By - JawlessStone
You can carry more 556 than 308 pound for pound. More bullets is more better. 556 is more controllable in full auto than 308.
Yea that’s a fair point. But how often are guns even fired in full auto and not short bursts? And if you can carry more 556 than 308 then I assume 308 is a more powerful round?
Even in short bursts, you'll run dry on 10lbs of 7.62 a lot faster than you will on 10lbs of 5.56.
>then I assume 308 is a more powerful round?
Yes. The meme was probably just someone talking about how battle rifles fire a more powerful cartridge therefore they are cooler and "manlier". It doesn't mean they are more practical than an AR15.
Alright yeah that makes sense
Short bursts is still automatic fire. Easier to keep 3 shots on target. 308 is more powerful but that's a function of kinetic energy and is tangentially relates to bullet mass.
More rounds downrange increases hit probability. More lighter rounds are better than less heavier ones. Think shotgun and the chances of a single pellet.hitting a bird vs trying to hit a Seagull with a cannon.
Alright yeah that’s actually a good way to look at it, makes sense now
Doesn't matter how you shoot it 5.56 is less than half the weight of 7.62. You can quite literally carry twice as much pound for pound.
Logistical ease was a giant factor then I assume?
Not really, it’s more of a measure of good enough and practicality. 7.62x51 has more power but it cannot make someone more deader than a 5.56. And with the 5.56 being significantly lighter than 7.62 the soldiers can carry more ammunition to fight longer and make more dead bad guys.
Yea that’s a good point, but surely 7.62 makes it easier to kill? I mean, if the bullet is more powerful then it’ll do more damage in case of a non instant death shot? (Another commented said that the bigger round wouldn’t tumble as much in the body, but still) (PS I’m not arguing in favor of either, I just want a better understanding is all :))
Realistically 5.56 (at least the M193 loading) tumbles and causes considerable damage.that was one of its touted benefits of 5.56 was that it had comparable wounding if not superior to 7.62 M80 ball.
But truthfully someone who's shot tends to suddenly have new concerns. And you don't actually need to "kill" an enemy just wound them sufficiently to incapacitate them.
Really 7.62 has advantages both in penetration versus vehicles or light cover, and in it's effective range.
A lot of studies were done in the 50s and 60s, overwhelmingly showed that hit for hit 5.56 had about the same or better killing potential that 7.62x51 had.
Since it is also lighter, easier to hit, and nice for CQB, it's just flat out better in a grunt's hands.
Yes. 308 is quite a bit more powerful. But at close range the 556 is very useful in that it’s so much more controllable that it’s a lot easier to hit multiple targets
McNamara and the Whiz Kid’s came up with a concept called “system lethality.” Basically, it’s the number of rounds carried in a basic load divided by the rounds required to “neutralize” a target - the analysis favors smaller calibers for obvious reasons.
Battle rifles are designed to fire full power cartridges similar to 7.62 x 51. Basically what happened was during WW2 the concept of maneuver warfare became the dominant battle doctrine, with troops intended to move rapidly and close on the enemy instead of fighting from static formations at relatively long range.
The use of weapons changed in this scenario, with the use of suppressive fire to tie up enemy troops becoming part of the doctrine. This led to intermediate cartridges, that were lighter and more controllable.
There are also huge logistics benefits from this, much talk is given to the weight of the lighter rounds on the individual soldier, all of which is true, but if your the guy supplying 1000 troops, that weight reduction means even more.
Battle rifles bullets are more overpowered than they need to be. They over penetrate past effectiveness, and are alot heavier. Their effective range is also insane, way past the average engagement distance.
They just aren't very practical for a modern military.
Alright yeah that makes sense, if I remember correctly modern rounds are designed to break up inside the target to inflict more damage yes? But still, if their range is good then I see no downside, a bullet still hurts even it goes straight through?
The downside is weight and recoil, and most soldiers simply aren't capable of making that long range a shot
You cannot hit what you cannot see. It's hard to see the enemy on the battlefield beyond 200-300 yards. It's unnecessary to carry around extra weight needed to be able to hit targets beyond that range.
There are exceptions, though. On open terrain and in the mountains battle rifles still have an advantage.
There are a couple historical developments to bear in mind.
1. The development of the 7.62x39 and the 7.92 Kurz during WW2. Both were matched to capable and effective weapons for the type of fighting Soldiers actually found themselves doing. A few folks actually noticed this, but not the big Army orthodoxy (ever slow to change) in the US.
1a. The M1 Garand was actually developed for a smaller cartridge than the .30-06. Logistics trumped the design, and it was changed to .30-06 because there was a LOT of it in stock. The point being, you can see progress start to creep in, even here.
1b. The UK/Brits developed and experimented with a .280 intermediate cartridge following WW2 as the quest for new arms and ammo heated up against the backdrop of the Korean War.
2. The US Army swings a big stick and, over objections, makes the 7.62x51mm NATO a thing. Essentially duplicating old .30-06 performance, it was paired to the M-14… objectively not a good weapon. One might argue it kept the M1’s flaws without any real improvement and was poorly suited to bridging the gap between battle rifles and assault rifles. It beat the AR-10 in trials, but one might argue that was largely the product of institutional bias. The point here being it was, and is, not an especially impressive weapon.
Q. You might ask, “why was the Army fielding .30 cal weapons with iron sights graduated to 1000+ yards anyway?” Once upon a time, volley fire was a thing - at least in theory. It was poor man’s artillery. The Army defines the effectiveness of individual weapons against point and area targets. In the latter case, the idea being that you and your buddies can lob rounds into a beaten area together to create effects. This was effectively obsolete, even in theory, with the introduction of the machine gun (which creates a beaten zone far more effectively than several rifles if that’s what you want to do). However, we’re talking about a branch of service that was massively opposed to the development of tanks and the doctrine to use them… because horses were obviously superior and the way of the future… so…
3. Eugene Stoner does the AR-15, he’s marketing it as a sporting arm at events/expos. An Air Force GO sees the weapon and thinks - “that would be perfect for my security forces” and initiates fielding. SecDef McNamara gets wind of this and makes a judgment call - the M-16 FOW is born and will become the standard for US Forces. However, the big bad Russian bear is a thing and NATO needs to be standardized. Enter the 5.56 NATO, and a lot of pissed off allies grumbling “I told you so” under their breath as America forces them to adopt their second new cartridge in 10 years (or so).
There it is…
Lots of people misunderstand what the battle rifle is for, it's more to solve a logistical problem more than anything else.
Coming out of WWII, US logistics was an absolute nightmare in that you had 3 different cartridges spread across no less than 7 different feeding devices: Thompson & Grease Gun magazines in .45 ACP, M1 carbine magazines in .30 Carbine, 1903 & M1 Garand clips in .30-06 which are not interchangable, BAR magazines, as well as a mix of cloth and disintegrating belts for the light machine guns. Getting the right ammunition to the right soldier in the right feeding device was an extremely complicated task.
After the war the US ordnance department was determined to simplify this mess, and the insistence on a .30 caliber cartridge was so that the infantry & machine guns can utilize the exact same cartridge, in two different feeding devices, the M-14 box magazine and the M-60 disintegrating belt.
While the infantry rifleman cannot take advantage of the full power cartridge, the machine gun crews can, and the theory behind the battle rifle like the M14, FAL, and G3 is that deprecating the effectiveness of the infantry rifle with a heavier cartridge is worth it for the trade off of a simplified logistic supply line.
Eventually events like the Vietnam War showed that the advantage of giving the infantry a lighter cartridge to improve their effectiveness was well worth the penalty of having to deal with two separate cartridges in the supply line, so that's why the battle rifle fell out of favor.
A big deal was cost too. It's cheaper to outfit an army with 5.56 than 7.62. Marginally so per round but it adds up
Ammo is lighter. You can make the gun lighter. That means you can either carry more ammo with the same weight and bulk, or carry the same amount with *less* weight and bulk. That means less fatigue, which means you can march farther in a day.
There were a few studies conducted in the years following WWII about small arms lethality, a lot of it involved analysis of conflicts during WWII. Prior to these studies the battle rifle concept was king.
The end result of the studies was the belief that more bullets going down range was more lethal (interesting huh?). This lead to the development of smaller intermediate calibers like .223 rem and the M16 being adopted with the prediction that most engagements would happen within 500 meters.
However in the last two decades, insurgents were constantly raining fire down on US forces with PKM’s and other larger caliber weapons. It usually wasn’t accurate but they were far enough away that the standard 14.5” M4A1 couldn’t touch them. They tried addressing it by upgrading 5.56mm rifles and refitting older .308 win ones but it was far from a total solution.
The interesting and somewhat ironic part is that now we are coming full circle back to the battle rifle concept with the NGSW program looking at larger rifle calibers with magnum cartridge level performance. They are pairing the rifle/cartidge with a magnified optic equipped with computer that can determine ballistics. I need to double check the exact requirements but I believe NSGW program wants a standard infantry rifle system that is capable of reaching out over 1,000 meters to hit an individual target.
Edit: Looking thru the comments, I think OP now has a maters level understanding small arms development within the last 120 years lmao.
If armies went back to trench warfare like in WWI, then a 7.62 makes sense. In urban warfare, the 5.56 works better.
battle rifles are typically in bigger calibers like 308, 6.5 creedmoor, 30-06 stuff like that but mainly 308. most 308 semi auto or full auto rifles carry 20 round or less mags. so battle rifle 20 rounds in a magazine vs ar15 with 223/556 you have 30 rounds. battle rifles are typically heavier and the ammo is heavier so 30 rounds of 308 vs 30 rounds of 556, the 308 is going to be heavier. the AR15 IS more controllable with recoil parts and availability is better with ar15 rifles. you can go down to a 10 inch barrel with a 556 ar15 and still be effective at decent distance. you have 1 rifle that can do several roles from CQB (close quarters combat) and 300-400 yard shots with a DMR or long range setup ar15. its more versatile. 308 did the long range stuff fine but when you get a huge 308 rifle in CQB its not the best and overkill on power at short range. just part of it.
Thats already canceled for being retarded.
Heavy round, heavy rifle. The individual soldier can carry a significantly higher amount of ammo, and logistically you can maintain a better supply chain long term.
Some people’s take on modern ARs are really bad. Hell, there’s even a sub dedicated to bad modern ARs.
Happen to know the name of it?
It was r/plebeianAR
Thank you can’t wait to check this out.!
>Where the cringe was ARs and the based was Battle rifles. Is there even a difference? Can someone explain it?
The AR platform (Including its M4/M16 predecessor) is simply lighter, more maneuverable, with more ammo per/lb, and arguably a better tool for CQB and some "squad" type fighting, where each of those examples has tangible real world value. If you're in a situation where you're clearing rooms in some third world rathole in a mud house with narrow hallways, shits gonna be tight, and maneuverability is worrisome. Much easier to use a readily available 12.5 AR platform in that scenario, than trying to clear it with a titanic sized FAL. When you're dealing with effective ranges of 25 meters and in, it really doesn't matter what round you're shooting, if the enemy isn't wearing plates and stays exposed long enough, its going to be a lethal situation regardless if you're shooting 5.56 or 7.62.
On the flip side of things, If you're out in the open desert mucking about and keeping an eye on a shepherd and his goats 600 meters away, fuck yeah you want that FAL back in place of that 12.5 AR. That FAL's gonna clap some cheeks from 600m while the 12.5 makes noise and kicks up dirt.
In a more modern environment as far as warfare is concerned, where reconnaissance is more accurate and more detailed, and faster paced, the traditional battle rifles just lag behind due to any number of reasons, but mostly due to effective range shift, modularity, and overall availability. Its rare to see FALs anymore, and they are so beautiful.
Battle rifles tend to use high power/ full length cartridges like the grand while if they’re referring to ARs as Assault rifles then they use intermediary cartridges like 7.62 nato or 5.56. Battle rifles have fallen out of favor (they’re still used but in unique circumstances) in the US since Vietnam.
because nobody employs mass cavalry charges today
Basically imagine an M1 Garand (30-06) vs an FAL (308) vs an M4/AR-15/M16 (556), this is the lineage of adopted rifles by an imaginary country they are getting progressively smaller in power because they see that 556 can do the job with less weight per cartridge, but the others are still good rifles due to their stopping power at longer ranges, therefore they adopt the FAL one as a Designated Marksman Rifle and phase out the Garand, basically, Assault rifles are nice, but some people like battle rifles/DMRs due to their knockdown power at longer ranges.
A battle rifle generally refers to a full auto rifle that fires a full size cartridge like 7.62 NATO. Basically the archetypical one is the [FN FAL](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/FN-FAL_belgian_noBG.png), otherwise known as the right arm of the free world.
Rifles like it fell out of favor cause rifles that fire intermediary cartridges, like the AR/M16 and AK-47, are lighter, way easier to control in full auto, and allow a soldier to carry a lot more ammo for the same weight.
Last one is important cause hit probability in an actual combat scenario is pretty low, something the US military has tried to address in several ways, such as the [Advanced Combat Rifle program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Combat_Rifle).
This provides a good bit of background on why small caliber rifles were adopted.
Ignore 'cringe and based' 4chan crap. These are mechanical devices: Tools. The larger full powered cartridges weren't efficient for the actual shootouts militaries were seeing (where lighter, more plentiful rounds were better) such as the typical engagement ranges of around 200 yards.
So having a bulkier, heavier recoiling, smaller ammo capacity weapon made little sense and had many drawbacks.
The way I look at it, the battle rifle role evolved into DMRs which are used by designated marksman in squads today in smaller numbers. The 7.62 cartridge can still touch out to ranges that intermediate cartridges can't and also be surgical.
Everyone switched to small caliber higher velocity