Quote:
|
jmr40 put it very well I think. The 5.56 NATO is definitely adequate for the roles today's military riflemen play. Also, having a new chambering would be a LOT of money and take a long time, because we would be starting from scratch. New rifles (or maybe just new uppers designed for current AR type rifles), new equipment to make the new round, and a heck of a lot of testing, as well as a lot of other things that I didn't even think of.
|
No military round since the advent of the 30-06 in WWII has been an effective people killer.
That's because if you read the actual issue history vs the myth, they went to using the armor piercing machine run cartridge (175 gr) for 80% of the issue (the rest were tracers used to designate a position to be fired on by mortars or machine guns). Stateside the 150 gr was used for training.
An AP round put nice round holes in people, its does not expand. Poke enough holes and people die.
The original 5.56 worked better because it tumbled and cause a different type of wound effect than expanding would while keeping the ability to penetrate barrier (now), i.e. helmet as the foe was to be the Soviets with helmets. To work it has to be on the ragged edge of stability and that was a bullet length and size as well as a velocity aspect.
You strip away the nonsense PR by the army colonel who is in charge of the new rounds and its still and AP oriented round.
When you took away the velocity of the 5.56 in the 55 gr size you also took away both the tumble and the range. That move it to under 100 yds with an M4 (ergo the new normal of 100 is fine). THe M4 was issued because they wanted to fit in vehicles (the army is mobile, the Marines still being infantry kept the 20 inch M16 because they walk).
And its also a myth on the range, if even 51% was under 300 yards (not 100) then 49% of the time you would be screwed if it was over. That also means if the whole shebang winds up at 600 yards you are screwed where if its under 100, a 600 yard capability does not hurt (not quite as handy)
Afghanistan went way over not only the 100 but also the 300 yard nonsense and they had to massively increase the use of 7.62, 300 WM and the 338 Lapua as troops found themselves way outside effective engagement range and they were lobbing not shooting.
The Marines were better off because with their 20 inch issue as that retained the intended 5.56 velocity and they could engage further, but as it was not Vietnam the distances were more commonly 600yds and better.
And you do not have to do a complete change, you can put anything you want that is vastly more effective than the 5.56 uppers on a M16/MR lower.
6.8 or the more effective 6.5 Grendel (better long range terminal effects) would be just fine.
The 77 grain is actually more effective because the dynamic of it return to the tumbling effect of the old 55 gr.
The reality is that the brass does not care, they want to spend the money on the big toys (and now they have no money to spend at all). They give lip service and run a competition every few years because even the dim wits in congress realize they need better but it gets dropped because they ask for the moon instead of a realize 20 or 40% improvement. For a few hundred million they could come out with a vastly improved cartridge as well as carbine.
If they had a carbine that had the ability to change the barrel length (not on patrol, before they went out) then you cold have a rifle suited to the mission. More likely you would be able to have a mix that suited a variety of combat. Most for whatever the threat was (QQB or long shooting) and then some longer or shorter for a village check out or a longer range engagement capability.
The tech ability to improve is there, the will is not. It would be a good time to do so in a lull, but now there is no money that they would not spend anyway.