The best round for modern warfare...?

Gollevainen said:

We used that trick in army with our AKs...at first I was the sole man in my battery that managed to pull the trigger without the coin dropping...eventually the rest learned it as well...

Click to expand...

Golly one last thing about your post ..pardon me for again coming in like this

you said something about keeping bull's eye above the sight of line of handgun. When i shoot i keep the aim at the middle of the bull's eye circle. Is it something thats putting me of mark??

P.S I ll create a new thread in memeber's club if i have any other questions

Well quick response in here and then lets start a new thread.

you said something about keeping bull's eye above the sight of line of handgun. When i shoot i keep the aim at the middle of the bull's eye circle. Is it something thats putting me of mark??

Click to expand...

Does your shots go over the target? Also is there a possibility to adjust your sights? Basicly if the guns sights are adjusted so that it goes to the centre (if you aim the centre) and you cannot change them, then you should not listen to me. But if you can adjust the sights, then try this method. But aiming is seccond priority in target shooting, the first is the proper firing (triggering) technique. Best thing is first to concerate on the right ways of pulling the trigger.

Thanks a lot Surpluswarrior. Your posts are very usefull in order to bring us to a consensual conclusion.

Now that the range question is almost settled, we should start talking about bullets lethality and penetrating power.

I heard that the ballistic of the 5.56 Nato rounds gives it excellent lethality because the bullet turns around inside the body and comes out back-forward, making a really nasty hole. Also some swedish made round in 5.56 are somehow pre fragmented and literally explode inside the body, creating a very incapacitating "blood pressure wave". But these ceracteristics are usefull only in the case of a body hit, and the round would simply go through a limb with normal damage. Does any modern russian or chinese round feature some comparable capacities?

From what I've heard, the complaints stemming from users of the 5.56mm (or at least, M-16 and M-4 users) is that the bullets overpenetrate sometimes, not turning around inside the body, instead just punching a small hole, as opposed to a big one by 7.62...

Not sure if it's only the newer armor piercing rounds that do that, or if it's a problem all 5.56mm face. I'd imagine it's the former, though.

It is my understanding that in the earliest M-16 rifles that were deployed in Vietnam, the bullets were lighter and had a twist rate in the barrel such that the combined effect was to create a projective that yawed and delivered a devastating flesh wound to a human being.

However, with the advent of widespread body armour and / or a desire for better accuracy at long range, the more modern M-16 (A2?) variants and rifles produced since have used a heavier bullet, with a different twist rate in the barrel to stabilize it. This is said to have led to a more straight-line penetration of the human body, causing less of a wound channel and more of a hole appropriate for the size of a .22 caliber projectile.

In other words, the more modern bullet design and barrel twist rate has exchanged wounding power for a more stable, accurate, heavier bullet.

meaning that the round penitrates more in a unarmored target creating a single stright wound or a " Needle hole" rather than the older ricochee found in the original rifle.

Well that certainly causes some major inconveniences, if I'm understanding this correctly...

You need more twist and penetration to get past body armor.

but

If the target is not wearing body armor then the bullet will do minimal damage, simply going right through without causing much trauma...

in that situation my guess is that a heavier bullet like the 7.62mm would be more useful against both armored and unarmored targets... although it certainly has its share of cons compared to the 5.56.

for any round to truly take down a target the shot must as i see it have three factors first shot placement. ( that is that shots to the head are more likely to be leathal then a shot to the arm. at clsoe range a .22 caliber is just as leathal if nor more so then a shot to the head via a .45acp. the reason being that the .22 has the vilocity to penitreat the skull on entry but not to leave so it bounces around in side the brain. the perfict shot is to the base of the brainstem. ) second shot penitration if there is some ing in the way of the bullet that could block the bullet like armor or for lower vilocity rounds the old story about a trooper saved by a bible. and third the condition of the target. but in the heat of battle the mind goes blank and thinking through shots is pretty much out the window.

Mwahahahahahaha!!!!



So here you are guys, stuck in the exact same point I got stuck myself in my ... well,... let's say 'extended comparative research' about different standard medium calibre rounds.

And beleive me the matter is so much controversial that there are still US military specialists that say the 5.56*45 round is bullshit, and NATO should go back to the good old 7.62*51 round. And there are 5.56*45 worshipers too!

And there are so, oh so many cartridges! The NATO uses more than 10 different 5.56 cal rounds! Standard FMJ, flat nose, ogival, spherical, AP with special steel nose... Not to mention 'special' bullets, like the subsonic ones for silent shooting, or the undercalibred tungsten dart APs.

That's why I decided to discuss the matter with some specialists (Yes, I'm talking about you.) to settle this once and for all. And instead of making a review of the specs of all rounds currently in service, and those yet to be tested, I thought it would be a more rational and much easier procedure if we first tried to determine, theoricaly and practically, the required performances for the round of a standard AR issued to the average regular soldier, in regard to modern warfare requirements.

First we discussed the 'range' question, and we were led to this conclusion : ( I made some corrections)

- An occasional and 'instinctive' target acquisition and engagement would occur at a range of 100-150m (Daylight, good visibility) or 20-80m in urban warfare or low-visibility situations : moonlight, smoke, dust, fog, heavy raining, sun in the shooters eyes...( Almost 30 percent of engagement situations)
- You can occasionally hit a target at a range of 300-350m, if you go prone, stay calm, and use a good scope, even with no sharpshooter training. But this is a 'surprise shot' (ambushing the enemy or holding a defensive position) and as the enemy starts moving and shooting back and uses suppressive fire, you are again in the above mentionned situation.

-In real life-threatening situation, the adrenaline rush makes you stronger, more alert, and gives you faster reactions. BUT higher blood pressure, fastened heartbeats and breathing rate and uncontrolled muscular contractions drastically reduce your accuracy, unless you are a war hardened veteran.

Then came the 'burst' question, to see if the one-shot-kill is a must, or you could use low-lethality rounds and compensate with multiple hits. Apparently no AR allows you to perform multiple clean shots at long range, and even the new 3-round burst capacity on some AR is not really accurate (except for the futuristic G11 that uses unique ultra-small caliber caseless rounds). So :

-one shot must be incapacitating at long range (150m).


Now let me give a summary of what I made out during my research:

When a bullet comes to hitting the target, there are three important parameters:

1-The kinetic energy:

This is the 'power' of the bullet. On impact, the kinetic energy is transformed into heat and choc wave. The harder the target, the more complete the transformation. It is the choc wave that makes the target explode. Higher energy is achieved through
-heavier weight
-greater velocity
The formula being : KE=1/2 (mass)*(square velocity)
So if you double the mass you double the energy, but if you double the velocity you have four times greater energy. On the other hand, since air friction is proportionnal to speed, a fast bullet will lose its energy much faster than a slow one, and thus paradoxically may be less effective at long range.
High energy bullets are less deflected by wind and are less likely to ricochet.


2-The penetration:

Unlike impact, penetration means going through the obstacle like 'a hot knife in butter', no fragmentation, no exploding. Better penetration comes with:
-smaller caliber
-hign density materials (tungsten, depleted uranium)
-reducing friction (teflon casing)
-dart-like design.

3-Stopping power, or lethality:

This is the most important and the most complicated point, as lethality is hard to define. The lethalit of a bullet can only be determined by real combat experience.
You can achieve good stopping power through great kinetic energy ( Like the NATO 7.62*51 that is powerfull enough to literally explode the flesh and muscle, not only in the abdomen, but the limbs too.) or by having the bullet 'mess' inside the body. For example the M193 (Old standard american 5.56*45 FMJ) was extremely deadly (under 200m)because of its high muzzle velocity : After a 4cm course inside the body, the bullet is deflected by 90 degree and the pressure on the metal casing crushes the bullet core and expells the fragments that tear appart the inner tissues, generating a permanent hole 15cm in diameter, and a blood pressure wave that goes directly to the brain. One shot in the abdomen is instantly incapacitating and 100 percent deadly.


As you can easily see, these performances are uncompatible, and trying to combine them would lead to very expensive rounds. The M193 was great, but it couldn't go through any body armor. So the SS109 was developped. It was slightly heavier and longer with a steel penetrating-nose, and was able to penetrate a kevlar helmet as far as 1000m. Unfortunately, it goes through the body as good, making just a little tunnel. But because it has lower energy, it cannot go through one cement block, while the russian 7.62*39 can even go through a brick wall. And yet the most modern body armors issued to the US Marines are immune to the SS109

Nowaday, the main idea in NATO is to combine small cal penetrating rounds with very high rate o fire. An extreme design features 2.5mm cal tungsten dart rounds fired at a 10 000 rpm rate of fire. If the hits are close to each others you can perform a cumulative effect (very unlikely), otherwise you need to literally 'pepper' the enemy. The tests are far from being conclusive, and the russian and chinese military doesn't seem to take that option.


Now back to our scientific discussion.

The next question is:

-Which standard round can penetrate a body armor at 150m max?

But before we answer that, we have to make a little disgression to see :

-How widely body armors are issued to regular soldiers (not elite corps) around the world?

-What are the performances of the body armors actually in service?


Thanks everybody for your help and your professionalism.

The U.S. opponents in Iraq do not typically wear body armour as far as I understand. I have heard that Hizbollah may deploy body armour to some extent. What about China and Iran? I doubt Syria employs body armour extensively, but I could be wrong.

So what I am getting at is that it seems most U.S. opponents do not employ body armour. We also know that U.S. body armour often stops 7.62X39. Russia may be able to deploy a similar level of armour. So U.S. is not likely to need to use a round effective against body armour at the moment because it is not fighting WWIII and the Warsaw Pact like they were projected to when SS109 was developed. Fragmenting, nasty bullets like West German 7.62X51 would be very effective against human torso.

On the other hand, opponents of the U.S. will need something with greater armour piercing capability than 7.62X39. In an intermediate assault rifle calibre, their existing choices I think are 5.56 NATO and 5.45X39 Russian. However, 5.56 NATO has had complaints about terminal ballistics as we already know. So it seems to me like a round heavier than 5.56 but faster than 7.62X39 would be the key to solving body armour issues. This is where the 6.5mm Grendel especially comes into play.

Body armour in its current form is heavy, and if you want to protect beyond "assault rifle" rounds and into "battle rifle" rounds, you may need to wear a prohibitive amount of armour. So it looks like a modern assault rifle calibre would need to penetrate current U.S. body armour. Again, this is why an intermediate 6-7mm caliber would seem appropriate.

For answers to those who are interested, I would strongly recommend reading this article:



"Two conclusions about the present situation seem pretty clear. One is that there would be financial and logistical benefits in having only one military rifle/MG cartridge. The other is that it wouldn't hurt to have a rifle cartridge with more reliable hitting power than the 5.56mm. As it happens, both conclusions point in the same direction; towards a cartridge intermediate in power between the 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO.

Such an "ideal" cartridge would need to combine a long-range effectiveness comparable with the 7.62mm, with a recoil light enough to permit controlled, full-auto fire. Is it possible to achieve this? The evidence suggests strongly that it is. The British aimed to do this with the 7x43 cartridge half a century ago, and by all accounts succeeded admirably. This gives us an upper calibre limit. I don't think that a useful increase in performance over the 5.56mm can be achieved with anything smaller than 6mm calibre, which gives us the lower limit."

Here is what the author recommends:

"Any of the above options would do, but for the sake of argument let's take the 6.5mm. A cartridge of this calibre would be smaller than the more powerful 6.5mm Arisaka. If a similar case diameter were retained then length could be reduced to about 45mm. In fact, the case diameter and length would be similar for all of the above cartridges.

So, we have our ideal military general-purpose assault rifle and MG cartridge -the "6.5x45 GP" - and we could have had it many decades ago."