7.62x51: Two Marines’ Perspectives

[rjinga]

I meet some of the nicest, and most interesting, people at the gun range. Yesterday afternoon there were two young men (late 20s – early 30s) on the 100 yd rifle line when I got there. At one point, when the range was cold, we were chatting as we walked out to check our targets. One guy made a comment about my PTR 91 and I replied with one of my pat answers: “Grandma Jeffery always said ‘don’t send a boy if you’ve got a man.’” (She used the phrase in the specific context of playing Spades. Translation: lead with your highest card. However, I give it a broader, more general, application.)

Anyway, turns out that both of these guys had been active-duty Marines. One had done two tours in Iraq, including at least one of the battles for Fallujah. The other had served a tour in Afghanistan’s Korengal/Korangal valley and maybe one in Iraq also. My point is, they had really “been there, done that” and even though both of their duty weapons had been chambered in 5.56, they readily sang the praises of the 7.62 round in a combat situation.

They both talked about watching enemy combatants continue to fight even after absorbing multiple hits of 5.56. But, on the other hand, one well-placed round of 7.62 was incredibly lethal. One fellow said “Heck! Even if you just hit him in the arm, he’s going down to the ground.” His buddy nodded in agreement. And, they both talked about the round’s effectiveness at penetrating barriers also. I think the comment was “and it didn’t matter what they tried to hide behind either.” In fact, even though they both had, and shot, AR-15s while they were at the range, one of the men was also trying out his new SOCOM M1a that he’d wanted for so long and had finally saved up enough money to buy.

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. I just wanted to relay the personal observations of two combat veterans that I had the pleasure of meeting and shooting with recently.

[eastbank]

i also liked the m-14 over the m-16, but different wars some times call for different rifles. i do think its funny that the army thinks the .223 is a good man killer, but hunters think the .223 is not a good deer killer. eastbank.

[Blindstitch]

That's probably because in war who cares if the body dies on the front lines or back at home where as I prefer to shoot my deer and not have them walking around bleeding for two days thinking thank god I was only shot with a 223 and not a 30-06.

Not a caliber debate but shots count differently with FMJ, armor penetration and hunting rounds.

[jmr40]

One fellow said “Heck! Even if you just hit him in the arm, he’s going down to the ground.” His buddy nodded in agreement.

They lost all credibility with this line. Google Roy Benevidez. He was a Vietnam MOH winner who suffered 28 different wounds from shrapnel, bayonet and was shot 6 times with 7.62X39 rounds including one round through a lung. The 1st rescue helicopter was shot down and he also survived the crash. He continued to fight for 6 hours after his initial wounds before being evacuated. He arrived at a hospital with his intestines outside his body and was declared dead; until he spit in the doctors face before they could zip up the body bag. No round is guaranteed to put anyone out of the fight.

I've found the opinions of military personal to be no more accurate than internet or gun shop chatter. It is like several people looking at an iceberg, from different angles. Everybody sees something different and only a small portion is visible to anyone. 90% of it is underwater and unseen by anyone. None of the opinions are worth anything until you understand the big picture.

The 7.62 is better at some things, but was a failed experiment as an all purpose round. If our troops could go into combat with a golf bag full of weapons and simply pull out the best one for each job as needed it would be great. Just not practical. We would have filled a lot more body bags over the last 50 years if we had stayed with the M14 and 7.62X51.

[PolarFBear]

They said "(the hostile combatant) would go down to the ground" NOT that the combatant would be out of the fight. I have used both weapons under hostile conditions. Each served a purpose. I feel the AR is just not the best in open country. My favorite, the M60; very versatile. I'm a big guy - suited me just fine in "sand" or "shadows". But that was a long time back, situations change.

[ShootistPRS]

The ammunition I would recommend would be against the "rules of engagement" but HE rounds are more effective at stopping the threat from any enemy combatant.

[rjinga]

Originally Posted by PolarFBear

They said "(the hostile combatant) would go down to the ground" NOT that the combatant would be out of the fight.

Exactly. I didn't take what they said to mean "you can shot someone in the arm with a 7.62x51 round and it will kill or totally incapacitate them." My take was that they were saying, their personal experience in a combat zone was, even if you missed CM and only hit an extremity, the round had enough kinetic energy to literally take the person off of his feet.

[Don Fischer]

Funny thing. One of the stories about the 5.56 was that if it hit you in the arm at 500yds it would break every bone in your arm. Another was they built the bullet so that it would tumble as it went through. I don't think these things were though up by the designer's! It was always my opinion that the best part of the M-16 was how much more ammo you could carry over any 30 cl. I doubt the thing's said about the 7.62 by those two marine's. But at time's strange thing's do happen and they might think that what they saw is actually what happened! I could see where a shot in the arm might knock someone down, maybe even take them out of the fight, sure. But other's would fight on! Different limit's to what different people can handle. I don't know how many rounds of 7.62 you could carry but for the sake of argument let's say 10 clips. How many in a clip's till you have to reload? 10 Clips of 5.56 is 200 rds! But as I sad, I don't know how many you could carry of each. In a fight I'd only really want to have a canteen or water and all the ammo I could carry! problem with military ammo, it's all FMJ,rules of war! Make's damage inside an enemy combatant less severe in the hope of less guy's dying of mass trauma inside. Then speed of fire come's into it. M-16 was the same as the M-2 carbine, 650 rds per min. Problem is I doubt the ability of anyone with either to re-load fast enough to get off that many rounds with either. Come to think of it, the old M-1 carbine, designed as an officer's gun, had short count of ammo in clip's too, and a fairly anemic power too but it could still take out the enemy with one shot! had a combat officer tell me once that what happened in the field was, both the enemy and the good guy's simply, for the most part, wondered around until the found the enemy then started shooting until the enemy was over come. Sounded to me like your chances were better if you could carry more ammo. The 7.62's certainly had their day but as a war cartridge I think the 5.56 blew them away if for no other reason than each man carried more ammo for no other reason than weight and space. The guy that runs out of ammo first is going to lose!

[eastbank]

i sure as hell cared if any one i shot died now and not later as a wounded man was just as dangerous with a weopen as a non shot man with one. eastbank.

[Double Naught Spy]

So these two Marines had been there and done that but didn't actually carry the caliber for which they were singing praise? They just saw it get used a few times I am guessing, maybe by a dedicated marksman? So really, they had been there and seen that, in limited circumstances. I am not sure how much weight such endorsement carries. As jmr40 said,

I've found the opinions of military personal to be no more accurate than internet or gun shop chatter.

[Mobuck]

"i do think its funny that the army thinks the .223 is a good man killer, but hunters think the .223 is not a good deer killer. eastbank."

Generally speaking, "the Army" is more concerned about wounding than killing. A wounded man takes more effort and care than a dead one. The intent of a hunter is a quick "kill".
When operating under the premise of "one shot, one kill", 7.62x51 is at the lower end of the power spectrum and 5.56 is below the scale.
Given the ammunition used by the military, the .223 is shackled to an anchor of ineffectiveness. A small caliber round that will penetrate soft armor isn't going to be very effective against a skin and bones adversary even at close range unless one of those bigger bones is hit.

[eastbank]

if you shoot a soldier its better for you at that time to kill him right now as he is at that time trying his damnest to kill you, than wounding him. a non fatal wound may allow him to still shoot, drop mortar rounds down the tube or direct fire at you. dead is better. i would not be to concerned about how he gets there. eastbank.

[stagpanther]

A friend of mine who was a sniper and did multiple tours in Iraq said most of the anti-5.56 stuff he heard was BS. He was in the business of killing bad guys--and had his choice of weapons.

[Chris_B]

Well after seeing the Springfield Armory tests of hardwood penetration for the M14, it's not hard to believe that rifle turns a lot of 'cover' into 'concealment'.

These marines were there and saw what they saw. In those instances that is what happened. Nothing I type is going to change it.

But I do want to to comment on the fact that they were not carrying rifles that used the round they sang hosannas about:

1967 Ford GT40 MKIV. Still beats the pants off most cars you can drive today. Street legal racing car. I don't drive one though. And if I was driving a rally, I wouldn't choose it if I could.

[kraigwy]

combatants continue to fight even after absorbing multiple hits of 5.56. But, on the other hand, one well-placed round of 7.62 was incredibly lethal.

I think the "well-placed" round is the key here, but then I'm not a Marine.

Never served in Iraq/Afghan but did as a grunt in SE Asia. Seen a lot of gunshot people and critters over the years, In Vietnam, in LE, and in hunting of critters.

I've seem muffed shots and I've seen good shots with large and small caliber weapons. Caiber is no substitute for marksmanship.

I've my self got a good heart lung shot with a 150 Gr 270 on an antelope that ran a good 100 yards before it fell. I've also killed several moose with a 357 that died instantly.

Does that mean the 357 is a better hunting round? We know it isn't. The difference is I shot the antelope in the heart/lung area. He was dead but rand 100 yards before he realized it. I shot the moose where the spine connects with the brain.

A heart/lung shot it fatal, yet the animal will continue to flee until the blood is gone from the heart, and lungs cease to function.

If that happened to be a combatant instead of an antelope, it could have kept fighting until the blood was out of the heart and lungs functioned. Then assuming if we shot the next combatant with a 357, hitting the spin where it stopped all motor functions, I would be at the range saying the 357 was a much better combat weapon then my 270.

Years ago, I was going to St Lawrence Island. The plane had to do a fly buy while they got a polar bear off the runway. A native killed the bear with one neck shot with a 220 Swift, so we could land.

About the same time, there was a mounted Brown Bear in the Sears Mall in Anchorage. The plaque told the story of the bear. It was hit 5 times with a 375 H&H but manages to maul the hunter until his hunting partner finished off the bear.

So lets go back to the heart of your story.

combatants continue to fight even after absorbing multiple hits of 5.56. But, on the other hand, one well-placed round of 7.62 was incredibly lethal.

I'm not even gonna address the shot in the arm part.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I've found the opinions of military personal to be no more accurate than internet or gun shop chatter.

That's no joke. Just the amount of personal time I've wasted unlearning "facts" I was taught about firearms in the military convinced me. I've had a guy with a CIB look me in the eye and tell me the AK was better because you can grab an M16 magazine and feed it into the AK and it will use that ammo.

The amount of nonsense I hear from people who carry a weapon professionally is an unending source of amusement (insert "I am the only one professional enough to carry a Glock 40" video here)

[Rancid]

I guess if we had carried the 5.56 instead of the 7.62 in WWII we would have won that war in half the time.

The problem was that back in the BIG ONE the ammo weighed so much that our soldiers could only carry one round at a time for their Garands. That is why the Normandy Invasion on June 6, '44 lasted 35 years. Thanks to our Russian allies we finally made it to Berlin in 1978. Hilter died the following year of Alzheimers. What we needed was a good varmint round like the venerable 5.56. A prime example was the Vietnam War of 1812. We resoundingly beat the Communists with the M16 who then evacuated South Vietnam in total defeat. I remember seeing them climbing onboard choppers from the rooftops and returning to Hanoi. And we all have to agree that the 5.56 round was key in winning the war in the middle east. I've lost count as to how many Walmarts we have now in Afghanistan? At least 50, and the golf course communities must run into the hundreds. Syria is now in a major building boom, with condos gobbling up the countryside at an alarming rate. Tehran is full of casinos (I really enjoyed the "Mulla") and nightclubs are simply wild by western standards. All thanks to the 5.56 poodle shooter.

[Art Eatman]

What's this? The 837th iteration of the discussion?

Okay. My Basic Training, early 1954, Garand. I'd already put a few hundred rounds through one before I received my greetings from Ike.

SFC explained the operation: "The round makes 50,000 psi when you shoot. That means 25,000 pounds on the bullet and 25,000 psi on the bolt which cycles the action."

I very wisely refrained from asking the purpose of the gas port and op rod.

Walter Cronkite said to a college class (I saw a TV clip of the seminar) that because he had been an Infantryman in WW II, he knew that the AK 47 was too powerful to use as a hunting rifle.

"It's not what people don't know that's the problem. It's what they know that ain't so."

[T. O'Heir]

"...Even if you just hit him in the arm..." That's how McNamara tried to sell the 5.56.
"...the opinions of military personal..." Are just that. Opinions. The typical OR, of any Service, would have seen and used what he was issued and nothing else. Over heard a CF Militia guy, on a public range(when there still was one), long ago, telling his buddy how it was impossible to shoot a C1A1(Cdn. FAL that's left hand operated. Safety and op handle are on the left.) left handed. I snorted and asked him how I managed to shoot expert with one. Had a cop ask me if a 1911A1 was a semi-auto too. So it's not just military types.

[Jim Watson]

A good many years ago, an Army doctor serving in Viet Nam wrote that you could not tell the caliber from the gunshot wound. Of course that was people who lived to make it to the field hospital.

[Tinbucket]

Lots of Monday morning quarter backing going on.
I don't want to be shot by either one.
A Trooper in Nam was shot in the hip area and the 5.56 ended up going out his shoulder, as he was sitting around cleaning his weapon, or the other way round. It's been a long time.
The bullet often does tumble when they get hit.
The hydroscopic shock does a lot of damage. A hit in the torso is going to put you down generally.
The 7.62 is bigger and just as fast at longer ranges. It does more damage further out.
The basic load was 900 rounds in 5.56. I don't remember what it was in 7.62.
But it is heavy very heavy. Ask anyone who humped a couple cans of belted ammo or a couple of belts or the machine gun.
The Mattel gun does great but at longer ranges and rougher targets the 7.62 wins, just as would the .50 Browning the projectiles being the same type.
I carried the m14 in basic and shot it on the flight line. It gave me a headache from the powder and recoil and flat steel recoil pad?
The Mattel gun I shot the first three hots at Ft Eustis into a nickle size group at 00 yards. Fire it all day with no fatigue and hit more consistently ater firing a lot of ammo.

[GelatinousPig]

someone correct me if i am wrong, but i believe the M-16 debuted with a 1-12 twist when it hit the scene. that twist could not stabilize the bullet causing it to tumble, and hence, resulted in devastating wound tracts. the M-16A1 "corrected" the twist problem, and lethality has suffered ever since. concerning the ability to carry more rounds, that may have contributed to the mentality that resulted in poorer round count to kill ratio ever since 5.56 became the standard issue (research "rounds per kill [name of war]" to locate stats). my research suggests that soldiers in WW2 were better marksmen, perhaps due to the fact that they knew every round mattered. perhaps if they carried 5.56 with the limited round count, the result may have been the same or close, since the limited number quite possibly may have resulted in making more accurate shots. just my 2 cents, but seems to fit.

[SIGSHR]

I have read there is widespread use of drugs by the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan-same thing was said about the Moros-that renders them much less susceptible to pain and hence harder to incapacitate. Biggest complaint I have heard about the 5.56 in the current conflicts is it lacks long range stopping power. There were similar complaints about the 30 Carbine in WWII and Korea.
I wonder how much of the problem is due to exhausted and groggy and sleep deprived GIs and Marines-who weren't such great shots to begin with.

[Model12Win]

I'd rather have this than any AR (and I do).

[rjinga]

Nice!

I really like mine too!