Defensive Carry banner

British SAS Looking for 5.56 NATO Replacement

6K views 56 replies 24 participants last post by  JMB 
#1 ·
Looks like at least some of the British military has had enough of the 5.56:

In an SAS report, soldiers described the realities of the British “shoot-to-wound” policy, highlighting cases where, in clashes with the Taliban, enemy forces would rather fight to the death than extract themselves and their wounded from skirmishes.

Furthermore, the report said that the soldiers were outgunned by the Taliban fighters, with their rifles commonly-chambered in 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mmR, giving the insurgents an edge in stopping power and range.
But not everyone is convinced:

In defense of the 5.56 rifles, the British ministry of defense countered, stating “Troops in Afghanistan use a variety of highly effective weapons that fire a range of ammunition. They primarily use 5.56 mm rounds fired from the world-class SA80 A2 assault rifle and these have great power and accuracy.
Not trying to start a dreaded caliber war, or anything. Just thought it was an interesting debate. (I also had no idea that the SA80 was "world class." :image035:)

Story here
 
#14 ·
My understanding of the transition to the 5.56 away from the 7.62 was that studies found that actual engagement ranges were much closer than previously imagined and that hit rates were lower than imagined. So give these parameters the idea became to equip troops with weapons that permitted then to put a lot more lead down range in a shorter amount of time while also giving them more ammunition to expend.

Sort of like Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own :p
 
#22 ·
My understanding of the transition to the 5.56 away from the 7.62 was that studies found that actual engagement ranges were much closer than previously imagined and that hit rates were lower than imagined. So give these parameters the idea became to equip troops with weapons that permitted then to put a lot more lead down range in a shorter amount of time while also giving them more ammunition to expend.
I have heard this as well. The ability to carry more rounds per lb on the 5.56 vs. 7.62. I would have to believe that 'the best and brightest' teams working on this in the early/mid 60s also calculated cost savings of smaller round too.
 
#16 ·
Funny thing about this stuff. Using Americans as an example. You'll hear occasional complaints from basic soldiers. But, the more specialized they are, that changes. Many SOF guys actually praise the 5.56, especially with good ammo.

So, at least to me, this comes down to training more than caliber. The thing is, most complaining about 5.56 have never used another caliber in combat anyway, so how would they know it would make a difference? At 200 meters hitting a guy in the abdomen will result in pretty much the same thing.

There's a lot of talk about this on SOCNET and Lightfighter, by vetted SOF guys. It's very much worth a read.

Shoot to wound is a myth or an explanation from the uninformed.
 
#21 ·
Gun Firearm Rifle Trigger Air gun




This is my FN Congo 14" select fire 7.62 I carried in Iraq loved it except for the lack of mags I only had 5. Kicked like a mule but the 6 foot fireball did get your attention.

Along with the shoot to wound comment, which by the way only works by the way if you care about your wounded, was the one about the "State of the art SA80" These guns have had problems since the beginning.

I agree with comment that the better trained the shooter is the less they criticize the 5.56.
 
#24 ·
I will reiterate, the US military has never had a "wound the enemy" policy, either implicit or implied. I was never taught how to wound an enemy with rifle fire as Marine (0311). I was taught lesser means, but none of that training included shooting someone as "lesser means". Any time you fired your weapon it was understood to be "deadly force". We didn't shot leg or arm targets in training. We always fired COM in training.

You will not find one single requirement from the US government or military from the 1960's saying that one of the requirements for the new service rifle round (5.56mm) was that it should wound and not kill the enemy. No official documents exist that say we will train our troops to wound enemy troops to put a strain on their logistics.

It's all wives tales.
 
#29 ·
Got that. You're right of course but if, as the OP implies and I say IF the Brits in the SAS have a shoot to wound policy it most likely involves logic that would have the enemy expending more resources dealing with wounded men than with dead men. I tend to doubt that's SAS policy but if it is I could understand it as I've heard the same thing mentioned in training myself.
 
#25 ·
The SAS frequently fights alone, as do most SF units. They probably do indeed need the longer range and better barrier penetration of the 7.62 x 51 cartridge. Of course, that comes at the expense of capacity - both in the magazine and what you can carry.

For general infantry use, I'm not sure we will see a move away from the 5.56. With support from GP machine guns, indirect fire assets, etc the general infantry has other assets to use for long range and/or harder targets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Naufragia
#27 ·
On the other hand, Kyle Defoor, Marcus Luttrell, Paul Howe, Kyle Lamb and numerous other SEALs that also fight alone say they prefer the 5.56 even when some have access to the SCAR H with a 13.5" barrel. Using Mk262, 75gr TAP and especially Brown Tip 70gr, the 5.56 has made leaps and bounds.

If you head over to SOCNET and Lightfighter, like I mentioned before, you'll see verified SEALs and Army SF swearing by 5.56 and stressing that no bullet will do better if you can't put them where you want them. The only one that has really complained about it at all was Paul Howe, but he was saying how m855, which was made to deal with an organized military wearing body armor, was zipping through the enemy in Mogadishu and he'd have preferred a different bullet.

Right now with the Army's Improved Carbine competition, there's some talk about why nobody submitted a 6.8 or 7mm Murray. The answer is they'd have to profile a quarter million rounds for the test then, if it should be adopted, it would cost the Army BILLIONS of dollars to replace it's current supply of 5.56.

Many experts claim that 6.8 would be a better choice as it could replace both 5.56 and 7.62, but the actual gain within 300 yards would be minimal. On top of that, only in CQB is it dire that they stop right now. At 300 yards, most bullets will take them out of the fight.

Those threads on the Imroved Carbine has a number of Special Forces guys talking about how effective 5.56 is and the only ones who think it needs replaced for engagements within 400 meters are those with no experience with the better bullets and those with little training.

There's a reason the Russians developed the 5.45. It's not because the 7.62x39 was too good, it's that the 5.45 was a better match for Americans armed with 5.56. They had a better chance of gaining fire superiority SI the lighter round that they found wasn't really any less effective on enemy combatants.

I'd love to see the 6.8 make its way into our fighting rifles. It would allow the use of shorter barrels as standard with an effective range farther than 5.56. It provides a little better barrier penetration compared to 855. When comparing to 70gr Brown Tip though, the difference is less. There's a number of good things that could come from a 6.8, but the cost would be ridiculous for an incremental increase in terminal ballistics.

If the money spent on this nonsense was put into training and a superior bullet to 855 and 855a1, I think we'd see much less complaining about the 5.56.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atctimmy
#28 ·
I was under the impression that in the 90s or early in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars there was an outcry over the poor performance of the 62 grain 5.56 steel core rounds. As I understand it the poor performance led to the development (with input from SF and SEALS) of the 6.8SPC.

It is also my understanding that better bullets, such as the heavier OTM and faster bonded stuff, have been found to be quite satisfactory and have rendered almost all talk of the 6.8SPC moot.

My only question is why highly trained SAS members are now complaining about it when good ammo is finally available. Something smells fishy to me, a reprint of an old article perhaps?


ETA: Oops. Jon got in before me. I agree 100% with what he posted.
 
#30 ·
Well, there is a reason the US Army is pulling ancient M14s out of storage. In A-stan, we have firefights at extended ranges, and the 5.56 is just not up to that task. Mind you, not a wholesale switch from M16/M4/5.56 to the M14/7.62 x 51...but clearly there is a need to have them available at the squad/platoon level.

If they were not needed, and the 5.56 with its new magic bullets was so wonderful - the Army would not be spending the money to re-issue the old warhorse M14s.

:bier:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoganbeg
#31 · (Edited)
You're right. In Afghanistan especially, a new caliber like the 6.8 would be a benefit. There's even talk of that in the Lightfighter thread, which is a good read. 7.62x51 is a bit much, though I'd happily carry a SCAR H with a 13.5" to 16", the new M110 with the 16" barrel or if I had my choice, maybe even LaRue with a 14.5" barrel. But, I still don't see a disadvantage to 5.56.

Now, I've also heard a lot of guys that would prefer an M4 with 5.56 over an M14 even if Afg.

I do agree there is a place for larger calibers. It would be great if something like a 6.8 could be fielded, or better yet according to guys like Dr Roberts, the 7mm Murray or 7mm CTA.

But, the retooling of Lake City and to fully replace 5.56 would be insane. I was shocked at the time and money involved.

the numbers are extraordinary to say the least (both cost and time). Bottom line: to spin up LC and tool the new dyes and the cost associated to replace the current inventory of 5.56mm is somewhere in the neighborhood of 9-14 years and billions of dollars...
Personally, just talking about my uses, I really like the 6.8. I have a 9" 300blk upper on the way that has higher energy and a larger bullet than 5.56 with 70gr TSX from a 14.5" barrel, but it's a dog past 150 or so. It drops like a bowling ball while 6.8 is quite flat from the same length barrel. For me, it comes down to ammunition. 300blk is just more available (usually). I hope that changes so I can pick up another 6.8.

For now, I'm happy with 5.56 for all of my needs out to 400 meters. Add the SCAR H (which is all but gone sadly) or a PredatOBR with 14.5" or 16" barrel. I'm covered for all things out to 800 meters or so.

I've spent days at a time walking and riding around with the SCAR H and it was never rough to carry or shoot. BUT, the ammo is heavier and I just can't shoot it all that fast compared to 5.56 or even 6.8 from the shortest of barrels.
 
#33 ·
Brits are not as good of shots as your average American Rifleman. So it would stand to reason that they would try to blame it on the pill they were sending downrange.

It had been my observation and experience that if you do your part the pill will do its part.

You can bet there is more to this story than is being reported by the British press. Furthermore, there is a push NATO wide right now to step-up to the 6.5 Grendel or the 6.8 SPC for obvious reasons. Weight and resupply is not as big of a concern as it was when the 5.56 came into favor where troops needed more ammo without having to hump more weight.
 
#34 ·
Brits are not as good of shots as your average American Rifleman. So it would stand to reason that they would try to blame it on the pill they were sending downrange.
Yeah, those SAS guys have a reputation for being a lousy bunch of soldiers. :rolleyes:
 
#35 ·
This is from someone who knows a thing or two about shooting badguys and is Army SF.

The thing not being brought to light in all these talks is operational spectrum. I have been the victim of the 7.62 "Battle Rifle" (SR25, HK417 and the SCAR H) operational usage. However, after we took a more in depth look at the WHOLE situation - and not just the rifle ballistics ALOT of us came to the same conclusion. The chase isnt worth the catch. This was our DMP.
1. its a heavier rifle
2. I carry less ammo that is also more heavy
3. I can only put 20 ( or 19 ) rounds in the mags
4. The mags are not as easy to rapidly change ( this can be overcome with training and better mag pouches that we did not have at time of combat eval)
5. We still shot haji multiple times with it ( at both long and short range )utilizing the same amount of ammo we would have with the 5.56
rifle, this played into points 2 and 3.(ive yet to see a Haj live when shot correctly with either a 5.56 or a 7.62 so i dont entertain terminal ballistics debates about either)
6. If Haj is farther than 600 meters out we dont waste ammo on them anyway, CAS can get them and we will manuver closer to engage with small arms. Inside the 600 range our 5.56 rifles with appropriate optics and ammo was doing the job no problem. ( key take aways are the optics and ammo selection to fit the operational needs!)

Overall I think the majority of the units that love the 7.62 rifles are the ones that dont have to start an engagment at distance and still must manuver up and end the fight at close quarters. They like the idea of having a protracted small arms fight at 600 plus yards and then waiting it out until the Haj leaves and calling it a day. Im not faulting them but thats just not thier job - they are there to project strength and when they can attrit the Haj and not risk thier elements by needlessly attriting thier own by chasing down knuckledraggers with no endstate.

The CQB aspect is where we really found the negative aspects of the 7.62 rifle. The recoil, weight and magazine capacity really turned some guys off, add that to the rest of the points above and most guys came to the conclusion that the "big gun" wasnt the way to go for what we are doing. Once again, about 600 meters engagments culminating in CQB ( where the majority of Haj is now fixed due to accurate small arms and CAS, and waiting for you, they learned early on not to attempt to compete with our marksmanship skills one for one )

We still have a few that love the idea of it - mostly the ones who have not had to carry and use it often enough to actually make an informed decision IMO.

The 7.62 Rifle concept is great when applied to certain mission sets. Just not the ones I have been apart of.
 
#37 ·
The thing not being brought to light in all these talks is operational spectrum. I have been the victim of the 7.62 "Battle Rifle" (SR25, HK417 and the SCAR H) operational usage. However, after we took a more in depth look at the WHOLE situation - and not just the rifle ballistics ALOT of us came to the same conclusion. The chase isnt worth the catch. This was our DMP.
1. its a heavier rifle
2. I carry less ammo that is also more heavy
3. I can only put 20 ( or 19 ) rounds in the mags
4. The mags are not as easy to rapidly change ( this can be overcome with training and better mag pouches that we did not have at time of combat eval)
5. We still shot haji multiple times with it ( at both long and short range )utilizing the same amount of ammo we would have with the 5.56
rifle, this played into points 2 and 3.(ive yet to see a Haj live when shot correctly with either a 5.56 or a 7.62 so i dont entertain terminal ballistics debates about either)
6. If Haj is farther than 600 meters out we dont waste ammo on them anyway, CAS can get them and we will manuver closer to engage with small arms. Inside the 600 range our 5.56 rifles with appropriate optics and ammo was doing the job no problem. ( key take aways are the optics and ammo selection to fit the operational needs!)

Overall I think the majority of the units that love the 7.62 rifles are the ones that dont have to start an engagment at distance and still must manuver up and end the fight at close quarters. They like the idea of having a protracted small arms fight at 600 plus yards and then waiting it out until the Haj leaves and calling it a day. Im not faulting them but thats just not thier job - they are there to project strength and when they can attrit the Haj and not risk thier elements by needlessly attriting thier own by chasing down knuckledraggers with no endstate.

The CQB aspect is where we really found the negative aspects of the 7.62 rifle. The recoil, weight and magazine capacity really turned some guys off, add that to the rest of the points above and most guys came to the conclusion that the "big gun" wasnt the way to go for what we are doing. Once again, about 600 meters engagments culminating in CQB ( where the majority of Haj is now fixed due to accurate small arms and CAS, and waiting for you, they learned early on not to attempt to compete with our marksmanship skills one for one )

We still have a few that love the idea of it - mostly the ones who have not had to carry and use it often enough to actually make an informed decision IMO.

The 7.62 Rifle concept is great when applied to certain mission sets. Just not the ones I have been apart of.
Great post. It makes you wonder if the SAS might want to be careful, in that it might get what it is wishing for.
 
#38 ·
6. If Haj is farther than 600 meters out we dont waste ammo on them anyway, CAS can get them and we will manuver closer to engage with small arms. Inside the 600 range our 5.56 rifles with appropriate optics and ammo was doing the job no problem. ( key take aways are the optics and ammo selection to fit the operational needs!)
Out of curiosity what type of carbines and optics are our guys using out in Afghanistan that are allowing them to make the long distance shots up to 600 meters? I would venture to guess its not your standard mil spec M4 or M16.
 
#39 ·
Depends. It could be a MK12 which is an 18" upper. The optic will typically be a Nightforce 2.5-10 or a Leupold with similar magnification. There are also some DMR rifles in use with precision 16" barrels, but those are rare. There's also the SCAR L with a 10" or 14.5" barrel which is very accurate.

It may very well be a 14.5" M4A1 (which is now a heavy barrel instead of the m4 profile) with an Elcan Specter DR 1-4, ACOG TA31 4x32 or a red dot with a 3x magnifier. This is all part of the SOPMOD Block 1 and 2 program, anything else in way of optics would be personal purchase. I know some guys using 1-4 S&B's and 1-8 Leupold CQBSS's as well.

Issued ammo for these guys will be Mk262 Mod 1, m855 and m855a1, 75gr TAP in some instances and preferably Browm Tip/70gr Optimized which is a 5.56 TSX 70gr.

If using my ACOG TA31 and Mk262 mod 1 77gr ammunition, I can make first round hits on steel sillouhettes at 600 meters. When using a 3-12 and Mk262 mod 1 I can make hits more accurately at 600 meters.
 
#40 ·
And what happens when the rules of engagement don't allow you to use CAS or indirect fire?

Sorry - but the 5.56 does not have the barrier penetration of the 7.62 x 51, especially at extended range. Again, there is a reason the M14 is being re-issued. Not for everyone, but for every squad/platoon.

Round and round we go...
 
#43 ·
I think we can all agree that there is no perfect gun or caliber. Some are more powerful, more penetration, better suited for a target that is behind a barrier. Others are lighter, easier to fire while maneuvering, allowing more ammo to be carried, etc. There isn't one perfect gun for all situations. Personally I appreciate the variety and capabilities of each. Training soldiers how to use multiple platforms, and making sure the appropriate option is available for the given situation is the the best option.
 
#41 ·
So, the SF guys on Lightfighter are wrong about preferring not to use 7.62? These guys are currently in Afg. If you read the whole thing, he said it made sense if you were a unit that stayed back and didn't close the fight at CQB distance. His is not.

Actually, 70gr TSX has better barrier penetration than m118 7.62. 7.62 is certainly not always better at barrier penetration. Besides, they enter the structure, have m203's and also have the newer Mk46 and Mk48. a 5.56 Mk46 will likely have better barrier penetration than an m14. Also, there's the M48 (or 240) or M1 on the HMMWV. Some have the Dillon on the HMMWV.

Reading other posts on there, I've yet to see one guy say he'd choose an M14 over an M4. They don't like the weight, accuracy or maneuverability. Of course some are using them for distance, but not everyone can work at distance, regardless of where the fight starts. Again, SF soldiers' words, not mine.

I'm just relaying what numerous Army SF and Navy SEALs have stated on a closed forum. You're more than welcome to take it up with them if you think they should be carrying a 7.62 instead of the M4 they're currently choosing. I can name a few that are carrying suppressed 10.5" M4's in Afg right now and have been in longer range engagements.

Realize, some of these guys are the very ones involved in the trials, so they've had their choice of rifle and have experience shooting bad guys at different distances with modern 5.56 ammo and 7.62.

So, you're not really disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with active duty SF, or similar.
 
#45 ·
Jon - I'm not disagreeing with anyone. Different units have different missions, and the mission drives the equipment. I'm merely stating the fact that the big green machine is spending scarce resources to re-fit and re-issue M14s...so there must be an operational need for them.

If the 5.56 was good for everything, then the M14s would not be coming out of storage. I'm talking mountain top to mountain top, and you're stuck in CQB.

No one wants to hump a 7.62...until they need to nail a BG behind some cover 800 yards away.

Article: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

The GP machine gun is not always available, and sometimes you want more precision than a full-auto is going to give you. That is where a battle rifle comes into its own.

And by the way - millions of soldiers carried .30-06 rifles into battle, and didn't complain about the weight of the rifle or the ammo. Just saying...

As to your claim that 70gr TSX (is that an issued round?) has better barrier penetration than m118 7.62...I really would love to see some tests supporting this, as I find that hard to believe...especially at over 500 yards.
 
#47 ·
Jon - I'm not disagreeing with anyone. Different units have different missions, and the mission drives the equipment. I'm merely stating the fact that the big green machine is spending scarce resources to re-fit and re-issue M14s...so there must be an operational need for them.

If the 5.56 was good for everything, then the M14s would not be coming out of storage. I'm talking mountain top to mountain top, and you're stuck in CQB.

No one wants to hump a 7.62...until they need to nail a BG behind some cover 800 yards away.

Article: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

The GP machine gun is not always available, and sometimes you want more precision than a full-auto is going to give you. That is where a battle rifle comes into its own.

And by the way - millions of soldiers carried .30-06 rifles into battle, and didn't complain about the weight of the rifle or the ammo. Just saying...

As to your claim that 70gr TSX (is that an issued round?) has better barrier penetration than m118 7.62...I really would love to see some tests supporting this, as I find that hard to believe...especially at over 500 yards.
One thing aout that article.... It was brought up on Lightfighter or SOCNET and the members stated they were given the M14 but many never took them with on patrol.... Or something to that effect.

Keep in mind brother, I'm just a you-know-what that makes sure other you-know-what's make it home at the end of the day. I don't have first hand experience in Afg. Close quarters is more my thing, so I'm just going by what others have said, and these guys are active duty or very recently discharged/retired SEALs, SF and even a couple that are a bit more elite. Some I know personally, some are forum members that have been vetted. Again, not me personally.

What I do know is 5.56. Let me make a quick correction to my statement on barrier penetration. There are 5.56 bullets that are better against intermediate barriers than m118. I jumped to the conclusion it was TSX, though that would likely be the one. I don't recall exactly, but will link you a thread in a bit.

The 70gr TSX is an issued round for special operations. It's the Brown Tip or the 70gr Optimized. The most similar round available would be the SSA 70gr TSX, though I'm not 100% on the muzzle velocity. If anything, the Brown Tip is slightly hotter. SOST is the Mk318, which is also a solid issued round.

10thmtn, if you're not a member over at Lightfighter, I think you'd find it a very useful source of information as well as filled with service members, possibly some you've served with. You might like it if you're not already a member.
 
#50 ·
Not trying to start an argument with anyone I am only stating what I know as fact from the team here.

I am currently attached to a SFG here in Afghanistan. The standard armament consists of M4 rifles with varying barrel lengths from SBR's to standard length. M-14's are in the arms rooms but rarely carried, I shoot them more than the team members do. There are a couple of SCAR-16's carried, no SCAR-17's with this team. The last team had a mixture of M4's and SCAR heavies with I believe 12" inch barrels. Long distance 7.62 rifles are SR-25's and M24's in 7.62 or .300 Win Mag with Leupold or similar optics.

Optics are a mix of ACOG's, Holosights, ELCAN Spectre and Aimpoints with most having more that one optic for their individual rifles. The infantry support team has M4's with 1-8 Leupold optics and their DMR rifles are M-16's with adjustable stocks and Leupold 1-8 or fixed 10 power optics.

Yes there are on occasion longer shots in the rockpile however the insurgents unless armed with a PKM or DShK they will not risk shooting from any great distance as it will be answered with a .50 cal or minigun. Most of the team here has no issue with the M4/5.56 round as they simply shoot the threat until it is no longer a threat. Ammunition issued is pretty much standard green tip with some other specialty ammo thrown in on occasion.

Again this is what this team does it varies by region and the preference of the teams. Just like handguns. The last team had several 1911's but rarely carried them instead preferring the higher mag capacity of the Beretta or Glock. The SEAL's carry either a SIG 226 or 228.

As stated there is no one perfect rifle for this place or any other for that matter. You can carry a long range rifle with an optic to match but it does not do a lot of good at 20 feet in some little village nor does a 10 inch barreled M4 do a lot at 500 meters.
 
#52 ·
tacman - Are the regular infantry leaving their 7.62x51 rifles in the arms room too? Just curious.

Stay safe out there - I wish I had one of those unloved M14s (and the free ammo) to shoot... :rolleyes:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top