7.62x51: Two Marines’ Perspectives

[Phoenix54c]

I have a family member who was USMC infantry in Vietnam. He said he was ecstatic to get an M16 to replace the M14 he had to hump. The criticisms of the M14 were mostly weight-based and related to the amount of ammo he could carry. He swears by its accuracy, though. No insights on lethality of the two cartridges.

[kraigwy]

Remember that back then, the 7.62x51 was already a force to be reckoned with on the target range

And now 7.62X51 is rare as hens teeth in High Power. HP is dominated by the 5.56.

Scores are higher, and the best part, for me anyway, is it allows a lot more women and youngsters to get involved in the sport.

[COSteve]

As a US Army vet who trained with the M14 and used the M16 in RVN as a backup weapon to my M-48's main gun and my M-2 50 cal; who currently owns both an AR15 rifle and mid-length carbine; who also owns a M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M1A, and Mini-14; and who spent 40+ yrs working for the Defense Dept, I may have a different perspective than many here. With that as a background perspective, in no particular order, here are some thoughts:

M16 was promoted over a 30 cal weapon system because of it's cheaper cost to produce, lighter weight, better rust resistance, much cheaper mags, significantly cheaper ammo, and lighter weight of ammo allowing troops to carry more rds in their basic combat load.

The lower recoiling, lower performance ammo of the M16 eased the training of recruits who weren't generally as use to shooting as earlier recruits which made for faster training and deployment of replacement troops. This means that more troops could be cycled through training at a lower cost per trained soldier.

As the M16's rds are smaller and lighter, it means that supply ships could bring in much higher quantities of resupply, speeding supply and lowering costs.

These and many, many other qualifiers that don't involve the combat effectiveness of a 5.56x45 vs 7.62x51 rd were the deciding factors in abandoning the wood and steel .30 cal platform for the plastic and aluminum 5.56 platform.

The terminal performance of a combat round is very important when shooting at an enemy and the much larger, much heavier .30 cal rd produces considerably more ME at longer range which increases causalities.

The lighter weigh, smaller .22 cal rd may be effective at shorter ranges but looses it's effectiveness much quicker as range increases. While this is critically important in combat it's irrelevant when shooting at paper so the .30 cal holds no sway over the 5.56 at a CMP shoot.

While the accuracy potential of the M16 in the hands of a basic infantryman is greater than that of the M1 Garand and M14 because of lighter weight, lighter recoil, and less anxiety shooting the smaller, lighter rd, the accuracy increase isn't necessary due to the shorter range engagements currently required of basic combat troops. However, longer range engagements by Designated Riflemen tend to be more effective with .30 cal platforms.

So, many of us feel that the decision to adopt the 5.56 was driven by cost considerations (acquisition, ammo, resupply, and training) at the expense of combat effectiveness. Your opinion many varry.

[Model12Win]

As most of here are "commoners" (not rich can't afford NFA full auto) I see the semi-auto only 7.62x51mm as the apex of effectiveness. Since we can't have full auto 5.56s, then a semi-auto 7.62x51mm is the next best thing.

In fact, some militaries limited their battle rifles to semi-auto only as full auto with the big 7.62s was a waste. I know many M14s in service had the selectors pinned, and some countries like Austria and Britain used semi-auto only FN FAL pattern guns. These were not just sniper rifles, but general issue infantry rifles. Go to the range today and at least 95% of people shooting the old "battle rifle" patterned guns like M1As, PTR-91s, and DSAs have a big magnified scope on top. There was actually a point in time when these battle rifles were not often issued with scopes, and the men that used them were not snipers or designated marksman, they were just normal rifleman.

Seems a foreign concept these days. It seems if you have a 7.62x51mm (.308 Win) rifle at the range it has to have a big scope and a bipod on it. Few are interested in shooting the old battle rifles how they were issue: iron sights and not much else, sometimes integrated light bipods or carry handles and that's it.

I know I personally keep my PTR-91 GI as is, iron sights and a sling. I look at it not as some kind of semi-auto sniper rifle but as an AK-47 on steroids if you will, useful at close range out to the 400 meters on the sight drum. That and a bandolier of magazines is all I need or want.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So, many of us feel that the decision to adopt the 5.56 was driven by cost considerations (acquisition, ammo, resupply, and training) at the expense of combat effectiveness. Your opinion many varry.

Uh, cost considerations contribute significantly more to combat effectiveness than rifle caliber. Take two armies of clones of identical capability and budgets.

Army #1:
Rifle is wood and steel 1930s design with 1960s upgrades.
7.62x51 ammo has superior barrier penetration and >300yds terminal effectiveness.
Ammo cost $320 per 500
20 rounds of ammo weighs a pound

Army #2
Rifle is polymer and aluminium 1950s design with 2000 upgrades.
Worse barrier penetration but same terminal effectiveness under 300yds.
Ammo cost $320 per 1000
30 rounds of ammo weighs a pound

For the same cost, Army #2 can train twice as much and move 1.5 times as much ammo to the fight. And that's before we even consider logistical effectiveness of the actual rifles.

[ShootistPRS]

The 7.62 is lethal out to 500 meters and more. Army 2 will all be dead before they can fire their guns with lethality. Army one doesn't rely on three round bursts they aim and use 1 round for one kill.

Mine is a more accurate, though just as untrue an example, as yours.

[rjinga]

Originally Posted by Model12Win

Few are interested in shooting the old battle rifles how they were issue: iron sights and not much else, sometimes integrated light bipods or carry handles and that's it.

I know I personally keep my PTR-91 GI as is, iron sights and a sling.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. (I've been thinking whether there would be interest, and participation, in an iron sights only target photo thread?)

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The 7.62 is lethal out to 500 meters and more. Army 2 will all be dead before they can fire their guns with lethality. Army one doesn't rely on three round bursts they aim and use 1 round for one kill.

So, with half as much live fire training, your strategy will be to engage at 500 meters plus with an emphasis on one shot, one kill? Good luck with that.

[Reloadron]

My thoughts and my thoughts only on the subject are pretty simple. I really doubt there is any rifle where one size fits all for the roll of the infantryman. I went through Marine Corps boot camp and ITR in April through July of 1969 and it was there the M14 rifle became my new best friend. My annual rifle qualifications were all with the M14 rifle. I never saw Vietnam until 1972 and it was then I became acquainted with the M16 rifle. Actually the smaller, shorter and lighter M16 seemed much more comfortable to me than if I would have been trying to wield a M14 around in tight spaces. That just being my take based on my experience with both rifles.

I will not even get into the nonsense about the lethal effects with hits from either rifle as most of it is just that, nonsense. Either rifle is capable of killing anyone with a single shot and that is all there really is to it. Rumor control has it if you are hit with an M16 in your right big toe the bullet will exit your left eye socket. The most amusing nonsense generally comes from people who place stock in stories which are fiction.

Today I have a few Colt SP1 rifles and a M1A simply for the nostalgia and the fact I enjoy shooting both.

Ron

[Buckeye!]

I have never been in the armed forces ... and never will .. I have taken my share of game ...and varmints ....Black bear 2 over 400 lb to many whitetail to begin to count .. Coyotes and dogyotes .. and hawgs .. I must say the 270 Winchester has always worked well for me ....
Having said this , I was suprised the 6.8 Remington didn't take off or a simlar type cartrige .. That would function in a AR style rifle

[44 AMP]

If I were supported by others, including other weapons on call, I wouldn't worry about the .223 much. If I were on my own, I'd want the .308 and leave the .223 behind.

[bbqncigars]

What 44AMP said. If I were on my own, I'd treat every round as if I were shooting a muzzleloader. 'Is this shot really necessary? I'll add that it is always nice to hear from those who have BTDT.

[JohnKSa]

So, many of us feel that the decision to adopt the 5.56 was driven by cost considerations (acquisition, ammo, resupply, and training) at the expense of combat effectiveness. Your opinion many varry.

I've made this comment before. The 5.56 was so miserably ineffective in combat that after the Russians saw how it performed in Vietnam they promptly came out with their own version of it and abandoned their .30 cal round.

It's hard to view that fact as anything other than a very powerful endorsement combat effectiveness of the round.

[eastbank]

if the bad guys get behind any type of cover, you may wish some one had a 7.62x51. i worked over several junked car(regular cars) with a few friends with .30 carbine-.223-7.62x39- 7.62x51 and 3006, shooting AP ammo in all five rifles and the first three didn,t fair to well, but the last two did good. the only part of the car that would have saved you from the last two was behind the engine. by the way i own all five calibers in military dress and carried both the m-14 and m-16 in vn. eastbank.

[stagpanther]

Now, I’m really not trying to stir up the never-ending “this round is a better choice than that round because of blab, blab, and blab” debate.

Of course not.

I have no military/LEO experience at all. But

The "range talk" that I hear from those who have returned from combat--are more than likely comparing the basic 7.62 x 39 that they encountered to the 5.56; not the 7.62 x 51 NATO cartridge.

I have built 4 AR10 type weapons and by the time you outfit them with the necessary components to really reach out effectively and engage with more powerful cartridges--you're talking the better part of 12 to 15 lbs locked and loaded. To reduce that weight means either reduce effectiveness or make it a sniper-type bolt action weapon as far as I know. Having one or two of these around as a squad-designated support weapon--makes perfect sense (though I wouldn't be the first in line to volunteer to hump the thing) but as a main squad rifle weapon, at least where the level of technology is at present--makes no sense at all to this armchair quarterback.

[44 AMP]

those who have returned from combat--are more than likely comparing the basic 7.62 x 39 that they encountered to the 5.56; not the 7.62 x 51 NATO cartridge.

Possibly. But there are THREE 7.62mm rounds common in theater, ours (x51mm NATO) and the two former Soviet rounds x39, and x54R.

I think it highly likely that our troops have at least encountered the 7.62NATO, since it is our standard medium machinegun round...and our infantry does have a few of them..

Context should make it pretty clear if they are talking about 7.62 effect on the enemy, then its probably our round they are talking about.

[imp]

I don't think anyone would disagree with the notion that the .50 BMG is more effective than the 5.56, and we still don't issue Barrett M82's as a standard service rifle. Everything has it's place.

[Mike Irwin]

"In Cuba in 1898 nobody complained about the stopping power or accuracy of the 45-70, it was that big cloud of white smoke....."

There were recorded instances in the Philippines of the .45-70 round FAILING to stop charging Moro tribesmen.

In fact, about the only truly effective weapon for that purpose at the disposal of US troops was the Winchester Model 1897 shotgun.

[Mike Irwin]

"I'm not saying the 5.56 is "inadequate" but it does have it's limitations."

And so does the 7.62x51.

The simple, incontrovertible fact is...

No one weapons system will be the perfect choice for every possible combat scenario.

The US military has invested billions of dollars in the mythical quest for The One Grand Unified Weapon System, but everything they have tried has been a failure.

Sure, those entrants have been absolutely great at some things, but at other things they're a dismal failure.

Yet that hasn't stopped the military's search for the weapons system that will be lightweight, rugged, essentially foolproof mechanically, require little care and maintenance, is capable of being used in roles ranging from submachine gun to sniper rifle to squad automatic weapon, fire a lightweight cartridge, fire a cartridge with very little felt recoil, fire a cartridge that delivers devastating ballistic impact from the muzzle to 1000+ meters.

The list goes on and on, with each "absolute must have" requirement of The One Grand Unified Weapon System being more and more mutually exclusive, impractical, and completely impossible to achieve.

There's a damned good reason why current US forces are employing a hybrid armaments arrangement at the company level.

[Mike Irwin]

"Possibly. But there are THREE 7.62mm rounds common in theater, ours (x51mm NATO) and the two former Soviet rounds x39, and x54R."

US troops have also encountered another 7.62 round fairly regularly in Afghanistan...

The .303 British. It is still heavily used in many of the tribal areas.

[Powermwt]

I've discussed the one rifle fits all issue with my son many times and there is a reason the USMC looks at the larger picture in terms of how to approach a fight.

Here is part of the story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061202123.html

One of his squad had a DMR... M14 most had M16A4 or M4 and 4ea. M249.







It is a group effort to achieve results... the 5.56 and 7.62 are a part of the solution, but so are the individual and group's ability to coordinate ammo resupply, .50 cal snipers, vehicles...

1000+ in, 170+ wounded, 20KIA

Now Zad after... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021803180.html

I still hear from Ivan's mother... no rifle would have helped him.

Sorry guys... went sideways for a moment there.

[44 AMP]

I have come to the conclusion that our military's search for "one gun that does it all, equally well" is like the 17th&18th century search for the Northwest Passage. Only without the shiploads of people freezing to death or starving locked in the ice.

I keep coming back to the model that we wound up finishing WWII with. Not talking about the overall mechanical excellence of the firearms used (thought there is that), but the mixture of arms supporting each other in infantry combat.

A good solid pistol, a heavy caliber "thumper" SMG or shot gun, a longer ranged, light carbine, handy and quick, a full size rifle with even greater range and power, and "light" automatic weapons support using that same round.

Arguably not the best possible combination, but one that did prove successful, along with all the other support we could provide such as heavier fire support, and logistics support that ranged up to levels our enemies considered lavish luxury.

I bow my head in respect to all those who were in places and at times when our supply side failed them, and they got their job done, anyway.

The general mix of small arms we used in WWII worked pretty well in all environments, though some arms effectiveness would vary with terrain and climate conditions.

Somehow we went from that to "everybody gets the Mighty Mattel, except for the pig and the blooper".

Today, we've come some a long way from that, again coming back to the concept that "maybe" having a bit broader mix of weapons isn't such a bad idea, after all.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

I know it's an old thread but I thought I'd risk thread necromancy to share this video I just came across of US soldiers in Afghanistan. At the 1:24 mark you see a soldier firing the new enhanced M14, all new furniture and a scope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ft4x2ayEpU

[bamaranger]

The Garand and other .30 cal (rifle) weapons in WWII had the black tipped .30 AP round available, in addition to .30 M2 ball, and of course, there was tracer ammo.

Has there ever been an AP round for the 7.62x51mm? While the 5.56mm has seen different projectiles over the years, all directed in improving its performance, the 7.62x51 soldiers on with the same ball ammo it had in the 50's, and a tracer round. Of course there is target /match ammo. Wouldn't a black tipped AP round for the M240 (and however M60's are left) make sense?Seems like mud huts, brick and mortar buildings, traditional wood construction and any sort of conveyance/auto, all be the worse for wear with AP slugs? With the apparent lead shortage, a hardened steel core seems a likely alternative for a combat load in a belt fed weapon.

[stagpanther]

I've seen quantity black tip all-steel perpetrator 30 cal bullets--I want to say they were pretty heavy--180 gr or more.