View Single Post
Old July 6, 2019, 12:24 PM   #35
labnoti
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2018
Posts: 229
My conclusion is the M4 with M855A1 is the best of the currently available choices to equip most soldiers with. Superior ballistics and increased range are a poor trade-off for most circumstances where increased rate of fire and volume of fire from the squad or platoon as a whole is preferable. No alternative to the 5.56 is going to increase that rate or volume of fire.

Ballistic superiority and longer range is really only attractive when you look at individual soldiers instead of the squad. Would I personally give up 17% of my ammo capacity for superior range and terminal effect? Absolutely. I would rather have 25 rounds of 6.5 Grendel than 30 rounds of 5.56 any day. But would I rather that my squad have 2160 rounds of 556 or 1800 rounds? 2160 rounds for sure.

Ballistically superior and longer range alternatives like 7.62x51 or 6.5 CM are appropriate for designated marksmen and for some machine guns, but I don't see an advantage to equipping most soldiers with these chamberings or a 6.8 chambering like SPC that would reduce the available volume of fire for a squad.

Longer range targets are engaged with the M2 or a Mk19 from a MRAP. A squad does not need to be so far from a target that 6.8 SPC is necessary to engage it effectively, and also so far away from an MRAP that a Mk19 couldn't do it. When there are trade-off's to pay, most soldiers should be equipped for the rule, not the exception.

But I also suspect next-generation carbine ammo will not be 6.8 SPC, but rather something novel like that telescoping case stuff about which we don't know enough to comment intelligently. If it doesn't reduce the rate or volume of fire for a squad, and it also increases range and terminal effect then it's all good.

Last edited by labnoti; July 6, 2019 at 12:33 PM.
labnoti is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03139 seconds with 8 queries