Quick question for small arms buffs

[rfisher]

I have to say, that turned out to be a great question with some genuinely interesting answers.
Thanks to all!

[daferg]

I am smarter now that I have read this thread. Thanks for asking the question.

[Cross]

I like all the answers above, but in addition - as far as the British Army is concerned - it may also be the result of a War Office study that found Enfields and Brens were rarely used at long range except by snipers.


Cross

[Darkfather]

The main reason for the decrease in weapon range and calibre size turns out to be statistics, which is why you have special operations bucking the trend for smaller and shorter ranged rounds and why it seems armies adapt in strange ways. For the average infantry solider 5.56 is the best round for the job. For special operations, whose requirements are different, a different round / weapon combination is sometimes needed, but many of these units still carry 5.56 when they could use anything they wanted.

Likely we will see a new general infantry cartridge developed or adopted in the next decade, although I tend to think the trend will be to smart ammunition in the next generation of infantry weapons.

Inaccuracies in game modeling are why some games give advantages to some weapons when real life trends tend to the other direction. In reality the firepower of an M16 is significantly greater than the Enfield unless they meet in very disparate tactical situations. The enfield is incapable of generation good enfilade fire, and has little or no tactical throw or chance of disrupting a trained squad. Unless the shooter has a fixed sniper nest and good side cover, the M16 user has it all their own way. 2 extra hexes range is a poor trade off for loosing the real life ability to force a squad to ground.

[troopie]

Real combat with the exceptions noted, takes place at 300 meters or closer. Also, consider that in such combat the typical footie is scared almost kakloos, that there isn't time to take good aim, IME firefights are very short, and the enemy is under cover. It's better to point and spray, and you might hit something. If you take a long time to aim, you certainly won't.

5.56mm ammo is lighter than 7.62, and soldiers can carry more of it. That's important to the PBI who has to lug it. An R-4 weighs less than an R-1 and that's important too.

troopie

[gila]

Given the less recoil,accy, range and still the excellent stopping power of the 5.56m,makes it more effective than AK IMO

[phil74501]

Back in the 80's there was alot of debate in the US about 7.62 vs. 5.56. Most of the old timers preferred the bigger round and the M14 over the M16. The debate in the US about the smaller caliber versus bigger caliber has gone on for decades.

You have to remember that at the time the M16 was adopted the Viet Nam war was starting to heat up. Our brave ARVN allies were much smaller in stature than American soldiers. The Vietnamese soldiers couldn't handle a fully automatic M14. The only other weapons we had to give them were the old M1 Garands and M1/M2 carbines. Both of which were great weapons in their day. But by the early 60's were obsolete. Especially when matched against an AK47.

At about that same time the US Air Force was looking for a new rifle to arm the airmen that guard US air bases. They needed something bigger than a sub machine gun, but smaller than an M14. General Curtis Lemay, the very influential Air Force chief of staff at the time, opted for the M16. IIRC, the story was he was at a party, someone presented him with one, he fired off a few clips, and fell in love with it. The US Army decided that the M16 would be the best option to arm the ARVN troops with. There was also political pressure placed upon the US military to adopt the M16. Thought was that it would be cheaper if everyone used the same weapon, same ammo, same spare parts.