Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Should the 5.56 be replaced?

Discussion in 'Army & Security Forces' started by F-15 Eagle, Aug 7, 2008.

Share This Page

?

Should the 5.56 be replaced?

  1. No the 5.56 is good enough.

    28.3%
  2. Replace it with 6.5mm or 6.8mm.

    50.0%
  3. Just go back to the 7.62mm.

    17.8%
  4. Unsure.

    4.6%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. F-15 Eagle

    F-15 Eagle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  2. Human Bass

    Human Bass New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. eaf-f16

    eaf-f16 New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Egypt
    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.
     
  4. ando

    ando New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Darwin
    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.
     
  5. Jezza

    Jezza Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Perth
    and make it nato compliant
    or nato standard round
     
  6. ukrob

    ukrob New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    well imo i think the 5.56 is very gd sould y sould anyone replace it
     
  7. V4.SKUNK

    V4.SKUNK New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0

    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...
     
  8. F-15 Eagle

    F-15 Eagle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. Human Bass

    Human Bass New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0

    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.
     
  10. sgtgunn

    sgtgunn Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    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
     
  11. Gryphon

    Gryphon New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.
     
  12. F-15 Eagle

    F-15 Eagle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  13. F-15 Eagle

    F-15 Eagle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  14. Human Bass

    Human Bass New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    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...
     
  15. Gryphon

    Gryphon New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    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/a...ive_ballistics_results.aspx?data=R68R2*R223R3

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

    sgtgunn Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    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
     
  17. Human Bass

    Human Bass New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    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"
     
  18. F-15 Eagle

    F-15 Eagle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  19. sgtgunn

    sgtgunn Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    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
     
  20. F-15 Eagle

    F-15 Eagle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_V2wvk2F6A"]YouTube - SCAR-L/H[/ame]