M16/AR-15 Clones

[StainlessSteelCynic]

One significant part of the reason for why many nations field the M16/M4 is that the US government has given them a price per unit that other suppliers can't match (either through concessions, cost savings through bulk manufacture, military aid packages and so on and so on). For example, nations such as Israel have often found it cheaper to buy M16s from the US than mass produce their own designs.

While waiting4something was having a bit of fun with the topic, a debate about the best service rifle is always going to be coloured by personal experience, national pride and a whole host of other biases and opinions. However, the debate about 5.56 vs 7.62 is one that I personally feel is best solved by asking what kind of war are you fighting.
In most conventional wars, smallarms account for a very small percentage of deaths & injuries (explosives & fragmentation account for the largest amount) so the individual rifle doesn't actually play a significant part in reducing the enemy manpower.

If you were involved in unconventional battles where you can't call in artillery, airstrikes etc. then personally I want something that's going to kill the enemy more often than not, something that 5.56 isn't so good at. The 5.56 round was introduced into service based on the rationale that if you injure one enemy soldier, it will take at least another two soldiers to remove the injured man from the battlefield therefore you have reduced enemy numbers by three for that fight.
It works fine with a conventional army that cares about its wounded but falls to pieces against an enemy that doesn't care about its wounded.
And the whole argument about 5.56mm weapons lighten the soldier's load - bollocks to that. Everytime they lighten the load of one thing, they find more crap for you to carry.

[Raellus]

Too continue the thread-jacking...

I also think that the 7.62mm round is a little too powerful for an automatic rifle/assault rifle. The recoil, especially during automatic fire, is stronger than 5.56mm and, for most shooters, this adversely affects accuracy.

I've heard it said several times that if the VC/NVA had been equipped with a 5.56mm weapon instead of the 7.62mm AK-47, they might have won the war years earlier. The average diminutive Vietnamese soldier had a hard time keeping the AK on target, especially on full auto. Many American and allied servicemen owe their lives to this phenomenon. This is also why a lot of British Army Ghurka units were issued with M16s instead of SLRs in the '80s.

Also, a rifle firing the 7.62mm round needs to be sturdier and that adds to the weight of the weapon. Compare an M14 to an M16, a G3 to a G36, or an FN SLR to an L85 and there's a significant difference in weight (and length). In built-up terrain (including jungle), the size of the weapon does make a difference and engagement ranges usually don't favor the 7.62mm weapon.

In open terrain were engagement distances are longer, then a 7.62mm weapon is preferable.

IMO, an intermediate round would be a good compromise. I'm not sure why this idea doesn't have a lot of traction.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I've heard it said several times that if the VC/NVA had been equipped with a 5.56mm weapon instead of the 7.62mm AK-47, they might have won the war years earlier. The average diminutive Vietnamese soldier had a hard time keeping the AK on target, especially on full auto. Many American and allied servicemen owe their lives to this phenomenon. This is also why a lot of British Army Ghurka units were issued with M16s instead of SLRs in the '80s.

That may be why South Vietnamese troops preferred the M-2 and M-3 Carbines (though it was also what we were giving them at first).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While in almost all respects I agree with Raellus' comments regarding an intermediate round, I'd just like to add that although the AK might have been a handful for the Vietnamese with their slight build, it certainly isn't such a problem with Europeans and their larger physique. I had no trouble doing double-tap with a 7.62x51mm L1A1 and keeping both rounds in the centre of seen mass so an intermediate round like the 7.92x33, 7.62x39 or the 6.8x43mm would definitely by an advance over the 5.56mm or 7.62mmN in most respects.

[Legbreaker]

Double taps with virtually any calibre aren't all that much of a problem. Using any assault or battle rifle as an automatic weapon on a regular basis is just plain silly. They are inherently too light both in bulk and construction to soak up the recoil (as a dedicated machinegun is able to do) and deal with the heat buildup.
Some weapons handle the issues of high rates of fire better than others. The G11 springs to mind as a very good example of what can be done when conventional ideas are thrown out the window and the engineers are given the freedom to do it right. It's just a shame the money ran out (due mainly to the German reunification) before it could be issued on a wide scale.

[helbent4]

You could certainly argue that if the US government and military didn't push the AR-15 and M16 designs on its allies and clients whenever it can, it would not be as popular and thus by definition the "best" rifle in the world.

By the metric of popularity the Kalashnikov and its derived designs wins!

Tony

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I've heard it said several times that if the VC/NVA had been equipped with a 5.56mm weapon instead of the 7.62mm AK-47, they might have won the war years earlier. The average diminutive Vietnamese soldier had a hard time keeping the AK on target, especially on full auto. Many American and allied servicemen owe their lives to this phenomenon. This is also why a lot of British Army Ghurka units were issued with M16s instead of SLRs in the '80s.

Um, the 7.62mm rounds fired by the AK-47 and (FN) SLR are quite different, but you are implying they are the same thing.

IMO, an intermediate round would be a good compromise. I'm not sure why this idea doesn't have a lot of traction.

Funny enough, the 7.92x33mm round (on which the 7.62x39mm round is based) is an intermediate compromise round, compared to the 7.92mm Mauser rifle round and 9mm Parabellum pistol round.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by copeab

Um, the 7.62mm rounds fired by the AK-47 and (FN) SLR are quite different, but you are implying they are the same thing.

I didn't mean to imply this. My point is that the 7.62x39mm AK-47 round is more powerful and has a bigger kick than the 5.56mm N round. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Originally Posted by copeab

Funny enough, the 7.92x33mm round (on which the 7.62x39mm round is based) is an intermediate compromise round, compared to the 7.92mm Mauser rifle round and 9mm Parabellum pistol round.

Um, if you really aren't sure what my point was, I meant an intermediate round between 7.62mm and 5.56mm. I believe that here in the U.S. (and maybe in other NATO countries) there was a push for, some time in the last few years, a 6.5mm (IIRC) round.

[natehale1971]

With the non-lateral and unconventional warfare we are seeing in today's world... wouldn't a 7.62mm bull-pup configured assault rifle with the stopping power of the larger caliber round be the best kind of small arm for infantry troopers in city fighting? Or would the 5.56mm round be better to limit the collateral damage of bullets punching through walls (and the like) hitting and killing civilians? Something that our opponents might not give a rat's behind about... but people like us, do?

Because this is something that is taken into account... Not only the safety of our troops in the field, but the civilians we are trying to save and are caught in the middle of the temper tantrums of tyrants, madmen and dictators who are tying to oppress others.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I didn't mean to imply this. My point is that the 7.62x39mm AK-47 round is more powerful and has a bigger kick than the 5.56mm N round. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

It does have a slightly higher muzzle energy, yes. Can't tell you about recoil.

[Legbreaker]

I've shot both the 7.62N (L1A1 plus a few hunting type rifles) and the 7.62S (SKS and SKK). The 7.62N definitely has the greater recoil, however it's also a much more accurate round.
In my experience, the 7.62S is more of a "spray and pray" type round - provided you can handle the recoil. Forget about trying to hit anything accurately at more than a couple of hundred metres (I was a fine shot in my day and found it quite difficult compared to the 7.62N).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Just a couple of things to say, the whole idea of the intermediate round was based around the recognition that most engagements occurred within 300m and typically within half that distance. It was therefore considered that a longer ranged round wasn't necessary for most infantry troops as they wouldn't be shooting past 300m most of the time.
In regards to the Soviet M43 7.62x39mm round being based off the German 7.92x33mm Kurz round, I'd agree that it was certainly influenced by the German round but the Russians had been developing intermediate rounds almost in parallel to the Germans for about the same length of time if not longer. They both had numerous ideas resulting in various cartridge calibres and lengths but to say that the M43 was based off the 7.92mmK is a bit misleading.