Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
Discussion Starter · #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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,981 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,323 Posts
That has never been the policy of our military. The 5.56mm was not adopted to wound the enemy nor was it purposely designed for wounding.
Not quite what I meant. When I served which was quite some time ago it was discussed in training as just a matter of fact, not a matter of policy. I expect the SAS policy, if it is in fact policy has that logic to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,472 Posts
M1A cures all issues, short of bunkers.. Use enough gun/caliber and these discussions become obsolete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45,377 Posts
The reasoning is probably the same as ours. A wounded soldier is a bigger inconvenience to your enemy than a dead soldier.
To a civilized people, maybe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
"Shoot to wound policy"???
Yeah "shoot to wound doctrine" was a major change when NATO adopted 5.56 as the common round. Idea, aside from logistical advantages was that wounded was more of liability than a KIA. KIA is just that, wounded has to be got off the battlefield and treated medically, using up additional resources and personnel. Additionally the idea was from a morale standpoint a lot of wounded could not be hidden like a lot of body bags.

Snipers used a similar doctrine in never using a kill shot but wounding in order to draw more "prey" in as the wounded persons buddies try to get him out and treated medically.

Sounds nasty but that's what war is all about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
That has never been the policy of our military. The 5.56mm was not adopted to wound the enemy nor was it purposely designed for wounding.
That may be the case but I expect that it was considered and just like a lot of things that are "policy": public opinion is considered in all "public statements" about things such as this.

I may draw a lot of flames for this but recently when you see an ad on TV soliciting for wounded vets ( I do contribute so I'm just using this as an example) you almost feel obligated to help because they are the ones that have made severe sacrifices. We see them almost everyday, dealing with the consequences of surviving their wounds. The only time we are reminded of our KIA is when it directly affects us or someone we know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,178 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,765 Posts
I for one would like a FAL (or L1A1) with a 18" barrel
 
  • Like
Reactions: bmcgilvray and OD*

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,765 Posts
Nice, I only have a CAI with a 22" barrel
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top