Pentagon Confirms Move to 6.8mm

[rickyrick]

I find the average of 8 rounds a bit shocking. However, it’s common for many incidents to require many shots to incapacitate a person irrespective of the caliber.

Luckily, I have not had to combat a person directly with a 5.56 weapon. I have been fired upon and have returned fire with M2 and M60
I have seen the immediate aftermath of and 5.56 can be quite gruesome.
As davidsog points out, that doesn’t mean the people were quickly incapacitated.

I also don’t have experience with persons wearing body armor. Combat seems to have evolved in recent times, body armor is a pretty new thing in relation to combat in the last 100 years or more. There was a time that 5.56 was “effective enough” taking into account the economy of logistics and carrying capacity of the soldier. Being able to have 20-30 rounds in each magazine for an individual weapon was a huge leap forward.

Personal beliefs and and experiences aside, our soldiers deserve the best possible equipment. However, replacing all we have already used since the 1903 is a pretty tall order to fill.
Many of us long time veterans have our doubts that a viable replacement will happen soon, but we all hope it does.
There is some chest-thumping going on at some level here, but I cannot also in good conscience discount the experience of those who had more face to face contact with enemy combatants.

[5whiskey]

I have to disagree with this, a little bit. I don't think that the belief the Springfield was adequate was wrong in any way.

Every major military went into WWII with a 5 shot bolt action as the primary infantry arm. (other than the British, who had 10 shot bolt actions)

There were a great many lessons learned from Guadalcanal, among them are if you can do better than adequate, you should.

Another of the big lessons was how poorly many pre-war ideas held up in combat. The firepower of the Garand was a clear force multiplier, the big reason we were transitioning to them.

But the Marines fought our first land campaign of WWII before they got Garands. They went to war with what they had, knowing it was adequate, and, they won. Waiting until we could equip them with the best we had wasn't an option. When we could do better, we did.

I can't argue with any of that. Germans had the k98s, japs had the type 99s, the brits had the Lee Enfield... and even the US Army fielded significant quantities of Springfields at the onset of ww2. The Marine Corps was not outgunned at the onset of the pacific war. But...

Thank God for the Garand. Crew served weapons superiority (along with effective doctrine to employ those weapons) is probably a much greater force multiplier than the standard infantry rifle. But this isn't an excuse for not upgrading an "adequate" (mediocre) standard infantry rifle. The 8-round semi-auto Garand was a game changer when compared against the 5-round bolt action Springield.

With all that said, that's not a decree that Sig and it's wonder rifle shooting 6.8 fury will be the same upgrade that the Garand was over the 1903. There are logistics involved. At current time, we are drastically behind in 155mm artie round production. That needs resolving asap. Our javelin inventory also needs desperate attention. Ukraine has received a significant amount of our Hi-Mar ammunition. Modernizing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles rank high on our priority list. Our upkeep of many basic ground war weapons outside of small arms is, I hope at least, perceived by top brass as a much higher priority than giving Sig billions of dollars.

The world we live in today is drastically different than it was back in 2018 and 2019. The notion of forever peace was an illusion. The world is a tinderbox waiting to ignite, and if we can't convince 18-23 year Olds to be hard men, do their civic duty, and join the military, talks of the next generation rifle are mere academic.

[44 AMP]

The notion of forever peace was an illusion. The world is a tinderbox waiting to ignite,..

When was it not??

The only real difference I see today is that travel times are shorter and communication is instant, world wide.

This allows for an increase in the speed of things happening, but its still the same basic things it has always been.

Pride, greed, arrogance, envy, hate, the haves vs. the have-nots, the idea that might makes right, vengeance, the "need to do God's work" (zealotry for any cause) all these and many more are still operating the same way they have been since the stone age, its just that today's tech makes things faster and easier in most cases.

Our upkeep of many basic ground war weapons outside of small arms is, I hope at least, perceived by top brass as a much higher priority than giving Sig billions of dollars.

One would hope so, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. If you talk to the people actually doing the work, repairing and maintaining our stuff, you'll get a different answer than what you read in the mainstream press or in reports from military brass that get released to the public.

[Forte S+W]

Zealotry is the ultimate Red Herring, as most folks who have started wars in the name of God were either total charlatans who deliberately misinterpreted scripture and used said misinterpretation as a means to manipulate others to do their bidding in pursuit of one of the actual prime motivations for war/murder that you listed.

If you need a scapegoat for war, try the Devil. Or if you wish to vilify any particular creed as being distinctively motivational towards warfare, try Nihilism.

[davidsog]

5Whiskey says:

First off, who on earth used 55gn during the GWOT? Was it M193?

Second, there are literally hundreds of thousands of Americans who are veterans of the GWOT. Sure, plenty of them lived in the motor pool, the TOC, did nothing but pull time as guard, and generally never left the wire. Very many of them did leave the wire, and no one person has a monopoly on calling danger close FFE missions, clearing mud huts with the Muj shooting at you from inside, shooting Muj at CQB distances, applying tourniquets to a guy who is freshly missing a leg, and picking up fingers and toes of what was your friend 30 minutes earlier.

I've seen more than 1, 2, or 10 Muj shot at CQB distances, though not always indoors. Of all that were shot with only 5.56, all but 2 that I recall folded like a sack of potatoes with a 2-4 of rounds of m855 center mass. The 2 that didn't fold instantly decided they were not enemy combatants after all (despite meeting that definition prior to being shot). 1 died within moments, the other ultimately lived.

I've no doubts there were enemies shot a number of times that continued to fight. That wasnt my personal experience, but ive no doubt it happened. There are stories of this going on for time memorial. There are plenty of stories of Marines and Soldiers being shot by battle rifle calibers in WW2 and continuing the fight. Same with the Japs and Germans taking 30-06 in the chest and continuing to pose a threat. The average 8 Rounds required to stop a threat at CQB distance is not at all my experience in Iraq or Afghanistan.

All this, but I'm still for a more effective round than 5.56. The chief complaint with 5.56, in terms of lack of lethality, was in distance engagements in Afghanistan. I was only involved in a couple of those, and crew served machine guns and mortars carried the day both times. A skilled mortarman with a m224 in handheld is the bees knees for 300-500 yard engagements on open terrain, or from one hillside to the next.

First of all, there was no such thing as "Regular Army" on the ground engaged in combat in that first tour. It wasn't until sometime after Objective Rhino was taken that anything moved from Uzbekistan to Afghanistan to even have the opportunity to fire a round in anger.

We had M855 and M193, standard issue ball ammunition at the time for the M4. The word came down fairly quickly to unload the M855 and use M193 until we got the 77 grain. The follow on study by Aberdeen confirmed our results no matter which ammunition you chose. It was a function of the velocity and stability of the round at that bullet weight not the composition of the bullet.

[davidsog]

Zealotry is the ultimate Red Herring, as most folks who have started wars in the name of God

Or those who have replaced their God with their politics. In fact, that is exactly what Socialism attempts to do by rejecting religion.

[5whiskey]

First of all, there was no such thing as "Regular Army" on the ground engaged in combat in that first tour.

That's not contested. In fact it's quite common that Special Operations inserts prior to a full scale ground invasion. Still doesn't negate the fact that there were hundreds of thousands of "Regular Army" (and other branches) that were engaged in combat extensively from 2003 - 2008 in Iraq and 2002 - ~2014 or so in Afghanistan. Getting shot at, shooting people, being wounded, earning silver stars and COMs, etc.

We had M855 and M193, standard issue ball ammunition at the time for the M4. The word came down fairly quickly to unload the M855 and use M193 until we got the 77 grain

I admittedly didn't ride into Kabul with the Northern Alliance in November 2001. I came along 2 years later. I never saw any M193 out in the wild... but I won't dispute that it was. Heck there was a M60 mounted to one of the defensive positions in Asadabad in 2003/2004, and those were supposed to have been replaced by the M240 years prior.

[davidsog]

That's not contested. In fact it's quite common that Special Operations inserts prior to a full scale ground invasion. Still doesn't negate the fact that there were hundreds of thousands of "Regular Army" (and other branches) that were engaged in combat extensively from 2003 - 2008 in Iraq and 2002 - ~2014 or so in Afghanistan. Getting shot at, shooting people, being wounded, earning silver stars and COMs, etc.

There were not hundreds of thousands in combat. Sitting in a FOB attending meetings and making Power Point presentations is not combat. Hundreds of thousands in theater maybe for both conflicts. Of those troops, less than 10% are in a unit that is committed to the fight and of those about ~3% will see a shot fired in anger.

Most Casualties in both conflicts were from IED's. Those casualties never fired a shot or even saw the enemy to shoot back.

None of that takes away from our experience or Aberdeen's testing. You can search the forums and the report is posted.

[davidsog]

I admittedly didn't ride into Kabul with the Northern Alliance in November 2001. I came along 2 years later. I never saw any M193 out in the wild... but I won't dispute that it was. Heck there was a M60 mounted to one of the defensive positions in Asadabad in 2003/2004, and those were supposed to have been replaced by the M240 years prior.

I carried an M60 in 1/75th. In combat units the M240B did replace the M60 by then I believe. That does not mean Service Support and Support units did not soldier on as their combat power is not about launching bullets at bad guys.

We had M60E4's as well as the USMC/SEALS.

The Army spent 92 million in 2021 to add even more M240B's to the force, btw.....

https://www.guns.com/news/2021/06/09...0-machine-guns

[stagpanther]

That FN factory tour video is great.

[5whiskey]

There were not hundreds of thousands in combat.

Ahh but that's not at all accurate, there were. There were more than 300,000 ground forces in the invasion of Iraq alone. I absolutely recognize that much of this was support personnel *some of which took wrong turns, failed to maintain their weapons, saw combat anyway, and paid for mistakes with their lives or capture* at any given time there were several RCTs or BCTs on the ground in iraq from 2003 - 2008, usually at least 5. Thats not including the "green zone people" who largely went to meetings. Many Soldiers and Marines did their one enlistment, got out, and fresh recruits stepped in. I work with a man who deployed to Afghanistan his first time in 2012, and he did the same things other direct action troops did before him. He was in 5th grade when I was on my first deployment. Between the invasion of Iraq and repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, plenty of folks got their piece of that pie. Admittedly, I would put the number of door kickers shoot at from within to be much lower. There just simply isn't a place to find that number. Even many guys that didn't have that experience still participated in CQB engagements outdoors.

IEDs did inflict a very large number of casualties. Many who did see "combat" didn't get shot at a whole lot. Many did. It largely depends on where you were, and when you were there. The fact remains, no one has a monopoly on reporting experience from the GWOT.

The Army spent 92 million in 2021 to add even more M240B's to the force, btw.....

As a side note, I hope that DOD does not muck around with the M240 and M80 ammo. Many, even without combat experience, has seen what happens when you take one of the best medium machine guns ever designed and try to scale it down to fire a cartridge with lesser energy. Look no further than the M240 vs M249, and reliability of each.

[Jim567]

Note that when I was in -
Regular Army (RA) meant simply,not reservists.

[Ignition Override]

What happened to the ammo discussion?

Don't get me wrong.

I'm glad to see comments (here) by veterans who have various experiences with fielded weapons.

A younger fellow student (he is 60) in my Krav self-defense class was in an armed escort unit in Iraq.

[davidsog]

Ahh but that's not at all accurate, there were.

Ahh but it is accurate.

Tooth to tail ratio 5.6 to 1 Support to Warfighter or 15% of those deployed are warfighters as members of Combat Arms MOS in a Combat Unit.

300,000 x .15 = 45,000 deployed Warfighters

Of those warfighters in any war, about 2% will actively engage the enemy. Most soldiers might hear gunfire or witness battle in a combat unit but circumstances do not permit their active engagement.

45,000 x .02 = 900 soldiers

So, in a typical war, 300,000 soldiers means less than 1000 will get the opportunity to actively engage with the enemy.

That first tour, we had ~90 guys on the ground in Afghanistan. That first tour recorded just over 1700 engagements with the enemy. Yes, the unit recorded every engagement and DA6'd every engagement.

It is kind of like the Cherries doing a Military Free Fall.....

30 seconds of Freefall = Hours of conversation

There is a lot of legacy built upon the backs of just a few when it comes to combat. That does not negate the experience of those soldiers who fired their weapon at close range nor does it negate our documented experience confirmed by Aberdeen. Of the two groups, the unit whose job was actual CQB probably weighs more than a Clerk Typist who got nabbed to be an extra rifle on a convoy just because the amount of statistical data gained from exposure to CQB. That does not take away from the actions of the Clerk Typist but it seems to me it amounts to an Operator trying to tell a Clerk Typist about proper memo formats. One has more experience and training than the other not as an ego thing, just a fact.

Ask anyone on the Teams about submitting CONOPS and you will get the joke.

CQB engagements outdoors.

No such thing exist. Just because the fight happens at arms length does not make it CQB.

I do see that the Regular Army has tried to morph the definition to include fighting at close quarters. That is not CQB nor does it use the same tactics, equipment, training, or objective. What you learn in 7-8 for MOUT is not what is used in Initiative Based CQB or even older tactics for CQB operations.

Note that when I was in -
Regular Army (RA) meant simply,not reservists.

It refers to those who have not jumped the fence and part of SOCOM. There is very different Command Relationships, Interagency Relationships, funding sources, and authority. Hence, The Regular Army vs those who are not.

Unique purpose of the Special Forces Branch. The mission of the Special Forces (SF) is to conduct special operations across the full range of military operations in any operational environment. SF expands the range of available options to the Geographic Combatant Commander (GCC) in a variety of scenarios where the commitment of conventional military forces is not feasible or appropriate. They provide military capabilities not available elsewhere in the armed forces. They are the only force specially selected, trained, and equipped to conduct Unconventional Warfare. SF operations are inherently Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational (JIIM). These operations are conducted at the operational and strategic level.

[44 AMP]

So, in a typical war, 300,000 soldiers means less than 1000 will get the opportunity to actively engage with the enemy.

This is where I have a problem with your statistics. Not the actual math but the assumptions used.

Show me a "typical war" as you see it.

No such thing exist. Just because the fight happens at arms length does not make it CQB.

Another point I have an issue with. A fight in your foxhole (or in my generation, Charlie through the wire) was absolutely close quarters battle on the most personal level. The fact that it might not meet the current definition of CQB for SOF operators doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't a very real thing.

[davidsog]

Show me a "typical war" as you see it.

Typical War refers to COIN in Vietnam and GWOT. Statistics come from USAJFKSWCS Historian's office.

It is not some mystery. All units turn in a status report every single day. That data is compiled, tracked, and recorded.

A fight in your foxhole (or in my generation, Charlie through the wire) was absolutely close quarters battle on the most personal level.

In your generation there was no such thing as CQB tactics at least not in modern terms. It was developed in the late 1970's after Munich with Operation NIMROD being the worlds first real exposure.

https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/iranian-embassy-siege

I am sure it was close, desperate, and dangerous. That does not make it CQB nor did you ever use CQB tactics. There maybe some crossover in that I am sure engagements happened at room distances. That is not a typical engagement nor is it the same as a unit whose primary engagement is that close quarters environment. That close quarters is not the exception, it is the rule, and a specifically sought after environment.
It would be like me talking about Surface Warfare or Anti-Submarine Warfare. I know about it, I rode on a Sub to work a few times but that does not mean I know all that much about submarines except how to get out and into them, lol.

[davidsog]

Plenty of support…
Additionally, of the 60% of military personnel deployed abroad, only about 10 to 20% are sent to active war zones. On top of that, most of these soldiers are there in a support capacity.

Therefore, they are not combat-ready troops that participate in the fighting. For every soldier that takes up arms in an active combat role, there are at least 8 or 9 in a support role.

https://thegunzone.com/what-percenta...y-sees-combat/

This article puts the percentage of soldiers deployed who mission is combat as 1% to 2% of the soldiers deployed.....

Agrees very well with USAJFKSWCS Historian's Office numbers.....

30 seconds of Freefall = Hours of Conversation