics issues. Even though I prefer 5.56mm.... If we were standardized on 6.8SPC, and 5.56mm was trying to replace it, I'd say stick with 6.8SPC.

They're both good cartridges, and I really don't think it matters. 5.56mm was here first.

[mkmckinley]

Without getting too much into the caliber debate the graph above is going to change a lot based on AO and enemy TTPs. For instance in Helmand the stinkys often engage from a good distance, 400-800m, from covered and concealed positions, with crew served weapons placed across a ravine or canal etc. The graph would look a lot different because they're avoiding the close stuff when they can and opting to engage in very specific circumstances. At least in my experience. If you could measure it accurately I bet you would see a small spike at the 0-100m range and then an increase between 400 and 800m.

[Keydet08]

"Also, in my eyes the assault rifle is not the primary casualty producing weapon a unit has."

In my personal experience running infantry operations in combat, in Afghanistan, as recently as four months ago, this is most certainly true.

"there's no replacement for displacement... bigger is always better. "

I fully agree. But lets think about what our real killing assets are. All of which are used in combat, in Afghanistan, today.
155mm Excalibur round from a M777
Javelin Missile
TOW Missile
Various Sniper rifles (M40, M110, M107)
M203
M240
M2
120mm Smoothbore from M1A1
GBU 12, GBU 38, GBU 54
HIMARS
GAU-8 on an A-10
AGM-114
And the list goes on...

"well if we pretend this is an accurate depiction of what happens in combat..."

So what is the real purpose of personal weapons in the infantry?
Certainly to engage and eliminate enemy threats whenever possible, but also to suppress the enemy in order to bring bigger arms to bear.

[R0N]

"Also, in my eyes the assault rifle is not the primary casualty producing weapon a unit has."

In my personal experience running infantry operations in combat, in Afghanistan, as recently as four months ago, this is most certainly true.

"there's no replacement for displacement... bigger is always better. "

I fully agree. But lets think about what our real killing assets are. All of which are used in combat, in Afghanistan, today.
155mm Excalibur round from a M777
Javelin Missile
TOW Missile
Various Sniper rifles (M40, M110, M107)
M203
M240
M2
120mm Smoothbore from M1A1
GBU 12, GBU 38, GBU 54
HIMARS
GAU-8 on an A-10
AGM-114
And the list goes on...

"well if we pretend this is an accurate depiction of what happens in combat..."

So what is the real purpose of personal weapons in the infantry?
Certainly to engage and eliminate enemy threats whenever possible, but also to suppress the enemy in order to bring bigger arms to bear.

That is one thing about combat that gun people never seem to be able or want to grasp. HE is the real killer on the battlefield, than small arms but the bias in small arms is to crew served ones and snipers not the 0311s and 11Bs out there.