Military replacing the 5.56?

[ed308]

Polymer case ammo will be a game changer if they can get it right. 40% saving on weight compared to regular ammo.

[kraigwy]

Always hearing about the Army changing calibers. Some where, I have a bunch of old INFANTRY magazines. One says by the summer of 1976, the army will field an 6mm round for the M16s.

These changes are being pushed by congressman who get bought off by gun companies in their districts.

The Army determined a long time ago, that it took 60 ft lbs of energy to create a disabling wound.

The 77 gr 223 round the Army used in their M16 SDM rifles are good for 800 yards. At that distance they develop about 225 ft lbs.

Money would be far better spent teaching soldiers to shoot. Most soldiers couldn't hit a 18 inch circle consecutively at 300 yards anyway. That's the shoulder - to- shoulder measurement of the average person anyway. Its been my experience that when you're shooting at someone they don't expose their shoulder to shoulder chest shot anyway.

Spending all that money for a new weapons system wont fix that. If you can hit with a 223 you wont be able to hit with a 308 or whatever else they come up with.

But none of us get to vote so it doesn't matter.

[marine6680]

When the 77gr and 69gr OTM rounds made there way into inventory... Complaints about the 5.56 round's effectiveness dropped.

The guys using those rounds had good things to say.

But they were too expensive to field for everyone. So now we have the new rounds. Reports are promising, and we may stop hearing as much criticism.


Then when caseless, or telescoping rounds are perfected, we may see a new round adopted, along with a new rifle. Most likely, the round will be 6.5mm or less. Something with a good BC that can carry energy out to 600m would be good for most uses. It would fill the standard rifleman role, DMR, and LMG roles well... Keeping the energy close to 400ft/lb or better if possible at 600yds.

Heck, the mk262 is around 350ft/lb at 600yds, so it seems a realistic goal...

Past 600yds, you are getting outside the effectiveness of even a DMR shooter, those guys ain't snipers... 600yds would be pushing their skills, with what is likely not to be a higher powered scope, a rifle trying to play middle man in long range and close range effectiveness, and their given training level which is not going to be as extensive in long range shooting at a sniper.

Most engagements, even in the more open terrain of Afghanistan, are under 600yds... With a large proportion of them being within 300yds... If not, its usually heavy weapons and snipers, and that is a different story, and different tactics entirely.

They may adopt a larger caliber version for a medium MG, as the role it serves makes having more punch a necessity. Maybe even the same projectile, but in a larger cartridge...

I doubt a 30 cal will be ever be selected again in the future for the average infantry rifle.

I also doubt a one round solution will be likely... Unless we develop a significantly improved ammo tech, maybe a new propellant that can achieve significant gains in velocity without increasing recoil and component wear...

So its likely that snipers and medium MGs will use a more powerful round similar to the 5.56 and 7.62 dynamic of today.

A third heavy MG round will likely be in the pipeline as well.

[Brit]

A truth, posted by Kraigwy.

The Army determined a long time ago, that it took 60 ft lbs of energy to create a disabling wound.

The 77 gr 223 round the Army used in their M16 SDM rifles are good for 800 yards. At that distance they develop about 225 ft lbs.

That's about 4 times 60! Being as the USA never signed any rules on projectiles? Hollow Points anyone?

The Brits have done their best (via the engineers at HK) to make the Enfield Bull Pup work. And they all carry a nice scope. Marksmanship is something to spend more time on? The bullet (projectile) can be made more lethal? Design change? The gripe I hear more often,in the US the battered reissued aluminum magazines, were a piece of SXXX! The new issued polymer mags work great.

In my time in the Royal Signals, bolt action .303, Enfield's. Yes, I am old.
These rifles were accurate, big time. But I could shoot prior to my service.

The training was not the greatest.

[A pause for the COZ]

IMOP it has everything to do with were our soldiers are fighting.
If we are to fight in eastern Europe or Korea. A intermediate cartridge would suffice.
( Even though I disagree with how they have tried to make the 5.56 do things they are not good at. 55gr bullet through a 1-14 20 to 22 inch barrel is what its good at.) But I digress.

If the average encounter is 300 meters or less. Use what we have.

But our fighting in the desert has changed the ratio.
Engagements are starting much farther out. 600 to 700 meters is not uncommon. Need to get out and reach them. AR10 would fit that bill.
Heck i am sure they could devise a rifle based on a new AR design that would just require a upper change depending on fighting need.

[Stats Shooter]

A quick glance at some of the comments on here, plus my own and my own experience, could it be simply that the military is simply trying to overcome training deficiencies precipitated by our modern society?

What I mean is: 100 or even 50 years ago, a good share of young men could shoot before they joined or were drafted into service. "Marksmanship" training was more about weapon familiarization than actually teaching someone to shoot for the first time. For instance, Carlos "White Feather" Hathcock, possibly the greatest sniper of all time, grew up in Arkansas shooting small game to put food on the table with a single shot .22LR with open sights. So by the time he joined the Marines, he was a very good marksman, he just had to get comfortable with a bigger centerfire rifle (Winchester Model 70 .30-06). Im sure many other soldiers in WWI, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam to a lesser or greater extent were in the same boat.

Here in the south, 4H and scout youth marksmanship programs are strong, but we are dwarfed population-wise by states on the coasts where the percentage of participants is far lower.... the Midwest where I am originally from (Western Nebraska) where every boy (and some girls) all owned rifles and hunted/shot regularly.

So, my point? That maybe the platforms are fine, but, as many other posts have pointed out, marksmanship is lacking, and a few weeks on the rifle in basic training isn't enough to ingrain the fundamentals necessary to perform well under fire. And though our soldier is better equipped than some desert dwelling insurgent, that desert dwelling insurgent has spent years eating and sleeping with his AK, and all the best gear may not be enough to compensate for that. So...rather than spending the $$$$ on a new platform, lets spend the tax dollars on range ammo and turn these guys into the regular soldiers of WW2 who with an M1 and open sights could hit a man sized target at 600 yards.

It is sort of akin to how the media blame the gun for crime and not the man, some hunters think they need a bigger gun, or overscope their rifle because they can't shoot...Essentially some folks may be blaming the tool when they should focus more on the man (i.e. our soldiers and their skill) using it.

[44 AMP]

IMOP it has everything to do with were our soldiers are fighting.

I would add that its not just where, but also who, and how.

We've fought in the desert before. North Africa is as desert as desert gets in many places. However, we aren't fighting the Deutsches Afrika Korps.

We aren't fighting formed military units, nor are we fighting someone who's idea of honorable combat is anything like our own. Terrain absolutely plays a big part, but so does the tactics used, on both sides.

The 7.62mm Nato is the ballistic twin of the GI .30-06 load. That's what it was designed to be. Any, and EVERY place the .30-06 performed successfully, the 7.62 Nato will, as well.

I will admit I am not very familiar with the 6.5/6.8mm rounds being discussed as replacements for the 5.56mm, but I have noted that often I hear how they will "work in the AR 10". So, I wonder, what is the actual advantage of those rounds? If it has to be used in a .308 sized rifle, you aren't getting any significant weight reduction only a slight change in recoil and trajectory. This is something significant to civilian shooters, but much less so to the military.

I hear how the 5.56mm will do the long range job fine, with the long heavy bullets (77-80gr range) but, what is the COST for these rounds, and I don't mean just the cash. How much powder space to they use up, in order to be seated short enough to work through the standard AR mags??

and, another thing to consider, what is their performance going to be fired from short barrel carbines?? Because count on it as sure as the sun shines, our military WILL deliver the "wrong" ammo at various places and times.

I hear complaints about the current round (M855 62gr??) showing a dramatic decrease in stopping power effectiveness at 250yds, when fired from the short barrel carbines. Apparently remaining velocity at range is insufficient to cause the bullet to break apart, reducing its effectiveness.

This could be remedied by a change in bullet construction, however, there's no free lunch, and a bullet that breaks up at lower velocities also has reduced penetration....

Our troops today spend a lot of time getting into and out of vehicles, and doing houseclearing ops, and there, a short barrel is a definite plus. But, short barrels don't and can't deliver maximum long range performance, in ANY cartridge.

No matter what they choose, its going to fall short, somewhere, and will be criticized perhaps even demonized if it fails in certain situations.

I do wonder if a better solution wouldn't be to re-evaluate the 80some lbs of gear we load our troops with, every bit of which is considered essential by someone who isn't humping it.

[peggysue]

Opinions.

[ed308]

Another article....

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/04...tion/#comments

[volkstrm]

Sorry T,O'Heir but saying that the Panther & Tiger Tank was mechanically unreliable is just not true. It was only at first when the Germans had to rush them to the front before fully testing them & getting out all the bugs was that true. They where the best of the tanks of ww2 for sure. Just could not make as many as they needed.

[volkstrm]

If I had a say in it first off fix the dame gun! The hell with the Direct Gas Impingement System(Mechanically Unreliable & Obsolete) & go with a Piston System M16/M4. And if your going to stay with a small caliber round why can't we make something like the Russian(7n6) 5.45x39? The "Poison Bullet" not the "Poodle Shooter" 5.56x45 NATO. If not & I think we should go with the 6.8. We sure did spent a lot of cash on it. Its not to heavy has the punch & range will fit in all our weapons that are chambered for the 5.56.Why not go with it?? Our Military does some dumb things IMO. Like what I just said about a piston AR & the 6.8 and going with the sig P320. A polymer/plastic pistol for a Military sidearm. Ok(what if?) you are down to your pistol & out of ammo you can't use your plastic pistol to hit your enemy over the head with it. Just saying. I would have like to see them going with the sig,226.Talking about changing calibers why not go with 357sig for your pistol? You will still have good round count better stopping power & not that much more weight. I know it will never happen but I HOPE that they will go with a piston AR & the 6.8 caliber. That's my take on all this.

[rickyrick]

Nothing wrong with th DI system.
I've seen plenty of 5.56 wounds, they are nasty especially at close ranges.

There's lots of "better" cartridges, yeah, sure there is. No one will argue that.

The real issue is; Are these better cartridges significantly better or do they only make marginal improvements.
Marginal improvement is not worth re-outfitting an entire army.
I don't see anything happening soon.
But, hey the carbine isn't too expensive, when considering the total cost of a soldier.

[ed308]

I like the DI system. More accurate with less parts to break. But my piston AR is a smooth/clean running AR.

[HiBC]

If I had a say in it first off fix the dame gun! The hell with the Direct Gas Impingement System(Mechanically Unreliable & Obsolete) & go with a Piston System M16/M4. And if your going to stay with a small caliber round why can't we make something like the Russian(7n6) 5.45x39? The "Poison Bullet" not the "Poodle Shooter" 5.56x45 NATO.

On cartridges based on the X39 case: Its not an insurmountable problem,but the case taper of the X39 family is much greater,requiring very curved magazines,and a slightly different feed angle.I'm not saying it cannot be made to work,but the mag well on the Stoner design is less compatible(reliable) with the X39 family.Also the dia is larger with the X39 case,so stacking doublestack in the same width is less optimal.

Direct impingment??? More than one way to look at it.The original M-16,VN era,ran into some "good ideas" that went around Stoner's design. A 7.62 NATO grade ball powder was substituted. It was not compatible. It fouled badly,caused reliability problems and contributed to the persistent 50 year old legend that some folks still believe is true about direct impingement.

I don't use cheap combloc ammo,but I suspect the manufacturers have little concern about how filthy,gritty it runs in USA rifles.

So,maybe,if you use lousy ammo,a 50 year old problem caused by lousy ammo is still alive. You are free to believe filthy,crappy ammo is a rifle problem.

But that is not the ammo issued to feed the M-4.With a loving shot of CLP in the BCG vents occasionally,an M4 will burn a lot of quality ammo and keep running.

The STG-58/FN FAL is a piston driven proven design with a rep for extreme reliability.Mine ran very well.
I had it grind to a stop within two twenty round mags of ammo loaded with AA 2520. I have been told maybe with a magnum primer the powder would burn cleaner.Maybe so. The point is,with dirty powder you can stop an FN FAL.

A piston FAL.
Another thing about my FAL. With IMI ammo that had a crosshaired circle headstamp,it would bench 3 round groups on a half dollar easy at 100 yds,iron sights. Then the barrel warmed up at a different rate than the gas system,and the POI would walk.Hot,about 6 MOA.
Most folks recognize rifle barrels work pretty well out of a DI SDMR type free floated handguard. 1 MOA is not unusual.The gas tube does not distract the barrel.

Use the barrel for a piece of pole to hang some moving,rattly piston system on and accuracy reverts to the good old battle rifle standard typical of that fine battle rifle,the Garand.Which,works pretty well.

The word I have heard here on TFL,and from Veterans(I'm not) is that the M-4 has been pretty well fixed for reliability quite some time ago.Any self loader needs good ammo and good magazines and an operator that will help the rifle help him/her.
FWIW,for what its worth,a brand new Colt AR-15 with a SN of 37XX came to our house mid 1960's. Generally,there has been at least one for about 55 yrs.
And I used to buy GI ammo for 2 cents to 3 cents a round
by the thousands when 22 LR was about 75 cents a box of 50.
I do have some time with the rifle.

[Texas45]

Originally Posted by HiBC

On cartridges based on the X39 case: Its not an insurmountable problem,but the case taper of the X39 family is much greater,requiring very curved magazines,and a slightly different feed angle.I'm not saying it cannot be made to work,but the mag well on the Stoner design is less compatible(reliable) with the X39 family.Also the dia is larger with the X39 case,so stacking doublestack in the same width is less optimal.



Direct impingment??? More than one way to look at it.The original M-16,VN era,ran into some "good ideas" that went around Stoner's design. A 7.62 NATO grade ball powder was substituted. It was not compatible. It fouled badly,caused reliability problems and contributed to the persistent 50 year old legend that some folks still believe is true about direct impingement.



I don't use cheap combloc ammo,but I suspect the manufacturers have little concern about how filthy,gritty it runs in USA rifles.



So,maybe,if you use lousy ammo,a 50 year old problem caused by lousy ammo is still alive. You are free to believe filthy,crappy ammo is a rifle problem.



But that is not the ammo issued to feed the M-4.With a loving shot of CLP in the BCG vents occasionally,an M4 will burn a lot of quality ammo and keep running.



The STG-58/FN FAL is a piston driven proven design with a rep for extreme reliability.Mine ran very well.

I had it grind to a stop within two twenty round mags of ammo loaded with AA 2520. I have been told maybe with a magnum primer the powder would burn cleaner.Maybe so. The point is,with dirty powder you can stop an FN FAL.



A piston FAL.

Another thing about my FAL. With IMI ammo that had a crosshaired circle headstamp,it would bench 3 round groups on a half dollar easy at 100 yds,iron sights. Then the barrel warmed up at a different rate than the gas system,and the POI would walk.Hot,about 6 MOA.

Most folks recognize rifle barrels work pretty well out of a DI SDMR type free floated handguard. 1 MOA is not unusual.The gas tube does not distract the barrel.



Use the barrel for a piece of pole to hang some moving,rattly piston system on and accuracy reverts to the good old battle rifle standard typical of that fine battle rifle,the Garand.Which,works pretty well.



The word I have heard here on TFL,and from other Veterans is that the M-4 has been pretty well fixed for reliability quite some time ago.Any self loader needs good ammo and good magazines and an operator that will help the rifle help him/her.

Windham seems to have fixed alot of the things mentioned in the 762x39 version they produce.
Mine functions flawlessly the AK style curved mags does get a few double takes at the range. Fun and accuracy is much improved over the AK. I have as well. Zoom up on pic and see the 762x39 designation on rifle.


Stock photo of the mags.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stats Shooter]

A piston FAL.
Another thing about my FAL. With IMI ammo that had a crosshaired circle headstamp,it would bench 3 round groups on a half dollar easy at 100 yds,iron sights. Then the barrel warmed up at a different rate than the gas system,and the POI would walk.Hot,about 6 MOA.
Most folks recognize rifle barrels work pretty well out of a DI SDMR type free floated handguard. 1 MOA is not unusual.The gas tube does not distract the barr

6 MOA?!? Wow that is awful. I have 2 Position AR's. A Ruger SR 762 .308, and a Ruger SR 556 Varmint with 20" stainless steel bull barrel.

In a field precision rifle match 2 months ago my Ruger SR 556 varmint and hornady 75 gr BTHP bullets (and me) shot a 571-18x. It will hold 1/2 MOA hot, cold, clean or dirty. I also shoot it in bench AR matches, havnt missed the ten ring yet at that distance....It is a piston AR.

My SR762 is not quite as accurate, or at least I haven't found a 1/2 moa load, but my federal GMM clown load, hot barrel is 2" at 200 yards with muzzle brake..... Sometimes 1" but I generally report the worst groups as its accuracy.. also gas piston.

I'm not saying you arent experiencing drift due to the gas system, just that I have not seen it in either of my piston guns. I do also have a couple DI guns

[HiBC]

That is not 6 MOA group size.The string stayed very narrow,but the elevation walked.
It might not happen with all FAL's.

I'm glad you get great results with your piston ARs.I intended no put down on your rifle,and I'm open to learn.They must have done something right.

I dunno.Piston seems a solution to a non-problem to me.

Reckon this is thread drift? Probably should not turn this into a piston vs DI thread. Its been done.

Texas 45,Thanks!! looks good. I did not mean to say a x39 does not work in an AR.
Its been done for a long time. If its working,great!!

[Stats Shooter]

That is not 6 MOA group size.The string stayed very narrow,but the elevation walked.
It might not happen with all FAL's

Ahh, gotcha....The same thing happened in my AR-10, but it wasn't the gun, it was the powder. CFE 223 is temp sensitive and I was making a load for XTC 30 cal matches so some rapid fire is necessary...It grouped well but moved up and right as things warmed up. Tried some of my AK loads using Varget and even smoking hot the poi shifted very little....Went on to develop the load with a temperature insensitive powder and things have been fine since. I'm not saying that was your problem... Just that it isn't always the gun, lots of factory ammo has that issue but no one notices because they either never shoot hot bore, blame themselves, or arnt good enough shots to notice.

[ed308]

Another article discussing the different calibers and options. This one is British,

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/TNG2.pdf

[ed308]

And a more recent article. This subject is getting a lot of press.

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/a...5-700-soldiers

[SIGSHR]

After 50 + years the 5.56 is passe, old hat, yesterday's cartridge. The military is always trying to reinvent the wheel. And use technology to make up for lack of training. Few young enlistees arrive knowing how to shoot ? And how many arrive as skilled mechanics, cooks, etc ? I thought that's what basic Training and MOS training was for ? I went to the rifle range only 3 times in 4 years (1967-1971) and those of us who have served know that the crack shot and gun enthusiast is usually looked at with disdain and contempt.

[Stats Shooter]

those of us who have served know that the crack shot and gun enthusiast is usually looked at with disdain and contempt.

Yes but only in the 'regular' ranks...In my experience, in the special communities they are a bit more esteemed (Navy EOD here) . But when I served, it wasn't just the gun enthusiast who was looked at with disdain by the short time regulars, anyone who supported what the military did, or who believed in the mission was disdaned...Or a brown-nosing suckup.

Nobody likes training, but the problem in some of the regular units in the various branches is you don't train enough to get proficient, and most will never see combat these days so there is no sense of urgency.

[rickyrick]

I got way more NBC suit training than I ever did with firearms. Crew served weapons was better than rifle training.

Funny, when we would qualify with the substitute 25m targets I had to intentionally make bigger groups. They would sometimes not count a ragged hole; sometimes with the accusation of manually punching the hole, lol. I had to make a distinct hole for every bullet.

Some of my earliest memories was shooting 22s I've done it my entire life, at least the years I was capable of holding a rifle. Shooting an M16 was a cakewalk for me.

As I've gotten older, I'm not as good as when I was younger and more in shape.

[gunrunner1]

and those of us who have served know that the crack shot and gun enthusiast is usually looked at with disdain and contempt.

I never saw that attitude while I was on active duty. The crossed rifle expert badge was highly coveted by all Marines, and proudly worn by those who had them.

[noonesshowmonkey]

The hilarity of 5.56x45mm lethality debates never ends. It always dredges up the same crews of old timers that believe that the .308, no no, wait, the .30-06, no no, wait, the .58 caliber musket rifle, no no wait, the cannon ball... Is the only effective round with 'knock down power'. Usually with an abundance of anecdotes about Vietnam or Korea.

Posted by a 23 year veteran of Persian Gulf and OIF operations:

I'm a nurse and a veteran. In the army my role was to produce tactical military intelligence but I also moonlighted as a combat life saver.

I can tell you explicitly and with absolute certainty that wounds to your torso inflicted by 5.56mm bullets will almost certainly incapacitate you if they are even close to center mass and you will die without immediate and likely heroic medical intervention. That is my professional opinion based on real life experience and I am all too happy to tell any interweb warriors who say otherwise that they are full of -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-.

When you hear soldiers talking about shooting people in the chest with 5.56mm rounds and then watching them walk away, what they are describing is called missing.

When a 5.56mm round interacts with flesh many complex physical reactions take place with the most important being formation of a permanent wound cavity which results from the physical path the bullets and its fragments take (these include metal and bone) and the temporary wound cavity which results from elastic deformation of tissue from the shockwave caused by the bullet dumping its energy.

...

[Detractors of the 5.56x45mm] haven't​ had to deal with a dissected abdominal aorta that resulted from an intact AR round that was 9cm away from the blood vessel or a cardiac contusion and subsequent tamponade from a round that passes cleanly through the lung field.

A-zone hits, gentlemen. Get them.

The 5.56x45mm NATO round, especially the 77gr OTM Mk262 and 62gr Mk318, cause some horrific wounds.

The issue at hand in regards to picking up a new cartridge is more about the broadened engagement envelope that troops are encountering in Afghanistan (where we have been at war for over a decade and a half, nearly an entire generation at war). The 5.56x45mm round loses it's ability to produce serious wounds right at or just under 500m, and 500m happens to be a mid-range engagement in the Afghanistan AO.

As veterans of those conflicts have pointed out, the current solution to those engagements are crew served weapons, supporting fires from indirect / air support, and direct fire marksman rifles using much much larger rounds (.300 WM, et al).

The .260 Remmington may be a goldilocks round, but again, is the juice worth the squeeze? Replacing the primary weapon system, all of the supporting kit, and the entire ammunition supply infrastructure to gain... what exactly? Greater lethality at the very edge of the average rifleman's ability to make hits?