L1a1

[Paul D]

The last of the full battle rifle calibres hey Paul.(even though it's a intermediate calibre)
The Aussies at Long Tan in Vietnam (18th Aug. 1966) used their L1A1'S to perfection to punch through the rubber plantation they were ambushed in.The 7.62 penetrated the trunks and out the backs of the said tree's to kill and mame the enemy who's tactic's revolved around a 5.56 armed advesery.No hiding behind tree's that day.
The NVA/VC never attempted to ambush the Australian's on mass again,the loss in manpower was far to great.
Give me 7.62 anyday,I'll carry the extra ammo no worries.

Totally agree mate !!

[Thanatos]

Some younger people may disagree with us Paul,
but they really don't know what they missed out on hey

[COLT 1911A1]

Very nice L1A1 SLR, Mike...
Regards, Thanos.

[gew98]

Jeez louise !. In 1966 the 5,56 M16's were few and very far between. The gooks did not change tactics due to small arms in this manner at all.
I love the L1A1 and the metric FAL both...they do me well and often !. The 5,56 55 gn bullet to me is the best for close up and personal...not the 62.5 gn and heavier pills at less lethal velocity.

The last of the full battle rifle calibres hey Paul.(even though it's a intermediate calibre)
The Aussies at Long Tan in Vietnam (18th Aug. 1966) used their L1A1'S to perfection to punch through the rubber plantation they were ambushed in.The 7.62 penetrated the trunks and out the backs of the said tree's to kill and mame the enemy who's tactic's revolved around a 5.56 armed advesery.No hiding behind tree's that day.
The NVA/VC never attempted to ambush the Australian's on mass again,the loss in manpower was far to great.
Give me 7.62 anyday,I'll carry the extra ammo no worries.

[Thanatos]

Gday gew98,
The M16 was issued to troops in Vietam on mass in early 1965 I believe.The swap over with the M14 was rather quick as the 14 had big problems with stock warpage due to the tropical conditions.
Ex members of the 275 regiment have stated "we had to change our doctrain when engaging the Australian's after Long Tan"They engaged us with superior firepower and tactics than US ground forces.
Quote, The Definitive Military Service Calibre and Rifle For the 21st Century - Part 2
By Mike Staples

"On August 18th 1966, at the Battle of Long Tan, the outcome may have been decidedly different had our forces been armed with the M16 Armalite. The long range and hard-hitting power of the SLR and its 7.62x51mm round made all the difference in that rubber plantation. We were able to engage the enemy at longer ranges, and rubber trees do not offer much protection against a swarm of 168 grain 7.62 projectiles travelling at a MV of 2650 FPS.

108 men from D Company 6 Battalion RAR, assisted by artillery fire from Nui Dat and a troop of APCs from A Sqdn 3 Cav Regiment, held an overwhelming force of VC and NVA forces, estimated at a strength of close to 2,500 men, at bay for 24 hours. We lost 18 good men, with 21 wounded, but the estimated enemy KIA, was in excess of 245, with wounded unknown. Three enemy soldiers were captured.

Much later VC records captured by US forces indicate that the VC & NVA force at Long Tan lost 500 KIA and 750 WIA. This was an overwhelming victory. Documents captured during the war and only released a short while ago suggest that the VC & NVA did everything possible to avoid contact with Australian Soldiers after Long Tan.

Many Australian soldiers owe their lives to this unique and reliable rifle, and those who serve today deserve a personal weapon that is at least as good as the L1A1 SLR. The Austeyr and other weapons, which are chambered for the 5.56mm round, do not even come close."

As for 5.56 round I quote,
"There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when the muzzle velocity of the used firearms and the downrange bullet deceleration do not achieve the minimally required terminal velocity at the target to cause fragmentation.[14] This wounding problem has been cited in incidents beginning in the first Gulf war, Somalia, and in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7–10 in of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer.[14] This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an increasingly significant issue as range increases (e.g., ranges over 50 m when using an M4 or 200 m when using an M16) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5 inches (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine generates considerably less initial velocity than the longer 20" barrel found on the M16, and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4.


Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting.
This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the torso of a thin, small statured individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants.

Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag's papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11–28, Winter 2001) also describes this problem.


However, if the bullet is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a person is greatly reduced. Several alternate cartridges have been developed in an attempt to address the perceived shortcomings of 5.56 mm ammunition including the 6.5 mm Grendel and the 6.8 mm Remington SPC.

Recently, advances have been made in 5.56 mm ammunition. The US military has adopted for limited issue a 77-grain (5.0 g) "Match" bullet, type classified as the Mk 262. The heavy, lightly constructed bullet fragments more violently at short range and also has a longer fragmentation range.[15] Originally designed for use in the Mk 12 SPR, the ammunition has found favor with special forces[16] units who were seeking a more effective cartridge to fire from their M4A1 carbines. Commercially available loadings using these heavier (and longer) bullets can be prohibitively expensive and cost much more than military surplus ammunition. Additionally, these heavy-for-caliber loadings sacrifice even more penetrative ability than the M855 round (which has a steel penetrator tip). Performance of 5.56×45mm military ammunition can generally be categorized as almost entirely dependent upon velocity in order to wound effectively. Heavy OTM bullets enhance soft tissue wounding ability at the expense of hard-target/barrier penetration."
I copied this because it was quick and easy.Round deflection has also been a major problem with 5.56mm.
It's taken over 40 years and 5.56 still has major problems.From my understanding if it was not for pressure from the US NATO would have never adopted it.
An ex Rhodesian SAS mate of mine stated to me many years ago that 7.62 turned them into floppys ,5.56 just made them angry.If you wish to kill with 5.56 use a full mag.
Pro's and con,s I feel.
I think the only advantage of 5.56 is that it shoot's a bit flatter and with optic's is a tad more acurate over mid ranges imo.But accuracy is only one part of the killing equation.
A healthy debate mate that we may never agree on.
Cheers
Dave
Also their Vietnamese not Gooks imo.

[gew98]

Way long winded my friend. My late Uncle was in Vietnam march66-feb67 and had an M14 as did all he served with. The M16 was not as common as the M14 in the field by gobs.
NATO M80 ball is 147 gn... so why does the text refer to 168 gn bullets ?. As for lethality I love 7,62 and have an L1A1 and a metric FAL , as well as three AR15's of which I do not use nor care for M855 ball (never have). When I was US Army in 1985 I used the M16A1 and liked it. The little 55 gn bullet is a very lethal bullet albeit penetration of cover is minimal at best with it in comparison to 7,62. I was a sad grunt when they took away the A1's and gave us the dumbed down and heavier A2's. And nowadays with the further dumbed down and less lethal M4 the phrase "the more things change , the more they remain the same" comes to mind.

[Scout]

OP, we badly need a pic of the Landy complete with arsenal, puuuhleeze!

As for the 556 versus 7.62; prior to my first tour to Astan I asked to bring a 7.62, so I would have a bit more punch. It was of course denied.
Some of the fighting against a doped up foe was in the dense fields of the Green Zone. Visibility; zip.
You have almost sero reaction time if someone got too close and the 7.62 stood a far bigger chance of deceiding a confrontation ASAP.

I have nothing against the M4 per se. I can understand why young soldiers like it (especially if they have no knowledge of the 7.62 and its performance). Its half the weight of the LAR (?) and they can carry far more ammo. They lug around enough body armour, water steel pot etc as it is.

Further more, the LAR must have been a beast in house to house searches in Ireland, it being so long. A super quality rifle no matter what IMO.

Bottomline; the M4 works fine with proper maintenance and after decades of evolution is has now reached the pinnacle of design and can not be improved on any more. Thats why the US is looking around for an alternative.

I still prefer a 7.62.

[gew98]

Scout I hear you on the M4 and A'stan. A good buddy just came home in January from A'stan with 3/1 inf. ( scout platoon ). He had previously been enamoured wiht the M4 thingy. after personal experiance of it's rather less than lethal stopping power close up he's decided to put off an M4orgery buy and is looking into an M14 civilian thingy.... I have him half talked into putting his money into an FAL.On a similar note he has some killer pics of two muj's that his partner tagged at several hundred yards riding a 'scooter' with the Mk110 - two birds with one stone and the round even holed one of the fellas AK's too.

[Scout]

FAL is nice.

I like the M14 a lot too. The US ripped them out of retirement faster than you could say 'stopping power,' when they found that they had a use for them again.

I like several of the M14 variations. The snubby SOCOM is veeery nice. Has your friend looked into that one?

[gew98]

My buddy carried an "EBR" in Iraq before this last deployment and he was not impressed with it. For all the tweaking it takes for an M14 to be sniper accurate a good cheaper 7,62 bolt gun would be the way to go for accurate sniping.