- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #21
Oh sorry for the misunderstanding, and according to Wikipedia you are right about the .338
But this is a Sniper Cartrige... Not a rifle round
The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States
- Thread starter Spetsznaz
- Start date
But this is a Sniper Cartrige... Not a rifle round
Do you read and understand what you write?
Do you know when a fellow forum member is trying to help and answer your questions?
Hmmm, Gen next....
I seriously doubt the US will ever return to 7.62x51 rifles. "If" they drop 5.56 it will be in favor of a round that will be easily adapatable to the M249 and as far as I know, there is only 1 such round and it hasn't gained much traction in terms of interest. The 5.56 is closer to optimal with a 20" barrel which the M4, doesn't have. Now the 5.56 doesn't have the same performance as the 7.62 but you can carry a heck of alot more ammo for the same weight. The effect of fire volume versus wound balistics seems to be seriously overlooked in these disucssions... Finally 7.62x51 makes for a lousy auto (or burst) rifle so you're going back to the stone age of issuing what is effectively a semi auto rifle.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
So I guess if the 7.62*51 will not be back to into "Full" service than the US has choice to either adapt the 8.6 or continue to provide new fire arms with the 5.56
The 8.59mm is a round intended for sniper rifles and sniper rifles only, as far as I know, so it's not in the running for being adapted to any role outside of that.So I guess if the 7.62*51 will not be back to into "Full" service than the US has choice to either adapt the 8.6 or continue to provide new fire arms with the 5.56
In the meantime the US will continue using the 7.62mm for the same roles as they now use it, meaning GPMG, sniping/marksman duties, etc.
If you want to look at new rounds intended for assault weapons, then look up the 6.5mm MPC or the 6.8mm SPC. These are rounds designed to be adapted to existing 5.56mm weapons via changes in barrel/magazine/etc. In fact I'm pretty sure one of the selling points of the Remington ACR is that it's readily convertible to 6.8mm SPC.
See what you can find about those rounds, because as far as standard service rifles/carbines go, you're more likely to see changes in this direction then you are back toward 7.62mm NATO.
8.6 is a much hotter round than the existing 7.62 x 51. If the 7.62 was phased out as an assault rifle calibre because it was not as controllable, the weapons were heavier and you could carry less ammo (weight and space reasons) why would you consider an even larger more powerful cartridge?So I guess if the 7.62*51 will not be back to into "Full" service than the US has choice to either adapt the 8.6 or continue to provide new fire arms with the 5.56
If there is going to be a change from 5.56, militaries may look at 6.5 or 6.8mm cartridges. That's a big 'if' - its no small task to decide to change calibres.
Google some of these calibres and you'll get a better picture where they all fit.
winnyfield
New Member
They used to carry submachine guns in the .30 calibre days. The SMG was the DMR of the day, created to fill a void.
The easiest rifle to convert to a new calibre would be the AR15 variants - expect it to be around for a long time.
DIREWOLF75
New Member
7.62*51 is far superior over 5.56 for being effective, thats just simple fact... That it has other drawbacks, thats another matter.
And the 7.62*39 at least doesnt get diverted from just hitting leaves as the 5.56 is, even if otherwise inferior...
5.56 "stopping power" depends on what kind of bullet is used, you can either have excellent accuracy or serious wound cavitation. Current round in service and since a long while back, is unless im completely misinformed made for accuracy, not damage.
Also, the accurate ammo is good against personal armour, the unstable, high damage bullet much less so.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
I don't see the big issue with weight. I myslef had carried several 20 round M14 magazines for a while I was fine. I think the real reason is that the 5.56 (THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN SOOOO MUCH) is more effective for killing people because of its likelihood to rotate once entering the human body, the 7.62*39 however tends to drill a perfect hole in the enemy, making it a higher chance for the enemy to survive
There maybe a chance that the 7.62x51mm may make a comeback. there's currently a gap between a 300m assault rifle range and 600m Sniper rifle range. but there may be no standard issue 7.62mm for infantryman, instead it'll come in a form of a new specialized 7.62mm marksman in a squad.
Only occasionally. in many cases, it simply punch through.
7.62 x 39mm is a slow, heavy bullet. it also has a bigger diameter. this type of bullet have more chance to transfer a larger portion of it's kinetic energy into it's target. if we take a 5.56mm and 7.62mm and fire both with the same muzzle energy, the 5.56 will travel faster by the virtue of it's being lighter and slimmer, but the same easeness it's travel through the air work also inside the human flesh, thus it may not slow well enough inside the target to transfer much of it's kinetic energy, unless the bullet pitch or hit a bone, which is a coin toss.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Consider the difference though between carrying ~6 20-round magazines of 7.62 x 51 mm, vs. 7 30-round magazines of 5.56 x 45 mm. The 120 rounds of 7.62 x 51 mm is going to weight approximately the same as the 210 rounds of 5.56 x 45 mm ammunition. Depending on the circumstances, that extra 90 rounds or so can make a difference.
A few things worth noting, though I expect the DefPros are already aware of it. One of the major criticisms about the performance of the 5.56 x 45 mm round actually has more to do with the weapon firing it than the round itself. The M4 carbine only has a 14.5" barrel, compared with a 20" barrel of a standard M16 or AR15 platform. This means that the round which was designed to be used in a ~20" barrel is now being used in a shorter-barrelled weapon, and there are a number of resulting cascade effects from that. As a result of a shorter barrel, less spin is imparted to the bullet in flight, with a negative impact on both range and accuracy. Also due to the shorter barrel length, there is less burn time for the powder, which means less velocity/KE for the bullet and then negative effects associated with that in terms of range and killing/wounding/penning a target. Also related to the shorter burn time for the powder, more unburned or burning powder is in the gas port while cycling the action, which can lead to an increase in the number of weapon failures and/or increases the maintenance requirements of the weapon itself.
Points to consider. If the US does start switching back to longer barrelled rifles, new propellants like those developed by Hornady for their Superformance line of ammunition, will boost the performance of the 5.56 x 45 round without further stressing the weapon. Also, it might be time for the US to re-think the weapon selection and assignment criteria. The M4 carbine was adopted because it is shorter and lighter than a regular M16 rifle. This meant that it could potentially be assigned to personnel who would benefit from having a rifle-like weapon, but due to either weight or space limitations (smaller statured personnel, vehicle/gun crews, etc) would otherwise be equipped with sidearms like the M9. What might be better for such troops would be a carbine firing a pistol round like the .45 ACP or even 9 x 19 mm. As has been observed in Iraq (and one of the justifications for widespread transition to the M4) most engagements in such circumstances occur within a 100 m range, while most current assault rifles are effective out to 300 m. What has also unfortunately been observed is that a 5.56 x 45 mm round fired from an M4 can have significantly degraded fragmentation (and thus wounding) capacity in ranges between 10-90 m. In such circumstances, a larger pistol round which is normally designed to fire from a much shorter barrel, might perform as needed for short-ranged weapons out to 100 m.
-Cheers
sarsfieldusmc
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #33
Totally agree with you, Americans learned that lesson in Vietnam, when the M16 made terrible wounds especially at long distance when the 5.56 would hit a bone at a lower speed it would disintegrate
As I undertsand it, the tumbling and wound cavitation effects of the 5.56x45mm was only really present with the original 55gr. M193 loading. When NATO standardized 5.56mm, they adopted the heavier 62gr. SS109/M855 round instead. The heavier bullet combined with a steel core and increased rifiling twist on the M16A2 gave better long range accuracy and penetration than the M193, at the expense of bullet tubling/fragmentaion.
I agree that switiching over to shorter barrel carbines (M-16 to M-4) has had a detrimental effect on the 5.56mm terminal wound ballistics. The small 62gr. steel cored FMJ round does damage as a result of it's high velocity - reducing that velocity by shortening barrels deceases both damage and accuracy.
While I understand the reasons for the switch (I carred an M-4 in Iraq and was happy to do so), there is no doubt that a decrease in terminal bullet effects was a trade off for the lighter weight and handiness of the M-4.
Switching to a larger caliber such as 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendel seems like the only way to get good terminal bullet effects into a smaller package. That or adopting a bullpup 5.56mm rifle with a longer barrel.
Personally, I'd like to see the US switch to a 6.8mm or 6.5mm SCAR/
TWO ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THE CURRENT M16/M4 SYSTEM
1. DESERT SAND JAMMING of M16/M4
The IDF switched from the FN FAL to the M16 because - ironically - they found the FN FAL sensitive to the desert sand. They then stuck with the M16 for decades afterwards and fought many wars with it.
The US forces has to simply ask their IDF friends how to deal with this sand problem.
2. LACK OF STOPPING POWER of 5.56mm
The Israeli IDF have used the 5.56mm M16 of various barrel lengths for decades.
If they found the 5.56 wanting, they would not have designed their new rifle the TAR-21 around it. They would have designed a new round or dug up their 7.62 FN FAL etc.
But they didn't. Why?
Because the 5.56 performed to their REALISTIC expectations.
They probably understand that it is unrealistic to expect EVERYONE to go down after being shot - whatever the calibre. The IDF didn't expect the 5.56 to be a MAGIC bullet for there's no such thing: Many people shot by full battle rifle 7.62 bullets during WW1, WW2 etc continued fighting.
Some people watch too much Hollywood movies where people collapse/die fly off their feet etc after being shot just one time. So when they hear that the M16/5.56 doesn't do that, they think something is wrong.
...
A lot of this complaints about "stopping power" and "jamming" were instigated and publicised by the US media and powerful US defence business interests.
By the media, because bad news sells. E.g. "Jessica Lynch taken prisoner because rifle jammed."
By business interests because this helps them peddle their new products like HK416 and 6.8mm ammo and related weapons.
Most of the time when US troopers in the field were asked, they'd tell you the M16/M4 and its 5.56 bullet - while not ideal - is doing fine. (But there are many forumners who even argue that soldiers themselves are in no position to judge because they are not "experts" etc!)
...
FACT: Heavier calibre means heavier ammo, which means you carry less ammo.
Not all armies are driven to their fights. Most still go by foot. So heavier is bad news.
In a firefight you have to keep firing to discourage the enemy from making aggressive initiatives or pinning them down while you take other initiatives. All valid reasons for you to carry MORE ammo - not less.
Troops today also have to wear heavy Body Armor which their predecessors didn't have to. Heavier ammo and the weapon system required to fire it, will add unnecessarily to that load.
...
Finally, many people think that the rifle is the only weapon that matters in a firefight.
They forget that there are many other much more important weapons within a basic infantry platoon that will affect the outcome of the firefight more than the calibre of the basic rifle.
If your soldiers carry a light 5.56 rifle system, they would have more capacity to carry more ammo for these support weapons: LAW tubes, M203, hand grenades, mortar shells, GPMG and RR rounds for the platoon/company's support sections.
...
A calibre change brings with it an unpredictable new set of problems that will only surface after several years of combat testing. And it will take a long time to iron those problems out.
IMO, I believe there is still an infinite combination of barrel lengths, rifling twists, propellant charge and bullet bullet design and weight factors to R&D and find one that works before we write off the 5.56mm.
1. DESERT SAND JAMMING of M16/M4
The IDF switched from the FN FAL to the M16 because - ironically - they found the FN FAL sensitive to the desert sand. They then stuck with the M16 for decades afterwards and fought many wars with it.
The US forces has to simply ask their IDF friends how to deal with this sand problem.
2. LACK OF STOPPING POWER of 5.56mm
The Israeli IDF have used the 5.56mm M16 of various barrel lengths for decades.
If they found the 5.56 wanting, they would not have designed their new rifle the TAR-21 around it. They would have designed a new round or dug up their 7.62 FN FAL etc.
But they didn't. Why?
Because the 5.56 performed to their REALISTIC expectations.
They probably understand that it is unrealistic to expect EVERYONE to go down after being shot - whatever the calibre. The IDF didn't expect the 5.56 to be a MAGIC bullet for there's no such thing: Many people shot by full battle rifle 7.62 bullets during WW1, WW2 etc continued fighting.
Some people watch too much Hollywood movies where people collapse/die fly off their feet etc after being shot just one time. So when they hear that the M16/5.56 doesn't do that, they think something is wrong.
...
A lot of this complaints about "stopping power" and "jamming" were instigated and publicised by the US media and powerful US defence business interests.
By the media, because bad news sells. E.g. "Jessica Lynch taken prisoner because rifle jammed."
By business interests because this helps them peddle their new products like HK416 and 6.8mm ammo and related weapons.
Most of the time when US troopers in the field were asked, they'd tell you the M16/M4 and its 5.56 bullet - while not ideal - is doing fine. (But there are many forumners who even argue that soldiers themselves are in no position to judge because they are not "experts" etc!)
...
FACT: Heavier calibre means heavier ammo, which means you carry less ammo.
Not all armies are driven to their fights. Most still go by foot. So heavier is bad news.
In a firefight you have to keep firing to discourage the enemy from making aggressive initiatives or pinning them down while you take other initiatives. All valid reasons for you to carry MORE ammo - not less.
Troops today also have to wear heavy Body Armor which their predecessors didn't have to. Heavier ammo and the weapon system required to fire it, will add unnecessarily to that load.
...
Finally, many people think that the rifle is the only weapon that matters in a firefight.
They forget that there are many other much more important weapons within a basic infantry platoon that will affect the outcome of the firefight more than the calibre of the basic rifle.
If your soldiers carry a light 5.56 rifle system, they would have more capacity to carry more ammo for these support weapons: LAW tubes, M203, hand grenades, mortar shells, GPMG and RR rounds for the platoon/company's support sections.
...
A calibre change brings with it an unpredictable new set of problems that will only surface after several years of combat testing. And it will take a long time to iron those problems out.
IMO, I believe there is still an infinite combination of barrel lengths, rifling twists, propellant charge and bullet bullet design and weight factors to R&D and find one that works before we write off the 5.56mm.
Last edited:
Quite a few U.S units now are issuing 77 grain rounds, and according to articles I've read, these rounds are knocking the crap out of bad guys... The Snipers using the new M-16 based DMR rifles that were being used in Iraq, started using the 77 grain rounds and got much better terminal performance. They had to use a different twist of the riflings in the barrel, but if this works, it would be much cheaper to rebarrel M-4s and issue the 77 grain rounds than to have either a new rifle or new baliber implemented...
Has anyone else heard more on the 77 grain rounds?
Has anyone else heard more on the 77 grain rounds?
Thanks for the info... This seems to be right in line with what I've read and heard, and apparently, no barrel change (twist rate) is even necessary... Makes you wonder why the military isn't using these rounds in everyone's rifle, not just the DMRs...
Thanks again...
Next-Gen US Assault Rifle . . .
I think it will be a while before the US gets a new standard issue assault rifle. In the last
decade many projects have been contenders, the OICW, the XM8 and others. I would prefer to start from scratch with a totally new design.
> Use the 6.8x45mm round.
> An adaptable system, interchangable parts and common components.
> A close-quarters/urban warfare version, a standard assault rifle version, a sharpshooter
version with longer barrel and scope and a squad automatic weapon version for suppresion
and high rates of fire.
> Use the short-stroke gas piston technology.
> Use the best materials possible, no cutting corners, composites and metals that
can hold up to combat, rough conditions and round after round being fired.
> A round counter, clear magazines and a cleaning kit that can be kept in the stock of the
weapon should all be standard. As long as the center of gravity is not messed with.
> A rought, precise and simple rail system. (Red dot scope, ACOG scope, Thermal, Laser)
> An under-barrel attachment system. (40mm Grenade launcher, Shotgun, Non-lethal option)
> Keep the weight of the weapon down while making the most reliable, simple yet advanced weapon system possible. The curent wars we are in show the importance of the infantryman and his rifle, something I think we take for granted when we look in awe at stealth fighters and anti-missile systems. The infantryman and his rifle are the backbone of warfare, period. We should give them the best weapon system possible to get the job done. No cutting corners!
Some people prefer a red dot scope and forward grip while the next guy might prefer a longer range barrel and ACOG scope. Options to accomodate individual and operational needs is also a very important aspect to keep in mind. Everything from weapon camoflouge to the size, feel and shape of the grip, trigger guard and trigger can make a difference. Ofcourse, standardization to NATO and allied requirements is also a huge problem when designing the next generation of assault rifles. Just changing the type of round fired is a gigantic logistical headache.
I think it will be a while before the US gets a new standard issue assault rifle. In the last
decade many projects have been contenders, the OICW, the XM8 and others. I would prefer to start from scratch with a totally new design.
> Use the 6.8x45mm round.
> An adaptable system, interchangable parts and common components.
> A close-quarters/urban warfare version, a standard assault rifle version, a sharpshooter
version with longer barrel and scope and a squad automatic weapon version for suppresion
and high rates of fire.
> Use the short-stroke gas piston technology.
> Use the best materials possible, no cutting corners, composites and metals that
can hold up to combat, rough conditions and round after round being fired.
> A round counter, clear magazines and a cleaning kit that can be kept in the stock of the
weapon should all be standard. As long as the center of gravity is not messed with.
> A rought, precise and simple rail system. (Red dot scope, ACOG scope, Thermal, Laser)
> An under-barrel attachment system. (40mm Grenade launcher, Shotgun, Non-lethal option)
> Keep the weight of the weapon down while making the most reliable, simple yet advanced weapon system possible. The curent wars we are in show the importance of the infantryman and his rifle, something I think we take for granted when we look in awe at stealth fighters and anti-missile systems. The infantryman and his rifle are the backbone of warfare, period. We should give them the best weapon system possible to get the job done. No cutting corners!
Some people prefer a red dot scope and forward grip while the next guy might prefer a longer range barrel and ACOG scope. Options to accomodate individual and operational needs is also a very important aspect to keep in mind. Everything from weapon camoflouge to the size, feel and shape of the grip, trigger guard and trigger can make a difference. Ofcourse, standardization to NATO and allied requirements is also a huge problem when designing the next generation of assault rifles. Just changing the type of round fired is a gigantic logistical headache.
Here is an awesome paper on US military rifle and cartridge history / development / training written by an Army Major... Very interesting info...
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf