This Is Why The U.S. Military Uses 5.56mm Ammunition Instead Of 7.62mm Ammunition
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 4 months ago
In the wake of World War II, the United States of America commanded over 30,000 overseas bases, marshaled over half of the world’s manufacturing capacity, and owned two thirds of the world’s gold stock. In 1949, the Greatest Generation proposed a strategic solution: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
N.A.T.O. was created in response to failing relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, especially in the case of the reconstruction of Germany. The countries of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal banded together with the United States as its chief architect.
[ … ]
Under the persuasive guidance of the United States, N.A.T.O. slowly standardized armaments best suited for American designs than those resembling the Soviet 7.62mm. Who else could argue the case to finance, produce, and export on a scale to rival the Russians? By the 1980s, the 5.56x45mm was adopted as the standard.
From the sands of the Middle East to the deep jungles of South America, the 5.56mm played an integral role in shaping modern warfare. Decades of proxy wars and economic down turn brought the Soviet Union to its knees. Mikhail Gorbachev, President and leader of the Soviet Union, resigned and declared his office extinct on Dec. 25, 1991.
America had triumphed.
The 5.56mm never got the chance to sing in the halls of the Kremlin, but it was the round that destroyed an empire.
His point is that the 5.56mm can be mass-produced for relatively cheap, and thus mass quantities can be made available.
True enough, what’s so for the U.S. military is so for anyone else. You can buy more, shoot more, carry more, and store more 5.56mm than you can 7.62mm.
I don’t go a day without seeing another article on how the U.S. military is going to a caseless 6.8mm round and thus the 5.56mm round is dead. I’ll believe it when I see it.
And rarely is the issue of body armor and the penetration capabilities of the bullet determinative for the outcome of conflicts.
Buy what you want, shoot what you want, and don’t limit yourself to any one cartridge for a all purposes. And remember: heads and hips.
On December 13, 2018 at 12:31 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
The now-legendary General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager, P-51 fighter ace in WWII, test pilot and the man who broke the sound barrier, was famous amongst stick-and-rudder men for his competitive drive to win, his innovative approach to solving problems and laser-like focus on the skills need to survive and win.
Yeager was especially famous for dogfighting all comers. He and another pilot from a competing squadron or wing would go up in their F-86 Sabre Jets and dogfight – and Yeager would wax another hapless flyboy. The two would land, and usually Yeager’s opponent would be gracious in defeat, but sometimes would say, “You won because your aircraft has superior performance to mine,” whereupon Chuck would offer to dogfight again, this time swapping planes. Same outcome; Yeager gets on his six and can’t be removed. Another opponent’s tail waxed. The gun camera film doesn’t lie, even no one was shooting for real.
Yeager would again land, this time to face a more-humble opponent, perhaps a young fighter jock convinced no one had anything to teach him anymore. Yeager would then say, “it is the pilot, not the plane” and off to the O club they’d go for a post-flight brew.
“It’s not the plane; it is the pilot” – might as well have read “It isn’t the gun; it is the man behind the gun”
The best shooters in the world excel no matter what platform they’re using or what cartridge they’re shooting. Jerry Michulek is still Jerry Mickulek, no matter what he happens to have in his hands. We can all learn an important lesson from that. Focus on what matters.
On December 13, 2018 at 4:38 am, Francis W. Porretto said:
I recently read, in a novel, the statement that “The Republic began its downfall when our military switched from a round designed to kill our enemies to a round designed merely to piss them off.” He claimed that the Army approved the 5.56 NATO round because it “does just enough damage.” I’ve never understood that. It might have been that the writer believed that the 5.56 NATO round won’t penetrate modern military body armor, a subject about which I know nothing. Do you have any data on this?
On December 13, 2018 at 7:59 am, Bram said:
I look at the 5.56 as the end result of a series of errors. The bad decision to use the .30-06 in the M1 instead of the .276 Pedersen. Then after WWII the infamous rigged tests that chose the .308 over the British .280 and the M14 over the FAL.
Then somehow an Air Force General and the CEO of GM chose a .22 survival rifle for the whole Army.
Everyone knows something around 6.5mm would be a much better all-round military round but the Army keeps failing to get there.
On December 13, 2018 at 8:19 am, WiscoDave said:
@Francis W. Porretto
You can find out more about many types of body armor at this site: https://drmorgear.wordpress.com/
The subject is a possessed obsession with him.
On December 13, 2018 at 8:56 am, Herschel Smith said:
Virtually all rifle rounds will penetrate soft armor. Virtually no rifle rounds will penetrate ESAPI plates. Note that I’m qualifying everything with “virtually,” but you get the point. Yea, a 22LR won’t go through Kevlar, and a .50 will go through SAPI, but we no one carries 22LR in battle, and few shooters carry the 50 Sasser in battle (while a few do).
The 5.56mm hasn’t pissed off people. It’s killed hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of fighters.
On December 13, 2018 at 9:51 am, Fred said:
Not arguing against any other point but I think what Mr. Porretto is referring to is a Vietnam era ‘saying’ or ‘truism’ or something that went like; the 5.56 takes 3 men out of the battle because the round wounds so well (or some such) it requires two additional men to drag the wounded off the field. I’ve heard this bandied about and even stated as; the 5.56 is NOT DESIGNED to kill but to wound for this very reason. Not saying it’s true, just heard it this way.
This article is a little sad because we as a nation could have done anything from this post WWII potentiality. We could be multi-planetary by now or sought any of a thousand neat and interesting goals but instead we stayed at war with the world and perused communistic social programs at home so that we are now left bankrupt financially, morally, and spiritually. What a waste.
On December 13, 2018 at 8:27 pm, Gryphon said:
Fred – That was a common Promotional Rationale for the 5.56, and in SOME .Mil contexts is True – the Wounded Soldier requires More Resources to care for, reducing the Enemies’ Resources – However, in the middle of a Firefight, the Wounded Man might (likely) Keep Shooting, and His Squad Members are going to keep Returning Fire before putting down their Weapons to give Aid.
But if the Object is to make a ‘One Shot, One Kill’, 5.56 is Limited in Range and Hitting Power (particularly at 500 meter+ Range). IMO, there’s no “Universal Weapon” that fits All Situations (except maybe Atomic Bombs) and in the Debate of Small vs. Large Caliber, Rifle vs. Carbine (Barrel Length) it doesn’t make Sense to have an ‘Apples vs. Oranges’ argument.
The Practical Solution? have Multiple Weapons in Multiple Calibers, and Hope you have the ‘Best’ one at Hand for the Engagement you find Yourself In…
On December 13, 2018 at 9:02 pm, Longbow said:
The best one to use is the one you have in your hand at the time you need it. Learn to use it well.
On December 13, 2018 at 9:11 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Gryphon @Fred,
I think that’s mythology. Can anyone trot out OFFICIAL manuals, literature, or DoD materials that says that? Because I could be wrong.
On December 14, 2018 at 1:13 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Gryphon
“The Practical Solution? have Multiple Weapons in Multiple Calibers, and Hope you have the ‘Best’ one at Hand for the Engagement you find Yourself In…”
How well-stated! Just as the tradesman has in his tool kit different tools for different tasks, so should the ground soldier and infantryman. What’s old is new again, it seems to me, because that was pretty much how our infantry were armed in the WWII-Korean War Era.
After Korea in the late 1950s is when the “universal weapon” concept took hold in a big way within the Army ordnance establishment; the fallacious idea that one service rifle (what turned out to be the M14) could replace the .45-caliber ACP M3 Grease Gun submachine gun and Thompson SMG, the .30-caliber M-1 Carbine, the M-1 Garand 30-06 semi-automatic rifle, and the Browning Automatic Rifle, also in 30-06. Wow – whatever those guys were drinking, I want some! Talk about unrealistic!
Insofar as it is practical, the infantryman and his leaders must be given the latitude to arm themselves appropriately for whatever mission they are tasked with undertaking. One size fits all thinking is, more often than not, detrimental to success. Flexibility is the key. Our best special operations forces have always understood this, one reason why the Green Berets are free to arm themselves with weapons of their own choosing when on specialized missions.
As Ken Royce (Boston’s Gun Bible) has noted, it is fortuitous that – like the Roman short sword – the assault rifle was invented. However, as he puts it, assault rifles are not always the right answer and must be put back in their rightful place alongside the other possible arms of the ground soldier. Like the proverbial carpenter whose only tool is a hammer and sees every problem as a nail, our ground forces are so fixated on their ARs that they sometimes neglect to arm themselves with other weapons when appropriate.
I have never understood the complaints that modern ordnance services would not be able to handle supplying a half a dozen or more kinds of ammunition to our troops in the field if needed for additional kinds of weapons. Our ordnance corps managed fine in WWII, a global conflict fought three-fourths of a century ago when logistics were fairly primitive in comparison to today.
On December 14, 2018 at 6:02 am, Bill said:
As a retired Army Sergeant (combat arms ground-pounder) I’ve always viewed the 5.56 NATO as a ballistic compromise. It IS lethal properly used, but wars are won by logistics and the 5.56×45 can be produced in billions for less. There’s a place for bigger, and the 7.62 did not require us to recycle every bullet in the inventory to adopt it. Cost matters. The armalite design is brilliant for a Force that may have to take millions off the street & teach them to shoot. It’s now a mature design with the (few) kinks all worked out of it. It just works …even in the hands of neophytes. That’s my MIL opinion.
Now retired, my opinion for those of us who see possible big trouble on the horizon, and need to provide personal defense without Uncle Sugar’s budget is …an AR is the best possible option. I stick to 5.56 and 7.62 ONLY. I have ARs in both calibers. The 6.5s and 6.8s are undoubtedly as good as their proponents claim, but I can’t afford to use them, and if BIG trouble comes the specials will be impossible to find. (The saddest man in a gun fight is not the one who forgot his weapon, but the one who’s already attracted attention & fired his gun dry.) There are boatloads of 5.56 & 7.62 around. Even if my budget doesn’t allow stockpiling it as I’d like, it’ll always be available one way or another.
Choose a versatile tool, then learn to use it.
On December 14, 2018 at 9:59 am, Fred said:
@Herschel / @All, nope, I just heard it that way, not saying that it’s true, or DoD directed or endorsed. I’ve haven’t seen any official documentation. I’m not trying to perpetuate the myth, which is probably what this is, I’m trying to debunk it, apparently poorly.
Thank you @Gryphon, may the LORD find you preparing well this weekend.
On December 14, 2018 at 10:49 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Bill,
That’s interesting, and I’ve always found the AR-15 easy to shoot, handle and sight-picture for all the reasons you know (e.g., recoil directed along an axis rather than a couple that turns the rifle up).
But my understanding is that when Stoner designed the rifle, he was doing so for the “professional soldier” whereas the AK was designed for the conscript in mind.
On December 14, 2018 at 1:16 pm, Gryphon said:
GB61 – “The Right Tool for the Job” LOL. In my career as a Jet Mechanic, I’ve accumulated a 32-Foot (Mil) Semitrailer Van full of them, and Never Mind all the Heavy ‘Shop Stuff’ (up to the 50-Ton Tow Tractor) that I’ve Sold Off more Recently… That “Universal Weapon” concept is a Figment of the Arms manufacturer’s Imagination (Vi$ion$ of Contract$ Dance in their Heads) as the Reality, shown by History, is the Infantryman since the beginning of Firearms has had to use the Pistol, Rifle, Carbine, Bayonet and Grenade, and every Army has had to deal with the Logistics of Multiple Weapons and Multiple Calibers. IMHO, the Closest thing the Army can get to ‘Commonality’ of Small Arms would be to use an Intermediate (5.56 MM in this case) Round for a Carbine like the M4, and a Belt-Fed Version in the same Caliber. Then a Rifle Cartridge (7.62/.30 cal.) for Medium Ranges and a Belt-Fed LMG with the Same caliber. Then the .50 BMG for Sniping and Heavy Machine Gun use Everything else is an ‘Outlier’ for specific purposes, like the Pistol, and SMG in the Pistol Caliber, and in certain circumstances ‘Odd’ Rifle calibers for Sniping.
Pretty Much like we’ve got Now, so if the Effort spent on “wildcat cartridges” was spent on Improving the Weapons using these current Calibers, I think the ‘Issues’ that all of the Fantasy stuff like Caseless Ammo is meant to ‘Solve’ would be addressed.
Herschel & Fred – That statement of “the 5.56 is intended to Wound, not Kill, because Wounded have to be Cared For” may well be a “myth” in terms of Official Doctrine, originating from the Army, but I believe it has been passed around as there IS a certain amount of Logic to it. Unless the ‘Enemy’ shoots their Wounded so as Not to Waste Time on them… I’m thinking Chicom Army of Ants here.
On December 14, 2018 at 4:40 pm, Bill said:
@Herschel, I don’t know; I can’t speak to Stoner’s intent. But what he came up with is probably the most forgiving rifle for a novice there ever was. Combined with irons that are pretty intuitive, it’s the most effective with the least training curve to climb. …he was a pretty smart guy; I have to think the logistical (training) aspect figured into his thinking.
Gryphon is right: desire for a “Universal Weapon” is a result of not thinking through your requirements clearly enough. (Primarily an artifact of Supply Functionaries who never love anything but ‘one-size-fits-all’) “Special” troops can afford to train up on “special” weapons; a national Battle Rifle needs to be useful for masses of troops with minimum training.
Of more note to us dilettantes is the ease of staying effective with it with the least practice. …Oh, I advocate regular practice, but we all have our livings to earn and we know life just gets in the way no matter your priorities. So less training to remain effective (not super ninja qualified; effective) is better for us.
To Gryphon’s last point; I agree and observe that too much of our doctrine (formal or anecdotal) is based on European Norms of behavior. We’ve gathered too many examples in recent decades of how those don’t apply elsewhere in the world.
On December 14, 2018 at 7:23 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Bill,
I agree.
On December 15, 2018 at 8:24 am, RCW said:
Many thanks to the host here & the commentators; I learn a little more every time I visit & peruse your wise words. :)
On December 15, 2018 at 3:55 pm, DAN III said:
Mr. Smith,
“You can buy more, shoot more, carry more, and store more 5.56mm than 7.62mm.”
The above is the same argument I offered myself when I went from my beloved .45 ACP as my primary pistol round replaced by 9mm Luger pistols. Still have and shoot .45. But, the cartridge is a distant second to the shooting I do with 9mm.
As for 5.56mm give me a bandoleer of 77 grain, Mark 262, Mod 1 and I am a very, satisfied shooter.
On December 15, 2018 at 8:52 pm, jon spencer said:
To switch to another round would cost many, multi billions of dollars.
And as a tax payer, that is not acceptable, for the marginal improvement.
Then there is the weight, each round of 7.62 is roughly twice the weight of a .223 round. Multiply that by the number of rounds that are carried an used by each level of units (squad, platoon, company etc.) then ship those rounds to where they are needed. Every day.
And for (maybe) equal weight to .223 case-less rounds the shipping and handling and storage would bring up many questions.
Then there is the buying all the new weapons to use the new rounds.
.223’s work, and any proposed replacement has not come close to being a effective replacement any way that can be looked at.