I’ll save you 8 minutes: Because you can carry more ammo.

Reasons: You can carry more ammo with you (takes up less room and weighs less) and it's more economical.

Never met a person hit by a 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm complained the round is not powerful enough.

5.56 was designed to increase volume of fire amongst a rifle squad. All other benefits of it are secondary.

in 1969, I went thru bootcamp on Parris Island and qualified on the rifle range with the M14.never saw an M16 until I got to Vietnam.when I got an M16 and was zeroing it in, I was amazed at the "smallness" of the 5.56 as compared to the M14 round. there were many times I wish that I would have had my M14 . I can't say that I was a "big" fan of the 5.56 but I learned (like all marines, since 1775,) to "overcome and adapt"! ...semper fi

This is not really about bullets. It’s about bullsht.

100% sure we use both, i have carried soooooo many belts of 7.62 for m240

If I’m correct, a major factor behind the adoption of the 7.62 x 51 round was that it was expected that NATO troops would be dug in, defending against hordes of Soviets storming their way west across Europe. At that time, according to that doctrine, a round with better range and accuracy than the Soviet 7.62 x 39 seemed the logical choice.

As a combat veteran of the Vietnam war I can tell you for the most part not a lot of complaints with that ammo. The damage it did to the enemy was jaw dropping after seeing what damage it caused to a human being for such a small sized bullet. My favorite was the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) using the 30 caliper bullet. Even though not as fast of rapid fire like the 30 cal. machine gun it was more accurate farther. To me seeing what production you get from certain weapons the machine guns are the dinosaur of weapons, a lot of ammo for little gain. Even the Pentagon was aware of this and had our M16's changed to three round burst.

I find it funny that most of the ammo in the video is 7.62.

That robot voice: "The NATO 7"..........."Point 62 round". Geezuz.

As a light infantryman, the difference in weight was 1/4 pound for more ammo. Big whoop. Carry my pack for me. The difference in reality was that whereas I could knock chunks off of a bad guy at 400m+ over iron sights with 7.62mm (deliberate fire), I then had to deal with the ping-pong ball effect past 200m...negating the 'extra ammo' bit. When they rolled the BB gun out in the CDN military, I tried it out of course....shoots like a dream up close. I complained to my Dad about it, he was 34 years Arty. His response, "Son, when they switched from the .54 cal muzzle loader to the .50, the infantrymen bitched that it didn't have enough stopping power."

There’s no one size fits all needs.

Both calibers have important advantages and we have seen that none of them can fully replace the other. When you need longer range and penetration you can't go without the 7,62, heavier and more expensive as it may be.

Soldiers have been complaining about the loss in stopping power ever since they went from the .50-70 to the .45-70.

Ok 7.62 weighs more, but in my experience you need LESS ammo. I served in Battle of Fallujah and witnessed first hand just how weak 5.56 is compared to 7.62. There were instances where we needed to shoot hajis several times to bring them down. A 7.62 round will down down the enemy with one shot every single time. Accuracy by volume is great when you’re manning a machine gun, but for a rifleman a more lethal round is better than carrying more less lethal rounds.

The entire video talks about 5.56mm, yet the entire video is featuring 7.62mm ammo being handled and fired. You're as bad as "Dark Docs"!

When I was in the Air Force one of our standard weapons on Fire Teams was the M-60....it used 7.62mm. Our M-16's and GAU's used 5.56mm.

US pushed for 7.62mm over the British 0.280 (7mm) developed since 1945, believing that 0.280 was too small.

I don't want no teenage queen, i just want my m- 14 !

5.56 works, provided that sufficient barrel length is used so that the caliber can reach its full potential, which a 20-inch barrel provides. Lesser than that then the caliber's effectiveness drops, like we see in US invasion on Afghanistan. But the best solution is definitely to change to a better heavier round like 7.62x51 NATO, OR design a new, better cartridge altogether. Both of them are expensive endeavours. Kind of funny that as the military became modernized, a worse caliber was chosen to replace a better one. I have always known that the Cold War era rifles is the best compromise between reliability and lethality/effectiveness/stopping power.

Still prefer the 7.62 as it has better stopping power. One other reason why the 5.56 was introduced was the theory that in a squad if one is wounded it usually takes the squad to remove the wouned soldier. I stil prefer the 7.62. It's so powerful and I have seen the damage it can do being an Ex serviceman.

I was kind of hoping the .280 British intermediate cartridge got mentioned when the narrator was talking about the 1950s. Nope.

5:52 ...... That point where your buddy's poor marksmanship drives you insane and you want to show him how it is done.

Next generation will be paintballs, as to not hurt anyone's feeling.

It's actually because its the closest size to ratio of a crayon.

CLIFF NOTES: The US spent 25 years convincing our allies around the world that the 5.56mm round should be the standard. If America departs from the 5.56mm after its 57 years of service, it would cause significant financial (and therefore national defense) hardships for our allies.

I just want to know why the soldier was pulling the rounds off of the stripper clip each one by one and then inserting into his magazine instead of using the STRIPPER CLIP LOL

We have and continue to use both rounds.

This is interesting because a similar philosophy is used with tanks. There are advantages and disadvantages of super-heavy tank vehicles, but nearly all countries tend to go with one main battle tank design, that all operate around the same parameters. The reason is speed. During the end of WWII, the allied forces realised that their armoured divisions advance was only as fast as the slowest vehicles. The Russians for example, found they were constantly waiting for their KV-2s to trundle down the road and catch up with their faster units. The bottom line is that military design is important, but logistics IS warfare. I would also note that a study of the Falkands War produced a few very interesting statistics. Namely, "nearly all soldiers miss absolutely everything, nearly all the time". Sad but true, but nearly every bullet fired in a war misses. So thats why most of the time it doesnt matter what you are shooting, because most rifle calibre rounds will result in taking the soldier off the battlefield. Its also the reason why snipers and special forces get a better selection of weaponry and ammunition types ..... because they tend to HIT their targets reliably.

Carried the "Pig" (M60) from 78 to 82 and remember having to transition from that to the SAW. Was both giddy and reserved when the SAW was introduced, it was a hell of a lot lighter than the pig that was one damn thing for sure. That was the last time I ever carried a towel around with me, use to put the towel on my shoulder to pad the weight of the M60. Always loved the pig, but the weight use to be a grind when you're on long range patrols and having to carry extra ammo belts, but was a great mower & meat grinder when the shit hit the fan.

Same idea as a sword, it just has to be good enough. Sure you can make a giant double-handed sword that can cut a person in half, but it would likely suck when it comes to blocking / deflecting or follow up if you miss your target. so invent a sword that's just heavy enough to inflict a lethal wound, but light enough to also make a good defense implement or fast enough to manipulate into a follow up blow in case the first one missed.

We (the US) do still use 7.62 in many weapons

the only reason we were given when we converted from the M-14 to the M-16 was it allowed us to carry more rounds for the same weight.

The very beginning of the video starts with a falsehood. The US did not choose to implement 5.56mm instead of 7,62mm. The 7.62mm NATO round was adopted and US standard well before the 5.56mm even existed, and the 7.62mm NATO round is still in standard use by the US military for machineguns and some rifles.

One idea is that the round tends to wound thus recovery and care of the wounded takes up more enemy resources, but ask a soldier and he would like a round to knock an enemy down so he stays down.

The 30-06 cartridge was the best. We should've stayed with that and made lightweight modular assault rifles to accommodate this beast of a cartridge

I loved my GPMG when I was in the Royal Marines!

Used to shoot 7.62mm FNs. Lots of kick and the weapon was fairly heavy (lighter than the old Lee Enfield .303s that it replaced, though).

Funny hearing it claimed that the US choice of ammo was a factor in the collapse of the USSR

It's been 38 years ago since i went through basic, but we were always told because the 5.56mm round tumbled when it impacted & that it was more of a kill round.

Tbh 5.56 is fine for most troops have a mix. Ex SMG/5.56/7.62 for special needs cases SSR/LMG/crew serv and vehicle mounted. What we have today and how we use it is fine. Most troops have an optic so 5.56 to the face when able is definitely lethal.

The 🇺🇸 has been testing its Next Generation Squad Weapon that uses a 6.8mm round.

I believe the way my cous said it when he was on patrol in Viet Nam they usually walked around 50 miles a day because when you do a sweep you don't want the enemy to get a fix on ya [Mortars] 5.5 was alot lighter so you could carry more. He told me after a firefight they acquired an AK-47 and that rifle went to the point man who sometimes would be out on a limb and he could blend in better

M240B ? IS it still being used? 7.62 NATO , Shot some today, Great round.

God Bless Our US Military 🙏 Thank You for your service 🇺🇸

I was first exposed to the M-16 in during Army basic training in 1969 and liked the rifle for how light it was and how small the recoil was. The only thing I didn't like was its tendency to jam unexpectedly, despite my best efforts to keep it clean and lubricated. The M-16 was the standard infantry rifle at that time and had replaced the M-14, although our armory still had M-14s in stock and we had to demonstrate familiarity with them and proficiency in use. When I fired the M-14 for the first time from a crouch position it nearly knocked me over on my butt, from the unexpected huge recoil.

we went to Iraq in 04 with 5.56 M16, but began seeing some old M14s (7.62mm) being put back in to service for a few good shooters in platoons due to the better range.

The 5.56x45 does a lot of damage on impact. The round tumbles ripping through the flesh. I remember my DS telling stories of rounds entering chest and exiting the foot.

7.62mm has a lot more stopping power. Taking down the enemy is a lot more important than weight.

south East Virginia military everywhere sells the round in the stores but lists it as a vermin round not to be use on anything larger than a fox or medium sized dog

Against an unarmored target, the 5.56 round is more than effective and even some light armor can be defeated by steel core 5.56. Where it fails is medium and heavy body armor which is beyond the maximum potential energy the 5.56 can generate. But up until 15 years ago, this was never an issue, as body armor actually capable of stopping 5.56 were limited to a handful of militaries and special response police forces and extraordinarily expensive civilian vests that were not widely produced. It wasn't until the Syrian Civil War that US forces came against an enemy that used body armor of any kind as standard issue and even with the disadvantage, they were still able to overcome that shortfall and win with minimal casualties.

I could build a house with the cost of the ammo expended in this video. Nice!

Through a stone or a tree , nothing is safe from a 7.62 x 63

Say what you want, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a 62 grain 5.56 under 500 yards lauched out of a 20" barrel rifle. The 77 grain 5.56 would be worse. No, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of them either.

The 7.62mm NATO round wasn’t adopted because it was the best available at the time, it was adopted because the U.S. delegation at the NATO standardisation conference in the early ‘50s refused point blank to consider any round less powerful than the then standard U.S. 30-06, both the U.K. and Belgium had developed weapons to fire a new 7mm short round, similar to the German 7.92 Kurtz used in the StG44, which would have given NATO a so called “intermediate” round long before 5.56 appeared on the scene.

The 5.56 is a smaller round and used in the M-16, the 7.62 round is larger and used in machine guns like the M-60.

Sorry the 5.56, as it is a hot load .223 which is classified as a small game round, is not that great of round for a man sized target. In fact many states prohibit it in hunting for larger game, deer for example, as it isn't lethal enough to take down. The 7.62 NATO round is a Winchester .308 with a hot load. Yes it is heavier and has a kick, but it is very accurate at range and has the sufficient knockdown to get the job done. The concern about recoil would only be a issue in rock and roll, the M14 is a good example. In single shot the M14 makes the M16 look like a toy but in rock and roll you can hold the M16 somewhat on target while the M14 will climb like a F16 of After Burner. The difference is that M14 has the range and accuracy to not need full auto. Have fired both over the years, and didn't require to carry either in the military but have had the opportunity to fire them at ranges. The civilian versions of the M14, no auto, are quite accurate and can be held on target without issue in rapid single fire. So actually the military auto mode is useless. The civilian AR15's have the same issues as the military units, lack of knockdown and their massive issue of misfire due to contamination. If they are in a hospital environment they don't malfunction, but in a dirty dusty environment they WILL misfire. We would do better to simply remove the auto and 3 shot burst and reissue the M14. Yes you have a heaver weigh per round, but you don't have to put as much down range to accomplish the mission.

I remember my drill sergeants claiming that the 5.56mm round was not really designed to be as lethal and the 7.62, but to disable the enemy combatant, who might need to be assisted by comrades instead of shooting at me.

0.50 cal Best ,beat those. 2

Seeing all that Ammo gave me a semi-woody! Damn I’d love to have that stock pile of ammo!

The British in theatre, during a firefight every 20 minutes you'd hear"FN yank bullets" and they set up Eugene Stoner when he first introduced way before Vietnam, the brass didn't like the smaller bullet and had the test in Alsoka under unbelievable conditions, set to fail. that's what AR means Arimlite Rifles..not assault Rifles, Eugene Stoner invented Armalite Rifles, AR 10s 14,15s the M60 Stoner.

Interesting in light of the apparent migration on the new SIG to 6.8

Don't forget the military doesn't want every enemy shot to die. One shot one kill = one combatant out of the fight. Wound one and you take 2 or 3 out of being offensive removing the casualty, assuming you have a enemy that administers medical help. War is hell

The Russians have always been masters of small arms, and they adopted the similar 5.45mm rounds, so they can't be that bad.

How about the 7.62x63mm round? Oh, That's the famous .30-06.

While mostly true there is more to it than that. In Vietnam, they found the 7.62 and the main battle weapon ill-suited. The AR-15 with the 5.56 worked much better at the ranges they were fighting at. Up until then, a general in DC tried to set his legacy by pushing for the 7.62 in spite of what was needed in the field. Like the General who backed the all purpose cammo that made everyone stand out.

Well, they're moving to the 6.8mm now, because of the problems engaging at distances they saw in Afghanistan. They found out they need a round that is more effective at longer distances while still being reasonably similar in man portability as the 5.56/7.62. And yes - the US military uses both 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm currently... not one and not the other.

Lots of complaints on 5.56 of recent years (Iraq and Afghan). 5.56 modelled on the 223, the 223 isn’t particularly well loved even as a hunting calibre for its lack of stopping power. .308 (7.62) is generally preferred for bigger stuff, which says it all really. 5.56 is not as good over range but less kick and easier for the average Joe to shoot for sure. I prefer 6.5 creed

Shit. Give me a BAR.

"Winning of hearts and minds" 😇

5.56 is a super bullet travelling at 3 times the speed of sound

The difference at the muzzle is a very different thing from energy at 500m. The difference at the muzzle is twice, but at 500m it's more than three times. The 5.56 really, really sheds velocity.

Always a question of money,lightness and politics. Nothing to do with stopping power,all around use or long range accuracy. Why not use submachine guns in 9mm? Even cheaper,lighter and smaller weapons...

It was bout the weight, soldiers carry 20kg of ammunition and the 556 over 762 is like 50% increase in rounds carried.

I am very curious about what the move they are doing at 5:52.

This video leaves out a lot of historical data and is not a accurate account of this round.

5.56 doesn’t have enough energy downrange. There are more effective intermediate calibers. 6.8 Grendel or SPC, 6.5 Creedmore, which retains energy very well. 5.56 is subpar in short barreled carbines. It is fun to shoot at the range, but not ideal for stopping humans doing bad things.

I recently talked with an active duty army infantry sgt. He said they used the 762mm round re in the M14

It doesn't really matter what size the ammo is, if they're coming at you with that pop you know they're gonna hurt if you're hit.

When I was in the Army both sizes of ammo were used. The 5.56 mm round was a tumbling round and ricocheted around inside of the body causing truly impressive injuries!

5.56 has better wounding potential, and is more suited for light arms auto fire. 7.62 packs a bigger punch, with stronger recoil not suited foe light small arms (which is why the FAL sucked at auto) but is still used in DMRs, BRs, LMGs, and possibly some Sniper Rifles. There. Answer in a few seconds.

Well, if they focused on 1 round format, it would be cheaper. It was based on weight. Pure and simple. You can ship more 5.56 ammo than 7.62 for the same amount of money.

Gee, I'm glad we cleared that up. Not recommended for clarity in Freshman English classes.

Having used the 7.62 for almost half of my service and the 5.56 for the rest, stopping power is the main thing that divides the two. I've seen webbing stop the smaller round.

Incapacitating rounds with less recoil and lighter weapons.

In a combat zone a higher volume of accurate rounds trumps lesser volume of more powerful rounds. What’s more reassuring between these two options? A .308 that can punch through walls easily but you have less and can be left without any way to fire if out of ammo or a lot more somewhat less powerful rounds you can use longer without being defenseless? Soldiers can also be more nimble with less of a load. Ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain.

I'm guessing the rollover maneuver at 5:52 is practice for quickly removing a wounded (or dead) comrade from firing position so firing can continue.

Bogus information. Video shows mostly shooting 7.62x51

This is not accurate information. The M-16 was adapted for the Vietnam War because it was lighter and smaller and used the 5.56 MM. The smaller weapon was adapted because the M-14 7.62 MM was to big and bulky for the smaller Vietnamese soldier.

no has mentioned the studies that say that one fatal round takes one man off the field. But one injured man from a smaller round takes 3 men off the field. Him and two to assist him

Good vid. BTW: It's 7.62 millimeter (no "s") bullet. When 2 nouns are put together, the first becomes an adjective & adjectives in such cases are almost never plural.

Wait till the 6.5 grendel takes over, were slowly moving that towards that round

Most armies in this world that design and build their own rifles use a similar sized round.

When I was in basic training back in the 80's, one of my Drill Sergeants said that the 5.56x45 can be quite a devastating round and it can kill, but the primary purpose of the round is to incapacitate enemy troops and tie the enemy up dealing with their wounded. I don't know if that was just his opinion, but I have hunted deer with 5.56 ammo and the amount of damage the round does after hitting soft tissue is rather gruesome once it starts tumbling and fragmenting inside the body.

This video is out of date - 11 months ago, one of the military channels just announced the US going to switch from 5.56 to 6.8x51 ammo for its infantry weapon as well as SAW! That seems like a big jump for additional weight the soilders must carry for gains that may only matter in a small percentage of time over the current 5.56 NATO round.

USAF SF are Airforce infantry when deployed...and more..

6.5 mm Grendal would have been the best choice it stays supersonic at 1300 meters and rivals the 7.62 x 51 with that said the most impressive weapon I ever encountered in the military was the M60 machine gun. So impressive they either destroyed them or put them in a bunker until the end of time.

After shooting the 5.56 for 20 years in the military, I chose 7.62 in my civilian after life and have 7.62x35, x39, x51, and x63. I don't use any 5.56 anymore, but it's not useless, I just don't respect it.

The reason for the 5.56mm cartridge is simple: US armed forces have absolutely no fire discipline. That is why the 7.62mm is a burden for their logistics. The Belgian FN-FAL 7.62mm was a superb weapon. With a shorter barrel and a folding stock, it was an assault rifle. With a heavier barrel, 30 mag round, and the full auto option, it was a squad/section machine gun. In standard configuration with a telescope, sight it was a reasonable sniper rifle. Not the best, obviously, but good enough. The US government forced the M-16 onto its troops during combat in the Vietnam war. It was an unreliable dog for years afterwards. The early M-16s were OK on the range in peacetime, well sometimes, if kept spotlessly clean. The action and barrel were not corrosion resistant in the early models, so a few minutes under combat conditions [dust, rain, mud, etc], and they jammed, or double-fed, partly because troops panicked and almost always used full auto in a meeting engagement. The thin, cheap, plastic stock deteriorated in the sun, and if you looked at it sideways, it shattered. In a battle, you can't call "time-out" to use the pull-though or do a field strip, clean, and assemble, and yet this was exactly what this weapon required, if you had a hope of using it for more than as a stick that holds a bayonet. In contrast, depending on where it was made [some models had chromed actions and barrels], the AK-47 was reliable and cheap. It tolerated a LOT of punishment, and often still functioned when very dirty. It was less accurate than the M-16, or Belgian FN, and had a selector switch that would wake the dead. But at medium ranges, it had good knock-down power, although the FN-FAL with the NATO cartridge was even better. In contrast, the M-16 would often take at least two or three shots to bring an enemy down, and often, troopers would have to empty a 20-round mag on full auto to put someone down and keep them there. And on full auto, the light M-16 was probably had the worst accuracy of the three. Sub-machine guns are usually inaccurate, because they operate on blow-back, and do not have mass to make the platform stable. That is why all good machine guns have at least a bipod. The M-60 was also a dog because ammo was fed by a naked belt in the infantry role. A box magazine of 50 or a 100 rounds would have helped it enormously. The disintegrating chain-link system was fine in an aircraft or vehicle, because the ammo belts were protected. Chain or "gatling -gun" guns notwithstanding, an automatic weapon should only fire 3-5 rounds at a time, and certainly not without a bi-pod, a heavier barrel, and a reasonable sized magazine, depending on role/mission/environment. So say you have a personal load of 300 M-16 rounds in 15, 20 round mags, and use full-auto. The vast majority of those rounds are going to kill bushes or make pretty incendiary patterns in the sky. 200 rounds of 7.62mm in 10 mags, using semi-auto aimed shots is not only going to kill or wound more enemy, but keep their heads down too, so there's that. That is what a SAW is for: suppress enemy fire, and engage troop concentrations. You pick off those who have survived the SAW fire with rifles and aimed shots.