Assault rifles and their ammunition

[Tony Williams]

Even in semi-auto, it is extremely difficult for most soldiers to control the 7.62 NATO, so follow-up shots are unlikely. Can a seasoned veteran manage one better than most first-term soldiers can run an M4? Yes, but then we get into the training issue, and we'll never solve that without complete institutional overhaul. Then you look at guys that weigh 150lbs soaking wet, and they aren't humping a 7.62 battle rifle plus its basic load for very long at all. You also look at magazine capacity/prone considerations, and a 7.62 NATO rifle for a standard service rifle stays where it belongs...a footnote in history where it belongs.

You make a good case that 7.62mm is too big and heavy and recoils too much, and there seems to be general agreement about that.

However, there is also general agreement that 5.56mm is a 400m cartridge at best, in rifles or MGs, and runs out of effectiveness pretty rapidly after that. Which is why the Taleban so often attack from longer ranges than that. The PEO Soldier document on effectiveness stressed the importance of general-purpose rifles and ammunition, suited to engaging the enemy at any distance from which he can attack.

We want a lot out of technology, and we're at the edge of capability and performance with 5.56 NATO, which is an awesome cartridge for its size/weight, that will be difficult to exceed considerably. We want .50 BMG API or Roufouss terminal performance, with .22 LR recoil and ammo weight.

Yes that would be great! However, as we know, it is entirely possible to match the 7.62 M80's long-range performance with a significantly lighter, more compact, and lighter-recoiling cartridge.