http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10254616.stm

I'll look this gun up later

It's a weird one that, half way between a standard infantry weapon and a sniper rifle. It's yank made - quite a lot of the parts look like they've come from an M-16. The idea seems to be you have a proportion of your soldiers trained to a higher grade of shooting than standard but not having undergone the full sniper training, so they're better shots than most but less good than some. Then you give them this weapon. It all seems to me a very odd 'half way house' solution to god knows what problem. And I'm not entirely sure of the value of being able to identify targets half a mile further away that you can actually hit them. Aside from the fact that the important thing isn't being able to identify a 'man sized target' as far away as possible, it's being able to identify whether a man sized target is friend or foe at the edge of the weapon's effective range.

Firstly a big problem in afghanistan is semi automatic AK 47s have a more effective range due to them being a 7.62mm round. So it should mean we can give effective covering and stopping power over longer distances. The main disadvantage is less round can be carried by the soldier.

Also the ability to identify that there is a target over a mile away is helpful in scouting and scoping

The M-16 while accurate does not have the stopping power of the larger heavier calibre AK47 which the americans discovered during Vietnam. This might help in that respect. Though what would be better is dedicated snipers with longer range weapons within the troop to take out terrorists when even further away.

The Americans went into Vietnam with the M14 though which fired the 7.62mm and is still used for Marksman applications (the M14). The M14 like the British SLR (based on the FN FAL) tended to pass through the target and often left a 'clean wound' though obviously it would mess up someones head or organs. For shots that don't hit these areas, and most don't, the 5.56mm round in the M16 tends to stay in the target and cause more incapacitation and damage over time.

Smaller lighter rounds have a tendency to tumble as well which can also magnify the damage done.

learn your weapons please

FN 7.62 standard NATO travels at 850 Mps
M16 5.56 standard US travels at 1000 Mps

AK47 short 7.62 (the preferred weapon of your enemy)
travals at 700 Mps

they were designed for different battle field effects

7.62 nato you don't get up again (100M upto 300M)

7.62 short (at close range less the 100M) you don't get up again
as at longer ranges the round suffers from massive drop

5.56 US you will require 2 people to remove the wounded
effective range 100M upto 300M battle field conditions

except where the enemy don't remove said wounded …

Who are you telling to learn their weapons ? Not seen any innacurate info in this thread ?

As for your figures, there are 15 used variants of 7.62mm ammo, all travel at different velocities. They are all STANAG, what you are referring to as 'Standard Nato' just with different applications. An M118 special ball fired by the M60, also used as a variant in the British SLR only travelled at 805mps, whilst the M852 Match round, often used in the Marksman role for the M14 (even in current use) travels at 'just' 777mps.

If you take a weapon like a GPMG and load it with ball and tracer mix, usually 4 balls to 1 tracer, the tracer rounds can actually 'overtake' the ball round in front if they are a type that travels at higher velocity.

no there is not 'standard' NATO there is only one variety
as of tracer each 3rd/4th round on a belt is tracer but 'standard' nato
now custom 7.62 there is a world off

but you missed the point
the differences that enable each weapon, on the battle field, to extract a different result

to 'wound', or cause wounds requiring removal from the BF the wounded
and the type of weapon paired with that type of ammunition that does not require that removal …

You are saying, no there is not Standard Nato, yet in your original post you said there was. Where are you getting your info / expertise from ? I worked for the RO till BAE aquired them in 99, so I would guess, I know slightly more about it than you.

i think you really need to reread the post
and i was in the army, as a sniper, for 8 years in all combat zones upto 1983 …