FabSwingers.com forum: A question for former service personnel

By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago

North West

I have had quite a few discussions on social media over the years about the battlefield effectiveness of the old 7.63mm SLR round versus the relatively new 5.56mm SA80.

Personally, I always felt that the 7.62 round was devastatingly powerful and one hit was all it ever usually needed. I have heard stories from Iraq and Afghanistan where guys were still standing with 5 or 6 SA80 rounds in them.

I get it that the SA80 is a lighter and more versatile weapon and the 5.56mm rounds are also lighter andcsobot is easier to carry more, but I still think that you should be expecting every shot to count and not have to think you need to get multiple hits.

Why have I opened this thread? Well kind of in really bad taste to be honest. I was reading a newspaper article about Sunday Bloody Sunday and the vast majority of the victims died from a single shot and although in poor taste, it kind of vindicated my long held idea that the 7.62mm round was a devastating round and commanded much more confidence than the guys are getting these days from the SA80.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

It depends on what sort of unit you are in and the role you are filling to be honest.

I have experience of serving with units where most of the lads were involved in high impact close quarters combat, they mainly carried M16's and MP's with most favouring MP's. They preferred smaller calibres because although multiple hits were required to put a target down the smaller round had less energy and thus reduced the risk of 'through and throughs' resulting in blue on blue casualties, and when they did happen reduced the fatality rate of blue on blue hits. Of course using smaller rounds also allowed them to carry more ammunition. I always carried an L42 A1 (and Browning 9mm for PP) because my combat role was support to those close quarters combat and I wanted a weapon that would put down with the first shot anything I hit.

My opinion is that if you can't put down a target with 1 round the temptation to spam unaimed sludge down range 'to keep the other guys head down' has to be increased to a point of being irresistible, and this is why since the introduction of the SA80 and 556 as the standard nato round combat effectiveness of all UK infantry units has dropped off to a point that we have become as piss poor as the yanks. Last I heard our 'kill rate' is 1 for every 250,000 rounds fired. In my day, when the SLR (762) was the standard issue infantry personal weapon the 'kill rate' was 1 to every 20 rounds fired.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *onny MCMan
over a year ago

Crawley

Have been looking into the whole "gun culture" thing online for a while now - it's actually quite fascinating once you get past how crazy the Yanks get about it - and was always under the impression that the switch from 7.62 to 5.56 & 5.45 (besides the weight advantage) was the incredibly macabre answer that wounding a soldier was more effective than killing him, since killing takes one man off the battlefield and wounding takes 3, since 2 of his mates have to chuck him on a stretcher and lug him back to a field hospital.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Have been looking into the whole "gun culture" thing online for a while now - it's actually quite fascinating once you get past how crazy the Yanks get about it - and was always under the impression that the switch from 7.62 to 5.56 & 5.45 (besides the weight advantage) was the incredibly macabre answer that wounding a soldier was more effective than killing him, since killing takes one man off the battlefield and wounding takes 3, since 2 of his mates have to chuck him on a stretcher and lug him back to a field hospital. "

Very few 762 hits resulted in 'clean kills'. The change was political nothing more. In fact the US adoption of 556 rather than 762 was down to the hubris of a US Army officer who used his position to block the adoption of 762 ammo in favour of 556 because he was not willing to have the US use British designed ammo regardless of how good it was.

In fact at the moment the US military are attempting to develop an 'intermediate' 6.odd round that has the stopping power of the 762 but is not the 762. The thing many do not know is the 762 is/was a copy of the WW2 German 763 round which is/was the most aerodynamically efficient round ever produced.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread