5.56mm NATO vs 7.62mm Warsaw

[weemadando]

Following several arguments with idiot friends (the kind who think that the OICW in SoF2 is a realistic portrayal of a brilliantly designed "automatic sniper rifle") I have decided to bring this here...

Which is a more effective ammunition? Why? How? In what circumstances.

My argument (along with some other associates) has been that the 5.56 NATO was designed to seriously wound and maim, so as to soak up resources and manpower, while the 7.62 Warsaw is a more lethal round in most cases.

But then you have the facts like - I can carry *slightly* more 5.56 than I can 7.62, so for small units do I want the trade-off for more ammo and loss of stopping power?

Which is better against armour? Which would you take? Does the weapon firing it make a significant difference?

Debate on.

[MKSheppard]

Kill them, then they can't do shit against you, is my opinion

[Vympel]

Hrm.

1. The 7.62x39mm round isn't as fast- outside of 300m you have to make a clumsy adjustment for range. Within 300m, and being fired by a good gun (AK-103, SR-47), there's no reason to assume accuracy won't be consistent- especially with new ammunition rather than stock standard M1943 rounds.

2. The 5.56x45mm will always be better for penetrating armor due to it's higher speed, off the top of my head- though there is a steel core 7.62x39mm round advertised in Russia's Arms (57-N-231S) that can do the following:

Penetrate steel helmet at 1,000m
St3 steel plate, 6mm: 300m
6Zh85T flak vest: 60m

(have no idea as to the specs invovled with those)

3. The 7.62x39mm is less likely to ricochet than than the 5.45x39mm round, I don't know if the 5.56x45mm shares this characteristic of the M1943s successor.

4. I'm not sure as to which round causes more 'damage' so to speak, but I'd bet the 5.56x45mm causes worse wounds.

In essence- in urban combat, I will take a high quality assault rifle with a 7.62x39mm round (AK-103 or SR-47). In open infantry combat (major warfare style) I'll take a 5.56x45mm weapon- if I have to choose.

[Sea Skimmer]

But then you have the facts like - I can carry *slightly* more 5.56 than I can 7.62, so for small units do I want the trade-off for more ammo and loss of stopping power?

20% gets to be very significant when you’re firing off tens of thousands of rounds.

2. The 5.56x45mm will always be better for penetrating armor due to it's higher speed, off the top of my head- though there is a steel core 7.62x39mm round advertised in Russia's Arms (57-N-231S) that can do the following:

Penetrate steel helmet at 1,000m
St3 steel plate, 6mm: 300m
6Zh85T flak vest: 60m

If you bring special anti armor ammo into this the, then there’s a 5.56x45mm anti armor round that can punch through 10mm of steel at 300 meters, and a tungsten SLAP round which can defeat over 20mm at the same distance. As I recall the basic M855/SS 109 NATO round can defeat 6mm of steel at 100meters. Or it might be 4mm

Unless we can find out the class of the vest where not going ot know much, its likely level III though, SS 109 will defeat that at 100 meters.

Anyway 7.62x39 is fine for the overgrown submachine gun known as the AK-47 and its successors, which in turn is good for overgrown submachine gun tasks like very close in urban fighting, room clearing. Everywhere else you’re better off with 5.56x45, but its performance varies greatly with the ammunition choice, I think more so then 7.62mm. If your firing out of a carbine or a rifle is also a signficant issue at longer ranges. In the end though, you can always shoot them again if they don’t die, and the lower recoil of 5.56 means your next shots will go out faster and more accurately.

[MKSheppard]

The next round should be IMO, 7.62, although of a modern
design like the 5.56mm, with short fat cartridge.

Lets be realistic, what use is full auto in a weapon unless it is:

1.) Being used in close in fighting

2.) On a 40 Pound Tripod

So why should we design our weapons to be point shooters
on Full auto? Move to a heavier design and train our people
to use single shots, with full auto fire for harassment/close in.

Leave the sustained automatic fire for the Squad Machine
Gun, which has a bipod, rather than a rifle.

[aerius]

The next round should be IMO, 7.62, although of a modern
design like the 5.56mm, with short fat cartridge.

Well, there is the 6.8x43mm SPC round that which I've heard about on a couple forums. Apparently there's a conversion kit for the M16 which'll let it use this new round. More info here, and there's some stuff on the AR-15 forums which I can't find right now.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I keep hearing 6mm is the optimal calibre size. Are there any plans on adopting such a weapon capable of firing a similar round anytime in the future?

Regardless, what would be the perfect size? This 6.8x43 round sounds like what I expect.

[Sea Skimmer]

I keep hearing 6mm is the optimal calibre size. Are there any plans on adopting such a weapon capable of firing a similar round anytime in the future?

Anything from 6-7mm is optimum, several 6mm weapons are on the market from Russia but no one wants to make the change, it would be rather expensive. However gun calibers are creeping back up, China introduced a 5.8mm assault rifle not long ago, SOCOM is playing around with a 6.8mm M16 and a few other weapons on those lines have turned up.

The next round should be IMO, 7.62, although of a modern
design like the 5.56mm, with short fat cartridge.

Lets be realistic, what use is full auto in a weapon unless it is:

1.) Being used in close in fighting

2.) On a 40 Pound Tripod

Close in fighting has proven rather common these days, and you can get effective automatic fire from a gun which weighs under 40 pounds with ammuntion. 7.62x51mm is too big for automatci fire in any form, so its not an option. And if we went with a short 7.62mm cartridge then theres no reason not to go to somthing in the optimum 6-7mm range since we'd have to buy all new ammo anyway.