Here in Norway they choose the HK416 assault rifle as the replacement for the old G3 battle rifle. If they had gone for the HK417 i would have understood since its in 7,62x51 but the HK416 is in 5,56x45. In Norway being able to shoot from on top of a mountain down on the enemy with good accuracy and power is very important. So what if its heavier if that is what it takes to win the day? I used the G3 when i was in the navy and it was not heavy even when i carried my backpack as well and i was a physically weak specimen even +23 years back. The stronger guys lugged that G3 around like it was a metal toothpick.
Not a mistake, a correction that was needed. Shoot less, hit more and hit harder and punch through . The enemy better have good cover instead of any cover will do..
So odd that we need to discuss this in 2023. I thought we figured this out 60 or more years ago! Even earlier, if the US hadn't forced the rest of NATO/the West to adopt 7.62x51mm, they'd have all gone with an intermediate round like 5.56 as soon as possible.
The 5.56 might work well here in Sweden but they found that in other place like for example Afghanistan the range issue became a problem with the 5.56. The power of the round was just not enough to suppress and pin down the enemy at the ranges needed but the Taliban with older weapons with bigger calibers could. So if you want a more all round weapon system you have to go up in caliber and joining NATO would put Swedish soldiers outside Sweden and then it's better to have weapons that work there as well as in Sweden. USA solved the problem by using more snipers with 7.62 rifles.
A campaign in Afghanistan (or similar) should not be the guidline to arm an army. You don't go all in with air force, artillery, missiles and heavy infantry arms in a conflict like that, as you would do in a war.
@@satanihelvetet A soldier is the lowest component of an army and if that soldier lacks the right weapon then the soldier is useless. So it's better to use the most useful weapon and master it instead of several different weapons.
The Talibans didn't reach out with old guns in bigger calibers, they've figured out something that US and NATO fails to, over and over again - the main firepower of the infantry squad is not a rifle, but a machine gun. Instead of simply adding more 240s per unit, as an answer for Talibans PKMs, they're stuck in this myths of Davey Crockets and Sgt. Yorks - "every marine a rifleman", etc.
It would be a mistake to choose the 5.56 only for it's suppressive and logistical advantages. Lethality is the primary goal of a firearm, there are many circumstances when a soldier needs that firearm to be able to RELIABLY kill. All modern lvl 4 body armour and many helmets now will not be penetrated by 5.56 and there's no other calibers based on its case that improves so there's no upgrade potential. However with the 7.62 there are several options that allow greater armour penetration that only require a barrel change. When fighting in forests also the 7.62 is substantially better at penetrating trees. Using grenade launchers, mortars and artillery against forces in woodland which you are already in contact with can be as dangerous for you as the enemy as the engagement ranges are much shorter due to the lack of long range visibility. Regarding logistics, generally the 7.62 requires much less rounds to hit a target and generally has a stronger suppressive effect, good trigger control and marksmanship can make much better use out of less ammo. To kill and armoured target at range with a 5.56 today would take many rounds to bypass the protected areas, imagine urban warfare today against armoured opponents and all you can hit are legs, neck and face. Soldiers got on fine with 7.62 rifles before, with lighter rifles, it's even easier than before. Whoever holds the longer range, more penetrative caliber today will simply have a much greater advantage. Many solutions to be able to provide rapid resupply on the front lines are coming about soon as well, so soldiers won't need to carry so much ammo on them.
7.62 NATO is probably a place holder solution for now, while we wait for 6.8x51 to be the standard calibre in the US, therefore in NATO. 7.62 rifles should be easier to convert to the new round. If that doesn’t happen it’s possible to revert back to 5.56.
I honestly think that's more likely true than not. And if the 6.8 doesn't pan out, well, 7.62x51mm is still a NATO STANAG cartridge, and there is still a role for 7.62x51mm rifles (sharpshooters- both police and military, or the arm for the #2 of a sniper team where the sniper rifle is a higher end and more accurate rifle that uses the same rounds and magazines).
try to hit the enmy behind a wall at 300 m with a 5.56 and then with a 7,62... being a pilot and echoing Colt's arguments doesn't make you more right. guns and calibers are to be used acording to environment.
Yes but then you have logistics and shit. Who would want to deal with getting a different caliber for every engagement when you can make one or two different platforms that cover it all? Sure, ifI'm fighting in the mountains, I'd pick 7.62x51. For most other purposes, I would want a 5.56 because I could carry so much ammo.
😀I know, and i have fired a 7,62 before retirement from the portuguese navy. In fact our main assault waepon was the G3A3. I know what the 7,62 can do and believe me, clay bricks are no match, @@zoom5024
hello, I'm used to the 7,62x51 and must say I would choose it always over the rather anemic performance of the 5,56x45. you want to deliver proper punch to your adversary, not only an annoying disturbance.
Depends on how you are going to fight, sweden uses a rather safe method of houseclearing where the breaching force pin the enemy in specific rooms and supporting machineguns + recoilless rifles kills the enemy from the outside. Therefore the breaching force mostly needs volume of fire over stopping power. We don’t rely on heroes going rambo with their ak. Moreover we only practice shooting for the groin/intestines or head, not center of mass.
Tbf, 6.5Creedmoor does the trick. It's based on the same 308win case, so same 20rds magazines, more accurate and cheaper to produce due to a smaller gunpowder charge and a thinner bullet. It's time NATO converts it to 6.5NATO and all armed forces opt for an interchangeable barrel and caliber weapons
One the one hand I think armys around the world need to stop trying so hard to have a one gun fits all scenarios, they should have 3 rifles that function, operate and feel the same (possibly the same rifle with interchangeable barrels and magazines), one short little rifle either in 5.56 or smaller, with a barrel between 8 and 11 inches for use in vehicles or in buildings, another system that uses 5.56 or similar (slightly larger maybe) with a 16" barrel for 60-80% of your jobs, and a 20-24" barreled rifle that is maybe 7.62 but I would probably go bigger (.338 or .300 win mag perhaps). Each soldier would have access to all three options from wherever they are based, and would be able to choose the correct rifle for the job, or the person in charge would assign the right ratio to their troops, for the given mission. Perhaps vehicles could also be fitted out so that some soldiers have enough space to take two options. I know why they dont do this, it would be more work logistically, but I think if they did this they would still have the option to simplify logistics if they have to, like start just supplying one type of ammo if thats all they can get their hands on and the other two weapons would be come useless over time at least they could still ration the leftover of the other calibers. With that said, on the other hand i'm not sure a soldiers rifle matters as much as it used to, perhaps if we issue all soldiers a handgun and a backpack full of suicide drones, plus a reusable scout drone, they would have more effect on target (until they have to go inside a building anyway). Maybe not a handgun, maybe a small folding PDW in 5.7x28.
It will forever be true that militaries are arming for the last war. Afghanistan was a unique fighting environment with very long range engagements and an enemy without fire support. Now, even in near totally flat Ukraine its all storming trenches at close range and holding urban centres. The Swedes will get their long range rifles and the next fight could be in jungle.
Could it be possible that it's the reintroduction of the Battle Rifle for the Infantry Section while the Section / Squad Commanders are carrying 5.56 along with specialists Medic. Communications, etc.... It will be interesting to see how many magazines are issued and how much ammo is carried....
Swedes will not fight with Russia in Sweden, but in Finnish Lapland and in Finnish archipelago, both windy and with long open grounds needinh to shoot long distances.
Neither one of those rounds will penetrate body armor from a 11.5" barrel. That's why the M16 had a 20" barrel. It's basically cutting the velocity in half.
Yeah, I've got a bunch of trees on the range behind my house that would argue otherwise. Sectional density and velocity matter more than bullet weight or diameter - that's just physics. Now, 7.62x51mm *destroys* more wood, but its not the *wood* I'm trying to destroy - it's what is *behind* the wood. Frankly, the differences in "tree penetration" between the two calibers with modern military ammo are not significant, and for every niche case one can find where a 7.62x51mm round is a better choice for the individual line infantryman rifle in a realistic combat scenario, there are several fairly common situation where the 5.56mm has significant advantages... and that's before you get into the logistics chain extending behind the infantry on the ground. For snipers and GPMGs, 7.62x51mm makes a lot of sense. For individual riflemen? Not so much.
Conventional wisdom is that armies transitioned to intermediate cartridges because most fighting occurred at under 300 yards. The thing is, this wasn't necessarily because conflicts just happened this way. It was because actually hitting the target with iron sights or primitive scopes at longer ranges was difficult, and took more skill than the average conscript possessed. Many of the older service rifles were also 4+moa guns. So, while 30-06, or 7.62x54 may make it out to 1000yards, hitting anything purposefully is just blind luck and only useful for volley fire. Now, many of these AR's are capable of sub moa accuracy. Pair that with excellent cheap optics, and now hitting something out to 1000+ yards is a possibility, terrain permitting. In future warfare, depending on the terrain of your country, 7.62x51 might actually not be enough.
I agree! The effect of the single round from the personal arm is less important. It's with grenade launchers, mortars, machineguns, mortars, artillery, missiles and air force you have the important effect in target.
Great video, keep up the good work... I find it strange that Sweden has reverted to the Old NATO standard... which can only be due to cost, manufacturing and logistics constraints... The US has already started the process of identifying a new cartridge that improves on both 5,56 and 7,62 NATO such as the 277 Fury and the 6,8 SPC.... But my recommendation is the 6,5 Grendel or 6mm ARC... This provides 90% of weight and round count of the 5,56 while providing more than 2x the muzzle energy but not the recoil and training penalty of the 7,62 while retaining the longer range performance... NATO needs to adopt a new intermediate cartridge with longer range performance in a compact format, the 6,5mm or 6mm can do this... the 6mm ARC is also a fantastic option... but ultimately NATO needs the backing of the Military Industrial Complex to a Mass Production of one Military Cartridge for Economy of Scale and Multi Nation Compatibility especially in light of the Ukrainian War.
Why opt for 6,5 Grendel, when Sweden already has its own, well established and extremely accurate 6,5 Swedish? I think the Americans also should have just chosen the 6,5 Swedish, in stead of developing a completely new round, at a huge cost.
@@jannevellamobecause it’s is a full power cartridge and would fall into the same caliber as 7.62 and it’s not mass produced. The 6.5 Grendel is a great choice if everyone switched to it. It’s extremely efficient and its design and it comes from the 7.62x39 family but doesn’t have the the extreme body taper. It also is the same length as 556 and can be used in the smaller rifle. 6.5 Swede is a good round but not for a modern combat application.
I completely agree. Except they need to re-design the rifle around that cartridge. Adapting 556 magazines only going to yield reliability for problems. A rifle somewhere between and Ar15 and a ar15. That round never gets the credit at deserves, it’s extremely efficient, accurate and powerful for the size of the cartridge.
@@jannevellamo The 6.5x55 Swedish is a great hunting round and matches the 6.5 Creedmoor and in some ways is better as it can shoot heavier bullets, but compared to the well established 6.5x39 Grendel, it is much larger and it cannot fit in a standard STANAG magazine for AR 15 type rifles... the Swedish can even easily convert AK 5 to 6,5 Grendel. The 6.5 Swedish is still a great cartridge and was one of the first modern full power military cartridges leading to the development of many other great calibres
@@jwhmerica504 the Grendel fits in all AR 15 type rifles including STANAG magazines at 26 round compared to 30 rounds, this is why the Grendel was designed in the first place... could even work in AK type weapons,...
With drones and artillery everywhere I don't think infantry can fight at long distance on open field or even from tranches anymore. Infantry will be crushed on open fields or in its tranches while trying to shoot. So thinking infantrymen can easily shoot enemies at long distance is a mistake. Infantry will use its weapons either for final assault or Cqb so there is a need for light and short weapons. Not what you can get with a 7,62x51 rifle
Maybe the the drone warfare plays a part in the decision? My guess is that there is an increase chance to get a hard kill with the bigger caliber round on one of the cheap slow flying drones that is used in increasing numbers in Ukraine. Another thing could be the expected time shooting and to get all firepower you can muster in as short time span as possible, since any prolonged fighting is very likely to bring in indirect fire and drones on your position So, you bring up good points, but my thinking is that the battlefield has evolved so much from "yesteryear's war" that we have to take a whole new situation in consideration.
I was a sf soldier and i would not tell the airforce why their fighters are wrong. Though it is ok to present an opinion, but this is a theory, i think you have never been in been for real ground combat. For example, a 5.56 round can richochet of a small branch and so in the woods, it can be less effective even though the range is shorter.
I doubt very much that you were SOF maybe soft. Your mom might call you special. The 5.56 is a lot more useful in a modern battlefield than a 7.62x51mm battle rifle except in the DMR role. In a near-peer fight, it's not going to be who's gun makes the bigger bang it's who can put rounds on target first and how often.
Really doesn't matter too much if 5.56 or 7.62 is used because we know that we can always get some of 7.62 from the enemy based on how they fought against Finland or now against Ukraine. 5.56 is just a sure all round ammunition. You can do enough with it from 150 meters and the west mainly produces that only when shit hits the fan. I would for sure standardize ammunition within the defense alliance, having only 5.56 than taking 7.62 to use. Finland to my knowledge is the only active user of that ammo in NATO so it might be good that they will let go of it or at least NATO should standardize something, ie. 6.7mm because its something the americans had in mind.
5.56mm is doing an amazing job killing Russians and most infantry engagements outside of Afghanistan are within 300 meters and you carry a lot more 5.56mm than 7.62mm on a foot patrol. And 5.56mm still dose an amazing job killing the enemy even in heavy under brush. So the bigger the cartridge the bigger the weapon system which means more weight and combat efficiency drops because of fatigue.
Its not a mistake. Your argument seems to boil down to 7.62 x 51 being heavier and thinking this somehow means you can only carry half the ammo. In short, no. I carried a 5.56 x 45 AR pattern rifle for ten years, for the vast majority of my experience I carried 420 (blaze it!) rounds, that's double the basic infantry load of my home country's military of 210 rounds spread out across 7, 30 round magazines. At double basic load the affect on my mobility, endurance, and overall fighting capability was minimal. I was almost never in a situation where taking on more ammunition would have been an unwelcome burden. If suppression of enemy forces is the primary role of the infantry, then surely, being able to suppress the enemy at 2 x the distance of 5.56 is incredibly valuable. It means nothing to have 2 x more ammo if none of that ammo is effective at the ranges at which I need to engage enemy infantry. Concurrently, it means little if I cannot reliably pose the threat of penetrating my enemy's body armor. You seem to think that someone shot with 5.56 won't stand up after you shoot them. The U.S. experiences in iraq show this is not true. It took multiple hits, on average, to permanently down an enemy combatant who wasn't even wearing body armor. "Dead check" shots were common place because the 5.56 could not be relied upon to permanently destroy an enemy combatant or even diminish their fighting capabilities sufficiently, such that they could not shoot you in the back after you walked past what you thought was a corpse. Observe the difference in kinetic energy delivered by .308 vs .223 to a block of ballistic gel here: ua-cam.com/video/-8dZxwz9NY4/v-deo.html Hit by .308, the gel block literally jumps off the table and completely deforms before settling. Hit by .223, the gel block jiggles somewhat and settles much more quickly. Add to that the ballistic specs which have shown time and again that .308 retains higher kinetic energy over its flight path, carrying almost double the kinetic energy at every range and, at the far end of 500 meters, has higher velocity. If your army ISN'T using .308 or something equivalent, and your enemy is, they will always be able to engage your units from further away than you can reply with reliable, accurate suppressive fire. You will be suppressed before they are, because they can kill you out at 500 meters with reliable accuracy while you cannot respond, in kind. You do not dictate when and where you will engage the enemy, you will not always be close enough to engage within the effective range of 5.56, Ukraine has demonstrated this. Even in urban terrain, you are much more likely to be able to penetrate an enemy's cover using a .308 compared to a 5.56 5.56 does not inherently have less recoil than .308, either. Recoil is not a factor of just the round. Its a factor of your weapon's cycle, in this case the buffer spring stiffness, your muzzle break, your weapons weight, and your gas system. If you've trained with an AR-10, you will not be at an appreciable disadvantage to someone who's trained with an AR-15 when it comes to follow up shots. You do not have to make a .308 weapon longer than a 5.56 weapon. Why do you think this? Ar-10s come in 10, 12, 16, and 20 inch barrel lengths and, at every length, the round performs better than its 5.56 equivalent. and 5.56 is only cheaper if you discount the fact that, since your LMGs are ALSO firing .308, those rounds can be cross loaded, diminishing the supply burden by consolidating ammunition types. This is also a massive battlefield advantage as it allows your LMG gunners and basic infantrymen to cross-load ammunition and supply each other in a pinch.
7,62! Larger holes. Why so young former/retired pilot? Why reveal ID.. as opposed to keep the pilot status a Nato secret and be able to return when needed? Just wondering, have a nice day! =)
This discussion has gone on since the Vietnam war and of course the lightweight 5,56 has its advantages in ability to carry a lot more ammo. On the other hand, would much more prefer the 7,62x51 because it is much more effective and a lot more punch at longer distances. Norway trials show the 5,56 is effective to 300m while the 7,62 is 800m. So they are changing their 5,56 cal machine Minimi guns to 7,62 cal Minimi machine guns because "everybody" wanted something more effective than the 5,56. Choosing a caliber for personal rifle would also be 7,62 since the old AG3 were in that caliber and missed when it was replaced with 5,56. Surely the 5,56 is lighter to carry, but on the other hand the 7,62 does the job with fewer shots!
That's not how it works though. Most shots aren't fired directly on soldiers. They fire suppressive fire as close as possible and make maneuvers/ call in support. Yes, if you're actually in front of someone the 7,62x51 would be more lethal . That still doesn't matter though because nowadays everyone has body armor so you need to shoot people in the head if you want to kill them at close range, which will only take one 5.56 to do the job. I'm not talking out of my ass here, all of the combat footage in Ukraine show the same. They fire a lot, move up, fire more and move up. Then when they clear trenches they either shoot people in the side or in the head.
@@footingball5566 I don´t know if thats a good argument for the 5,56 because the Ukrainians use the 7,62x39 AK ammo and as one can see there is much random shooting without aiming at all, so for that a small caliber could work well just to squander the ammo away. However on longer distances the 7,62x51 still has a good punch, which the 5,56 has not. So therefore in scandianvian circumstances with big valleys and forests, its the cartridge to have! By the way both cartridges are Nato standard, so its up to the countries to choose. Sweden had 5,56 before, but now they want a more powerful cartridge.
@@gabork.8715 no, the Ukrainians and Russians alike mostly use 5.45x39 from an AK-74 type rifle. 5.45x39 is very comparable to 5.56x45 in many ways. It is a small caliber going extremely fast.
@@gabork.8715 But that's still not how it works. I can probably carry at least 50% more ammunition in 5.56 than 7.62x51 so in a gunfight vs people with 7.62x51, I would most likely win the engagement because I can suppress them longer. That is how it works. 7.62 is better for range but in the end, the one with the most ammo and grenades usually wins the fight
Spot on. 7.62 NATO is my baby but it doesn't make for a good standard round, better for designated marksman roles. 5.56 is the right call for the general purpose fighting round when availability is factored in.
Both calibers are good, if your military doctrine is good enough to fully take advantage of their potential. In a forest, the 308 is probably better, because it doesn't lose its directional stability when it runs into a twig. The 308 can also shoot through trees, vehicles and wooden walls, which increases its versatility. Good luck doing that with a 5,56. In a large open area, such as the coastline, the 308 enables you to engage targets before they can engage you. With a scope attached, the 308 can double as a medium range sniper rifle. For house clearing, close urban fighting and the general spraying of bullets, the 5,56 is probably better. In terms of portability, the 5,56 is the obvious choice, especially for people who rarely get to meet the enemy. As for lethality, the 308 can easily take down a moose and its effect on people can be spectacular, so you'll get a lot of one hit kills. The 5,56 is not as effective, so you need a better hit to score a kill and you may have trouble penetrating body armor. Personally, I'd like to combine the benefits of both calibers, by choosing the 7,62X39, which unfortunately is not NATO compatible. Anyways, as long as you have a reliable gun that goes bang, you can do your job and finish the mission.
@@Dmac6969 Big holes are never outdated, there's always a market for them. As long as you're engaging targets closer than 300 meters, the AK round is still perfectly viable, especially in densely vegetated areas. Sure, there's a bit of bullet drop after 300 meters, but that doesn't really matter, as long as 90% of all shooting takes places at 0-200 meters. Beyond 300 m, the 308 of course is far superior to almost everything.
@jannevellamo I'm not saying that it's not still effective for some purposed. But if your going to pick a new rifle platform, and a new caliber. There are far better options than 7.62x39mm. Especially in 2023
@@The_Yarl1 When 5,56 hits a twig, it loses its directional stability, whereas 7,62 bullets just keep going. Penetrating trees is also a big problem, which the 7,62 users do not need to worry about. Sweden and Finland have a lot of forest, most of the fighting would probably take place in a forest, so it might be a good idea to use a caliber that performs well in a forest. Flat trajectories do not mean much, when there are so many trees in the way, you can't even see the target farther than 100 meters away. Pretty much every rifle caliber is more or less flat shooting at such distances. To gain any major advantage from the 5,56, the fighting would have to be moved out of the forest, into open areas, which unfortunately would favour the Russians, who also are using flat shooting rounds. The other problem is, finding those open areas would not be easy, as long as most of the country is covered by forest.
Never let a pilot speak of infantry stuff
Here in Norway they choose the HK416 assault rifle as the replacement for the old G3 battle rifle. If they had gone for the HK417 i would have understood since its in 7,62x51 but the HK416 is in 5,56x45.
In Norway being able to shoot from on top of a mountain down on the enemy with good accuracy and power is very important. So what if its heavier if that is what it takes to win the day?
I used the G3 when i was in the navy and it was not heavy even when i carried my backpack as well and i was a physically weak specimen even +23 years back.
The stronger guys lugged that G3 around like it was a metal toothpick.
7.62x51 doesn't go through modern body armor to do that Sigs 6.8mm would have been a better choice.
Not a mistake, a correction that was needed.
Shoot less, hit more and hit harder and punch through .
The enemy better have good cover instead of any cover will do..
^This
So odd that we need to discuss this in 2023. I thought we figured this out 60 or more years ago! Even earlier, if the US hadn't forced the rest of NATO/the West to adopt 7.62x51mm, they'd have all gone with an intermediate round like 5.56 as soon as possible.
since then everybody and their mom have body armor
The 5.56 might work well here in Sweden but they found that in other place like for example Afghanistan the range issue became a problem with the 5.56. The power of the round was just not enough to suppress and pin down the enemy at the ranges needed but the Taliban with older weapons with bigger calibers could.
So if you want a more all round weapon system you have to go up in caliber and joining NATO would put Swedish soldiers outside Sweden and then it's better to have weapons that work there as well as in Sweden. USA solved the problem by using more snipers with 7.62 rifles.
A campaign in Afghanistan (or similar) should not be the guidline to arm an army. You don't go all in with air force, artillery, missiles and heavy infantry arms in a conflict like that, as you would do in a war.
@@satanihelvetet A soldier is the lowest component of an army and if that soldier lacks the right weapon then the soldier is useless. So it's better to use the most useful weapon and master it instead of several different weapons.
The Talibans didn't reach out with old guns in bigger calibers, they've figured out something that US and NATO fails to, over and over again - the main firepower of the infantry squad is not a rifle, but a machine gun. Instead of simply adding more 240s per unit, as an answer for Talibans PKMs, they're stuck in this myths of Davey Crockets and Sgt. Yorks - "every marine a rifleman", etc.
It would be a mistake to choose the 5.56 only for it's suppressive and logistical advantages. Lethality is the primary goal of a firearm, there are many circumstances when a soldier needs that firearm to be able to RELIABLY kill. All modern lvl 4 body armour and many helmets now will not be penetrated by 5.56 and there's no other calibers based on its case that improves so there's no upgrade potential. However with the 7.62 there are several options that allow greater armour penetration that only require a barrel change. When fighting in forests also the 7.62 is substantially better at penetrating trees. Using grenade launchers, mortars and artillery against forces in woodland which you are already in contact with can be as dangerous for you as the enemy as the engagement ranges are much shorter due to the lack of long range visibility. Regarding logistics, generally the 7.62 requires much less rounds to hit a target and generally has a stronger suppressive effect, good trigger control and marksmanship can make much better use out of less ammo. To kill and armoured target at range with a 5.56 today would take many rounds to bypass the protected areas, imagine urban warfare today against armoured opponents and all you can hit are legs, neck and face. Soldiers got on fine with 7.62 rifles before, with lighter rifles, it's even easier than before.
Whoever holds the longer range, more penetrative caliber today will simply have a much greater advantage. Many solutions to be able to provide rapid resupply on the front lines are coming about soon as well, so soldiers won't need to carry so much ammo on them.
7.62 NATO is probably a place holder solution for now, while we wait for 6.8x51 to be the standard calibre in the US, therefore in NATO. 7.62 rifles should be easier to convert to the new round. If that doesn’t happen it’s possible to revert back to 5.56.
I honestly think that's more likely true than not. And if the 6.8 doesn't pan out, well, 7.62x51mm is still a NATO STANAG cartridge, and there is still a role for 7.62x51mm rifles (sharpshooters- both police and military, or the arm for the #2 of a sniper team where the sniper rifle is a higher end and more accurate rifle that uses the same rounds and magazines).
@@geodkyt yes absolutely
try to hit the enmy behind a wall at 300 m with a 5.56 and then with a 7,62... being a pilot and echoing Colt's arguments doesn't make you more right. guns and calibers are to be used acording to environment.
Yes but then you have logistics and shit. Who would want to deal with getting a different caliber for every engagement when you can make one or two different platforms that cover it all? Sure, ifI'm fighting in the mountains, I'd pick 7.62x51. For most other purposes, I would want a 5.56 because I could carry so much ammo.
hahah the real world is not COD my friend.
😀I know, and i have fired a 7,62 before retirement from the portuguese navy. In fact our main assault waepon was the G3A3. I know what the 7,62 can do and believe me, clay bricks are no match, @@zoom5024
hello, I'm used to the 7,62x51 and must say I would choose it always over the rather anemic performance of the 5,56x45. you want to deliver proper punch to your adversary, not only an annoying disturbance.
absolutely, maybe 7.62 is too heavy for their small shoulders
Depends on how you are going to fight, sweden uses a rather safe method of houseclearing where the breaching force pin the enemy in specific rooms and supporting machineguns + recoilless rifles kills the enemy from the outside. Therefore the breaching force mostly needs volume of fire over stopping power. We don’t rely on heroes going rambo with their ak. Moreover we only practice shooting for the groin/intestines or head, not center of mass.
Tbf, 6.5Creedmoor does the trick. It's based on the same 308win case, so same 20rds magazines, more accurate and cheaper to produce due to a smaller gunpowder charge and a thinner bullet.
It's time NATO converts it to 6.5NATO and all armed forces opt for an interchangeable barrel and caliber weapons
GM6 lynx for all LOL@@franganr.e.searthra-macleo9214
What about cqb?
One the one hand I think armys around the world need to stop trying so hard to have a one gun fits all scenarios, they should have 3 rifles that function, operate and feel the same (possibly the same rifle with interchangeable barrels and magazines), one short little rifle either in 5.56 or smaller, with a barrel between 8 and 11 inches for use in vehicles or in buildings, another system that uses 5.56 or similar (slightly larger maybe) with a 16" barrel for 60-80% of your jobs, and a 20-24" barreled rifle that is maybe 7.62 but I would probably go bigger (.338 or .300 win mag perhaps). Each soldier would have access to all three options from wherever they are based, and would be able to choose the correct rifle for the job, or the person in charge would assign the right ratio to their troops, for the given mission. Perhaps vehicles could also be fitted out so that some soldiers have enough space to take two options.
I know why they dont do this, it would be more work logistically, but I think if they did this they would still have the option to simplify logistics if they have to, like start just supplying one type of ammo if thats all they can get their hands on and the other two weapons would be come useless over time at least they could still ration the leftover of the other calibers.
With that said, on the other hand i'm not sure a soldiers rifle matters as much as it used to, perhaps if we issue all soldiers a handgun and a backpack full of suicide drones, plus a reusable scout drone, they would have more effect on target (until they have to go inside a building anyway). Maybe not a handgun, maybe a small folding PDW in 5.7x28.
Range of 7.62 is further which is better when shooting long distances makes sense when fighting in mountains etc.
It will forever be true that militaries are arming for the last war. Afghanistan was a unique fighting environment with very long range engagements and an enemy without fire support. Now, even in near totally flat Ukraine its all storming trenches at close range and holding urban centres. The Swedes will get their long range rifles and the next fight could be in jungle.
Could it be possible that it's the reintroduction of the Battle Rifle for the Infantry Section while the Section / Squad Commanders are carrying 5.56 along with specialists Medic. Communications, etc....
It will be interesting to see how many magazines are issued and how much ammo is carried....
Body armour proliferation is decisive here, the 5mm pipipupa is no longer adequate
Swedes will not fight with Russia in Sweden, but in Finnish Lapland and in Finnish archipelago, both windy and with long open grounds needinh to shoot long distances.
They will not fight in Finland either
Neither one of those rounds will penetrate body armor from a 11.5" barrel. That's why the M16 had a 20" barrel. It's basically cutting the velocity in half.
7.62 can go through trees. 5.56 won't.
Yeah, I've got a bunch of trees on the range behind my house that would argue otherwise. Sectional density and velocity matter more than bullet weight or diameter - that's just physics.
Now, 7.62x51mm *destroys* more wood, but its not the *wood* I'm trying to destroy - it's what is *behind* the wood.
Frankly, the differences in "tree penetration" between the two calibers with modern military ammo are not significant, and for every niche case one can find where a 7.62x51mm round is a better choice for the individual line infantryman rifle in a realistic combat scenario, there are several fairly common situation where the 5.56mm has significant advantages... and that's before you get into the logistics chain extending behind the infantry on the ground.
For snipers and GPMGs, 7.62x51mm makes a lot of sense. For individual riflemen? Not so much.
@@geodkyt there are a lot of trees in sweden, finland and northern russia. Would you rather have 5.56 in the forest, or 7.62 ?
@@chiritaalex 5.56, you can lug around a whole lot more ammo and having rate of fire advantage over the enemy is a big deal.
6,5 creedmore would be a great intermediate imo
7.62 is better for punching through vegetation like brush or small trees - 5.56 would get deflected or stopped too easily
Could it be that maybe they know something we don't?
Conventional wisdom is that armies transitioned to intermediate cartridges because most fighting occurred at under 300 yards. The thing is, this wasn't necessarily because conflicts just happened this way. It was because actually hitting the target with iron sights or primitive scopes at longer ranges was difficult, and took more skill than the average conscript possessed. Many of the older service rifles were also 4+moa guns. So, while 30-06, or 7.62x54 may make it out to 1000yards, hitting anything purposefully is just blind luck and only useful for volley fire. Now, many of these AR's are capable of sub moa accuracy. Pair that with excellent cheap optics, and now hitting something out to 1000+ yards is a possibility, terrain permitting. In future warfare, depending on the terrain of your country, 7.62x51 might actually not be enough.
I agree! The effect of the single round from the personal arm is less important. It's with grenade launchers, mortars, machineguns, mortars, artillery, missiles and air force you have the important effect in target.
In urban combat, you can't use that stuff
As a former Swedish fighter bomber pilot don't you think Malmo needs some limited airstrikes ? To eliminate bad guys
Great video, keep up the good work... I find it strange that Sweden has reverted to the Old NATO standard... which can only be due to cost, manufacturing and logistics constraints... The US has already started the process of identifying a new cartridge that improves on both 5,56 and 7,62 NATO such as the 277 Fury and the 6,8 SPC.... But my recommendation is the 6,5 Grendel or 6mm ARC... This provides 90% of weight and round count of the 5,56 while providing more than 2x the muzzle energy but not the recoil and training penalty of the 7,62 while retaining the longer range performance... NATO needs to adopt a new intermediate cartridge with longer range performance in a compact format, the 6,5mm or 6mm can do this... the 6mm ARC is also a fantastic option... but ultimately NATO needs the backing of the Military Industrial Complex to a Mass Production of one Military Cartridge for Economy of Scale and Multi Nation Compatibility especially in light of the Ukrainian War.
Why opt for 6,5 Grendel, when Sweden already has its own, well established and extremely accurate 6,5 Swedish? I think the Americans also should have just chosen the 6,5 Swedish, in stead of developing a completely new round, at a huge cost.
@@jannevellamobecause it’s is a full power cartridge and would fall into the same caliber as 7.62 and it’s not mass produced. The 6.5 Grendel is a great choice if everyone switched to it. It’s extremely efficient and its design and it comes from the 7.62x39 family but doesn’t have the the extreme body taper. It also is the same length as 556 and can be used in the smaller rifle. 6.5 Swede is a good round but not for a modern combat application.
I completely agree. Except they need to re-design the rifle around that cartridge. Adapting 556 magazines only going to yield reliability for problems. A rifle somewhere between and Ar15 and a ar15. That round never gets the credit at deserves, it’s extremely efficient, accurate and powerful for the size of the cartridge.
@@jannevellamo The 6.5x55 Swedish is a great hunting round and matches the 6.5 Creedmoor and in some ways is better as it can shoot heavier bullets, but compared to the well established 6.5x39 Grendel, it is much larger and it cannot fit in a standard STANAG magazine for AR 15 type rifles... the Swedish can even easily convert AK 5 to 6,5 Grendel. The 6.5 Swedish is still a great cartridge and was one of the first modern full power military cartridges leading to the development of many other great calibres
@@jwhmerica504 the Grendel fits in all AR 15 type rifles including STANAG magazines at 26 round compared to 30 rounds, this is why the Grendel was designed in the first place... could even work in AK type weapons,...
With drones and artillery everywhere I don't think infantry can fight at long distance on open field or even from tranches anymore. Infantry will be crushed on open fields or in its tranches while trying to shoot. So thinking infantrymen can easily shoot enemies at long distance is a mistake. Infantry will use its weapons either for final assault or Cqb so there is a need for light and short weapons. Not what you can get with a 7,62x51 rifle
7.62 Doesn't stop at a cooled tree but goes through and the 5.56 stops when it hits, that's why there must be 7.62 caliber assault rifles here
🇫🇮🇫🇮
Depends - I own rifles in both calibers. 7.62 is great for 400m or more.
Maybe the the drone warfare plays a part in the decision?
My guess is that there is an increase chance to get a hard kill with the bigger caliber round on one of the cheap slow flying drones that is used in increasing numbers in Ukraine.
Another thing could be the expected time shooting and to get all firepower you can muster in as short time span as possible, since any prolonged fighting is very likely to bring in indirect fire and drones on your position
So, you bring up good points, but my thinking is that the battlefield has evolved so much from "yesteryear's war" that we have to take a whole new situation in consideration.
I was a sf soldier and i would not tell the airforce why their fighters are wrong.
Though it is ok to present an opinion, but this is a theory, i think you have never been in been for real ground combat. For example, a 5.56 round can richochet of a small branch and so in the woods, it can be less effective even though the range is shorter.
I doubt very much that you were SOF maybe soft. Your mom might call you special. The 5.56 is a lot more useful in a modern battlefield than a 7.62x51mm battle rifle except in the DMR role. In a near-peer fight, it's not going to be who's gun makes the bigger bang it's who can put rounds on target first and how often.
Big men should carry bigger weapons. Small men, smaller weapons. No women on battlefield. Two types of infantry ammo is not a logistics problem.
Really doesn't matter too much if 5.56 or 7.62 is used because we know that we can always get some of 7.62 from the enemy based on how they fought against Finland or now against Ukraine. 5.56 is just a sure all round ammunition. You can do enough with it from 150 meters and the west mainly produces that only when shit hits the fan. I would for sure standardize ammunition within the defense alliance, having only 5.56 than taking 7.62 to use. Finland to my knowledge is the only active user of that ammo in NATO so it might be good that they will let go of it or at least NATO should standardize something, ie. 6.7mm because its something the americans had in mind.
The problem is that they are trying to produce a weapon that can do everything and such a weapon does not exist.
6.8 remington would be better than both rounds.
5.56mm is doing an amazing job killing Russians and most infantry engagements outside of Afghanistan are within 300 meters and you carry a lot more 5.56mm than 7.62mm on a foot patrol. And 5.56mm still dose an amazing job killing the enemy even in heavy under brush. So the bigger the cartridge the bigger the weapon system which means more weight and combat efficiency drops because of fatigue.
Its not a mistake.
Your argument seems to boil down to 7.62 x 51 being heavier and thinking this somehow means you can only carry half the ammo.
In short, no.
I carried a 5.56 x 45 AR pattern rifle for ten years, for the vast majority of my experience I carried 420 (blaze it!) rounds, that's double the basic infantry load of my home country's military of 210 rounds spread out across 7, 30 round magazines. At double basic load the affect on my mobility, endurance, and overall fighting capability was minimal. I was almost never in a situation where taking on more ammunition would have been an unwelcome burden.
If suppression of enemy forces is the primary role of the infantry, then surely, being able to suppress the enemy at 2 x the distance of 5.56 is incredibly valuable. It means nothing to have 2 x more ammo if none of that ammo is effective at the ranges at which I need to engage enemy infantry. Concurrently, it means little if I cannot reliably pose the threat of penetrating my enemy's body armor.
You seem to think that someone shot with 5.56 won't stand up after you shoot them. The U.S. experiences in iraq show this is not true. It took multiple hits, on average, to permanently down an enemy combatant who wasn't even wearing body armor. "Dead check" shots were common place because the 5.56 could not be relied upon to permanently destroy an enemy combatant or even diminish their fighting capabilities sufficiently, such that they could not shoot you in the back after you walked past what you thought was a corpse.
Observe the difference in kinetic energy delivered by .308 vs .223 to a block of ballistic gel here:
ua-cam.com/video/-8dZxwz9NY4/v-deo.html
Hit by .308, the gel block literally jumps off the table and completely deforms before settling.
Hit by .223, the gel block jiggles somewhat and settles much more quickly.
Add to that the ballistic specs which have shown time and again that .308 retains higher kinetic energy over its flight path, carrying almost double the kinetic energy at every range and, at the far end of 500 meters, has higher velocity.
If your army ISN'T using .308 or something equivalent, and your enemy is, they will always be able to engage your units from further away than you can reply with reliable, accurate suppressive fire. You will be suppressed before they are, because they can kill you out at 500 meters with reliable accuracy while you cannot respond, in kind. You do not dictate when and where you will engage the enemy, you will not always be close enough to engage within the effective range of 5.56, Ukraine has demonstrated this. Even in urban terrain, you are much more likely to be able to penetrate an enemy's cover using a .308 compared to a 5.56
5.56 does not inherently have less recoil than .308, either. Recoil is not a factor of just the round. Its a factor of your weapon's cycle, in this case the buffer spring stiffness, your muzzle break, your weapons weight, and your gas system. If you've trained with an AR-10, you will not be at an appreciable disadvantage to someone who's trained with an AR-15 when it comes to follow up shots.
You do not have to make a .308 weapon longer than a 5.56 weapon. Why do you think this? Ar-10s come in 10, 12, 16, and 20 inch barrel lengths and, at every length, the round performs better than its 5.56 equivalent.
and 5.56 is only cheaper if you discount the fact that, since your LMGs are ALSO firing .308, those rounds can be cross loaded, diminishing the supply burden by consolidating ammunition types. This is also a massive battlefield advantage as it allows your LMG gunners and basic infantrymen to cross-load ammunition and supply each other in a pinch.
7,62! Larger holes. Why so young former/retired pilot? Why reveal ID.. as opposed to keep the pilot status a Nato secret and be able to return when needed? Just wondering, have a nice day! =)
Why would him telling someone hes a former fighter pilot, prevent him from going back?
This discussion has gone on since the Vietnam war and of course the lightweight 5,56 has its advantages in ability to carry a lot more ammo. On the other hand, would much more prefer the 7,62x51 because it is much more effective and a lot more punch at longer distances. Norway trials show the 5,56 is effective to 300m while the 7,62 is 800m. So they are changing their 5,56 cal machine Minimi guns to 7,62 cal Minimi machine guns because "everybody" wanted something more effective than the 5,56. Choosing a caliber for personal rifle would also be 7,62 since the old AG3 were in that caliber and missed when it was replaced with 5,56. Surely the 5,56 is lighter to carry, but on the other hand the 7,62 does the job with fewer shots!
That's not how it works though. Most shots aren't fired directly on soldiers. They fire suppressive fire as close as possible and make maneuvers/ call in support. Yes, if you're actually in front of someone the 7,62x51 would be more lethal . That still doesn't matter though because nowadays everyone has body armor so you need to shoot people in the head if you want to kill them at close range, which will only take one 5.56 to do the job. I'm not talking out of my ass here, all of the combat footage in Ukraine show the same. They fire a lot, move up, fire more and move up. Then when they clear trenches they either shoot people in the side or in the head.
@@footingball5566 I don´t know if thats a good argument for the 5,56 because the Ukrainians use the 7,62x39 AK ammo and as one can see there is much random shooting without aiming at all, so for that a small caliber could work well just to squander the ammo away. However on longer distances the 7,62x51 still has a good punch, which the 5,56 has not. So therefore in scandianvian circumstances with big valleys and forests, its the cartridge to have!
By the way both cartridges are Nato standard, so its up to the countries to choose. Sweden had 5,56 before, but now they want a more powerful cartridge.
@@gabork.8715 no, the Ukrainians and Russians alike mostly use 5.45x39 from an AK-74 type rifle. 5.45x39 is very comparable to 5.56x45 in many ways. It is a small caliber going extremely fast.
@@gabork.8715 But that's still not how it works. I can probably carry at least 50% more ammunition in 5.56 than 7.62x51 so in a gunfight vs people with 7.62x51, I would most likely win the engagement because I can suppress them longer. That is how it works. 7.62 is better for range but in the end, the one with the most ammo and grenades usually wins the fight
Jag har svårt att förstå varför dom gjorde det här valet, men vad vet jag.
Spot on. 7.62 NATO is my baby but it doesn't make for a good standard round, better for designated marksman roles. 5.56 is the right call for the general purpose fighting round when availability is factored in.
Every one is allowed their opinion.
7.62 is the right choice
Ok, fröken flygare
Both calibers are good, if your military doctrine is good enough to fully take advantage of their potential. In a forest, the 308 is probably better, because it doesn't lose its directional stability when it runs into a twig. The 308 can also shoot through trees, vehicles and wooden walls, which increases its versatility. Good luck doing that with a 5,56. In a large open area, such as the coastline, the 308 enables you to engage targets before they can engage you. With a scope attached, the 308 can double as a medium range sniper rifle. For house clearing, close urban fighting and the general spraying of bullets, the 5,56 is probably better. In terms of portability, the 5,56 is the obvious choice, especially for people who rarely get to meet the enemy. As for lethality, the 308 can easily take down a moose and its effect on people can be spectacular, so you'll get a lot of one hit kills. The 5,56 is not as effective, so you need a better hit to score a kill and you may have trouble penetrating body armor. Personally, I'd like to combine the benefits of both calibers, by choosing the 7,62X39, which unfortunately is not NATO compatible. Anyways, as long as you have a reliable gun that goes bang, you can do your job and finish the mission.
There are alot better cartridges that meet in the middle and aren't outdated like 7.62x39mm
@@Dmac6969 Big holes are never outdated, there's always a market for them. As long as you're engaging targets closer than 300 meters, the AK round is still perfectly viable, especially in densely vegetated areas. Sure, there's a bit of bullet drop after 300 meters, but that doesn't really matter, as long as 90% of all shooting takes places at 0-200 meters. Beyond 300 m, the 308 of course is far superior to almost everything.
@jannevellamo I'm not saying that it's not still effective for some purposed. But if your going to pick a new rifle platform, and a new caliber. There are far better options than 7.62x39mm. Especially in 2023
I thaught the 5.56 had higher terminal speed and flatter ballistics?
@@The_Yarl1 When 5,56 hits a twig, it loses its directional stability, whereas 7,62 bullets just keep going. Penetrating trees is also a big problem, which the 7,62 users do not need to worry about. Sweden and Finland have a lot of forest, most of the fighting would probably take place in a forest, so it might be a good idea to use a caliber that performs well in a forest. Flat trajectories do not mean much, when there are so many trees in the way, you can't even see the target farther than 100 meters away. Pretty much every rifle caliber is more or less flat shooting at such distances. To gain any major advantage from the 5,56, the fighting would have to be moved out of the forest, into open areas, which unfortunately would favour the Russians, who also are using flat shooting rounds. The other problem is, finding those open areas would not be easy, as long as most of the country is covered by forest.