Should the 5.56 be replaced? [Archive]

F-15 Eagle

August 11th, 2008, 12:42 PM

I think the US Army should consider switching to 6.8mm or a similar round. Both OIF & OEF has revealed the limitations of 5.56mm fire out of short barreled M4's, especially in urban terrain. 6.5mm Grendel performs better than 6.8mm SPC, especially at longer ranges, but because of the case dimensions it not readily adaptable for belt fed applications (i.e. M249) whereas the existing M249's can be converted to 6.8mm with bolt, barrel and feed tray & feed tray cover changes. I carried an M4 in Iraq, and I would have loved to have something with better terminal ballistics and penetration than 5.56mm. I would have loved to have a gas-piston M4 chambered in 6.8mm, or something heavier like an FN Mk 17 Mod 0 SCAR-H or an H&K HK417 w/16" barrel (both in 7.62mm).

Adrian

I agree but the problem is that the 6.8 has less gun powder. Its only 43m long where the 5.56 is 45mm long. So the 6.8 might not have the range as the 5.56. But I think there is a new 6.8X45mm round out there that would be better than the 5.56. Also the SCAR-H and H&K 417 are also in full auto as well even better.:D

Human Bass

August 11th, 2008, 08:01 PM

The 6.8mm doesnt have less powder than the 5.56, since its the case is "chubbier". You know, volume isnt determine only by height...

Gryphon

August 11th, 2008, 08:34 PM

I agree but the problem is that the 6.8 has less gun powder. Its only 43m long where the 5.56 is 45mm long. So the 6.8 might not have the range as the 5.56. But I think there is a new 6.8X45mm round out there that would be better than the 5.56. Also the SCAR-H and H&K 417 are also in full auto as well even better.:D

Here are some specifics from the Remington website. These are hunting rounds, not military, but should be reasonable for caparison. Also, Remington uses the .223 designation. I chose the Remington Express R68R2 115 grain for the 6.8 and the R223R3 55 grain for the 223:

Cartridge Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 (yards)
6.8mm 2625 2329 2053 1797 1565 1363 (fps)
.223 3240 2759 2326 1933 1587 1301 (fps)
6.8mm 1759 1385 1076 825 625 474 (ft-lbs)
.223 1282 929 660 456 307 207 (ft-lbs)
6.8mm 0.5 1.0 zero -2.9 -7.8 -15.1 (in drop)
.223 0.0 0.6 zero -1.9 -5.5 -11.0 (in drop)

http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/ballistics/comparative_ballistics_results.aspx?data=R68R2*R22 3R3

I apologize for the challenging formatting, check the link if its too confusing.

sgtgunn

August 11th, 2008, 09:39 PM

I agree but the problem is that the 6.8 has less gun powder. Its only 43m long where the 5.56 is 45mm long. So the 6.8 might not have the range as the 5.56. But I think there is a new 6.8X45mm round out there that would be better than the 5.56. Also the SCAR-H and H&K 417 are also in full auto as well even better.:D

From everything I've read, 6.8mm SPC out performs 5.56mm pretty consistently at ranges likely to occur in combat (< 300m). And size matters - I'll take a 115 gr. bullet over a 62 gr. one any day.

As for full auto capabilities of the SCAR & 417 - IMHO it's not really all that valuable. Full auto in a rifle is generally just a good way to piss through your ammunition and not hit much - especially with a 7.62mm rifle! Nice to have I suppose, for the off chance you might need to act as an impromptu SAW and throw down suppressive fires.... but not really effective in that role.

Just my 2 cents!

Adrian

Human Bass

August 11th, 2008, 10:23 PM

www.65grendel.com

"...a May 2004 demonstration at the Blackwater training facility. Lapua 6.5mm 144-grain full metal jacket bullets fired from an Alexander Arms rifle punched through a 1.575" thickness of glass armor that was designed to stop 7.62mm M80 Ball"

F-15 Eagle

August 13th, 2008, 03:30 PM

From everything I've read, 6.8mm SPC out performs 5.56mm pretty consistently at ranges likely to occur in combat (< 300m). And size matters - I'll take a 115 gr. bullet over a 62 gr. one any day.

As for full auto capabilities of the SCAR & 417 - IMHO it's not really all that valuable. Full auto in a rifle is generally just a good way to piss through your ammunition and not hit much - especially with a 7.62mm rifle! Nice to have I suppose, for the off chance you might need to act as an impromptu SAW and throw down suppressive fires.... but not really effective in that role.

Just my 2 cents!

Adrian

But thats what assault rifle are supposed to do. The BAR in WW2 did not have any problems and nether does the AK-47. Most people love full auto. You can still have semi or full auto in the SCAR-H or 417. I've seen a video of it firing on full auto I can send you the video if you like.

sgtgunn

August 13th, 2008, 08:03 PM

But thats what assault rifle are supposed to do. The BAR in WW2 did not have any problems and nether does the AK-47. Most people love full auto. You can still have semi or full auto in the SCAR-H or 417. I've seen a video of it firing on full auto I can send you the video if you like.

That was the original intent behind the assault rifle - to a have a firearm that had decent range, was reasonably light, and could lay down a high volume of fire while advancing - sounds good on paper, works somewhat poorly in practice, which is why the trend has gone back the other way to single-well aimed shots.

Assault rifles generally do not have the right features to take real advantage of automatic fire such as open bolts, quick change (or at least heavier barrels), high capacity feed devices, bipods, etc.

I'm not saying full auto doesn't work on any given assault rifle, I'm just saying it's not a particularly useful (or for that matter, used) feature. Could it come in handy occasionally? Of course. But why rip off a 4-5 round burst at some one when a controlled pair fired on semi-auto is going to do the job nicely, with 1/2 the ammo and a higher hit probability?

As far as the BAR - it was not a very good squad automatic/light machine gun. It was a somewhat outdated design, and it's effectiveness was hampered by the small magazine capacity (20 rds) and the lack of a quick change barrel. The fact that the US Army took so long to replace amazes me a bit.

The AK-47 was designed to be an inexpensive, rugged and easily massed produced weapons that would require little training and maintenance to operate, and was particularly adapted to existing Soviet infantry tactics - which included firing from the hip on full-auto while advancing on foot in support of mechanized forces. Great for big mass Soviet style conscript armies (recall that the Soviets did the exact same sort of thing with much lighter PPsh-41/43 SMGs in WW2). But on an individual level? Not nearly as effective as a trained marksman, with an an accurate rifle with good sights, firing well aimed shots on semi-auto.

The selector on my M4 never went past semi the whole time I was in Iraq - there was no need.

I'd be interested in seeing the videos - thanks!

Adrian

F-15 Eagle

August 14th, 2008, 02:52 PM

That was the original intent behind the assault rifle - to a have a firearm that had decent range, was reasonably light, and could lay down a high volume of fire while advancing - sounds good on paper, works somewhat poorly in practice, which is why the trend has gone back the other way to single-well aimed shots.

Assault rifles generally do not have the right features to take real advantage of automatic fire such as open bolts, quick change (or at least heavier barrels), high capacity feed devices, bipods, etc.

I'm not saying full auto doesn't work on any given assault rifle, I'm just saying it's not a particularly useful (or for that matter, used) feature. Could it come in handy occasionally? Of course. But why rip off a 4-5 round burst at some one when a controlled pair fired on semi-auto is going to do the job nicely, with 1/2 the ammo and a higher hit probability?

As far as the BAR - it was not a very good squad automatic/light machine gun. It was a somewhat outdated design, and it's effectiveness was hampered by the small magazine capacity (20 rds) and the lack of a quick change barrel. The fact that the US Army took so long to replace amazes me a bit.

The AK-47 was designed to be an inexpensive, rugged and easily massed produced weapons that would require little training and maintenance to operate, and was particularly adapted to existing Soviet infantry tactics - which included firing from the hip on full-auto while advancing on foot in support of mechanized forces. Great for big mass Soviet style conscript armies (recall that the Soviets did the exact same sort of thing with much lighter PPsh-41/43 SMGs in WW2). But on an individual level? Not nearly as effective as a trained marksman, with an an accurate rifle with good sights, firing well aimed shots on semi-auto.

The selector on my M4 never went past semi the whole time I was in Iraq - there was no need.

I'd be interested in seeing the videos - thanks!

Adrian

They show both the SCAR-L in 5.56mm and the SCAR-H in 7.62mm. And yes they did fire the 7.62 in 3 round burst.:D I was surprised that the 5.56mm was almost as loud as the 7.62 as well.

YouTube - SCAR-L/H

Chino

August 15th, 2008, 02:54 PM

Full auto in a rifle is generally just a good way to piss through your ammunition and not hit much - especially with a 7.62mm rifle!

IMO, if the weapon gives controllable FA - like the Ultimax - it would not be pissing away ammo. The problem lies in the fact that light weight rifles firing a high velocity round like the 5.56 are harder to control.

While the first true assault rifle the MP44 was allegedly able to give controllable FA that impressed the Russians, with the M16 we have to go back to semi.

But why rip off a 4-5 round burst at some one when a controlled pair fired on semi-auto is going to do the job nicely...snip... The selector on my M4 never went past semi the whole time I was in Iraq - there was no need.

In the book "Combat Battalion" about the Aussie 8RAR in Vietnam, author said that FA was necessary cos in the jungle, semi aimed shots were not effective at hitting fleeting targets. And this is on the rare occasion you actually did get to see who you are shooting at.

Also mentioned was the fact that in the jungle, high volume of fire - especially automatic fire - gives a psychological advantage when neither sides can actually see each other through the foliage.

Also in reaction to an ambush - semi just don't cut it.

I guess Iraq terrain is a whole different ball game?

In our training, we were allowed FA when clearing rooms but otherwise it is a chargeable offence to rock and roll...:D

Topmaul

August 15th, 2008, 11:08 PM

6.5 Grendel !

LazerLordz

August 16th, 2008, 06:30 AM

A shift to a larger caliber will help to acheive a higher probability for an efficient ammo/kill ratio.

However, this has to be balanced with the AOR of the respective Armed Forces. Weight is a non-issue if infantry is mechanized or wheeled. For the rest, such considerations are as important as impact effectiveness etc..

Marc 1

August 16th, 2008, 10:43 AM

A shift to a larger caliber will help to acheive a higher probability for an efficient ammo/kill ratio.

Not sure what you are suggesting here - is it that you need to hit a number of times for a kill with 5.56? Or is it lighter calibers tend to be sprayed around far more, thus resulting in lower ammo/kill ratios?

As to the weight load penalties - the increased weight remember goes right back up the supply chain - with impacts all the way. Also, you don't just need to consider the weight of the ammo, but the consequent weight of the weapon system. The difference between Mag 58 (7.62) and Minimi (5.56) is substantial, and even if the Minimi (for example) could be rechambered and rebarrelled to take a new intermediate round, the weapon may now not be so sweet or accurate with the new calibre.

Topmaul

August 16th, 2008, 03:21 PM

Some one correct me if I am wrong if the US went to 6.5 Grendal right now all that we would have to do is switch barrels, bolts, and magazines.

To make such a switch easier we could task the Marines with the Afgan operations and switch them first with new uppers, mags, and ammo. If it works we could expand the program to Iraq.

This would be a good step to eventual replacement of the AR platform or if we are changing out uppers we could just replace existing uppers with 416 or some other piston style upper assembly.

Gryphon

August 16th, 2008, 05:31 PM

Some one correct me if I am wrong if the US went to 6.5 Grendal right now all that we would have to do is switch barrels, bolts, and magazines.

You don't just replace the 'barrel', the entire receiver assembly, gas tube, grip, forward sights, etc, come off as a single piece. About all the original components you have remaining is the butt stock and trigger housing.

Topmaul

August 16th, 2008, 06:08 PM

I know that I guess I should have been more clear,

Change the upper and the mags and of coruse the ammo and your ready to roll with the Grendal that is all there is to it. We keep the accessories we have now.

While we are at it we can change to a piston upper if it is deemed necessary. :)

F-15 Eagle

August 17th, 2008, 07:23 PM

For what the U.S. spends on new fighter jets, tanks and ships each year I think the Army and USMC should be able to buy the best assault rifle in the world. Just my 2 cents.

Gryphon

August 17th, 2008, 10:47 PM

For what the U.S. spends on new fighter jets, tanks and ships each year I think the Army and USMC should be able to buy the best assault rifle in the world. Just my 2 cents.

1 each f-22 Raptor = $180M
1 each 6.5mm Grendel = $2k (probably lower in these quantities)

180M/2K = 90,000 6.5mm Grendels for the Mud Marines

Sounds like a plan to me.

Waylander

August 18th, 2008, 03:11 AM

One has to add alot of money to rearrange training and print new manuals as well as buy alot of new ammo.
One cannot just take the price of the weapon itself.

Nevertheless getting a new assault rifle in service is probably one of the cheapest things a modern army can do.

Gryphon

August 18th, 2008, 06:55 AM

One has to add alot of money to rearrange training and print new manuals as well as buy alot of new ammo.
One cannot just take the price of the weapon itself.

Oh good lord no, of course there are literally millions of cost factors in making a complete inventory swap. It is a matter of perspective though. Go ahead and double the price, call it two (2) F-22's to buy 90,000 rifles (seesh).

Our soldiers in the field deserve the best, most effective tools available to rip the hearts out of and immobilize our enemies with fear. The rifle is our most basic tool, they deserve the undiluted, most effective, best weapon a free society can devise and afford.

Chino

August 18th, 2008, 12:38 PM

Yes, but...

For example, I think a well-trained pilot flying an old F16 will still likely be shot down if he came up against a super duper F22 (or an enemy equivalent).

And without air superiority you can armed every soldier with the best rifle money can buy and you'll still lose the war.

...

Whereas I'm not sure a well-trained platoon with 5.56 M4 will definitely be beaten by an enemy armed with 6.5, 6.8 or 7.62.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the switch to 6.8 is probably for the best.

Because if not for interference, countries like UK were already on to a 7mm round pre-NATO.

But in the end you have to admit the performance gap between a 5.56 M4 vs a 6.8 M4 isn't huge enough to affect the outcome of a firefight.

Gryphon

August 18th, 2008, 06:42 PM

For example, I think a well-trained pilot flying an old F16 will still likely be shot down if he came up against a super duper F22 (or an enemy equivalent).

But in the end you have to admit the performance gap between a 5.56 M4 vs a 6.8 M4 isn't huge enough to affect the outcome of a firefight.

F-16 vs F-22:
F-22's don't fight fair. The new era of American fighter planes will significantly diminish the capabilities of older platforms to compete, far more than any other generational change in the history of air combat. The F-16's pilot skill would only matter in how fast he hits "Eject", to save his life.

6.8mm ... affect the outcome of a firefight?
Way too many variables on this open ended one. But, yes I can envision scenarios where the performance difference could very well conclusively win a firefight because of the 6.8mm/6.5mm increased lethality. The only advantages offered by the 5.56mm is cost and lighter weight - not many advantages in a firefight there.

Marc 1

August 18th, 2008, 10:06 PM

F-16 vs F-22:
F-22's don't fight fair. The new era of American fighter planes will significantly diminish the capabilities of older platforms to compete, far more than any other generational change in the history of air combat. The F-16's pilot skill would only matter in how fast he hits "Eject", to save his life.

6.8mm ... affect the outcome of a firefight?
Way too many variables on this open ended one. But, yes I can envision scenarios where the performance difference could very well conclusively win a firefight because of the 6.8mm/6.5mm increased lethality. The only advantages offered by the 5.56mm is cost and lighter weight - not many advantages in a firefight there.

You do realise that most (I forget the actual percentage) of combat takes place at ranges shorter than 300m. 5.56 is lethal enough at these ranges. The only thing it is significantly inferior in doing compared to larger calibres is punching through brick walls. But a 6.8 grendel is not going to be that much better doing that anyway. We already have a larger calibre well suited to this task 7.62. Why introduce another?

The old arrangement in Aussie inf sections with 7.62 Mag 58 gave the punch required for this and with the rest of the blokes equipped with 5.56 Steyrs you had the advantages of lighter ammunition, more could be carried and a greater volume of fire could be sustained for fire and movt. Taking the Mag 58's away and replacing them with the Minimi took away the heavier calibre and its increased punch and incredible accuracy of that weapon from the platoon. So instead of introducing another calibre, just slip the Mag 58's back in to the infantry section - be useful in Afghanistan with the occasional longer ranged engagement, and need to punch through mud brick walls. The only people I could hear complaining are the gunners (bugger of a device to lug around).

Look I'm sure the grendel is an advance on 5.56, but only an incremental advance. Bit like last years Honda Fireblade motorbike isn't as good as this years Fireblade that now has the indicator stalks made from Unobtainium. It isn't as simple a change as some of you believe. As Waylander has started pointing out there is the whole training system to consider, spare part inventories to change over, range safety standards and templates to be retested. Do the ammo pouches for instance in the soldiers basic webbing accept the new larger magazines? Perhaps new ammunition storage containers that are not suited to the existing modular storage and transportation systems etc will be required. Do you need to consider where other nations are heading for interoperability reasons ensuring that other countries are moving to this new calibre (the 6.8) instead of say the 7mm.

Now if the 6.8mm round was a guided round or some other type of game changing technology (such as the F22 is in A2A combat) then it would be a question of 'when' not 'if' we change, but its not and we won't.

Gryphon

August 18th, 2008, 11:17 PM

The only thing it is significantly inferior in doing compared to larger calibres is punching through brick walls.

If that is "all" it does better, an (6.5/6.8/7.62 - whatever) upgrade for our forces could and probably should be in order. I've heard a few of those low distance firefights in Iraq had brick walls involved.

It's really simple, a 5.56mm shot to the chest of a drugged up Jihadist in body armor isn't going to drop him. That's why the foot sloggers in Iraq have been dusting off the M-14's, buying them on Ebay and bugging their Congressmen to equip them with hotter, more powerful ordnance.

M-14's (4.62) are kick-butt powerful, but you can't keep them on target - they jump up, hard. The M-4 platform modified to accept the 6mm rounds are much more effective to shoot. If an enemy stands a 1% better chance of being dead with a 6+ than the 5.56, argument over. We buy Billion dollar bombers, 0.2 Billion dollar fighters, why squawk about upgrading rifles?

Marc 1

August 19th, 2008, 01:22 AM

Gryphon, what percentage of these jihadists wear body armour? Why does this body armour stop 5.56 (even the AP variants) and yet allow 6.8 through? Whats to say that you go through the expense and exercise of equipping your soldiers with this new calibre - whats to stop the insurgents 'up armouring'?

As to the brick wall issue - remember for an insurgent to shoot at you they need to move into a window opening or doorway - cover those effectively and you'll still get your man (basic MOUT premise). In this type of assymetric warfare with insurgents taking shelter inside homes with non combatants inside, you cannot equip everybody with 7.62 and go blasting indiscriminately through brick walls. That type of action results in massive civillian casualties which is only going to work against you. However, as I have noted in my last thread, one weapon (such as the machine gun) per section equipped with 7.62 is handy for those occasions where you do need this ability.

Chino

August 19th, 2008, 03:56 AM

I've heard a few of those low distance firefights in Iraq had brick walls involved.

There are plenty of OTHER weapons available to a squad/platoon besides 5.56 M4 - like LAW, M203, M240, hand grenades, claymore mines.

You want big calibre? How about a bandolier or two of 40mm grenades?:D

A lighter basic rifle package allows you to carry more of those important stuff. These things determine the outcome of a fight much, much more a minute difference in calibre/performance of basic rifle.

It's really simple, a 5.56mm shot to the chest of a drugged up Jihadist in body armor isn't going to drop him.

Is every Jihadist on drugs?

Was every Jihadist (on drugs or otherwise) not "stopped" despite being shot in the chest?

That's why the foot sloggers in Iraq have been dusting off the M-14's, buying them on Ebay and bugging their Congressmen to equip them with hotter, more powerful ordnance.

If you believe the Future Weapons guy pluggin another LWRC product, then yes - the 7.62 should replace the 5.56.

There will always be people who think a certain piece of issue equipment isn't good enough.

But the 6.5, 6.8 isn't so incredibly better that you want to replace the several million 5.56 rifles in the US arsenal. Not to mention training, logistics and ammo.

We buy Billion dollar bombers, 0.2 Billion dollar fighters, why squawk about upgrading rifles?

Wow....:unknown Do you really need the fighter plane thing explained to you again?

Another thing, the US doesn't "squawk" about upgrading rifles. The M16 has been upgraded so many times with so many variations I've lost count. Even the basic 5.56 round is different from the one used in the 70s. The M16/M4 with all the gadgets hanging off it is more than a match for anything in any calibre.

Some people will keep fighting no matter what you shoot them with. It's all propaganda sales pitch that arms maker spread to help plug their marginally better products.

Gryphon

August 19th, 2008, 12:12 PM

Is every Jihadist on drugs?

Was every Jihadist (on drugs or otherwise) not "stopped" despite being shot in the chest?
Perhaps they should have been, but they were not dropped effectively especially when wearing body armor designed to stop the lame 5.56mm. As I mentioned earlier, headshots render the argument moot. Still, the chest is a bigger target and why not equip our guys with weapons that defeat that defense?

If you believe the Future Weapons guy pluggin another LWRC product, then yes - the 7.62 should replace the 5.56.

There will always be people who think a certain piece of issue equipment isn't good enough.
Actually, I prefer the Knight's Armory SR-25 7.62 (.308) system. I don't know if "Mack" has done a show on that yet, perhaps you can tell me when to watch?:p:

http://www.knightarmco.com/images/sr25.html

I have never liked the M-14, except for the ruggedness of the platform. But the .308 is a very effective round, worth the weight penalty. The M-4 architecture of the SR-25 platform reduces the barrel jump and recoil effects of the heavier round, so 2nd and 3rd shot accuracy is not an issue.

Wow....:unknown Do you really need the fighter plane thing explained to you again?

Please amaze me with your brilliance on expanding the lame argument on how airplanes are so much more important than basic soldier equipment. Perhaps we should sell all of the Army's night vision scopes and replace them with Iron Sights to buy another 1/352 of an F-35 for the Air Force ... that'll strike fear into our enemies!!:nutkick

Human Bass

August 19th, 2008, 01:29 PM

The SR-25 would still suffer from the unreliable gas impigment system. I find both 6.8mm and 6.5mm to be wothy. I personally prefer the 6.5, but yeah, give me a nasty 6.8 over a wimpy 5.56 any day. The 5.56 works fine if hits on the chest or some other vital part, but would lack damage on non-vital areas, unless it expands/fragmentates, what the M885 is really bad at doing.

So yeah, A Sierra Mk262 or a Barners Copper 5.56mm would be much better than the current M885.

F-15 Eagle

August 20th, 2008, 06:49 PM

And without air superiority you can armed every soldier with the best rifle money can buy and you'll still lose the war.

Nobody is talking about cutting fighter programs in order to fund new rifles. We are just trying to say that the Army should get the best assault rifles in the world just as the Air Force and Navy gets the best aircraft and ships in the world. And of course you have to have air and navel superiority.

6.8mm ... affect the outcome of a firefight?
Way too many variables on this open ended one. But, yes I can envision scenarios where the performance difference could very well conclusively win a firefight because of the 6.8mm/6.5mm increased lethality. The only advantages offered by the 5.56mm is cost and lighter weight - not many advantages in a firefight there.

I think it has to do with the rate of fire and/or volume of fire our guns put out that affects a fire fight. And I know the M16/M4 and M249 have very high rates of fire. Though a bigger round is needed.

Here is how I would organize our fire teams in the U.S. Military. Upgrade the H&K 416 and M249 to 6.5mm or 6.8mm,

8 man squad:

2 H&K 417 7.62 NATO
2 H&K 416 in 6.8mm or 6.5mm
2 H&K 416 in 6.5/6.8 with M203 40mm
2 M249 in 6.8/6.5 with 100/200 round belts

Gryphon

August 20th, 2008, 07:14 PM

2 H&K 416 in 6.5/6.8 with M203 40mm

... perhaps veering of the specific subject just a tad, but isn't the M203 getting long in the tooth as well? At the risk of taking a few more "Future Weapons" hits, wouldn't something like the M32 multiple (6 shot) launcher be a possible substitute for one of the belt fed machine guns?

http://www.milkorusainc.com/

F-15 Eagle

August 20th, 2008, 07:29 PM

... perhaps veering of the specific subject just a tad, but isn't the M203 getting long in the tooth as well? At the risk of taking a few more "Future Weapons" hits, wouldn't something like the M32 multiple (6 shot) launcher be a possible substitute for one of the belt fed machine guns?

http://www.milkorusainc.com/

WTF? Replace a machine gun with some weird 6 shot grenade launcher? LOL you are kidding right?:onfloorl:Dude the M203 will be replaced by the new M320 and as for what you just said you can't replace a machine gun with a grenade launcher. There both built for different roles and missions. One is for suppressive fire to ether kill the enemy or keep his head down well the other is for blowing the enemy up. You can use them for complementary roles but not to replace one another.

And other a different subject, this question goes for anybody who can answer. Can anyone tell me which has more gunpowder, the 5.56X45 NATO or the Russian 7.62X39mm? One is slightly fatter and the other is slightly taller but which has more volume for gunpowder?

Gryphon

August 20th, 2008, 07:54 PM

WTF? Replace a machine gun with some weird 6 shot grenade launcher? LOL you are kidding right?:onfloorl:Dude the M203 will be replaced by the new M320 and as for what you just said you can't replace a machine gun with a grenade launcher. There both built for different roles and missions. One is for suppressive fire to ether kill the enemy or keep his head down well the other is for blowing the enemy up. You can use them for complementary roles but not to replace one another.

Laugh all you want, the Marines bought 9000 of them in 2006. I doubt they are carrying these and machine guns. 9000 isn't a prototype buy, or a test, they are integrating them into their baseline structure. That's why I asked the question.:finger

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usmcs-new-m32s-hitting-the-field-02042/

Chino

August 20th, 2008, 09:51 PM

Please amaze me with your brilliance on expanding the lame argument on how airplanes are so much more important than basic soldier equipment. Perhaps we should sell all of the Army's night vision scopes and replace them with Iron Sights to buy another 1/352 of an F-35 for the Air Force ... that'll strike fear into our enemies!!:nutkick

No, we don't need to further the childish airplane vs rifle discussion as it is would be a tedious waste of time for other forummers.

A few of us are patiently trying to explain things to you even though you are just a kid and have never served a day in the military. So please mind your manners.

Gryphon

August 20th, 2008, 11:34 PM

No, we don't need to further the childish airplane vs rifle discussion as it is would be a tedious waste of time for other forummers.

A few of us are patiently trying to explain things to you even though you are just a kid and have never served a day in the military. So please mind your manners.
Just replied in kind, "return fire" I believe is the military term. But I did not reduce myself to juvenile personal attacks and name calling, which I would think would be above a career military type.

“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” Elbert Hubbard

kato

August 21st, 2008, 03:30 AM

Can anyone tell me which has more gunpowder, the 5.56X45 NATO or the Russian 7.62X39mm? One is slightly fatter and the other is slightly taller but which has more volume for gunpowder?
Don't have any loading tables available, but going the simplistic way with case dimensions, 7.62mm M43 has about 20% more volume than 5.56mm NATO (case diameter 11.25 vs 9.55 mm, length 38.65 vs 44.7mm).

DavidDCM

August 21st, 2008, 07:16 AM

Perhaps they should have been, but they were not dropped effectively especially when wearing body armor designed to stop the lame 5.56mm. As I mentioned earlier, headshots render the argument moot. Still, the chest is a bigger target and why not equip our guys with weapons that defeat that defense?

I'm curious about how the US soldiers can know that their enemies are on drugs?
Do they drug test the dead bodies of the insurgents or do they force those captured alive to do so? Are there publicly available numbers on how many percent of all insurgents are actually on drugs? That whole argument has sounded very "urban mythy" to me since I heard it the first time. Not that I doubt that there are really insurgents who consume drugs before going into battle, but this whole "All the hajjis down there are so stoned they don't feel any pain." sounds very fishy.

G.I. #1: "Oh, man, I'm so sure I hit him, but he just kept on running."
G.I. #2: "Then he must be on drugs, for sure."

Chino

August 21st, 2008, 08:37 AM

G.I. #1: "Oh, man, I'm so sure I hit him, but he just kept on running."
G.I. #2: "Then he must be on drugs, for sure."

Exactly.

Also...

Surprise, excitement, fear, firing un-aimed, and the enemy being unhelpful by moving... can cause your shots to miss even if the enemy is just a few meters away.

Ozzy Blizzard

August 21st, 2008, 09:00 AM

Exactly.

Also...

Surprise, excitement, fear, firing un-aimed, and the enemy being unhelpful by moving... can cause your shots to miss even if the enemy is just a few meters away.

I'm sure adrenaline and shock can also keep someone moveing towards you (for a second) even after takeing a hit. Anyway what mirraculous "drugs" are these jihadii's taking anyway that can make them seemingly immune to 5.56mm full metal jacket rounds? Kryptonite? Spinnach?

Chino

August 21st, 2008, 09:37 AM

I'm sure adrenaline and shock can also keep someone moveing towards you (for a second) even after takeing a hit. Anyway what mirraculous "drugs" are these jihadii's taking anyway that can make them seemingly immune to 5.56mm full metal jacket rounds? Kryptonite? Spinnach?

In some docos I saw when we enlisted, 3 different people whom were shot with AK47 didn't stop moving immediately. And they weren't even running.

DavidDCM

August 21st, 2008, 10:51 AM

The whole "One shot and you drop"-thing is basically a Hollywood myth. Every sports hunter can tell you that only hits in the brain or spinal areas will cause an animal to die instantly (except you use a caliber that rips half of the Bambi apart, of course). Even after direct hits to the heart an animal can still start to run for several seconds, and in this time cover a distance of dozens of meters, often causing difficulties to find it if it's dark and you have no dogs etc. And that with a shredded heart!
And, of course, the same goes for humans. You just don't drop at the very second the bullet hits you, even if it's a deadly wound right into the heart, lung, stomach etc. the hit person will often have enough ressources left to run for the next cover and out of the line of sight of the shooter before he collapses.

I have an FBI article about that issue somewhere on my PC. Gotta find it, than I'll upload the thing.

DavidDCM

August 21st, 2008, 11:05 AM

Okay, here it is, on rapidshare. Of course, as it is a FBI thing, it's about cops, handguns and criminals rather than soldiers, rifles and insurgents, but basically it works for both.

One-Shot Drops
Surviving the Myth
By ANTHONY J. PINIZZOTTO, Ph.D., HARRY A. KERN,
M.Ed., and EDWARD F. DAVIS, M.S.
Federal Bureau of Investigation Law Enforcement Bulletin - October 2004 Issue

http://rapidshare.com/files/139001293/Ersttreffer-Mythos.pdf.html

For those who don't wanna read the whole thing, one story out of it:
"In a final case, the subject shot the victim officer in the chest with a handgun and fled. The officer, wearing a bullet-resistant vest, returned gunfire. The officer’s partner observed the incident and also fired at the offender. Subsequent investigation determined that the individual was hit 13 times and, yet, ran several blocks to a gang member’s house. He later said, “I was so scared by all those shots; it sounded like the Fourth of July.” Again, according to the subject, his wounds “only started to hurt when I woke up in the hospital.” The officers had used 9-millimeter, department-issued ammunition. The surviving officers re ported that they felt vulnerable."

And to finally get back to topic: Wwith a 6,8 Grendel or even a 7,62 NATO you wont necessarily achieve better "drop-rates" than with a 5,56 round. The difference is not that huge.

Chino

August 21st, 2008, 03:46 PM

Those guys in the doco we saw were shot pointblank range execution style.

- AK47 is bigger in calibre than either the 6.5 or 6.8.
- The range was close to point blank.
- The victims knew they were going to meet god, unlike a still fighting man. Yet, it took many AK rounds to put them out of action.

A study I read long ago said that people shot with 7.62 NATO had more chances of survival because the powerful bullet often passed clean through. Whereas the VC feared the 5.56 for the horrific and often lethal wounds it caused. And the Soviets immediately copied the 5.56 resulting in 5.45.

Topmaul

August 21st, 2008, 05:12 PM

I never liked the 5.56 and would much rather use the 6.5 Grendle, many reasons one of the big ones is the Grendal has a tapered shell similar to the AK-47 or AK-74 this means as the shell is retracted it is free of the sides of the chamber as soon as it begins to move. This aids reliabliity because the shell is not shaped like a cylinder which is dragged against the walls of the chamber the AR platform is known for having tight chambers so any dirt or residue is an issue.

The tapered shells is the reason for the shape of AK magazines and is a major reason for the legendary reliablity of the AK platform.

Using a tapered down casing you can have a very tight chamber and not have reliablity issues I hope I explaned this so it could be understood.

From the Alexander Arms website:

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE 6.5 Grendel® CARTRIDGE.

The origin of the Grendel® may be traced back to the Soviet 7.62x39. This was modified for European competition,
being necked down to form the 220 Russian. From here Dr Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindel took the case and blew out the
shoulder to create the 22 PPC and the 6mm PPC which currently dominate the bench rest competitions. In designing the
Grendel® the starting position was the PPC design, but it became quickly apparent that the caliber of the PPC was not as
flexible as was needed. Early research with a wildcat 6.5 PPC also showed that the case lacked powder capacity which in
turn created pressure problems. The final Grendel® design draws on the PPC but it is very much it’s own cartridge. The
internal capacity was expanded by shifting the shoulder forward and the wall thicknesses in the neck and shoulder were
increased to provide a more robust case capable of being fed within a semi automatic rifle. Finally the external taper of
the case was adjusted for reliable feed in the magazine.

Marc 1

August 21st, 2008, 11:27 PM

Fired thousands of rounds through SLR's, M16's and Steyr's and didn't find any particular issue with using standard NATO 7.62 and 5.56 cartridges except for crappy blank cartridge quality.

The reliability of the M16's working parts is largely due to the design of the weapon and the original cleaning instructions issued with the weapon(basically - don't clean!). These issues were ameliorated by reviewing the cleaning instructions, introduction of the dust cover over the ejection port and the addition of the bolt assist. Gas system still is a source of unreliability, but again its an issue for the weapon, not the design of the ammunition.

Its quite a long time ago I realise, but when we traded in our SLR's for Steyrs we were sceptical of the ability of the smaller round to do the job. We were told that the SS109 round would go through both sided of the (then) West German army's kevlar helmet as proof of its ability to penetrate cover.

SpanishPride

August 22nd, 2008, 02:30 AM

the 5.56 should be replaced. it doesnt have enough kinetic energy to punch through objects on an urban street and this should be a huge concern. and it cant puncture body armor. the 7.62 can and kill the guy behind the guy w/ the body armor

SpanishPride

August 22nd, 2008, 02:31 AM

also the m16 sucks and we should get a new rifle

F-15 Eagle

August 23rd, 2008, 12:02 AM

Laugh all you want, the Marines bought 9000 of them in 2006. I doubt they are carrying these and machine guns. 9000 isn't a prototype buy, or a test, they are integrating them into their baseline structure. That's why I asked the question.:finger

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usmcs-new-m32s-hitting-the-field-02042/

Yes they did buy 9000 of them but they did NOT replace machine guns with them. They have both the M32 and the M249 SAW and the M16/M4 with the M203. By the way the M203 is planed to be replaced by the new M320, but they will still use the M32, but the M32 wont replace any machine guns.

Onkel

September 2nd, 2008, 04:08 AM

Hello Everybody,

I´m from germany and served with AA Forces and light infantry.

I used the old G 3 firing 7,63 rounds and the sophisticated G 36, using 5,56.

Keeping in mind that the G3 is a nearly 60 year old design using the recoil for reloading, while the modern G 36 uses only part of the powdergas-pressure, the firing with the smaller rounds was more accurate, the shooting exercises for the G3 were too easy for a G 36- user. The recoil of the G3 makes the weapon difficult to handle.

I guess it´s better to have a smaller caliber making targeting easier than a big one that goes through walls but not through the ones you wanted. For hitting targets behind walls you can use the groupe´s maschine guns.

sgtgunn

September 2nd, 2008, 11:47 AM

While I was stationed in Germany with the US Army I had the oportunity to train with the 4./PzGrenBtl 112 in Regen and shoot for my Schutzenschur badge. It was the last time the unit was going to qualify with the G-3 before switching to the G-36. Being used to the M-16, shooting the G-3 was a very different experience for me. My friends (who had fired it before) warned me about the recoil, and not to place my eye to close to the stock. Like a dummy, I ignored them, and applied the same "cheek-to-stock" poistion that I used shooting the M-16. By the end of the day, I had a pretty good black eye, which all of the Bundeswher soldiers thought was pretty funny. Lesson learned! (I still shot Gold though!)

Adrian

Hello Everybody,

I´m from germany and served with AA Forces and light infantry.

I used the old G 3 firing 7,63 rounds and the sophisticated G 36, using 5,56.

Keeping in mind that the G3 is a nearly 60 year old design using the recoil for reloading, while the modern G 36 uses only part of the powdergas-pressure, the firing with the smaller rounds was more accurate, the shooting exercises for the G3 were too easy for a G 36- user. The recoil of the G3 makes the weapon difficult to handle.

I guess it´s better to have a smaller caliber making targeting easier than a big one that goes through walls but not through the ones you wanted. For hitting targets behind walls you can use the groupe´s maschine guns.

kato

September 2nd, 2008, 12:27 PM

The problems with shooting the G3 entirely stem from having learned to shoot with a low-recoil weapon (M16/G36) only, quite simply.

As someone who was trained on the G3 entirely, the G36 is a plastic toy gun to me - albeit one that is better for suppressive fire, and targeted snap-up burst fire.

This could actually compared to one guy in my company - who regularly shot his Kar 98k, and found the recoil of the G3 laughable in comparison to 7.92x57 Mauser.

Onkel

September 2nd, 2008, 01:09 PM

This could actually compared to one guy in my company - who regularly shot his Kar 98k

:confused: Wait a moment- you lernend on G 3 and G 36 and a guy in your company shot the K 98? Who was it? Seargent Methusalem? :D (you don´t have to answer...)

When I learned shooting the G 3 I also got a black eye, but one gets used to it. Nevertheless I prefere the "toy". Remember, most gunfights are closer than hunded meters - close enough for the small bullets.

kato

September 2nd, 2008, 02:26 PM

:confused: Wait a moment- you lernend on G 3 and G 36 and a guy in your company shot the K 98?
Was his private K98, not an issue weapon. Interestingly, we also had one guy who had a few months experience on the AKM previously, and who did have some problems with the recoil as well.

Remember, most gunfights are closer than hunded meters - close enough for the small bullets.
Depends on where you choose your fighting grounds. In the hills in central Europe, covered with fields and sparse forrests? You need range there.

Onkel

September 3rd, 2008, 03:22 AM

Depends on where you choose your fighting grounds. In the hills in central Europe, covered with fields and sparse forrests? You need range there.

Right, but in this area you don´t need an armor piercing monster of a bullet. An with a good rifle like our new toy you can more easily hit the unprotected limbs or the face over a greater range.

But don´l let us set an everlasting discussion about it- I know, there are a lot of of arguments against the smaller caliber but it´s the old question if it´s the size ore the technique. ;-)

One more point for the smaller caliber is the weight of the system (rifle plus some 60 ore 100 bullets). Not an important argument if you go by tank to battle, but for an infantry patrol carrying as well one ore to maschine guns, ammunition, a tank killer, may be a sniper rifle, communication tools, helmets wests, clothes, sanitary stuff, maybe a small uav,..., saving weight can be very important.

F-15 Eagle

September 3rd, 2008, 03:04 PM

Waylander

September 3rd, 2008, 03:25 PM

You are right it is a crazy idea!

Use a .50cal weapon as a battle rifle?
Just have a look at the weight of the weapon and at the weight of the ammo and than think about what an infantry rifle is for

Marc 1

September 3rd, 2008, 06:42 PM

Hey here is a crazy idea.

What if you take a M82/M107 .50 cal sniper rifle and take off the scope and use only the iron sights for an infantry assault rifle? Does that sound practical not to replace the M16/M4 or anything but to use it as a complementary battle rifle. What do you think?

I think you hit the nail on the head with your opening sentence. As best I can find M82's weigh 14kg's compared to under 4kg's for a modern ICW, 10 rounds in the mag compared to 20 or 30 round magazines, no facility for full auto should it be needed. Also what does each round weigh? you surely couldn't carry more than 50 or so rounds due to their size and weight. The exceptional range of the weapon is only useful with telescopic sights, yet you want to ditch them? Nup, all yours spider. I've done fire and movement with a Mag 58 - a bit over 10kg's and was buggered after a fairly short period of fire and movt - not fun.

The best use of this weapon would be to provide fire support from longer ranges (with its scope) in conjunction with longer range automatic weapons - say Afghanistan where the only cover for fire support may be a long distance from the enemy position. If you need the increased firepower or penetration afforded by the M82, the basic infantryman has plenty of other options at assault distances, from bullet trap grenades, M40's to M72 LAW's.

The M82 is very good at what it was designed for, but that doesn't make it the all round panacea.

F-15 Eagle

September 4th, 2008, 01:39 PM

You are right it is a crazy idea!

Use a .50cal weapon as a battle rifle?
Just have a look at the weight of the weapon and at the weight of the ammo and than think about what an infantry rifle is for

Well you would not have to worry about stopping power that's for sure. But at 30 lbs it would be so heavy and hard to carry around.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your opening sentence. As best I can find M82's weigh 14kg's compared to under 4kg's for a modern ICW, 10 rounds in the mag compared to 20 or 30 round magazines, no facility for full auto should it be needed. Also what does each round weigh? you surely couldn't carry more than 50 or so rounds due to their size and weight. The exceptional range of the weapon is only useful with telescopic sights, yet you want to ditch them? Nup, all yours spider. I've done fire and movement with a Mag 58 - a bit over 10kg's and was buggered after a fairly short period of fire and movt - not fun.

The best use of this weapon would be to provide fire support from longer ranges (with its scope) in conjunction with longer range automatic weapons - say Afghanistan where the only cover for fire support may be a long distance from the enemy position. If you need the increased firepower or penetration afforded by the M82, the basic infantryman has plenty of other options at assault distances, from bullet trap grenades, M40's to M72 LAW's.

The M82 is very good at what it was designed for, but that doesn't make it the all round panacea.

But it would just look so cool if they did though, if you ever play Call of Duty 4 you would know what I mean.:D

Cadeyrn

September 5th, 2008, 04:54 AM

This is just my two cents.

First off, I have no experience with any of the calibres or weapons (damn Australian gun laws), but I've done quite a bit of research over the last year or so in order to find more about things like this, so I'm not just someone who has watched a few movies/videos and thinks that they instantly know everything about guns. I'm not really for or against a calibre, so I'll just post the pros and cons of the 5.56 mm and the two most viable calibres for its replacement, the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel.

5.56 mm

Pros:

It's lightweight, so you can carry more rounds.

Certain loadings/bullets work extremely well, even from a carbine.

As evidenced from its widespread use, the 5.56 is good enough for modern combat ranges. So what if it doesn't have the same penetration as a 6.5, 6.8 or 7.62 mm? It was never designed as an armoured piercing round.

Cons:

The 5.56 was initially intended for not much more than deer, so it is not as effective against human targets as the .303, the .30-06 or the 7.62 mm, all of which were designed for use against human targets.

When fired from a carbine, such as the M4, the 5.56 quickly loses the energy and velocity needed to fragment. Admittedly, this is not such a big deal seeing as the M4 was made from CQC, but with the Marines beginning to from the M4 over the M16, problems could potentially arise.

The 5.56 mm lacks penetrating power. It might be an effective anti-personnel round, but with body armour on the rise and with the occasional armoured vehicle (even if it is improvised) attacking you, I think that most soldiers would like something capable of going through that kind of armour.

6.5 Grendel

Pros:

The 6.5 Grendel, while it will never replace the 7.62 as a sniper cartridge, is a very good all-rounder. Even from a carbine barrel, the 6.5 has a better range than the 5.56 and more energy. This would then make a carbine an excellent weapon in CQC and also pretty good at ranges out to five or six hundred metres.

Because of the tapered case, the Grendel (when combined with a less complex/picky extractor) would allow a weapon to be more reliable, even in desert or jungle conditions.

Cons:

While I'm not sure about comparative weight, magazines with the Grendel will only have 26 rounds in them if they're the same length as current magazines. So, if a soldier normally carried 11 magazines of 5.56, let's say with 26 rounds to ease the wear and tear on the springs, he would have 286 rounds, or 330 with full magazines. A soldier using the 6.5 Grendel would have a maximum of 286 rounds, or a more rounded figure of 242 rounds if the magazines had only 22 rounds in them.

Of course, this is without comparing the weights of the respective magazines.

The recoil is going to be somewhere between the 5.56 and the 7.62x39. Okay, so not much of a difference compared to to what is currently in use, but it would take some extra training to work all of the kinks out.

While the tapered case increases reliability, it also decreases accuracy. This might not be noticed with match ammo or a 1 MOA match rifle, but it would probably be noticed with a 3 or 4 MOA assault rifle and standard ammo.

More info on the Grendel is here (http://www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=271627).

6.8 SPC

Pros:

The 6.8 SPC, like the 6.5 Grendel will do greater damage than the 5.56 at close range, the only difference is that the 6.8 does more damage than the 6.5 inside modern combat ranges (300 metres or so)

A magazine loaded with the 6.8 SPC will have 28 rounds in it, or 24 if you take some out to ease the magazine spring. As such, you can carry an extra 22 rounds, pretty much another magazine of 6.5 Grendel.

Cons:

The 6.8 quickly loses energy, velocity and thus range outside of 500 metres, losing even to the 5.56. Okay, so you can compensate for this drop and you're probably not going to be shooting out past this range anyway, but it would be good to have a cartridge that could do it a bit easier, just in case.

At even 200-250 metres, the 6.8 drifts more than the lighter 5.56 and by 500 metres this is very noticeable.

So, that's what I've dug up. I know that I've probably mucked something up here or forgotten something there, so just tell me and i'll be more than happy to change it.

But what would I recommend?

As a general purpose cartridge, I would tentatively go for the 6.5 Grendel, acknowledging that this is only armchair experience. From what I have seen, it would make a good all-round cartridge, with the ability to penetrate what a 5.56 cannot but would not also over-penetrate too much, like the 7.62. You can carry a fair amount of ammo, and I'm sure that you could always make a 30 round mag and soldiers would gradually get used to the weight. I, personally, wouldn't mind the weight if I knew that I had a rifle that could hit the enemy before the enemy hit me.

Then again, that might possibly change if I ever went on an long exercise with 30 kg of equipment. :D

F-15 Eagle

September 5th, 2008, 01:36 PM

Wow you maid a pretty good review of all the major bullets types. Just a few things though. Even in 6.8 or 6.5 you can still have 30 round mags just like the AK-47 in 7.62 has 30 round mags. There are deeper penetration 5.56 rounds out there I think there called SS109 but I'm not sure correct me if I'm wrong that is better for armor penetration. Also according to most sites I've read the M4 has an effective range of 400-600m which based over the past 100 years of warfare most combat never takes place at those ranges, mostly at 300yd or less and if the combat takes place at longer ranges than that's what snipers are used for.

Cadeyrn

September 5th, 2008, 05:21 PM

Yeah, I know, but if you're after fragmentation in the ammo, the M4 isn't so good outside of a hundred metres or so. I've even heard that it has problems fragmenting outside of 25 metres, but I'm taking that with a pinch of salt. Besides this, soldiers will occasionally come into contact with an enemy outside of these ranges (hence the need for M14s in Afghanistan) and apparently soldiers with the M4 have had trouble hitting isurgents at that distance, although it has been suggested that the reason for this is that their red dot scope actually obscures the enemy at that distance.

With the 30 round mag thing, i know that, but I'm just giving the details for the current sized magazines for the respective rounds. They could very well become 30 round mags if the military adopted them, but the 26 and 28 round magazines might also allow the military to keep the current load-out weight, but that's just a guess and not even an informed one at that. I would ahve to know the weight of a fully loaded 5.56 mag and the weights of a fully loaded 6.5 and 6.8.

As for the better penetration rounds, I've heard of them but I haven't heard all that much. If they improve the performance of the 5.56 enough that it is a good all-rounder, then who am I to argue? Maybe they should even produce an overpressure round for soldiers armed with the M4 on patrol in non-urban areas or copy the best features from the Russian's 5.45 mm round (the hollow tip, which also leads to better accuracy at long ranges)?

Just a couple of thoughts.

DefConGuru

September 5th, 2008, 07:12 PM

DefConGuru

September 6th, 2008, 01:51 AM

F-15 Eagle

September 6th, 2008, 01:32 PM

I think people make the 5.56 look a lot worse than what it really is, they blow the whole thing way out of proportion, making the 5.56 appear weaker then what it really is. If someone gets shot in the head or chest/torso with a 5.56 it will kill them, its lights out for them. I know the M4 has trouble maintaining the fragmentation at range but I thought thats not until 300 yd or so and not only after 150 yd or 25 yd as someone said. To solve any performance issues maybe use some more potent gun powder and a heaver 5.56 round?

Cadeyrn

September 7th, 2008, 08:35 PM

5.56 is a great round for bullpup setups, small accurate and enough punch to drop a target even with body armor. I think the US forces in Iraq and such should work on their accuracy, having trouble with dropping a target at close range with an M4/M16 is not the bullet's fault.

The 5.56 won't penetrate Level III armour and, while the 6.5 won't either, the 6.5 will at least transfer more energy into the target than the 5.56 will. Additionally, the 6.5 has more or less the same overall length as the 5.56, which would allow it to be great for bullpups as well.

What the actual problem is the level of maintenance required to keep both of these weapons functioning in adverse dust/sand/heat conditions and dot sights that block targets. Marksmanship should still be worked on.

As I pointed out in my previous post, my concern with the 5.56 is not its close range capabilities. I even pointed out the thing with the red dot scope. My point is that, when fired from the barrel of an M4, the 5.56 is good for CQC but not so much for shooting past 300 metres or so. While most combat does take place inside this range, I think that you should have a cartridge that can deal good damage outside of this range, even when fired from a carbine barrel.

Now, if you could fire a 90 grain 5.56 bullet with a ballistics co-efficient of 0.510 at the same velocity as a 62 grain bullet, then there would be no point in changing to another calibre. Even a 62 grain bullet with a BC of 0.510, while it does not beat the 6.5 in terms of energy, would be more accurate a longer, and closer ranges, than a 6.5. When the army issues soldiers with a bullet like that, I will agree that the 5.56 does not need to be replaced. Until then, I will maintain my position that over-engineering a weapon by using the 6.5 round would be very beneficial to the army.

(All of my calculations were done using this (http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/calculations/traj/traj.html) ballistics calculator.)

I think people make the 5.56 look a lot worse than what it really is, they blow the whole thing way out of proportion, making the 5.56 appear weaker then what it really is. If someone gets shot in the head or chest/torso with a 5.56 it will kill them, its lights out for them. I know the M4 has trouble maintaining the fragmentation at range but I thought thats not until 300 yd or so and not only after 150 yd or 25 yd as someone said. To solve any performance issues maybe use some more potent gun powder and a heaver 5.56 round?

I agree. The 5.56 is a round that does the job well enough that it is still in use. The armies of the world might be slow in making changes that could improve their soldier's performance and survival chances, but they're not that slow. The reason that I would go for the 6.5 Grendel is that I believe in ovver-engineering, just as long as doing so doesn't create more problems than it solves. In my opinion, the 6.5 would salve more problems than it would create, thus making it a good piece of over-engineering.

kato

September 7th, 2008, 08:57 PM

What if you take a M82/M107 .50 cal sniper rifle and take off the scope and use only the iron sights for an infantry assault rifle?

I think i have a better idea. Let's give everyone a HS.820. Or, for that matter, maybe a B-10? It's not like you'd need any other equipment with a B-10 on you.

Cadeyrn

September 7th, 2008, 10:44 PM

I've just been this (http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/bullet.html) website. It's very informative and presents the pros and cons of each rifle round. The 6.8 might actually be better than I used to think (see the first update at the bottom of the page).

EDIT: Okay, I've done some digging around, and I think that I may have come up with one or two interesting ideas.

This (http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433982&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) document shows that the size of the 5.56 cartridge could be drastically reduced. In fact, you could fit 58 rounds into a standard magazine, maybe even 60. It weighs about 30 % less, so you could have a 40 round mag for approximately the same weight as a 30 round mag, or you could have a 50 round mag, or you could just make the mags smaller.

Secondly, with their new propellant, you could easily get a 90 grain bullet to go at the same speed as a 62 grain round, which would greatly increase the hitting power of the 5.56. In fact, with the help of a ballistics calculator (http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm), I worked out that, while a 90 grain 5.56 (assuming a BC of 0.483, which is roughly the same as a .224 Sierra MatchKing, and a speed of 3000 ft/s) would still lack 72.6 foot pounds out of the barrel, has less drop and windage than a 120 grain 6.5 Grendel (fired at the standard speed of 2650 ft/s). If you could get a 120 grain bullet into a 5.56 mm case, you would still get better performance than the 6.5 (assuming that the 5.56 had a BC of 0.510 and was fired at 2700 ft/s. Fired at 2850, which might just be possible with this new powder, the bullet beats the Grendel hands down).

The only problem that I could see with this new powder/case (for those who don't like the photo in my second link, a better picture is here (http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=enchim9.jpg)) that you would probably have to modify the chamber of the gun. However, if the powers to be did think that the increased mag size was an acceptable trade off have to rebuild the chamber of each and every gun, they could always use the powder to improve the 6.5 MPC so that it fired a 90 grain round at 3100 ft/s or even a 120 grain projectile at, say, 2800. This way, they would keep magazine capacity, the size of the chamber and would only need to change the barrel. In return, they get a heavier, harder hitting round, probably with around about the same recoil as the 6.5 Grendel. In fact, because you have a 6.5 round, you could also use heavier rounds, about 160 grains, for special missions where a silencer is required, a bit like the 6.5 Whisper or Russian 9x39 mm round.

Then again, none of this will probably even happen, what with the LSAT project (they're developing caseless and polymer cased ammo, a LMG and now an assault rifle) going so strongly. Then again, with caseless ammo it might be easier to have heavier 5.56 bullets which, when combined with what the Know Engineering Company and ARDEC came up with, could leader to a much improved 5.56 round.

extern

September 8th, 2008, 05:51 AM

EDIT: Okay, I've done some digging around, and I think that I may have come up with one or two interesting ideas.

This (http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433982&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) document shows that the size of the 5.56 cartridge could be drastically reduced. In fact, you could fit 58 rounds into a standard magazine, maybe even 60. It weighs about 30 % less, so you could have a 40 round mag for approximately the same weight as a 30 round mag, or you could have a 50 round mag, or you could just make the mags smaller.
Cadeyrn, If it need chamber and mag replacement, why not to start a new cartrige development from the scratch? And if it's a new cartrige, let it be a new rifle too, no? They allready use more heavy bullets in A-stan with success. Moving further is bit hard. The problem with 5.56 mm bullets is that it hardly can have better BC. You need longer bullet and shorter case for that, like Grendel or 5.45 have.

Human Bass

September 8th, 2008, 12:05 PM

I believe that the 6.5mm would easily penetrate Level III, since it penetratred a reinforced glass that was supposed to resist a .308 shot.

Cadeyrn

September 8th, 2008, 06:25 PM

Cadeyrn, If it need chamber and mag replacement, why not to start a new cartrige development from the scratch? And if it's a new cartrige, let it be a new rifle too, no? They allready use more heavy bullets in A-stan with success. Moving further is bit hard. The problem with 5.56 mm bullets is that it hardly can have better BC. You need longer bullet and shorter case for that, like Grendel or 5.45 have.

Or you could just use the 6.5 MPC and use the new powder technology to increase the muzzle velocity. That way, all you need to change is the barrel. You'd have a good (I think that it's around 0.421, for a 120 grain bullet) BC, lots of energy, a long range and the same mag capacity as that of the 5.56. There's a minimum of change and thus the change is far easier and the government will be less likely to resist it.

Of course, you could always use this new powder technology to shorten the narrow cartridge suggested by the company, get a bullet with a better BC and still retain that high mag capacity, but that would still require a new gun, which I get the feeling that the US army is trying to avoid doing.

I do agree that a new rifle is needed, but that's neither here nor there for the purpose of this discussion. My entire point about this new powder is that you can have 60 rounds of ammo in a mag compared to the 30 rounds that you can currently have. Whack the weight of the bullet up to 90 grains (shorten the case or something) and you have an assault rifle with 429 rounds for the same weight as an assault rifle with 330 rounds. That is, I think, a far better solution than having a mag with only 26 rounds and being able to carry only 175 rounds for the same weights as 300 5.56 (assuming that the Grendel weighs roughly the same as the 6.8 SPC).

I believe that the 6.5mm would easily penetrate Level III, since it penetratred a reinforced glass that was supposed to resist a .308 shot.

I disagree. Reinforced glass is hard but brittle. I'm pretty sure that if you fired a 6.5 Grendel at most Level III body armours, especially Dragon Skin body armour, or even at Level III Stop Shot (http://www.stopshot.com/index.htm) glass, you would find that the Grendel would be stopped.

DefConGuru

September 8th, 2008, 08:02 PM

How many FN SCAR and HK 416/417 are being procured by the US and when will they be standardized? Will it be a general issue rifle or only spec ops? A combo of 5.56 and 7.62 setup is deadly but leaves no room for experimental 6.5 and 6.8 rounds.

Human Bass

September 8th, 2008, 08:15 PM

Dragon Skin:rolleyes:

Frankly, I've heard the fans of 6.8mm bitching about the 6.5 having too much penetration and "little punch", but everybody recognizes how a good piercing ammo it is. Im pretty sure a 123 grain or heavier 6.5 would pierce level III

Human Bass

September 8th, 2008, 08:18 PM

The HK416 is used by the Detal Force, FN SCAR is used by other special force that i dont recall right now. I doubt any of them will replace the Colt M4, Colt has a strong lobby, what allows them to sell sub par weapons. And the Army claim that gas piston system is not a great improvement,and that they wait for "something really revolutinary".

It seems that only laser guns will replace M16/M4

Cadeyrn

September 9th, 2008, 02:53 AM

Okay, so I was only using Dragon skin because A) I saw it survive a detonation and B) I was too lasy to look up another brand of Level III armour. I'll agree to disagree with you over whether or not the 6.5 Grendel will penetrate Level III armour, because there's no way for us to test it (unless you just so happen to be buddies with someone who makes Level III armour :D).

And I agree with you that the M4 probably won't get replaced anytime soon. Personally, while I think that caseless ammo would be great and that it's the next logical step, I'm not entirely convinced that it will be any more reliable than the M4, because it has more moving parts, which provides more area for dirt to cling to. But, having said that, the LSAT project's probably going to produce a LMG/rifle that can rival the AK-47 for reliability.

F-15 Eagle

September 9th, 2008, 01:27 PM

Does the U.S. Military still use the M60 Machine gun or has that been completely replaced by the M240?

Cadeyrn

September 9th, 2008, 06:43 PM

From what I can find out, almost all of the M60s have been replaced, but some still remain in the co-axial role and will be phased out when they wear out.

o4r

September 23rd, 2008, 04:08 AM

Every forum I go, they will discuss about this.

So after replace the our 5.56x45 where the hell are we going to dump the ten or hundred of millions round of bullets to? What is the cost to set up the factory to remachine all the tools. So for how long will one country need to build up their surplus of ammo reserved?

What is the tactical advantage of all the rifles mentioned over M16 or M4? Is American soliders which using M16 and M4 all dead in the Iraq desert war? Solider that complained about the rifle jammed etc etc have we questioned them yet? Why only question the rifle? Why the SEAL rifle don't jammed often despite they goes to the sea and land...?

Until somebody can invented a method a rifle can at one shot firing out 3 round in a single line, oh it also must be as cheap and less maintanence than the existing rifle - AN 94 (??? 2 round burst Russian made is too expensive and too complicated) then will somebody replace all those rifle.

It is cheaper to give all service men a (whether 9mm or .45 ACP)pistol in close combat then to replace all the bullets in the world for close combat.

sgtgunn

September 23rd, 2008, 02:06 PM

Getting rid of surplus 5.56mmx45 would be fairly easy. A US change in caliber would not automatically mean a similar change in caliber by other 5.56mm users - I doubt many NATO countries would be in a hurry to change at all, especially to a somewhat esoteric US caliber like 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8mm SPC. That leave a large market for surplus US 5.56mm. In addition there would be a huge civilian market within the US for inexpensive surplus milspec 5.56mm. The cost of switching to a new caliber, and what do do with the 5.56mm that we currently have is certainly a factor in influencing any decision to change, and will probably ultimately prevent any changes for the forseeable future.

I do think the US military needs to serioulsy consider a caliber change despite cost issues. We are increasingly fighting in urban enviornments and at closer ranges, and we will eventually begin to face enemy combatants equiped with body armor. A heavier round with greater energy and better penetration would be very valuable in those conditions. Also having an "intermediate" round between 5.56mm & 7.62mm could be useful in simplifying logistics, allowing a return to one rifle caliber cartridge for infantry weapons. A 6.5mm or 6.8mm M240E6 or Mk48 Mod 0 could replace both the 7.62mm M240B and the 5.56mm M249 SAW.

The M16 & M4 are both excellent systems (now that they have matured) but there are some legitmate concerns about their reliability in hot, dusty enviornments. The direct gas system is very dirty, runs hot and requires fairly dilligent maintainance. If the US keeps the M16/M4 system they should upgrade it to a gas-piston operating system (like the HK 416) which would significantly reduce those problems. I have a POF 416-16 gas piston M4 upper and it runs far cleaner, and cooler than a regular M4.

Adrian

Every forum I go, they will discuss about this.

So after replace the our 5.56x45 where the hell are we going to dump the ten or hundred of millions round of bullets to? What is the cost to set up the factory to remachine all the tools. So for how long will one country need to build up their surplus of ammo reserved?

What is the tactical advantage of all the rifles mentioned over M16 or M4? Is American soliders which using M16 and M4 all dead in the Iraq desert war? Solider that complained about the rifle jammed etc etc have we questioned them yet? Why only question the rifle? Why the SEAL rifle don't jammed often despite they goes to the sea and land...?

Until somebody can invented a method a rifle can at one shot firing out 3 round in a single line, oh it also must be as cheap and less maintanence than the existing rifle - AN 94 (??? 2 round burst Russian made is too expensive and too complicated) then will somebody replace all those rifle.

It is cheaper to give all service men a (whether 9mm or .45 ACP)pistol in close combat then to replace all the bullets in the world for close combat.

F-15 Eagle

September 23rd, 2008, 06:32 PM

A 6.5mm or 6.8mm M240E6 or Mk48 Mod 0 could replace both the 7.62mm M240B and the 5.56mm M249 SAW.

Adrian

What replace the 7.62 with the 6.5 or 6.8? Sorry but thats not going to happen, they just don't have the range or power that the 7.62 has. Plus the 6.8 or 6.5 were meant to replace the 5.56 not the 7.62.

Chino

September 24th, 2008, 01:35 AM

Every forum I go, they will discuss about this.

So after replace the our 5.56x45 where the hell are we going to dump the ten or hundred of millions round of bullets to? What is the cost to set up the factory to remachine all the tools. So for how long will one country need to build up their surplus of ammo reserved?

It would seem that every forum you go you will rehash this argument about surplus stock of ammo.

Let me ask you, what happened to the 7.62 surplus when USSR switched to 5.45?

What happened to the 7.62 NATO when NATO switched to 5.56?

Did this issue of existing ammo stock stopped people from switching calibres back then?

No.

So why now?

And newsflash for you: the US had to import 5.56 rounds for its WOT.

"Hundreds of millions of rounds?" Where did you hear that?

And strangely, the last thing you should be concerned only about the ammo but not the weapons being replaced. The weapons costs more. But in the end, both can be sold off or given away as aid.

Whether or not 5.56 should be replaced would depend on many factors, the existent of ammo stock is one consideration, but hardly the most important.

The switch from 7.62 to 5.56 took place during the Vietnam War, but that little inconvenience didn't stop the US from switching.

sgtgunn

September 24th, 2008, 01:09 PM

What replace the 7.62 with the 6.5 or 6.8? Sorry but thats not going to happen, they just don't have the range or power that the 7.62 has. Plus the 6.8 or 6.5 were meant to replace the 5.56 not the 7.62.

The 6.5mm Grendel with a 144 gr. FMJBT actually has equivilent ballistic performance to 7.62mm NATO at 600m and superior performance from 800-1000m in energy, velocity and bullet drop. At ranges under 600m the 7.62mm NATO has greater energy (by about 20%) but considering the fact that the 7.62mm NATO has almost twice the energy of the 5.56mm NATO at 100m, that's a pretty small difference.

While I have not seen ballistic data for ranges beyond 1000m, the 6.5mm's high ballistic coeffecient and the fact that it equals or outperforms 7.62mm from 800m-1000m, it seems reasonable that 6.5mm would be a more than capable cartridge for a MMG role (the M240B in 7.62mm has a max. effective range of 1800m vs. an area target while tripod mounted).

Most engagments with both rifle, SAW and machinegun take place at much shorter ranges where the 6.5mm is almost as powerful as the 7.62mm NATO and around 60% more powerful than the 5.56mm. Having one cartridge that can be used in the infantry rifle/carbine, designated marksman rifle, sniper rifle, squad automatic weapon and medium machinegun role would greatly simplify logistics on the ground.

Now having said all that - is it going to happen? No, probably not - or at least not any time soon, but not becuase the 6.5mm would be ineffective in the role of a "universal" cartridge, rather due to the cost of the switch and inherent bureaucratic resistance to change.

SteadyMercury

November 25th, 2008, 08:16 PM

I'm not into the actual science of this enough to suggest any size round or anything but I know that alot of the boys in the regiment who have been to Afghanistan are complaining that the Taliban aren't going down after being shot by the 5.56mm rounds. It doesn't weigh anything for me to carry them around and I don't find the 7.62 to be a whole lot heavier either, and if it is I'd rather carry slightly less ammunition that is effective then more ammunition that isn't getting the job done. The 5.56 is probably fine for carbines and the such where size is a factor and you don't want to increase the size of the weapon to accomadate the larger rounds but for my rifle and LMG I'd like a round that you can trust to stop someone the first time. As for the people that complain that only the US military is complaining about the small rounds I'm Canadian and were using the C7A2 in theatre so I doubt its the rifle, its just a really small bullet.

Vajt

December 1st, 2008, 01:35 PM

The two posts above this one make a good case to standardize back to the 7.62mm. That round has the heavy punch needed and can be used for the carbine, assault rifle, sharp-shooter, machine gun round. It also requires the least amount of $$ to make it happen versus mass producing a new round such as the 6.5mm or 6.8mm. Pick either the SCAR-H, HK 417 or the Magpul ACR in 7.62mm. :)

Interesting how there are no serious 7.62mm bull-pup developments...

-----JT-----

F-15 Eagle

December 1st, 2008, 01:56 PM

eckherl

December 1st, 2008, 08:10 PM

I think both the SCAR-L and SCAR-H are needed to replace the M16/M4. One is 5.56mm, 30 round mags and has semi and full auto and the other comes in 7.62mm, 20 round mags and it also has semi and full auto capabilities. That way we would have the best of both.

This is not going to happen, DOD has already stated that they are going to stick it out with the M4, additional funds will be released for improved versions of this rifle, and the bugger is for some of you will be that it will still chamber 5.56mm.

F-15 Eagle

December 2nd, 2008, 04:55 PM

This is not going to happen, DOD has already stated that they are going to stick it out with the M4, additional funds will be released for improved versions of this rifle, and the bugger is for some of you will be that it will still chamber 5.56mm.

Its not so much the 5.56 that needs to be replaced its that they need to get rid of the 3 round burst thing on the M4 and go back to the full auto option such as convert from the M4 to the M4A1.

Also I thought there are reports that the Army is looking at studies to what might replace the M4?

eckherl

December 2nd, 2008, 05:11 PM

Its not so much the 5.56 that needs to be replaced its that they need to get rid of the 3 round burst thing on the M4 and go back to the full auto option such as convert from the M4 to the M4A1.

Also I thought there are reports that the Army is looking at studies to what might replace the M4?

The latest information that is a few weeks old is that they will continue to look at improvement options for the M4 series, this decision is most likely due to some degree with budget restraints. Mr. Gates is quite tight with the purse strings, just ask the U.S Airforce.:D

F-15 Eagle

December 2nd, 2008, 05:27 PM

The latest information that is a few weeks old is that they will continue to look at improvement options for the M4 series, this decision is most likely due to some degree with budget restraints. Mr. Gates is quite tight with the purse strings, just ask the U.S Airforce.:D

Come on dude thats not funny the USAF really needs new fighters but I guess we wont have the best air force any more? In fact lets just not build any new weapons we don't need a military because its not suited for post cold war conflicts and there are no major adversaries so lets just cut military spending by 100% and invest in a welfare sate.:onfloorl:

eckherl

December 2nd, 2008, 09:23 PM

Come on dude thats not funny the USAF really needs new fighters but I guess we wont have the best air force any more? In fact lets just not build any new weapons we don't need a military because its not suited for post cold war conflicts and there are no major adversaries so lets just cut military spending by 100% and invest in a welfare sate.:onfloorl:

Hey,

I do not agree with all of Mr. Gates decisions, I am just as bummed out as alot of other folks in regards to his outlook towards additional F-22 purchases, but with all of the pro Air Force Dems out there I am willing to bet that a estimated 50 additional F-22s will be purchased, also look at Japan getting approval for F-22.

Getting back on topic, I know alot of troops who carry the M4 series and they think that alot of the rubbish that gets posted on some of the internet sites is overblown hype. They are concerned though with the trend of modern militaries going with ballistic armor protection. This can be solved though with better projectile technologies. have you wondered why the Russians are not going back to the 7.62X39, 5.45 mm is still the route for them.

F-15 Eagle

December 3rd, 2008, 02:10 PM

Hey,

I do not agree with all of Mr. Gates decisions, I am just as bummed out as alot of other folks in regards to his outlook towards additional F-22 purchases, but with all of the pro Air Force Dems out there I am willing to bet that a estimated 50 additional F-22s will be purchased, also look at Japan getting approval for F-22.

Getting back on topic, I know alot of troops who carry the M4 series and they think that alot of the rubbish that gets posted on some of the internet sites is overblown hype. They are concerned though with the trend of modern militaries going with ballistic armor protection. This can be solved though with better projectile technologies. have you wondered why the Russians are not going back to the 7.62X39, 5.54 is still the route for them.

I don't think the 5.56 needs to be completely replaced, they just need full auto M4s with better 5.56mm bullets that have better armor penetration and maybe have each squad carry a 7.62X51mm DMR like the M14.