7.62x51: Two Marines’ Perspectives

[bamaranger]

The WWII black-tip AP (penetrator) was 165 gr, pretty sure. The "perpatrator" round you saw must have been overweight at 180 gr.

[Reloadron]

question....7.62x51mm AP projectile???

Yes, Cartridge, Caliber 7.62mm, NATO, Armor Piercing, M993 (United States): 126.6 grains (8.2 g) 7.62×51mm NATO armor-piercing round, black cartridge tip.

Wikipedia Reference. The link is pretty good as it covers a wide range of NATO variations as well as the NATO countries which used them.

The M61 may be another but I have no idea.

Ron

[stagpanther]

Dern spell-checker is almost a babbelizer.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Newsflash: Item designed to satisfy a large agency’s needs maynot meet your requirements, regardless of how prestigious the agency is.

5.56 is clearly the best choice for the military. It isn’t an accident that our two major opponents use 5.45 and 5:8. COsteve outlined the basics. At the military level, it is a numbers game and that combo produces the best numbers.

On an individual basis, that analysis breaks down.

[Red Devil]

The WWII black-tip AP (penetrator) was 165 gr, pretty sure. The "perpatrator" round you saw must have been overweight at 180 gr.

165 gr. CAL. .30 M2 A.P.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzYH8ap1TDo


- And the Rifleman's Rifle that utilizes it -

Red

[Red Devil]

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.
__________________
Steve

“Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.” - Confucius
"When you find a find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it." - Dilbert

Pointy-head bean-counter Robert McNamara, and his M16.

"...a boy, to do a man's job."




Red

[bamaranger]

OK, so there IS a black tip, dedicated AP round in x51MM. So, is this common issue or commonly found in M240 and M60 belts?

In WWII and Korea, it seems as if 8 rd enblocs of .30 cal AP were pretty common for the GI?

[Sharkbite]

All of our 240 belts were mixed ball and tracer, no AP. This was ammo issued by the State dept, but drawn from Mil

[bamaranger]

Some research reveals there is another, M80a1, which is based on the steel penetrator concept of the 5.56 green tip.

Yet another is on the drawing board and tested apparently, XM1158, using a tungsten core. Both of these projectiles seem new to the game and I was not aware of them.

[Mike Irwin]

"In WWII and Korea, it seems as if 8 rd enblocs of .30 cal AP were pretty common for the GI?"

After late 1942 or sometime in 1943 US production switched over to primarily M2 AP and largely dispensed with straight ball ammo.

The AP M2 was seen to be overall more useful in a variety of situations and it also conserved lead, which was a critical war material and in somewhat short supply, and replaced it with steel, of which the US had practically unlimited quantities.

[44 AMP]

Garands got a mixture of ball or AP, depending on what was in the supply chain at the time. BARs were almost always fed only AP.

We did go heavily to AP as the war went on, as Mike says, and for the simple reason that there's nothing practical that ball does that AP doesn't also do, and it does other things better.

[RC20]

here is no right answer. There is averages

Generally speaking, "the Army" is more concerned about wounding than killing. A wounded man takes more effort and care than a dead one.

I really would like someone to find that in the Army Field Manual and quote it for me.

A wounded individual is not one that is out of action. They may or may not be. If they are still in action, they can be patched up latter and return to the fight (recycled as it were). You may now have a much more experienced combat savvy individual. I call bull on that.

The ideal round is one that kills the enemy anywhere you hit them. Short of 20 mm that does not exist.

Much like the Sherman tank of WWII, troops happy with it until they ran into nastier German tanks on a regular basis (Battle of the Bulge, Brits fought most of the German Armor in Normandy) - Then they wanted more armor and a bigger gun. There were variants with both that did very well including one that was virtually impervious to the original 75 mm (German much higher velocity than the US 75 or 76 mm) and the notorious 88 (which also had a up velocity version)

The Infantry? They liked the old 75 mm Sherman, it had a better HE round.

Unfortunately the range of combat goes from Vietnam Jungles to Afghanistan.

The ball is intended to penetrate and not expand. Tends to just poke holes in things.

So a hunting bullet in many cases is better than a ball round.

But if they are behind a wall you would like the penetration.

The 6.5 caliber looks to have the range you would like to have, but in ball its not going to be any more lethal.

So it goes and never settled.

[Reloadron]

Somewhere around here I have an en-bolc clip with the black tip stuff. I want to remember they were 42 head stamp. Guessing I ended up with it about 25 or 30 years ago. I also have a clip of dummy rounds head stamp FA (Frankford Arsenal) but no year, just a 4. The older grooved case type. Those cases are also steel I believe.

Ron

[bamaranger]

OK, so the US military "went heavily into AP as the war went on", and "there's not much ball can do, that AP can do better." Those comments coincide with a phrase I read somewhere that .30 AP was the "workhorse round" of WWII.

I get the distinct impression that AP in 7.62x51mm is a rather rare item for the troops. I didn't even know the stuff existed till a few posts ago. What belted x51mm ammo I have seen in person did not have AP in the links. Lead being no less common now, and AP having the edge over FMJ ball in most all instances, why is the x51mm AP round in any configuration not common.

Or.....is it common with the troops, and I just didn't know it?

[Model12Win]

I love iron-sighted .30-06/.308 Win battle rifles.

They are just right! Sorry boys, no glass required. It's '50s tech and it still works! Think of them like a big AK, stops 'em dead from here all the way over there!!

[Mike Irwin]

Headstamps from US makers with a single 4 were made in 1944. Wartime expediency. Good 43 headstamp bunters were altered by grinding off the 3.

It saved time, money, and precious tool steel.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[davidsog]

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.

Pretty much the conclusion of everybody with experience using 5.56mm in the GWOT and Iraqi Freedom. We are simply doing much more Urban warfare than ever before which tends to shorten the engagement ranges to the length of the room.

Another dynamic is has do with the Regular Services (Big Army) adopting a SOCOM SBR M4. Big Army/Big Marines has the tendency to adopt whatever SOCOM is using with 5-10 year lag time.

Unfortunately in this case, it failed them and the "tacticool" effect did not work for them or really for us as there simply was not any significant data on lethality of 5.56mm out of SBR before 9-11.

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

Great rifle and solid thinking. The G3 is a fine instrument of war and one of the best infantry rifles on the battlefield.

The PTR-91 GI is a great clone that is fun to shoot. I was out shooting mine this weekend and zeroed an Fr-8 I picked up to go with it. I put some wide handguards on mine but otherwise it is stock.

I laugh everytime I attend a gun show at some of the "black rifle" builds going on in the civilian market. You really have to sift through the selection as so many of them are just laughable, dripping with idiotic "tacticool".

I get the distinct impression that AP in 7.62x51mm is a rather rare item for the troops.

It is not used much as it has little practical application. Kind of like the .50 cal sniper rifles....

Too light to fight...too heavy to run, lol.

Perhaps in the future when mowing down hordes of Chinese troops with Gen 1 body armor, 7.62mm AP will find its place in the scheme of things. In terms of defeating vehicle armor as it's original intent, it is not effective enough to be worth carrying vs other options commonly available to a squad. AT4 or even 40 mm HEDP is much more effective for that job.

[Mike Irwin]

Meh. The Army went all wussy girlyman when they dropped the .58 for that sub-caliber .45 bull hockey...

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by davidsog

Pretty much the conclusion of everybody with experience using 5.56mm in the GWOT and Iraqi Freedom. We are simply doing much more Urban warfare than ever before which tends to shorten the engagement ranges to the length of the room.

Didn’t you say in this post: “Which is why nobody uses 7.62mm for CQB.....but it does work much better outside the house!”

You seemed to be agreeing that 7.62 is no better than 5.56 for CQB in that thread. That seems to directly contradict what you are saying above.

[Mike Irwin]

If I were in an urban/CQB/house fighting situation, I would definitely want an M4. At close range the tendency of the 5.56 bullet to fracture into 2 or 3 pieces greatly enhances its wounding capacity.

[davidsog]

That seems to directly contradict what you are saying above.

Where do you see that? You know I have no control over other peoples misconceptions especially on an internet BBS. That is why that thread seemed to meander on with some even appealing to their girlfriends opinion for validation.



There is no contradiction but maybe some have misunderstood the information given in the report.

Under specific conditions (as tested)...

There is no difference in bullet lethality for a SBR at room engagement distances.


That is the conclusion of the testing.


It seems some guys have taken that snippet of fact, running with it to form an outcome of their own device.

That is ok with me.

The report absolutely vindicated our battlefield experience in that lethality was tied not just to shot placement but also the number of rounds one could put into the target in the shortest amount of time.

That is why the report recommended that the regular army begin teaching controlled pairs and double taps.

Here we see a shot being taken that requires a no reaction kill. For the uninformed...That is a pretty difficult shooting problem. You are talking about hitting a 3 inch dot or a small orange from 3 yards. There are plenty of folks that sweat simple qualification on a B-27 target at that distance on a nice quiet range much less being able to put two in the orange in a gunfight.

The officer is able to get 8-12 .32 caliber pellets into the orange in one shot.

https://www.funker530.com/san-diego-cop-shotgun/

Could he have done that with a 5.56mm SBR? Sure but the skill level required is higher and the chances of screwing up are higher.

At longer distances and not using a SBR, the 7.62mm in my experience is the much better choice over 5.56mm.

Despite what the Dutch say, LOL.

If I were in an urban/CQB/house fighting situation, I would definitely want an M4.

It is a good tool for that as an instrument of war.

Defending my home though it is not the best tool in the shed. I use a good shotgun for that.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There is no contradiction but maybe some have misunderstood the information given in the report.

Under specific conditions (as tested)...

There is no difference in bullet lethality for a SBR at room engagement distances.

The quoted/linked study (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519801.pdf) was not limited to SBRs and the only 7.62 round tested was M80 ball from an M14. At typical CQB distances, they found “all of the rounds act in the same band of performance. Interestingly, the one 7.62mm round that received the full evaluation, the M80 fired from the M14 rifle, performed in the same band of performance, which would indicate that for M80 ammunition at least there appears to be no benefit to the larger caliber at close quarters range.”

Then here you say 7.62 is superior to 5.56 specifically in the context of urban warfare and shortened engagement ranges.

[davidsog]

“All 5.56 rounds suck out of SBRs,

The quote comes from other articles and my own experience.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/sp...#ixzz5GT7nw2rl

Equally disturbing were the reports that when M855 ammo was fired from the M4 carbines employed by special operations personnel, it too often required multiple hits to neutralize an opponent, even though many Somali males were of slight build.
These problems were soon magnified as more individuals were armed with the short-barreled, M4-series weapons.

http://www.benning.army.mil/magazine..._4/06_pf01.pdf

The WSTIAC Weapon Systems Technology Information Analysis Center report you link was actually conducted later and is more accurate IMHO.

It actually developed a combination of the static and dynamic testing techniques used in previous studies.

I agree the caveat of an SBR is irrelevant. However, the fact remains that some are taking the conclusions to places the facts simply do not go.

At typical CQB distances, they found “all of the rounds act in the same band of performance.

Is a true fact. Key phrase being:

At typical CQB distances

What is does not say is 5.56mm equals 7.62mm in any other enviroment nor does it say there is any "wonder bullet" Commercial Off the Shelf round that changes the conclusion you better have good shot placement and put multiple rounds on target if you are going to shoot someone at room distances with a 5.56mm.

The report you linked very much backs up experience in the field in combat using 5.56mm at CQB ranges......and experience using it OUTSIDE of the house were 7.62mm was found to be much more effective at range.

It also concludes the combat experience from the field using 5.56mm is accurate. There is NO COMMERCIAL AMMO that changes the outcome and anyone shooting a 5.56mm in combat at CQB ranges will experience the same results.....no wonder bullet exist's.

Field reports are accurate

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519801.pdf

Then here you say 7.62 is superior to 5.56 specifically in the context of urban warfare and shortened engagement ranges.

Negative.

I said:

7.62 is superior to 5.56

You added:

specifically in the context of urban warfare and shortened engagement ranges.

Not the same thing. Do not take a grain of truth and use it to bake a cake of one's own creation.

[Model12Win]

Since I've sold my PTR-91 GI, I'm strongly drawn to the M1A Squad Scout rifle. Relatively compact 18" barrel and is a natural match with a red dot. Really seems like a great battle rifle.

[stagpanther]

That PTR is a great rifle--but pretty heavy if you're talking "haul around."