why did we stop using full power round for 5.56 and other intermediate rounds?

why did we stop using full power round for 5.56 and other intermediate rounds?

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    weight.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Weight, recoil in full auto, amount of ammo that can be carried at a time, magazine capacity

      >oh god 7.62 weights a ton
      >this weapon is too heavy
      >these plates are too heavy
      >the thick fabric on this plate carrier weights too much
      why are manlets like this?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The reasons are cucked
        But they're still the reasons the army did it

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They're carrying more weight than they did in the past, it's that if you reduce the weight of the service rifle along with the weight of the ammunition, now you can carry way more ammunition at any given time. That's the whole point of stepping down to 5.56 from 7.62.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it's better to carry and waste 6 gorillion rounds than learn better shot placement

        its just logistics you can ship more rounds of smaller lighter ammo. also higher steel quality allows for high chamber pressures tothrow bullets faster and further.

      • 2 months ago
        Resident Wumbologist

        Mostly weight, secondarily recoil.
        5.56mm is about half the weight of 7.62x51mm, while having plenty of range/accuracy and punching above it's weight with M193.
        Going to an intermediate caliber was already a long overdue decision by the time we did it, but at least we got a really good caliber as a result.

        Lighter ammunition means being able to carry and therefore expend more of it.
        A lighter rifle points better, is easier to carry and can get on target faster.
        These are good things even if you are a gigachad who can comfortably carry a much heavier weapon. Besides which, if that's the case you'd probably be handed the SAW.

        >it's better to carry and waste 6 gorillion rounds than learn better shot placement

        Unironically yes. That's what actually wins wars.
        Most combat is not accurate shots at enemies, since the soldier doing the shooting doesn't actually know exactly where the enemy is or have direct line of sight most of the time. That means most of what is actually going on is firing for suppression and maneuvering to push the enemy or draw them out. That means having more ammunition that you can dump faster takes a backseat to performance, at least up to a point.

        cant you just put lead in it and cut some pieces to do le epic dum dum?

        No, because Hauge Convention, but Soviet 5.45mm and Yugo 7.62x39 got around this by having a pointed nose full metal jacket, but leaving a hollow cavity underneath the nose in front of where the core starts. Tumbles and fragments like a motherfucker on impact. It's a very clever design, which is more than what I can be said about M855/SS109.

        OP pic related have a comparable recoil to a 5.56 and is chambered in 30.06, is available with 30 round mags and have a trigger made to dump ammo fast, the only argument that hold its ground is the weight.
        but even then, how about you get some muscul you weak fat fucking fag?

        Because soldiers already have to carry a bunch of other shit already. Even if they had the strength to carry the added weight, the benefits of a battle rifle are usually not worth it.
        That's besides the obvious problem where limiting military service exclusively to gigachads who can bench 500 pounds means you wouldn't have a lot of them to work with.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >soldiers already have to carry a bunch of other shit already.
          oh no!
          poor baby

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, it’s like 100+ pounds

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the obvious problem where limiting military service exclusively to gigachads who can bench 500 pounds means you wouldn't have a lot of them to work with
          That's why they have different roles in most armies, small guy can crawl into holes, react rapidly and most definitly fair better in some situation then big guy, alternatively big guy got his own thing going that will benefit him in other situation.
          Keep 5.56 for Close combat and bigger ammo for when you have 2 hills shooting at each others.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >why are dyel manlets like this?
        ftfy, I wanna get meaty so I can lug around my desired raifu of choice (x51, not solely x39)

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        sissy gays in the military
        everything else is cope from people suck army cock

        You carry more rounds for the same weight allotment. You are absolutely brain dead.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it's better to carry and waste 6 gorillion rounds than learn better shot placement

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Volume of fire wins firefights. It's why the soviets moved to an intermediate cartridge with bad performance beyond ~200m. Most firefights take place at sub 250m, most firefights are decided by who can pin the enemy and maneuver to take them out more effectively. Volume of fire fucking matters.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Volume of fire won fire fights, true.

          The argument for moving to a higher powered round is twofold.

          1. Most importantly, new smart optics and fire control systems hold the potential to make fire far more accurate, especially at greater distances where humans can't regularly hit small moving targets. The current fire control system for the NGSW program only offers a hint of the possibilities here. It has a range finder and ballistics computer and can allow one squad member to identify targets of points of interest to others. It also automatically zeros.

          But far more powerful systems exist. The US has used SHARP in the field in Syria. With this system, the user holds down the trigger and guides the barrel towards a target. The gun only shoots on a calculated hit. When working correctly, this radically reduces concerns about capacity, recoil, and volume of fire. More accuracy means you need fewer rounds. Recoil is way less of an issue when follow up shots simply require guiding the barrel back to the target, with shots only going off on hits. More accurate fire suppresses better.

          Second, the proliferation of ground drones that can carry large amounts of ammunition and handle automatic fire recoil also deals with the volume of fire problem. Optics can be used to designate targets for a drone with a LMG, 40mm grenades, or mortars. But SHARP isn't ready for mass adoption yet.

          2. Body armor is becoming increasingly common and cheap. Higher powered rounds defeat armor in fewer hits on average. They also deliver more behind armor blunt force trauma. I know PrepHole has a ton of cognitive dissonance fags who deny BABT exists. It is a Pentagon hoax because they spent a lot of money on plates or something. But there are plenty of studies showing that 7.62mm and .30-06 can cause incapacitating blunt force injuries without penetration (pic related) and with BFD below the arbitrary 44mm standard that is based solely on 80s research with pistol calibers.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think the point is probably moot. If rapid developments in autonomous navigation and targeting continue, and drone production gets cheaper with 3D printing, soldiers will probably increasingly have their main role be to shepard drones. Service rifles will be a back up. You won't fire them because it reveals your position. You will use your optic to designate targets for drones.

            Falling young populations in developed states will only increase the need to switch to drone centric warfare. Small soda bottle recon drone swarms already exist, and one can easily see how these feeding targets back to ground and air drones with autonomous mortars, ATGMS, guns etc. could make and advance far safer.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Right, but the pic is a study where pigs, who resist thoracic injury better than humans, were killed by 34mm BFD from 7.62mm.

              Now these tests are firing from barrels that are longer than what has become popular in modernized militaries at quite close distances (distances calibrated to cause a certain amount of BDF).

              Studied with human cadavers show sternums fracturing from non-penetrating hits, with injuries significantly more common the higher the muzzle energy is. This is why I don't think light armor that stops .50 BMG is going to do a whole lot of good. It's the joules of a car wreck hitting you across a small cross section.

              And of course the Pentagon funds these because they get soldiers with injuries from non-penetrating hits. BDF is just a proxy for BABT because BDR doesn't cause injury based on close imaging of the wounds, the pressure does.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes which is why the allowable BFD on the current gen of ESAPI plates went to 58mm from 44mmm

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Agreed with all points, but you don’t necessarily need a higher powered round to do all that. The performance you’re talking about requires high BC and high velocity, and thus relative capacity, NOT total energy. More like specific energy (energy/sectional area). A .224 version of the 6.8x51 in a 5.56-sized case, making intermediate energy with intermediate powder charge, would meet and exceed the external ballistics and penetration characteristics of 6.8x51 - the latter via improved form factor.

            I suppose this .224 also would allow ammunition commonality with LMGs (that, in this hypothetical .224 chambering, would serve the roles of GPMGs too), which absolutely need a high volume of lightweight ammo, something a full powered round can’t fulfill.

            That’s all. .

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That was what all the studies on combat said, yeah.
        Having some designated marksmen with a heftier caliber is definitely nice though

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because we let dumb morons into the military

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >military is full of
      >homos and effeminate moron
      >women
      >trannies
      >worst of all of 'em manlets

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        >oh god 7.62 weights a ton
        >this weapon is too heavy
        >these plates are too heavy
        >the thick fabric on this plate carrier weights too much
        why are manlets like this?

        sissy gays in the military
        everything else is cope from people suck army cock

        >it's better to carry and waste 6 gorillion rounds than learn better shot placement

        >manlet excuses

        were i live there is gonna be enough time to see someone aproaching and am not a manlet so weight doesnt matter.

        >t. fat ass bench shooters.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Weight, recoil in full auto, amount of ammo that can be carried at a time, magazine capacity

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      OP pic related have a comparable recoil to a 5.56 and is chambered in 30.06, is available with 30 round mags and have a trigger made to dump ammo fast, the only argument that hold its ground is the weight.
      but even then, how about you get some muscul you weak fat fucking fag?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The “just lift more” argument is dumb. There is a maximum amount of weight that you can carry, no matter how strong you are (just scale up if stronger), and you want to carry more rounds before you reach that weight threshold. This maximum weight allowance isn’t at the point of diminishing returns for a soldier’s ammunition load, so it’s always better to carry lighter everything else and more + lighter cartridges

        And weight is just one of the benefits of an intermediate cartridge.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Hercules will still shoot an AR better and faster than a fucking BAR.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because so much of that energy is going to waste when the majority of infantry combat takes place under 300m. It's great to be theoretically able to kill someone at 1000m+ but the number of infantry soldiers that can reliably and repeatedly do that is realistically quite small. So that becomes a specialist role with a specialist weapon.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Less recoil, larger magazine capacity, more ammo carried, most firefights occur within the optimal range of intermediates. You know this.

    What you might not know is that 5.56 M193 often inflicted worse wounds than 7.62 M80 when it was introduced. This was at least partially unexpected and only discovered after the fact, everyone thought it was due to le epic tumble effect at first. Turns out every fucking rifle bullet will tumble most of the time, it was because of frag. M193 often (though somewhat inconsistently) fragged and American M80 ball usually didn’t.

    The funny thing is that some other varieties of M80 ball do frag, the West Germans of all people made one. And if a 5.56 and 7.62 round behave similarly, then the 7.62 will do much more damage. But really you’re getting into diminishing terminal returns here with the better bullets, 6” hole through the chest ain’t necessarily gonna kill you much faster than a 4” hole.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      cant you just put lead in it and cut some pieces to do le epic dum dum?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You can make field dum-dums pretty easily by cutting off a bit of the bullet nose, this alters the external ballistics and there may technically be a small chance of a “shoot through” on a bullet that’s open on both ends where the core gets fired and the jacket stays behind.

        But yes, it could be done with relatively little effort if you had to. Presumably most people didn’t know or weren’t willing.

        Not really pertinent today since we have much better rounds than traditional FMJ. At least if you’re an American anyway, some European military ball rounds are pretty awful.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          european but we get our bollit from murica.
          and pre made frangible 308 exist.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s going to vary by country. The Swiss GP90 and British L31A1 62 gr 5.56 rounds for example are likely to have pretty trash flesh performance.

            Mostly weight, secondarily recoil.
            5.56mm is about half the weight of 7.62x51mm, while having plenty of range/accuracy and punching above it's weight with M193.
            Going to an intermediate caliber was already a long overdue decision by the time we did it, but at least we got a really good caliber as a result.

            Lighter ammunition means being able to carry and therefore expend more of it.
            A lighter rifle points better, is easier to carry and can get on target faster.
            These are good things even if you are a gigachad who can comfortably carry a much heavier weapon. Besides which, if that's the case you'd probably be handed the SAW.
            [...]
            Unironically yes. That's what actually wins wars.
            Most combat is not accurate shots at enemies, since the soldier doing the shooting doesn't actually know exactly where the enemy is or have direct line of sight most of the time. That means most of what is actually going on is firing for suppression and maneuvering to push the enemy or draw them out. That means having more ammunition that you can dump faster takes a backseat to performance, at least up to a point.
            [...]
            No, because Hauge Convention, but Soviet 5.45mm and Yugo 7.62x39 got around this by having a pointed nose full metal jacket, but leaving a hollow cavity underneath the nose in front of where the core starts. Tumbles and fragments like a motherfucker on impact. It's a very clever design, which is more than what I can be said about M855/SS109.
            [...]
            Because soldiers already have to carry a bunch of other shit already. Even if they had the strength to carry the added weight, the benefits of a battle rifle are usually not worth it.
            That's besides the obvious problem where limiting military service exclusively to gigachads who can bench 500 pounds means you wouldn't have a lot of them to work with.

            The USA isn’t technically bound by that clause of Hague although we have been historically reluctant to take advantage of it. New 9mm combat ammo for P320s is JHP.

            5.45 7n6 isn’t prone to fragging, its construction largely precludes this. Most of it is just steel core that runs for most of the bullet’s length, very little lead in there. Real world effects:
            https://web.archive.org/web/20090219104944/http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/ak74_wounding_potential.pdf

            7.62x39 M67 was not regarded as a fragging round by Fackler & co., however an Israeli study of street shootings reported that it did often shed a bit of weight in practice which did moderately enhance wounding. It was remarked that 5.56 M193 was generally more lethal though.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    sissy gays in the military
    everything else is cope from people suck army cock

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because within 300m it doenst make much difference if you're taking a .308 to the chest or 5.56, you're pretty much done.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are you actually retarded?
    After WWII, it was consistently shown the side who fired more bullets won the battle, and at modern combat distances, ~300m and in, 7.62x51 doesn't kill anyone anymore dead than 5.56, armor wasn't a concern when the switch was made, and now that it is slightly a concern they did the NGSW trials, so there you're autistic shit has come full circle.
    Now lurk more before posting again you gay.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    99.99% of bullets miss
    Is 5.56 less lethal? Yes, but you can put down 3x more rounds per kg carried.
    The rounds that miss both do zero damage are still of value, it forces enemies to the ground, forcing them to stop firing back, it reduces enemy accuracy, leads to confusion among enemy, can pin down enemies for hours and then mortar them. All through missing. 5.56 gives you 3x more rounds to suppress, perhaps that gives you enough time of keeping the enemy on the ground, to line up and zero in your mortars, whereas 7.62 you run out of ammo, and still bullets miss.
    Warfare isn't a cop in store facing a armed perp he needs to drop in 1 or a showdown, most kills are through shrapnel from artillery, so small arms have to shape the enemy which protects the soldier firing, remember the most important factor for a soldier is not getting kills, but making sure they survive the day. That means they are alive to get kills tomorrow, More suppression does that.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >all these urbanites thinking weight doesn't matter
    Try going outside with your gun for more than magdumping into trash.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >manlet excuses

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        were i live there is gonna be enough time to see someone aproaching and am not a manlet so weight doesnt matter.

        >urbanmoron noguns

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >more manlet seething

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      were i live there is gonna be enough time to see someone aproaching and am not a manlet so weight doesnt matter.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    as a kid, I was told it was because the m14 wasnt good for human wave attacks ¯_(ツ)_/¯.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    garden gnomes

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    no matter how strong you are, you will always be able to carry more 5.56 than 7.62. how is this such a hard concept for people to grasp? is everyone manletposting just trolling?

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    makes video games more fun

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >why did we stop using full power round for 5.56 and other intermediate rounds?
    Thinking of the time is that we didn't need the distance 30-06 or 308 allowed over 5.56
    They also thought volume of fire was more important in battles
    Keep in mind everything was viewed through the lens of the European theater in WW2

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      damn US soldier got some a manlet problem

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Full powers was unnecessarily overpowered for the majority of combat engagements at the majority of ranges.
    Intermediate is lighter, lighter recoiling, controllable in full auto, and chambered in smaller, lighter guns.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, but automatic fire is where more powerful rounds shine. No one who has experienced both an M249 and an M2 (or even an M240) starting up will disagree that the latter keeps Haji heads down in terror much better.

      Outside of intimidation, the latter has a much larger beaten zone. They're also way better for dealing with defilade positions, particularly if part of the cover can be penetrated.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The HCAR should have been the new rifle for the US armed forces.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >i need a big bullet because im a BIG BOY!!
    >too much of a pussy to adopt Carolean doctrine

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What's a carolean. In before burger education.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Swedes during the reign of King Charles
        Their military at the time had notably aggressive tactics such as just walking at you and not giving a fuck, and hey, it worked very well until it didn't

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    combat statistics from WW2 found that the majority of fire fights occurred within 300 yards and initiated spontaneously as one group encountered another with the side that had greater firepower (rounds fired in the general direction of the enemy) winning

    I think the modern statistic is that the united states military expends like 10,000 rounds for every confirmed casualty

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Probably the same reason why the MP44 came about

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because it turns out bigger isn't necessarily better. You don't get any bonus points for making a bigger hole in someone, provided a smaller hole does the job just as well, which it does.
    Heavier gun and heavier cartridge also means troops carry less other shit to commit kill which is double important when bullets are a tool of utility as well as killing. Bullets keep people down while your friends with lots of bullets move to a better position. Bullets stop people from turning corners. Bullets keep every window in a building too occupied to be your problem. More bullets always good, as long as they kill shit when you hit shit, and 5.56 does that with remarkable efficiency out to the ranges it needs to, at which point other, less mobile weapons are more efficient.
    Except now the Army has decided infantry should be able to reach out and touch other infantry further away now that we have the tech to make it easy.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    shooting your target dead is no different than shooting your target dead +P

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *