British SAS Looking for 5.56 NATO Replacement

Wonder how many SAS members wish they still had their L1A1s? :wink:

OD* said:

Wonder how many SAS members wish they still had their L1A1s? :wink:

Click to expand...

If the article is to be believed, more than a few. :smile:

"Shoot to wound policy"???

If they would use a quality OTM or SP, this wouldn't be a problem.

wdbailey said:

"Shoot to wound policy"???

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was new to me as well.

wdbailey said:

"Shoot to wound policy"???

Click to expand...

Well if you wound 'em enough times.....

wdbailey said:

"Shoot to wound policy"???

Click to expand...

Naufragia said:

Yeah, that was new to me as well.

Click to expand...

The reasoning is probably the same as ours. A wounded soldier is a bigger inconvenience to your enemy than a dead soldier.

wmhawth said:

The reasoning is probably the same as ours. A wounded soldier is a bigger inconvenience to your enemy than a dead soldier.

Click to expand...

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.

MilitaryArms said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

M1A cures all issues, short of bunkers.. Use enough gun/caliber and these discussions become obsolete.

wmhawth said:

The reasoning is probably the same as ours. A wounded soldier is a bigger inconvenience to your enemy than a dead soldier.

Click to expand...

To a civilized people, maybe.

wdbailey said:

"Shoot to wound policy"???

Click to expand...

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.

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

MilitaryArms said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

I for one would like a FAL (or L1A1) with a 18" barrel

Nice, I only have a CAI with a 22" barrel

Sig550