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 July 9, 2019, 09:12 PM   #51
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
No alternative to the 5.56 is going to increase that rate or volume of fire.
Which for the most part, is meaningless in terms of suppression. Unless they are totally green, will look around, see you are snapping the trees or air, and maneuver.

Suppressive fire isn't the number of rounds sent down range.

It is the first time the enemy looks out from cover he gets his head blown off and everyone else near him says, "Screw that!".
davidsog is offline  
Old July 10, 2019, 01:08 AM   #52
greentick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2011
Location: Deep South
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog View Post
...
Suppressive fire isn't the number of rounds sent down range.

It is the first time the enemy looks out from cover he gets his head blown off and everyone else near him says, "Screw that!".
lol, so true
__________________
nous défions
greentick is offline  
Old July 12, 2019, 12:34 AM   #53
Ignition Override
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2008
Location: About 20 nm from the Big Muddy
Posts: 2,452
44AMP: Did you read the comments in "The Gun" about how some senior officers with the DoD (allegedly) bypassed almost the entire, normal selection process for the Armalite AR / "M-16"?
Somebody...correct my memory if this wasn't the gist of what Chivers documented.

I don't remember the sources for any of CJ Chiver's info (former USMC Infantry Captain & graduate of Ranger School), but I only read/skimmed over a few of the sections while standing in the 'late' Borders Books years ago. This segment might still be linked on the Amazon website, if I remember ----

Even if his reporting of the US' initial AR selection is seen as very incomplete or distorted (not defending him, just baffled if the basic scenario is valid), the guy has acquired some interesting awards in journalism.

One of you guys/gals has read parts of, or even owns this book.

Last edited by Ignition Override; July 12, 2019 at 12:46 AM.
Ignition Override is offline  
Old July 28, 2019, 05:00 PM   #54
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 6,237
For what its worth

https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-ar...mmunition.html
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old July 28, 2019, 06:03 PM   #55
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,199
So they confirmed that they are going to try to develop a new round?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old July 29, 2019, 12:52 AM   #56
Ignition Override
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2008
Location: About 20 nm from the Big Muddy
Posts: 2,452
How many million rounds of 5.56 ammo does our DoD have stored in the US, excluding overseas?

Maybe it's not only a rhetorical question.
Ignition Override is offline  
Old July 29, 2019, 01:38 PM   #57
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
How many million rounds of 5.56 ammo does our DoD have stored in the US, excluding overseas?
Enough to make it very cheap for you to shoot your AR15 for years to come.
davidsog is offline  
Old July 29, 2019, 01:50 PM   #58
fastbolt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2002
Location: northern CA for a little while longer
Posts: 1,872
Not bad, considering they've been pondering upon it for 10-15 years. Once they've actually gotten the ball rolling, maybe they'll actually have it online and in some warfighter hands in another 10 years.

By the time it's in common military service, the 5.56 will have served our military for probably 60+ years.
__________________
Retired LE - firearms instructor & armorer
fastbolt is offline  
Old July 30, 2019, 02:16 PM   #59
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
Well when the issues with the lack of lethality appeared in the beginning of the GWOT the Army tried to overcome the limitations of 5.56mm.

Years of trying but alas......no wonder bullets existed and the physics could not be overcome.

Quote:
Once they've actually gotten the ball rolling, maybe they'll actually have it online and in some warfighter hands in another 10 years.
IIRC, 2021 is the deadline to be fielded.
davidsog is offline  
Old July 30, 2019, 05:41 PM   #60
fastbolt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2002
Location: northern CA for a little while longer
Posts: 1,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog View Post
...

IIRC, 2021 is the deadline to be fielded.
They may well start putting some in some hands by then, but imagine how long it's going to take to fill the contracts and start replacing old with new at the depot levels ... everywhere.

I'd think having the changeover complete within 5 years, worldwide, would be amazing.

Our military industrial complex doesn't seem to often do "amazing" anymore. Nature of gov work.
__________________
Retired LE - firearms instructor & armorer
fastbolt is offline  
Old July 30, 2019, 09:53 PM   #61
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,436
I’ve disagreed on this issue before, but seems like they’re pretty urgent and intent in fielding this new weapon system.
Since it’s been a while since completing my lengthy service, I look at myself as an outsider now. If it’s better for the troops I fully support it.
A lot of us are skeptical because we’ve heard this before and doesn’t pan out.

I will stand by my stance that whatever the next cartridge will be will still underperform as a military as a military cartridge when compared with its full potential, as does all military cartridges.
rickyrick is online now  
Old July 31, 2019, 07:56 PM   #62
mikejonestkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Brockport, NY
Posts: 3,336
Quote:
IIRC, 2021 is the deadline to be fielded
I have a feeling that this topic will still be up in the air in 2021, heck, I'd put money on the 5.56 still being the default cartridge for the average troops well into 2030 and beyond.
The gov't just does not move that quickly.
__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
mikejonestkd is offline  
Old July 31, 2019, 08:35 PM   #63
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,199
Quote:
They may well start putting some in some hands by then, but imagine how long it's going to take to fill the contracts and start replacing old with new at the depot levels ... everywhere.
Well, and whatever they get in the field will not have been tested properly by 2021. It may not even work very well by 2021. They have to design the cartridge yet to go into a gun that isn't designed yet, both of which need to be function checked together and corrections made for firing under good circumstances, and then the extremes testing will need to be conducted. Of course, this isn't just for one platform either.

They may want to make the change, but being able to do so goes way beyond what they want.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old August 1, 2019, 10:42 AM   #64
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,855
It is now August 2019.

If the Kalahari bushmen bombed Topeka harbor on Aug 7, we wouldn't have a new cartridge design in a new rifle design "fielded" by 2021.

My crystal balls are cloudy... one says if they get even one rifle and a few rounds of ammo in the hands of A troop (which might be a proving ground guard) then someone will claim it's "fielded"....

The other one says we'll stick with the generally recognized definition of "fielded", none will be, the contract will fail to be met, and expire.

Then after securing MORE funding, they begin a completely new round of design, testing, contract negotiations and all the rest, essentially starting from square one all over again.

Which do you think more likely?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 1, 2019, 11:35 AM   #65
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 6,237
I think there is movement and it will happen.

When? Crap shoot.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old August 1, 2019, 06:08 PM   #66
ronl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 1,094
I think the military would be much better served if they simply began to teach each soldier real marksmanship. IF they did that, whatever weapon they put in a soldier's hand would be much more effective. The talk of defeating upgraded body armor is the same old diatribe heard for years and it goes the way of all military development. By the time such a weapon is fielded, someone will have come out with a diamond embedded super polymer that will stop a .50 cal at 5 yds. Then, you'll need a 20mm weapon, or just a 5.56 bullet with the ability to hit where the armor isn't.
ronl is offline  
Old August 1, 2019, 07:59 PM   #67
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
I think the military would be much better served if they simply began to teach each soldier real marksmanship.
The movement and traction to get rid of 5.56mm came from the premier shooters in the US Government Inventory in SOF.

In the end it is not about shot placement, it is about physics. Yes, a temporary fix was to begin teaching Regular Forces to use CQB shooting techniques such as controlled pairs and double tapping to improve lethality odds.

Make no mistake that training band-aid did not and cannot overcome the basic physics.
davidsog is offline  
Old August 1, 2019, 10:00 PM   #68
ed308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
I think there is movement and it will happen. When? Crap shoot.

I'm of the same opinion. When will it happen? Anybody's guess.

Last edited by ed308; August 1, 2019 at 10:05 PM.
ed308 is offline  
Old August 1, 2019, 10:24 PM   #69
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,436
The US has been in a state of war for 222 years, the 5.56 has been in use for 55 years, 24% of that time and 23% of the time we’ve been a nation.
In these high tech modern times, it will still take s fairytale unicorn round and weapon that does really exist yet to replace it.
It is physics, yes... physics led to its adoption... and it’s physics that has kept it in use for so long. Of course there’s better cartridges, but the 5.56 is basically logistically and economically optimal.
I hope we can get this new system, and I hope even more that it never gets used in another war that America doesn’t want.
Who wouldn’t want game rifle power in a lightweight M4 sized select fire package.


Edit to add:
One thing is for sure, we won’t be able to do it if it’s never tried, so this is a good start.
rickyrick is online now  
Old August 2, 2019, 02:31 AM   #70
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,855
Quote:
In the end it is not about shot placement, it is about physics.
Ok, WHAT, in the end, is not about shot placement, but physics??

Stopping power? Or however you want to phrase it, the ability to put an enemy down and out? Seems to me that shot placement is kind of important, if you don't HIT the enemy, I don't think the physics of the round matter much. (Thermonuclear weapons / high explosives excepted)

Quote:
The US has been in a state of war for 222 years,
This has me curious, how do you define "a state of war"??

Quote:
the 5.56 has been in use for 55 years,..
And the .30-06 was in use for 51 years as the service rifle round. We've covered this before. The only thing the length of service tells you is the length of service. It has nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of round A over B when both get the job done to the military's satisfaction.

And that's the big point, The round has to be effective enough to accomplish the mission and be cost effective. AND any new round not only has to do that, it has to do it well enough to justify the COST of replacing the existing round, AND the weapon systems that use it.

This is the lesson you should take away from the failure of the US to adopt the .276 Pedersen. While the .276 was superior to the .30-06 in several ways all of them added together were not enough to convince the powers that be, (at the time) that it was worth replacing the .30-06. For general service use, there is a lot more involved than just new rifles.

You may think the 5.56mm has been in service so long because tis the best thing since sliced bread, canned beer, and girls who smell nice, OR you might think it's been in service so long because the govt is too cheap to buy something better and too obstinate to admit they should have gone with something else in the first place.

My personal opinion, considering how many "upgrades" and modifications we've made to the 5.56 and the M16 over the years, looks to me a lot like "this is what we're stuck with, lets keep trying to make it work better..."

Today, with those people who gave /forced the 5.56 to/on us long retired, their careers and their place in the history books is no longer threatened, so people are beginning to actually look at the fact that there MIGHT be something else, possibly a better alternative.

However, millions and millions of $ worth of inventory has an inertia all its own. Overcoming that takes either a seriously significant performance AND cost improvement, or a top down "Fuehrer Directiv" from the Sec Def or higher.

I don't see either of those on the horizon, ….yet
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 2, 2019, 06:54 AM   #71
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
I hope we can get this new system, and I hope even more that it never gets used in another war that America doesn’t want.
Who wouldn’t want game rifle power in a lightweight M4 sized select fire package.
'Game rifle power' generally indicates a .30-cal something chambering.

'In a lightweight M4 size select-fire package,' would generally indicate less than a 30-cal something chambering.

Which do they want?
agtman is offline  
Old August 2, 2019, 08:40 AM   #72
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,436
Quote:
Which do they want?
the best of both worlds, that’s why they needed to invent a new weapon with a revolutionary new cartridge.


Quote:
And that's the big point, The round has to be effective enough to accomplish the mission and be cost effective. AND any new round not only has to do that, it has to do it well enough to justify the COST of replacing the existing round, AND the weapon systems that use it.
I agree 5.56 is not the most effective possible cartridge, it’s the most effective when considering costs and logistics. The same can be said for any individual soldier item.
The army does change equipment when needed, and for the 15 years that I was in, lots of equipment changed including a few iterations of the M16/M4.
One thing didn’t change, (off topic,but) the M2 machine gun.

As to the 222 years, you can look at it in different ways but I’d suspect that if you count military “consulting” that time would be even longer. But the 222 year figure does include some low intensity conflicts, police action and the military’s expulsion of the indigenous population(which accounts for the largest time period)
rickyrick is online now  
Old August 2, 2019, 12:19 PM   #73
hot chili powder
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2014
Location: Green Bay ( Titletown) WI
Posts: 26
6.8 = .270

If only old "Cactus" Jack O'Connor were alive today to see the 270 caliber become the US military choice for combat!
hot chili powder is offline  
Old August 2, 2019, 04:50 PM   #74
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,435
Interesting take on the issue:


link
2damnold4this is offline  
Old August 2, 2019, 06:51 PM   #75
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,335
Primary and Secondary is a good podcast. There is a lot of truth in Chuck Marsh’s commentary there but I think some of that commentary reflects his experiences and not everyone’s experience. The truth is, you can drill a guy 15 times and depending on SHOT PLACEMENT, he may not immediately go down. The history books are full of walking dead guys who took lots of folks to Valhalla with them. If you don’t hit CNS or get a psychological stop, then the guy has to bleed out and that may be 10 seconds or 10 days depending on a variety of factors.

On a semi-related note, take a look at this article on structured barrels. I’ve got zero experience with it; but if the claims are true it makes the targets for barrel life, rate of fire, and accuracy a lot more realistic.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-every-aspect/
Bartholomew Roberts 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 08:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12511 seconds with 9 queries