The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 12, 2017, 05:32 PM   #1
Stats Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2016
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 1,636
Military replacing the 5.56?

The notary is again looking to go away from the 5.56 NATO. https://www.armytimes.com/articles/n...the-m4-and-556

I just wonder what they hope to achieve that was impossible several decades ago. First of all, we all have opinions on a best battle rifle cartridge. Some folks think it was foolish to go away from the .308, some even think going away from the.30-06 was a mistake. There are advantages to the 5.56 over the bigger 30's, and the bigger 30's have advantages over the 5.56 mm.

But, most suggested rounds to replace the 5.56 have existed for decades, so why now? Also, there will be a huge price tag to switching over, and huge cost increase going to a bigger cartridge/caliber.

I'm not saying don't switch, I'm just saying that there is no perfect CQB and long range cartridge. The 556 with 77 gr bullets will kill or seriously injure at 600 yards with a 20" barrel. Sure the .308 is more lethal and it has a longer effective range, but if that is what they want, they shouldn't have switched in the first place.

And picking a "tweener" cartridge just means you have a cartridge decent at most things but great at nothing.

I'm sure there are strong opinions, and folks can bring up the 6.5 spec, .300 Blackout etc,, but in that case, why not just go back to the .308?
Stats Shooter is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 06:05 PM   #2
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
I always thought the charging handle was an odd way to do it. Really my only gripe of the current weapons.
rickyrick is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 07:27 PM   #3
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,432
With the use of modern drones etc. does every soldier need a 1000 yard rifle? I don't think so; they need to be able to carry enough ammo for more CQB scenarios.
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 08:31 PM   #4
krimmie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2007
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 280
There are good choices in 6mm that would be an improvement over the .556, and without much weight gain in ammo.
krimmie is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 09:09 PM   #5
CDR_Glock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 30, 2010
Posts: 704
6.5 Creedmoor?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
CDR_Glock is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 09:18 PM   #6
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,432
6mm BR is accurate
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 09:21 PM   #7
Stats Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2016
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 1,636
Won't get 6Br performance in a burst fire 14.5" carbean and 6.5 creedmore is fat and a 30 round mag would be huge.
Stats Shooter is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 10:08 PM   #8
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,273
I'm not a Veteran or Military.So I'll be humble.
Consider the human body,and what it is capable of,has not changed all that much since the 30-06 days.A soldier can only deal with so much load,or the "move" part of "move,shoot,communicate" is compromised.

It would be interesting to compare the full combat load of today's infantryman to the full combat load of a WW! or WW2 troop.

The weight of body armor comes to mind.

I wonder how often the thought "I need a bigger gun" comes up vs "I need more ammo"

With today's weapons,suppressive fire consumes ammo at a higher rate.

Today,every rifleman can lay more rounds downrange than the BAR gunner of yesterday.

The squad MG and any snipers still have 7.62 capability.

And then,for any change,the logistics of NATO have to be considered.

Real cost/benefit vs pipedream,it would take a major breakthrough in ammunition technology to justify a change,IMO
HiBC is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 10:13 PM   #9
Stats Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2016
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Real cost/benefit vs pipedream,it would take a major breakthrough in ammunition technology to justify a change,IMO
I am a vet, carried a Mk 18 5.56, and m9. Fired many M14, MA-2, M60 and others, but am by no means an expert.

And I agree with your statement. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze. And more ammo is always better
Stats Shooter is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 10:16 PM   #10
Gunplummer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
The same problem when they were adopted. It is not a long range weapon. When I was in the Marines, we shot at 500 yards. That soured a lot of people right there. Yeah, they were accurate, on a calm day. When I was in the Army, all the ranges dropped to 300 yards max. That should have been a warning right there about engaging an enemy out in wide open spaces. Our troops are out gunned by 100 year old bolt actions in the middle east.
Gunplummer is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 10:20 PM   #11
Stats Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2016
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 1,636
Quote:

The same problem when they were adopted. It is not a long range weapon. When I was in the Marines, we shot at 500 yards. That soured a lot of people right there. Yeah, they were accurate, on a calm day. When I was in the Army, all the ranges dropped to 300 yards max. That should have been a warning right there about engaging an enemy out in wide open spaces. Our troops are out gunned by 100 year old bolt actions in the middle east

Doesn't that just suggestion maybe my first point in the OP is the best approach. Train on an AR-10 and AR15 ... functionally no difference. But use the.7.62x51 if wide open engagement is likely, and the 556 if going door to door?
Stats Shooter is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 11:01 PM   #12
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
It's always a balancing act.
5.56 is lighter and less powerful. That allows more ammo and faster follow-up shots.
7.62 is heavier and more powerful. You get harder hits (less things can be cover) and good range, but you lose capacity and speed.

The "intermediates" will all be balances of these issues.
raimius is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 11:52 PM   #13
disseminator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2016
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 959
.264 USA (6.5mm NATO?) seems like it might work. I'm doubtful on the polymer ammo aspect although that would be great from a payload perspective I just can't see any polymers holding up to high rate of fire and the temperatures that come along with that.

A good intermediate cartridge seems to be where everyone is headed.

I like the .284 bore myself...
disseminator is offline  
Old May 12, 2017, 11:55 PM   #14
ed308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 1,147
Supposedly they're looking at the 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, 264USA, .277USA, Murray's 7x46 UAIC, 6.5 Creedmoor and some others. From what I've read, the 264USA is getting a lot of interest due to a polymer case (polymer=less weight, carry more ammo). The 264USA, 277USA and 7mm UAIC are solid intermediate cartridges with range out to 600-1000 yards. The mag will need to handle 2.6" which puts between the AR15 and AR10. The problem with the .308 is weight, less ammo that can be carried and higher recoil.

I think they may actually make a change this time around. It'll be years before it happens. But there seems to be more agreement a change is needed.

Last edited by ed308; May 13, 2017 at 12:08 AM.
ed308 is offline  
Old May 13, 2017, 02:53 AM   #15
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
If we change AND make NATO change, just think of the mountains of surplus 5.56mm on the market...just sayin'.
Never heard of .264, .277 or the UAIC rounds, interesting, thank you.

Last edited by armoredman; May 13, 2017 at 03:03 AM.
armoredman is offline  
Old May 13, 2017, 03:24 AM   #16
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
The military has been playing around with caseless or telescoped ammo for three decades now. They won't make a caliber switch until one of those technologies is mature and ready for primetime - though I hear the Lightweight Small Arms Tech program is doing very well now.

At that point, an ammo change will be worth the massive logistical costs.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 13, 2017, 03:34 AM   #17
turtlehead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2015
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,203
I'm dying to try the 6.5 Grendel.
turtlehead is offline  
Old May 13, 2017, 04:11 AM   #18
peggysue
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2014
Posts: 1,835
Here is your chance only 550 for a complete new 6.5 upper. http://www.hardenedarms.com/ecCat_36
peggysue is offline  
Old May 13, 2017, 07:35 AM   #19
fourbore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2015
Location: new england
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Here is your chance only 550 for a complete new 6.5 upper. http://www.hardenedarms.com/ecCat_36
Those are not complete. You will need a bolt and charge handle. They give you a thread protector for the barrel. With 6.5, the bcg and barrel should be purchased together. IMHO, anyway. So; you will have to pay their price on a bcg. Unless the hand guard is exactly what you want (a big quad), I think one can be assembled for less or better suited too your needs.

I like Anderson with barrel and matching BCG for $230 total. Those may be selling well, they are out of stock. This is how I am leaning.
fourbore is offline  
Old May 13, 2017, 08:19 AM   #20
ed308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 1,147
If you'd would like something similar to what they the military is looking at, consider the 270AR and 7mm Valkyrie. They use the cut down and necked up 6.5x47 Lupua cased that hold 40+ grs of powder. Both can come close in performance of the proposed .264USA, .277USA and Murray's 7x46 UAIC cartridges. The problem is the magwell and mags. You can only stuff 5 or 6 of these cartridges in a metal 6.8 mag before they bulge. And you can't load out to 2.6". But anytime you can sling a 130gr pill at 2700-2800, that a lot of performance out of the AR15 frame. You could also install the barrel on a DPMS GII AR10 frame and use .308 Pmags.

I've been following this story since about 2013. Here some articles about some of the cartridges.

View of the polymer case:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...cased-264-usa/

This will make the 7.62 fans happy:

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05...-battle-rifle/

More:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...usamu-264-usa/

Overview of the performance:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...units-264-usa/
ed308 is offline  
Old May 13, 2017, 11:01 AM   #21
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
Train on an AR-10 and AR15 ... functionally no difference. But use the.7.62x51 if wide open engagement is likely, and the 556 if going door to door?
Other than the logistic issue & cost of needing two sets of rifles, ammo and magazines for each trooper, is there a downside? It's virtually a given that no matter which one is in your hands, you WILL run into a situation where the other one would have been better, and its highly likely that could change back and forth several times during a single mission.

There are things where one size fits all, but even those things suffer from the corollary that while one size fits all, no one size fits all perfectly.

If past behavior is any guide, they will waste several years, and a lot of taxpayer money, and in the end, whatever they choose will be more of a political choice than anything else, and it won't satisfy everyone, no matter what it is.

I am struck by the comparison to a much earlier time when a newly adopted round failed to deliver adequate performance in combat. When the .38 Colt proved to be a less than reliable fight stopper, the Army didn't spend 50+ years trying to improve the gun and the round in order to show that they hadn't made a poor choice to begin with.

They almost immediately re-issued the .45 revolvers that the .38 had replaced, and required the next replacement pistol to be a .45 caliber one.

Of course, that was just a pistol, and it was done before there was anything like the tremendous inertia a long established round creates.

We could have had the M1 Garand in a "lighter, more efficient" .276 caliber, and we could have had it with detachable box magazines, 10, or 20rnd.

We didn't get either, because of entrenched, hidebound outdated thinking, personal egos, and the huge monetary investment already existing in the .30-06.

Quote:
And then,for any change,the logistics of NATO have to be considered.
We SHOULD, but we might not. We didn't, the last time. We used our influence (and our pocketbook) to make our new rifle round the NATO standard. Europeans weren't very happy about that, but accepted a deal, where, if they adopted our new rifle round (7.62x51mm) now, when we replaced our 1911s, we would adopt their 9mm Luger round as NATO standard.

Then, just a few years later, the MacNamara defense dept switched us over to the AR rifle and 5.56mm round, Europeans, who had just changed to 7.62 NATO got a bit peeved, as apparently, the US administration didn't bother to even ask them their opinion. Add in the fact that we didn't switch to a 9mm pistol for almost 30 more years and I can see where they felt we were jerking their chains, just because we could.

And, I think you'll see some kind of NATO input about that, in any consideration of replacing the 5.56mm now. (it might not matter, but I'm sure someone will put their $.02 in)

My crystal ball is not especially reliable, (a long tine ago it told me 8 tracks were THE thing), but it sometimes gets things right (told me VHS not Beta), what its telling me now is they will spend a lot of time and money, and in the end, will decide that nothing tested "shows significant enough advantages to justify the cost of changing", and retain the 5.56mm round, though its likely someone will pocket some nice change for a new variation of rifle.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 13, 2017, 11:42 AM   #22
T. O'Heir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,453
The 5.56mm was jammed down the military's (and then NATO's throat) by then Sec. of Def. Robert McNamara. Nobody wanted the thing. The 5.56 was considered to be for air crew survival rifles and nothing else. McNamara took a liking( despite knowing nothing about anything military) to the M-16 and order it adopted. Nobody wanted the M-16 either. Especially as it was still in development.
"...CQB and long range cartridge..." It's all about where you think you'll be fighting. The Brits were working on their .280 Enfield when the U.S. jammed the .308 down NATO's throat 10 whole years or so before McNamara came along. The 7mm was considered the ideal for European battle fields.
The U.S. threatened to pull out of NATO if they didn't get their way. That was the "...We used our influence (and our pocketbook)..." involved. You got the M9 pistol because other NATO countries were PO'd about the balance of trade in military kit between the U.S. and them. Don't think they'll put up with it again or now. It's not a bunch of allied countries just coming out of a huge war any more. It's all of 'em working as a trading block.
"...playing around with caseless or telescoped ammo for three decades now..." Longer than that. HK had a caseless ammo rifle that started development in 1967.
"...mountains of surplus 5.56mm on the market..." Wouldn't count on it. The Third World Debating Club is busy trying to end that market.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count!
T. O'Heir is offline  
Old May 13, 2017, 12:11 PM   #23
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
Meh, if we did change cartridges, any surplus would go straight to the next startup paramilitary rebel group that loosely verbalizes a slight agreement to US interests. And for the next 50 years we will be facing m16s and M4s on the battlefield.

I personally don't think there should be a Change, but if there is I think something in the 6-7mm range.
rickyrick is offline  
Old May 13, 2017, 12:37 PM   #24
peggysue
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2014
Posts: 1,835
I liked the M-16 with 20 round mags I carried better than the heavy ass M-14 or M-60s during Vietnam. Squads/companies are broken into specialty weapons and jobs. Not everyone needs to carry the 308. Just saying.

Last edited by peggysue; May 16, 2017 at 06:41 AM.
peggysue is offline  
Old May 13, 2017, 01:47 PM   #25
Scout
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 510
It think .243 Winchester would be a decent compromise round.
__________________
God bless the U.S. Cavalry
Scout is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11058 seconds with 8 queries