NationStates Jolt Archive

So, which is the better assault rifle round, the Soviet 7.62x39mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62_x_39_mm#Other_names_for_7.62x39_mm)or5.56x45mm NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56_x_45_mm_NATO)?

So, which is the better assault rifle round, the Soviet 7.62x39mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62_x_39_mm#Other_names_for_7.62x39_mm)or5.56x45mm NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56_x_45_mm_NATO)?
soviet sounds so much more intimidating then NATO, so obviously they build better weapons.

G36 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G36) Rifle uses 5.56, so I'll go with that.

The new 77-grain Mk 262 5.56mm NATO round is just as long ranged and lethal against people as the 7.62x51mm NATO (not to be confused with the slightly weaker 7.62x39mm in this poll).

The Mk 262 is apparently extremely accurate as well.

Here is a direct comparison in combat of the Mk 262 5.56mm and the standard 7.62x39mm Kalashnikov round:

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ammunition/mk262_080105/

When a five-man Special Forces team looking for Scuds in Iraq ran into a reinforced Iraqi infantry company, the future looked grim for the Americans. Facing overwhelming odds, it was quickly decided that three men armed with sniper rifles would cover a hasty retreat back to the LZ. With these odds death--or worse--seemed certain.

Yet the ensuing firefight did not go as the Iraqis had planned. Rather than being overwhelmed, the three Americans instead put down a hail of highly accurate rifle fire. Advancing against this murderous wall, entire sections of Iraqi infantry were simply cut down. Screaming and rattling away with their Kalashnikovs on full auto, they were knocked from their feet by carefully aimed shots. When staggering losses finally broke their spirit, the surviving Iraqis either threw down their weapons or simply ran away. Scattered about lay the bodies of 167 of their comrades. The Iraqi dead lay in mute testimony to the Americans' tenacity and marksmanship skill.

With the criticism of poor terminal performance leveled by many on the 5.56x45, you would think those 167 Iraqis were cut down by 7.62mm M14s. Such was not the case. They fell to 5.56 Mk 12 sniper rifles firing 77-grain Mk 262 Open Tip Match ammunition. Developed to offer increased accuracy, range and improved terminal performance over the standard 62-grain M855 load, the Mk 262 has performed quite well in actual combat.

The new 77-grain Mk 262 5.56mm NATO round is just as long ranged and lethal against people as the 7.62x51mm NATO (not to be confused with the slightly weaker 7.62x39mm in this poll).

The Mk 262 is apparently extremely accurate as well.

Here is a direct comparison in combat of the Mk 262 5.56mm and the standard 7.62x39mm Kalashnikov round:

*snip*


That is not a good comparison. By the looks of it, poor tactics and fire control on the part of the Iraqis resulted in the combat scenario than differences in calibre choice. The Kalashnikov is not known, to be accurate at full auto either.

The only way to get a good comparison is if two people who had identical training and equipment save for the different firearms to match calibre types.

-snip-
Well, you spoiled the discussion for me...not a fan of killing people myself. :(

Well, you spoiled the discussion for me...not a fan of killing people myself. :(

Well, that's what bullets are supposed to do. But I wouldn't take his example as a be all and end all argument. Too many different factors to account for.

Well, you spoiled the discussion for me...not a fan of killing people myself. :(

Sorry to ruin it for you. I only use bullets for killing in combat or self-defense.

It all depends on what you want. The soviet round is definately alot more powerful, then again, the NATO round will kill something just as dead, and with less recoil. Trying to aim a three-round burst of 7.62 is a pretty tall order. Then again, alot of that has to do with the quality of the actual weapon. All in all, I'd go with the NATO, just because its cheaper in this part of the world.

In my opinion, it really doesn't matter. You get hit in the head with either, you probably won't be getting up.

But...I got to go with the heavier round.

make banning assault rifles a poll option...

I'm in favor of the more accurate 5.56mm, partially 'cause that's all I have.

I vote for bayonet.

Well, that's what bullets are supposed to do. But I wouldn't take his example as a be all and end all argument. Too many different factors to account for.
I've always said it isn't the airplane that makes the superior air force, it's the pilots. Same thing with any weapon. It's just a tool for the force that uses it. A 5.56 round in the hands of a better trained infantry is clearly superior to the 7.62 round when used by an inferior force.

Now, what makes better? From the brief time I've been forced to accompany the infantry, I would vote for lighter. I got some advice from an old Master Sergeant that I tried to heed as best I could. That was "Captain, you better not run out of ammo". So I carried as many magazines as I could and tucked another couple thousand rounds in my Hummer.

In fact, the Sierra 79 grain Matchking is what I use in the NRA matches I shoot. That makes for a very accurate round. I get 2800 fps from my hand-loaded rounds and that makes a pretty powerful round, too.

Neither. I want to see the military move to something like this round (http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/remington_0303/).

I know nothing about this subject, so I'll choose the one that people say looks the cutest.

Well, you spoiled the discussion for me...not a fan of killing people myself. :(

Look, when a person is faced with kill or be killed you dont think about it as ending a human life. It is only later when that sense comes over ones self. Trust me soldiers that kill in combat remember that for ever.

Look, when a person is faced with kill or be killed you dont think about it as ending a human life. It is only later when that sense comes over ones self. Trust me soldiers that kill in combat remember that for ever.
Nonetheless I wasn't happy with the way the article talked about 187 or something fathers, brothers and sons being killed and never coming home.

But we'll see how things turn out for myself. If my family really goes back to Germany at the end of the year, I might have to do my military service afterall.
But I doubt they talk about that a lot there.

Nonetheless I wasn't happy with the way the article talked about 187 or something fathers, brothers and sons being killed and never coming home.

But we'll see how things turn out for myself. If my family really goes back to Germany at the end of the year, I might have to do my military service afterall.
But I doubt they talk about that a lot there.

I agree with that sentiment. There is no glory in getting the most kills. I honestly think that people dont think about it in the terms you just stated. I actually have been asked on more than one occasion how many people I killed in Iraq. I usually give them a look they dont forget. Then I tell them I dont keep track of those things. However I do know and its not a thing to be proud or gloat about. I am however proud that my crew made it through unharmed.

If you end up in military service you will grow as a person for it. Not that you wouldnt otherwise. But it does change perspectives.

Soviet.

I would sat the 5.56 with those options given less recoil, lighter etc. but I do think either th 6.8 or 6.5 grendal would serve better.

I think I read somewhere that the 7.62mm was more humane because it didn't break-up as easily as the 5.56mm.

I think I read somewhere that the 7.62mm was more humane because it didn't break-up as easily as the 5.56mm.
But doesn't in tumble more after impact, casuing even more damage?

I vote for bayonet.

They don't like it up 'em!