Why does the U.S. military rely on 5.56 NATO?
February 27th, 2010 by eranio
That’s a very small caliber that does not do a whole lot of damage to the target. Why doesn’t the U.S. military uses rifles chambered in something like 30-06 or 7.62×51 NATO (as standard issue for ground infantry units)?
But I heard that 5.56 NATO is designed to maim an enemy soldier not kill him. Why doesn’t the U.S. military use rounds that are one-shot kills, like 30-06
Posted in Military Rifles
February 27th, 2010 at 4:21 am
5.56x45mm does a lot of damage to the target, is very accurate out to normal infantry combat ranges (less than 300 meters), is light so that the infantryman can carry more ammunition, allows a lighter, more easily handled weapon and is also much easier to shoot accurately on fully-automatic fire.
7.62x51mm was given up as the standard infantry rifle caliber because it is too large for the task. It’s use results in a heavy, cumbersome weapon and reduced ammunition load for the soldier. Since 99.99999% of all infantry combat takes place below 300 meters (nearly all of it below 200 meters) the extra range of the 7.62mm is irrelevant.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:21 am
Those huge caliber bullets you want would take a lot of powder to shoot them any distance at all. The military doesn’t want their soldiers to be that close. Besides, you aren’t hunting buffalo or elephants. Large caliber bullets are just a waste.
Smaller caliber cartridges usually contain a LOT of powder compared to the size of the bullet which can send the fairly small bullet traveling a couple of miles.
With it’s velocity and the likelyhood that the round is tumbling as it travels through the air, hitting any "soft" target like a human will be devestating.
They do all kinds of studies on this topic. The rounds the military are using are just right. Again, they aren’t bear hunting at close range which is were you’d want those big caliber bullets you describe.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:21 am
Other than contracting, the 5.56 round was selected for velocity and to remain inside the body of an enemy and create more complex, faster bleed-out injuries. It is slightly lighter weight, less expensive, and I assure you, still kills the enemy. We do use 7.62, by the way, for a number of medium machine guns, from those maintained in infantry weapon squads to door gunner models for aviation units.
Essentially, what round does the job we need it to do and is more cost effective? 5.56 was the answer.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:21 am
The M-16, M-4 and the M249 SAW. all use the 5.56 round because it has less recoil and easier to fire than the larger 7.62×51 NATO round. Also when compared to weight, the average user could carry nearly twice the 5.56 rounds than the 7.62 rounds.