Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures




Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence








Should the 5.56 be replaced?

This is a discussion on Should the 5.56 be replaced? within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I don't know if a thread like this already exist but: Should the 5.56mm be replaced by a larger round? ...


View Poll Results: Should the 5.56 be replaced?
No the 5.56 is good enough. 43 28.48%
Replace it with 6.5mm or 6.8mm. 75 49.67%
Just go back to the 7.62mm. 27 17.88%
Unsure. 7 4.64%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 151. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 4.17 average.
Old August 7th, 2008   #1
Senior Member
Colonel
F-15 Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,296
Threads:
Should the 5.56 be replaced?

I don't know if a thread like this already exist but:

Should the 5.56mm be replaced by a larger round? Maybe go back to the 7.62mm?
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

-- Albert Einstein
F-15 Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2008   #2
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 39
Threads:
The 6.5mm Grendel is capable of replace both 5.56mm and 7.62mm.

At a 1000 meters, the 144 grains projectile still has a velocity of 370m/s out of a 20 inch barrel.
Just as a comparison, a 123 grain 9mm comes out of the barrel at 350m/s.
Human Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2008   #3
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
eaf-f16's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Egypt
Posts: 533
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle View Post
I don't know if a thread like this already exist but:

Should the 5.56mm be replaced by a larger round? Maybe go back to the 7.62mm?
They're both bad in certain situations and the 6.5mm is more versatile and practical than both of them.

IIRC, the M4 and M16 could be made to accept it by just changing a few parts. Nothing major at all.
eaf-f16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2008   #4
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Darwin
Posts: 12
Threads:
Ever carried 150 rounds of 5.56 or 7.62? 5.56mm you don't notice after a while but 150 rounds of 7.62mm is relatively heavy (granted when I carried it, it was link but still a lot heavier even when compared to 5.56mm link).

Also means larger magazines, more recoil, new rifles, weeks of retraining.
ando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2008   #5
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Jezza's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 214
Threads:
and make it nato compliant
or nato standard round
Jezza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2008   #6
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
Threads:
well imo i think the 5.56 is very gd sould y sould anyone replace it
ukrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2008   #7
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 27
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrob View Post
well imo i think the 5.56 is very gd sould y sould anyone replace it

Only Americans think the 5.56 needs replacing, they are too blind to see that the problem is with their M16/M4( V short barrel) rifles...
V4.SKUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2008   #8
Senior Member
Colonel
F-15 Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,296
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Bass View Post
The 6.5mm Grendel is capable of replace both 5.56mm and 7.62mm.

At a 1000 meters, the 144 grains projectile still has a velocity of 370m/s out of a 20 inch barrel.
Just as a comparison, a 123 grain 9mm comes out of the barrel at 350m/s.
I don't know about replacing the 7.62 with the 6.5. That will never happen because the 7.62 has much more power and range than the 6.5. Thats why snipers use it in fact they want a lager round like the .300WM or .338LM to hit targets out at longer range. And at 1000m you will want much more power than what you just said with the 6.5.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

-- Albert Einstein
F-15 Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2008   #9
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 39
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle View Post
I don't know about replacing the 7.62 with the 6.5. That will never happen because the 7.62 has much more power and range than the 6.5. Thats why snipers use it in fact they want a lager round like the .300WM or .338LM to hit targets out at longer range. And at 1000m you will want much more power than what you just said with the 6.5.

I said the 6.5mm can replace the .308. The .300 is a super hot cartridge that could never be a standard one for infantary. The .338 is 8.6mm not 7.62m;

The 6.5mm generates 2600J, the .308 generates close to 3400J. But since the 6.5mm has a superior BC, it consevates its energy better, providing the same range of the .308 in a smaller and low-recoiled package.
Human Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2008   #10
Defense Professional / Analyst
Corporal
sgtgunn's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 189
Threads:
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
sgtgunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2008   #11
Junior Member
Private First Class
Gryphon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 64
Threads:
50,000 rounds per Kill?

The Army's embracing the 5.56mm round concerned the staggering Vietnam era statistic of 50,000 rounds shot to kill each enemy soldier in the conflict. The accountants won that battle, the 5.56 is cheaper than the 7.62. US marksmanship has improved markedly since then, as shown by the Marines in the battle of Khafji during DS. There were so many Iraqi deaths due to headshots, there was suspicion of executions - no executions, just bloody good American shooting. The 5.56 mm is dern lethal, in a headshot scenario.

But why should the American soldier be carrying a round to combat crazed Jihad -ists that no hunter would equip himself with to hunt bambi? Whatever the round, 7.62, 6.5, 6.8 or .50?! Soldiers should have a round with enough force to kill his target with a body shot, first time, every time.
Gryphon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2008   #12
Senior Member
Colonel
F-15 Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,296
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Bass View Post
I said the 6.5mm can replace the .308. The .300 is a super hot cartridge that could never be a standard one for infantary. The .338 is 8.6mm not 7.62m;

The 6.5mm generates 2600J, the .308 generates close to 3400J. But since the 6.5mm has a superior BC, it consevates its energy better, providing the same range of the .308 in a smaller and low-recoiled package.
Ok but thats not what this topic is about. The 6.5 is not meant to replace the .308, the 6.5 is a possible replacement for the 5.56mm not the 7.62. Also I said the Army is thinking about converting he M24 sniper in the .300 which is for sniping not infantry assault rifles. The 6.5 will never replace the 7.62 because its too small and does not have the energy of the 7.62 so that will never happen.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

-- Albert Einstein
F-15 Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2008   #13
Senior Member
Colonel
F-15 Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,296
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtgunn View Post
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.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

-- Albert Einstein
F-15 Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2008   #14
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 39
Threads:
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...
Human Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2008   #15
Junior Member
Private First Class
Gryphon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 64
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle View Post
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.
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/am...a=R68R2*R223R3

I apologize for the challenging formatting, check the link if its too confusing.
Gryphon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:41 AM.