Firstly, the evidence that 5.56mm is lacking in performance seems to be almost entirely based on observation and opinion from a small number of troops. The men concerned are no doubt telling the truth, as they see it, but we know that memories and observations gained in combat are very far from reliable. Every conflict since 1945 has produced a raft of small-arms performance observations, and opinions of a generally imprecise and largely irrelevant nature to the success or failure of operations.
The other basis for the discussion is that small-arms engagements in Afghanistan are occurring at longer ranges than was previously considered likely or possible. The condition cited is 300-900m, with enemy troops primarily engaging with the PKM machine gun. This may well be true at times, but why is this a problem? Essentially, if the enemy is equipped with AKM as individual weapons and PKM as a section/platoon weapon, then, we outrange the AKM in terms of ballistic performance, accuracy and optics and our GPMG matches or exceeds the effective range of the PKM, by virtue of better training and employment if nothing else.
X
Based on this understanding, it is hard to see where the problem is. Range is not an issue and, even if it were, it would be ludicrous to base lack of performance on one relative criterion found in one theatre. To base the need on the equally dubious assertion that asymmetric warfare demands more capable infantry weapons is to quote opinion unsupported by logic or data. There is simply no convincing body of evidence that a platoon equipped with a combination of 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons, is in any way disadvantaged compared to an enemy with AKMs and PKMs. The phenomenon has certainly not occurred in numerous conflicts anywhere else on the planet.
While capable on paper and on the range, there is simply no evidence that adopting marginally more capable rounds would make our forces more effective. The ballistic and terminal performance of all small-arms ammunition is extremely well understood due to range testing, and not combat experience. The weapons are far more accurate than the men shooting them and the 6.8mm and 6.5mm would not make any significant difference.
Does a projectile that delivers twice the energy at 600m make a soldier more effective than he already is? I would say that the overall performance increase is marginal under combat conditions. A 5.56mm drops below supersonic at 750m, a 6.5mm at 1000m and a 7.62mm at 875m.
All of it is based on the idea that infantry capability is inextricably connected to small-arms calibre performance. There is a very good body of empirical data to show that this is not true. The infantry platoon’s ability to project HE is actually far more decisive in combat and this has been proven and well understood since 1919.
I have fired the G3 many times.
It is too heavy and the recoil is too strong. It takes too long to get the gun back on target. I can hit twice as many targets with my C7 on the same time.
