The "Limitations" of 5.56

[pblanc]

Firearm projectile ballistics is commonly broken down into three categories.

Internal ballistics pertains to the behavior of the projectile while it is still contained within the barrel of the weapon.

External ballistics pertains to the behavior of the projectile while in flight between the muzzle and the final target.

Terminal ballistics pertains to the behavior of the projectile between the time it reaches its target and comes to rest. The use of the word "terminal" does not refer to lethality but refers to the final phase of ballistics. The study of how projectiles behave in ballistic gelatin is still a study of terminal ballistics, even though the gelatin does not die.

[stagpanther]

The use of the word "terminal" does not refer to lethality but refers to the final phase of ballistics.

That's the way I always understood it--in other words "upon impact." In a military environment I could see that terminal meaning lethality is the only important measure though.

[DaleA]

Thank you Bartholomew Roberts---an interesting phenomenon.

[agtman]

The 'Limitations' of 5.56

Do the said, or alleged, 'limitations' of the 5.56mm cartridge explain why we lost Vietnam?

[Art Eatman]

"Do the said, or alleged, 'limitations' of the 5.56mm cartridge explain why we lost Vietnam?"

No more than any apparent superiority of the .30-'06 explained victory in WW II.

Enough silliness, okay?

[44 AMP]

Terminal:
1 a (1) : leading ultimately to death : FATAL

Source: Mirriam - Webster


Ergo... Terminal ballistics, is the ballistics characteristics of a projectile that leads to death of a target. (or the study of such)

Terminal: adj. 1. Of, pertaining to, situated at, or forming an end or boundary.

Source: American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition

terminal:" ending in death; fatal" is the 5th definition listed in that dictionary.

Ergo, I believe "terminal ballistics" refers to the end of a bullet's flight, NOT death.

[marine6680]

I've always only ever seen it used in reference to affect on target, specifically living ones.

Hornady and Wikipedia (and several other sites of unknown, to me, credibility)... All describe terminal ballistics as specifically studying affect on target. With a phrase saying "Terminal ballistics, also called wound ballistics" in their information.

You may be able to use the phrase to talk about affects upon other types of targets, like armor or mechanical equipment, but it very much seems to refer to wounding potential specifically.

Webster has fatal as it's first definition, American Heritage has it further in the list... I am unaware of a specific ordering method used by either. Maybe most common usage is a factor, maybe not... Either way, the same definition is found in all dictionaries, somewhere in the list. Specific placement within a list of definitions is not an indicator of a specific definition of any particular use of the word. It simply means it is a possible meaning for that use of the word. Context surrounding the word narrows the meaning. Primary sources and others use terminal ballistics to describe wounding performance, so that suggests the use of the word terminal to be in the context of fatal.

Basically, primary sources specifically call terminal ballistics, "wound ballistics"... Wounds are meant to cause harm, and for hunting or defense use, that wound is meant to be deadly by design.


And 44, I did not manage to address all points from earlier, but my schedule is making it hard to keep up. Suffice to say, I don't thing your reasoning for the rest of NATO not wanting x51 holds up to the information available.

As I understand the actual events and facts are...

Several of the members seemed to be leaning to intermediate calibers before NATO, with the UK beginning development of an intermediate caliber well before the ammo agreement talks, and having already developed a viable option by the time that happened, and were also working on a rifle as well, a bullpup design...

NATO specifically wanted all members to adopt a new common intermediate round, and I believe rifle commonality was a desire as well, hence the prolific nature of the FAL. x51 was developed as an "intermediate" round... It doesn't really fit the definition, and we consider it a full power round today. But the US brass in charge didn't want no sissy small rifle round. (Phrasing for effect, not an actual quote) So they came up with the x51 round.

So it's not like the other members were pissy about needing to ditch their old rifles and ammo... This was the goal...

The other members got upset when we (the US) showed up and plopped down the x51 and said here you go, this is the caliber... Wiping all discussion and prior testing and development blank... So NATO was forced to addopt a full power round, in opposition to their original goal of an intermediate caliber. To top it off, the m14 was adopted by the US,and it's design was not shared, so no rifle commonality either.


x51 isn't useless though... As a medium machine gun round, it's extra punch is useful against more fortified positions. As a DMR and general snipers round, it's good too. It's effective out to 800yds, and can be pushed farther... But there are more efficient calibers like 6.5 Creed based upon it, that work better for a sniping role inside 1000yds... It's just not a good fit for general purpose main infantry use.


As far as the Vietnamese not wanting to use the m14... It's likely not simply a weight issue, as someone pointed out, they carried BARs... Ineffectiveness is likely the key reason.

The m14 was short lived for a reason... It was not suited to either modern battlefield tactics, and especially not well suited to jungle warfare.

Being long and heavy, it hampered maneuver tactics. Firing x51 made it basically impossible to control on full auto. Full auto was quickly shown to be an absolute necessity. A dogged persistence to maintain the old one shot one kill, skilled marksman infantryman training and mindset... Proved to not be a viable goal.

(A note on full auto... The burst mode on the m16a2 is now considered to have been a bad move, with a shift back to full auto with the m4... I would argue burst does have a limited place, but the option for FA needs to be available as well... And a two round burst would be better than the three... But burst seems to be dying completely, with even forign rifles beginning to drop the feature, if they ever had it.)

[marine6680]

Did agtman actually read the first post?

I used quotes for a reason...


And the issues in Vietnam are well documented... Equipment really wasn't the problem. Vietnam wasn't technically a war if I remember correctly. No official declaration, it was a police action I believe.

So the tactics we're not the same as a war. I believe in Korea, the drive North ended up forcing China's hand, which pushed back any gains, and lead to that situation, so Vietnam was handled differently.

I believe the goal was to push back the northern forces to the boundary, then prevent incursion, and advance back into southern territory... Patrols and a more defensive posture leaves you vulnerable to guerrilla tactics. Which makes for higher body counts, and withering support from back home.

But I am not super versed in Vietnam history... It wasn't a problem with the rifles or ammo, well not after they corrected the original mishandling of the m16 adoption. With the brass in charge being found guilty of criminal negligence, as they purposefully attempted to sabotage the adoption effort, and knowingly did things that would lead to casualties.

[Rob228]

I'd rather hump 400 rounds of 5.56 than 400 round of 7.62. Suppression is a real thing. When it comes to CQB, having been through some fairly extensive training I can say that you are taught to shoot until the threat stops reacting. If someone survives my failure drill worth of 5.56 good on them, I'll stand still and take what I have coming.

[Blade37db]

Lots of good info here.
Say what you want about the 5.56, but to use the phrase "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", the Soviets did go from 7.62x39 in the AK47 to 5.45x39 in the AK74 in the 1970s.

[agtman]

Say what you want about the 5.56, but to use the phrase "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", the Soviets did go from 7.62x39 in the AK47 to 5.45x39 in the AK74 in the 1970s.

Correct ... and they lost in Afghanistan.

[Double Naught Spy]

Correct ... and they lost in Afghanistan.

Nearly everybody has lost in Afghanistan. Suggesting that it was due to the use of a 5.** bullet would be naive.

[ROCK6]

Originally Posted by agtman

Correct ... and they lost in Afghanistan.

Actually, it was dysentery that caused more casualties for the Reds...

While I personally think the 0-250 meter range is more than adequate for 5.56mm, I find it interesting in the last few rotations with some of the coalition forces I'm working with that some are arriving with 7.62 rifles. Several new Germans are showing up with their HK417's and the Turks are all showing up with their MPT-76's; both in 7.62. The HK417's aren't a DMR setup; strictly an infantry rifleman's setup (about one HK417 per 10 HK36's is what I would hazard for numbers).

I will say, I really like the Turk's MPT-76...much more ergonomic than the HK417.

5.56mm is still effective and will likely serve another decade or so...I do wonder if measuring combat effectiveness is a little more skewed than measuring terminal effectiveness...

ROCK6

[davidsog]

So what does the US Army think of the limitations of 5.56mm?

[JohnKSa]

So far, the best funded military in the world, the military that has more aircraft carriers in service than the entire rest of the world combined, has not changed to a different caliber in spite of the fact that the cost of doing so would be essentially insignificant relative to the overall defense budget.

It is true that they are exploring other calibers, and different loadings for the current caliber, but that statement that has been true for many years.

It's instructive to do a search with the terms: 'us military changing calibers' with different years appended to the search. It returns consistent results going back quite a long way, demonstrating that it's actually far more rare to find a period where the U.S. military was NOT looking at different loadings and calibers than it is to find one where they are.

[44 AMP]

And 44, I did not manage to address all points from earlier, but my schedule is making it hard to keep up. Suffice to say, I don't thing your reasoning for the rest of NATO not wanting x51 holds up to the information available.

I think you need a little more information available. You have most of the facts you mention essentially correct, but you are making conclusions I think are not quite correct.

As I understand the actual events and facts are...

Several of the members seemed to be leaning to intermediate calibers before NATO, with the UK beginning development of an intermediate caliber well before the ammo agreement talks, and having already developed a viable option by the time that happened, and were also working on a rifle as well, a bullpup design...

This is correct, some of the NATO members were working on this, and Britain was the furthest ahead, at the time, with their round development and rifles in the prototype stage.

NATO specifically wanted all members to adopt a new common intermediate round, and I believe rifle commonality was a desire as well, hence the prolific nature of the FAL.

While there was a general agreement that an intermediate round and commonality of both ammo and rifles was a desirable goal, each nation was holding out for their version of the round, and the rifle to be made the "standard" and it was NOT a smooth harmonious "discussion" and there was no general agreement. The "prolific nature" of the FAL (and by that I assume you mean the number of nations who adopted it) was due to MARKETING. The FAL was "sold to the world" in the same way that earlier the Mauser was. In the era that ended during WWII, nearly every nation that didn't have their own design bolt action, bought and used Mausers. Partly because the Mauser was an excellent product, but also, and mostly. because it was what was on the market.

We (the US) adopted a Mauser type bolt action(s). And before anyone decides to argue about how the Springfield was different, etc. it wasn't different enough, and we did pay royalties to Mauser, sort of. Mauser never got the money, though it was paid. The SMLE wasn't sold to the world, the British had enough to do arming their empire...Likewise the Moisin Nagant, Carcano, and the other non-Mauser type bolt actions. They armed their native nations, but were not major players in the world market.

x51 was developed as an "intermediate" round... It doesn't really fit the definition, and we consider it a full power round today. But the US brass in charge didn't want no sissy small rifle round. (Phrasing for effect, not an actual quote) So they came up with the x51 round.

The 7.62x51mm was NEVER developed as an "intermediate" round. Never. It was designed to replace the .30-06. To exactly replace the .30-06. Same bullet at the same speed. "Terminal ballistics" were identical. The thing about the brass not wanting a "sissy round" didn't come up, until the 5.56 idea, which was quite a bit later. At the time of development, the US had no "intermediate round" (other than the .30 Carbine) and none was on the drawing board, either.

So it's not like the other members were pissy about needing to ditch their old rifles and ammo... This was the goal...

Yes, that was agreed on goal of the NATO members, but they were still in the fractious argument stage over what round, who's rifle, and WHEN...and there was no clear "winner".

The other members got upset when we (the US) showed up and plopped down the x51 and said here you go, this is the caliber... Wiping all discussion and prior testing and development blank... So NATO was forced to addopt a full power round, in opposition to their original goal of an intermediate caliber. To top it off, the m14 was adopted by the US,and it's design was not shared, so no rifle commonality either.

This is essentially correct.

As far as the Vietnamese not wanting to use the m14... It's likely not simply a weight issue, as someone pointed out, they carried BARs...

That was me...

Ineffectiveness is likely the key reason.

This is a conclusion I disagree with. I simply don't understand how one can make a valid argument about it being ineffective. We fought in the same terrain in WWII with the M1 Garand, which was a bit longer and heavier, with less than half the ammo capacity, and exactly the same ballistics. I defy anyone to come up with a credible source that claimed it was ineffective.

Now, I AM open to the argument that it was not the best suited, and that there were/are better, MORE effective or efficient rounds and rifles, but the fact that it is arguably not the most effective does NOT equal "ineffective". Not even close.

A much more likely reason for Vietnam not adopting the M14 was that we didn't give/sell it to them. Nationalist China (Taiwan) DID adopt the M14, and we sold (or maybe gave) them the machinery to make their own.

The m14 was short lived for a reason... It was not suited to either modern battlefield tactics, and especially not well suited to jungle warfare.

The M14 was short lived for a reason, the reason being the MacNamara defense dept's decision to adopt the M16, and replace the M14 with it.

Being long and heavy, it hampered maneuver tactics. Firing x51 made it basically impossible to control on full auto.

This is a yes and no kind of thing, depending on what one uses for a reference. Again, remember that, at the time, the US references were the M1 Garand, and the BAR (for full auto fire)

I've fired the M14 on full auto, and yes, it is almost impossible to control. Accurately firing the 7.62x51 in a 9lb rifle with a 750rpm cyclic rate is not controllable for nearly everyone, absent extensive training and practice which no military is willing (or able) to provide. Also it was an overstress on the M14 receivers.

Modifications to the M14, done by interested civilians, decades after the rifle was replaced with the M16 showed that the cyclic rate of the M14 could be reduced to about 550rpm, which made the M14 reasonably controllable in full auto fire, and removed the overstress on the receivers. In Service, the M14 never got the chance for that kind of thing to be tested, let alone developed, due to the timing of the ordered adoption of the M16.

Vietnam wasn't technically a war if I remember correctly. No official declaration, it was a police action I believe.

Yes, neither VietNam or Korea had formal declarations of war, and so, technically were not "war" but "police actions".

So the tactics we're not the same as a war.

The tactics were essentially the same as war. The strategic goals were different.

It wasn't a problem with the rifles or ammo, well not after they corrected the original mishandling of the m16 adoption. With the brass in charge being found guilty of criminal negligence, as they purposefully attempted to sabotage the adoption effort, and knowingly did things that would lead to casualties.

As far as I know, the brass being found guilty of criminal negligence, only happened in the court of public opinion. I have never seen, or heard of any individuals being charged, tried or convicted for the shameful things that were done. If you have or know where to find info of someone responsible actually being punished, legally, I'd love to hear it. They absolutely deserve to be in hell, but I've never heard even a whisper of anyone being jailed over it.

I may be beating a dead horse, but I'll repeat that, not being best suited does not mean ineffective, then, or now.

Another point to consider, until the military was forced to adopt the 5.56mm, there was always commonality of caliber between the primary infantry rifle and the medium machinegun, in the US and most other nations.

The envisioned "future battlefield" after WWII was fighting hordes of tank borne Red infantry armed with AKs in Europe. After Korea, it changed a bit. Vietnam tested new ideas and concepts, some of which worked better than others. Current conflict in a vastly different terrain, and not against a regular organized military of the traditional model has us trying different things again. Some ideas, previously discarded, have been found to have utility still today. Some haven't.

and, lastly (for now, ) always remember that the choice, and use of military small arms is not done with anything other than what is best for the mission, from what is available as the priority.

Civilians will choose what works best, but the military is only interested in what works well enough to get the job done, and what is affordable, with a huge bias to what they already have on hand.

They aren't quite as hidebound, chiseled in stone, there shal't be NO deviation" today, as they used to be, but its still there, part of the institutional mindset.

[JohnKSa]

The M14 was short lived for a reason, the reason being the MacNamara defense dept's decision to adopt the M16, and replace the M14 with it.

That doesn't explain why VERY few other countries adopted it and why its service life outside of the U.S. was also very short.

The M14's adoption was the result of the U.S. military cooking the books against the FAL. Compare the service history of the FAL to the M14, both in terms of longevity and in terms of countries of issue and there's really no room for debate. The M14 was issued by 2 or 3 countries for less than 10 years. The FAL was issued by almost 100 countries over a period of several decades.

IMO, a HUGE part of why we ended up with the 5.56 was frustration with the military's shenanigans in the weapon selection process that culminated in the M14/7.62 selection. Had the military done a fair comparison between the FAL and the M14 and not been hidebound to the .30 cal, I think it's very likely the .223 Remington would be just one more smallbore rifle cartridge and the AR15 might have disappeared from the scene.

We would probably have a new rifle (and maybe a new caliber) by now, but our issue system through the end of the 20th century would likely have been an FAL variant in a 7mm caliber.

[stagpanther]

but our issue system through the end of the 20th century would likely have been an FAL variant in a 7mm caliber.

yes yes yes!! just what I've always thought.

[davidsog]

Army sets sights on bigger, bolder, harder hitting bullets

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/new-arm...harder-hitting

After experience on the battlefield during the GWOT with 5.56mm....

That is been a hot topic. After an in depth investigation, no wonder bullet has been found and it appears the US Army is abandoning 5.56mm.

The OAs provide an itemized priority list that should guide scientific JSSAP Science and Technology investments and strategies in order to maximize the financial assets appropriated to the Joint Service Small Arms program elements

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1004913.pdf


NONE of the US Army Next Generation weapons systems are being developed as 5.56mm variants.

In fact, the proposal for NGSW specifies:

2.2.1.2.1. General Purpose and Surrogate Ammunition Prototypes

The Contractor shall develop a common cartridge that can be fired from the NGSW-R and NGSW-AR. Design consideration data is provided in Attachment 3 – Ammunition Data. The Contractor will LAP the common cartridge with the following Government provided projectiles to support Government testing:

9a. General Purpose (GP) per Drawing titled “6.8MM GENERAL PURPOSE (GP)”. The GP cartridge provides all-purpose solutions for combat, limited training, and basic qualification (reference Attachment 3 – Ammunition Data).

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/DRAFT_NGSW_PON%20(1).pdf

[JohnKSa]

Yup, we've been reading reports like that for many years. In fact that DTIC document is almost 3 years old.

There have been something like 5 attempts to replace the M16/M4 since just 2005.

As I said before: "...it's actually far more rare to find a period where the U.S. military was NOT looking at different loadings and calibers than it is to find one where they are. "

Maybe this time they will really make the change, but I think there's adequate justification for skepticism based on past history.

[davidsog]

Yup, we've been reading reports like that for decades.

Yep and the Army has never developed a single weapon based off them until NOW.

The timeline:

2002-2003 - Lots of bad guys with holes in them still standing...Folks get to work looking for a wonder bullet

2003 - 6.8mm first proposed

2003 - 2016 = Lots of 5.56mm wonder bullet promises but nothing pans out when science/engineering is applied

2003 - 2016 = Continued development of 6.8mm as the concept is shared, examined, and improved upon...

2016 - NGSW program underway using 6.8mm as the new GP round of the US Army.

Folks most certainly have been reading something as technology is not stagnant. One day we will have lasers and plasma rifles in the 40 watt range too. In the very near future the US Army will be using 6.8mm instead of 5.56mm based upon our.....including MY experience....on the battlefield.

I think it is good thing for your sons, daughters, and those who serve.

Troubling reports about 5.56's performance were coming back from the field. Several soldiers had been killed or wounded by Taliban fighters who had already been shot multiple times by the Americans' 5.56 M4 carbines. These failures to incapacitate spurred the 5th Special Forces Group (SFG) to design an "Enhanced Rifle Cartridge" (ERC) to outperform 5.45x39mm, 5.56, 5.8x42mm and 7.62x39mm. MSG Steve Holland (5th SFG (A)) and Cris Murray of the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit (USAMU) led the ERC project to provide optimum terminal performance from an M4 with minimal changes to the weapon. Troy Lawton (Chief Ballistics Technician) and Cris Murray (Service Rifle and R&D Gunsmith) of the USAMU assisted in developing loads, and built the rifles for the ERC project.

http://demigodllc.com/articles/6.8-m...-arms-carbine/

[JohnKSa]

Yep and the Army has never developed a single weapon based off them until NOW.

They're requesting prototypes for evaluation.

There are still two options for how this turns out--they could select of one of the prototypes or make the determination that they will stick with what they have, generate a new set of requirements and try again later.

Either way, one thing is certain. Whatever the military selects, the AR-15/M4 .223/5.56 platform in its civilian incarnations is going to remain very popular for self defense and law enforcement given that those requirements are somewhat different.

BTW, the demigod article is 12 years old.

The fox news article is somewhat misleading in that it suggests a cartridge has already been chosen. As I understand the requirements, only the bullet/caliber itself has been specified for the prototypes. Cartridge development is up to the companies that submit prototypes.

[davidsog]

deleted...Thought you were saying the articles posted where not up to date!

BTW, the demigod article is 12 years old.

Yes and simply shows the experience which has led to Army replacing 5.56mm.

[JohnKSa]

It shows why, over the past years, there have been investigations, like the current one, into the possibility of replacing the M16/M4 5.56 combination.

[davidsog]

up. Updates and answers to questions about the 3 year old request for prototypes will be provided by the government as the process progresses.

It is not a thirteen year old proposal. It is based on the SAAC study which is the culmination of all the wonder bullet searches.....

The NGSW-R is the planned replacement for the M4/M4A1 Carbine and the NGSW-AR is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) in the Automatic Rifleman Role in Brigade Combat Teams (BCT).
The Small Arms Ammunition Configuration (SAAC) study, completed in 2017, identified potential weapon system approaches that can address the operational needs. To investigate potential technologies that support these approaches, the U.S. Army Contracting Command –
New Jersey (ACC-NJ) on behalf of U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC), awarded on 05 December 2017 a competitive Department of Defense Ordnance Technology Consortium (DOTC) Initiative 17-01 INIT 1407 to AAI Corporation doing business as Textron Systems Unmanned Systems through agreement W15QKN-14-9-1001 under Section 815 Prototype OTA authority, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §
2371b. This DOTC initiative is for the development and fabrication of advanced lightweight small caliber cartridge prototype ammunition and the development and fabrication of a functional prototype weapon system capable of firing this ammunition.

https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=oppo...tabmode=list&=

6.8mm will be the US Army new General Purpose Round. You are correct that while there have been efforts to replace 5.56mm there has not been a real will to do so on behalf of the United States Army. That was changed by several behind the scenes initiatives directed after Sept 11 to establish a closer working relationship between engineers and operators. This is the result of the efforts a couple of operators who wildcatted a round and the massive engineering effort behind their reasons for doing so to meet that need.