Military replacing the 5.56?

[jmr40]

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.

True, but my mother jammed lots of food down my throat that I didn't want as a kid either. Mom turned out to be right, as did McNamara. The 5.56 had it's growing pains, but it has proven to be very effective if used properly. The M14 and 308 round was a failed experiment as a general purpose rifle. It fills a role as a sniper round or for designated marksman, but would be a worse option today than 50 years ago for the same reasons it failed in the 1960's.

Not to say other rounds might not be a better option and I'm open to exploring them, but so far nothing better than 5.56 has been seriously considered. Going back to 308 would be a terrible mistake and the 260, 243, or 6.5 Creedmoor wouldn't be any better. It isn't that the rounds are bad, but the rifles chambered for them would be too big and mag capacity too limited. I would think the 6.5 Creed would make a logical choice to replace the current 308 AND 300 WM sniper rifles. At longer ranges it matches or beats 300 WM trajectory with enough power to do the job.

Of the current rounds available the 6.5 Grendel is most promising, but I'd not be surprised to see something completely new and different. While many don't think the 5.56 hits hard enough, no one is willing to go to a rifle with less ammo capacity or any greater recoil. The M-4 and 5.56 rounds aren't nearly the same as what the boys were carrying 50 years ago. Both are much improved.

[marine6680]

Eh... the new rounds out now, Mk318 and 855A1 make the ammo argument a bit moot...

I also think the article was not written with any real knowledge of the state of ammo developments and the AR platform improvements.


The 855A1 has issues with wearing out barrels more quickly, parts breakage, and needs a new type of magazine, which are not issues with the Mk318... Though, the durability issues are said to not be much different than current, and just requires armorer maintenance a little sooner.

Mk318 on the other hand isn't lead free, and its barrier performance isn't as good. Though 855A1 has more ricochet potential, which can be a downside...

They both have similar lethality and accuracy. The 855A1 penetrates hard barriers like cinderblock nearly as well as typical 7.62x51, and steel plate better than 7.62. 318 can handle windshields, doors and wall well, but isn't as good as 855A1 in other barrier tests.

With these rounds... And it looks like 855A1 will be the standard going forward... The need to deviate significantly from 5.56, until more advanced ammo designs are developed, is basically non-existent. You get very good lethality, and better barrier performance, all while retaining effectiveness out to medium ranges. (500yds or so)

So we now have ammo that performs well in all the various criteria we could measure it by. It may not be the best at any one, but it balances them out well, better than many would think could be done.


The current AR design has very good reliability... Unlike the bias against it claims...

And there are some minor tweaks that some companies use in civilian rifles, that would work well if adopted by the military.

Things like a small tweak in the cam pin channel which delays the unlocking of the bolt a small amount, and reduces stress on the whole assembly, and reduces failure to extract malfunctions significantly.

Changing the bolt lugs to having a radius cut rather than the 90 degree angle where it meets the bolt body, would increase the bolt lug strength and reduce the long term stress fatigue, and bolt lug breakage. Maybe even spec a better alloy for the bolt as well.

New barrels, using better alloys than the current spec, can be made easily, which would improve barrel life with the new bullet designs...

And there are trigger designs available now, that seal the components and reduce the already low chances of crud getting into the trigger and causing malfunctions.

Simple drop in armorer level changes, that are cheap and easy to do... and improves the rifle significantly.

Combined with getting current regs and mindsets out of the post Vietnam thinking of... "The rifle is a pretty little princess who needs to be perfectly clean to work reliably." As we all know that is bunk... Would lead to a rifle that is likely to not be surpassed in reliability and effectiveness for a long time.

The whole endeavor above, would require the higher ups to snap out of their old thinking and bias against the rifle design...


If things like the bolt catch, mag catch, and charging handle are points of concern...

Well, some new bolt catch designs out now, make it easier to use, even for lefties.

The Habu charging handle is an interesting concept... Though I would tweak it so that is lifts the locking tab rather than using the spring tension/friction method... Every CH I have seen that uses that method causes a lot of premature wear on the upper, and/or often does not hold well in actual use. Tweaking the habu would be pretty easy and it would work from an operator perspective in the same way, with no button or lever to worry about.

An ambi mag catch would need a new lower... And those exist. We could begin a switchover program with replacements as we cycle out older rifles. Or maybe initially source ambi lowers for issue to lefties, as the percentage is low overall, so the cost would be limited. Then slowly swap out as mentioned before.

Several companies and countries are starting to switch to AR derivatives as their main rifles. Ones that incorporate various tweaks to improve ambi use and reliability. Some are going to piston, which is fine, but not necessary. So overall, it seems many feel the design is a good one, only needing a few changes and refinements.


Either way, there are ways to improve the current platform now, without need to try to develop a new conventional rifle, using conventional ammo tech, that is unlikely to improve anything over the current platform, that the above mentioned tweaks couldn't do... At least not enough to justify the cost of completely switching to a new rifle.

Once we get some more advanced ammo designs, maybe then an accompanying rifle design would be the way forward.

[Model12Win]

They should go back to 7.62x51mm NATO and focus on making lighter rifles in that caliber and go back to training folks how to shoot on semi-automatic like they did prior to Vietnam.

[ed308]

The way I see it, future engagements are likely to be in the Middle East, Korea and Europe. The 5.56 doesn't have the range for the terrain of those areas. It's fine in the a jungle or woods. But when your enemy adapts to the deficiencies of your equipment, it's time for a change. Nothing wrong with AR15 platform. It's the cartridge.

[Dragline45]

The way I see it, future engagements are likely to be in the Middle East, Korea and Europe. The 5.56 doesn't have the range for the terrain of those areas. It's fine the a jungle or woods. But when your enemy adapts to the deficiencies of your equipment, it's time for a change. Nothing wrong with AR15 platform. It's the cartridge.

Not sure where to start here...

First off Europe is absolutely enormous, and it varies from populated cities to barren forests. If you mean Russia, again, lots of barren forest's which you said the 5.56 was good for. As far as the Middle East, the 5.56 has been doing a pretty damn good job over there. Just because the Middle East is primarily barren desert and mountains, doesn't mean that all engagements are across hundreds of yards of barren desert. Korea has jungle, plains, mountains as well as populated cities and towns, what round would be better suited for all types of environments than the 5.56? And as far as being OK for the jungle or woods, but not for other terrains, one would argue the small light 5.56 round is not great in the heavy dense brush you might encounter in the jungle or woods.

For any given situation, there will always be something wrong with the round chosen as there is no round that is the best choice for every situation. While 5.56 has it's shortcomings, it can fill alot of roles very well, and while doing so it allows the user to carry more ammo on hand, and doing so in a light recoiling, accurate, easy to shoot package. Our troops aren't typically engaging enemies past the effective range of 5.56, and if that's really a concern, I'd say just assign more squad designated marksman rather than outfitting the entire squad with new rifles and a new cartridge, which in itself will have it's own set of shortcomings.

[Stats Shooter]

As I said in the OP though,

Nothing wrong with AR15 platform. It's the cartridge.

The cartridge has already adapted fairly well. I know it is just punching paper, but in my 20" national match rifle I shoot the 80 gr match king 3/4-1 moa at 600 yards. At that distance it still has the energy to kill without body armor, and definitely wound.

Most true battle rifle setups are not that accurate in any caliber. Usually the military standard is 2 moa. The average soldier cannot shoot 2 moa at 300-600 yards with battle rifle optics. (I'm not counting spotter battle rifle setups or something similar).

Essentially what I'm saying is that the 5.56 with a 20" barrel and 80 gr bullets will out perform most soldiers abilities. Or the cartridge will outperform a true battle rifle setup.

If I were going back to the red Sea and gulf, and given the option, if I were boarding ships again I would want my mp5, and on the ground I'll take my mk18 again

[jwalker]

Next to most of you guys, I know next to nothing about this subject. I just got my first AR 300 blk yesterday, and I have one other AR in 5.56. I love the fact that with a barrel change, I can switch to 5.56, should I need to. Living in a smaller area, I have seen only precious few brand names of 300 blk ammo available vs a myriad of brands of 5.56 ammo being both available and affordable.

[Road_Clam]

I'm not, nor was ever military so I will not start spouting off, but the fundamental questions remain the same : "What's the primary distance and required ballistics necessary ? If we are talking replacing the 5.56, then we are talking short to mid range yardage ? There is also caliber logistics to consider such as continued supply. There is also obviously reliability issues (which the M16 has had a long history of debate). Me personally after shooting virtually every caliber out there would think something around the 6mm/.243 that could reside in a wildcat cartridge somewhere between the .223 and the 308 casing. I'm not afraid to say I have the ultimate respect for the AK-47's gas piston system function and reliability, but the M16 ergo's are very friendly. So again a variant of both the M16 and the AK would be a formidable platform.

[globemaster3]

An Army "Crimes" article referencing a study underway for 3 years... and quoted as saying troops "could" see a replacement by 2020...

Then the next article citing "industry sources"...

Then the next 2 which are dominated by an AMU developed round and are mostly opinion pieces.

Let's not forget the 6.8 SPC was developed by 5SFG. Was that adopted with its improvement over 5.56 in energy? Nope.

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath on this one.

[44 AMP]

True, but my mother jammed lots of food down my throat that I didn't want as a kid either. Mom turned out to be right, as did McNamara.

We're going to have a difference of opinion here, mostly about the language used. I'll concede that MOM was probably right, but I don't think McNamara was right, only successful. And its not difficult to be successful, if you are not allowed to fail.

The M14 and 308 round was a failed experiment as a general purpose rifle.

Again, a difference of opinion. I don't believe its fair to call something a failed experiment when its not allowed the opportunity to succeed. When the whiz kids began pushing the M16, the M14 was essentially frozen where it was, and no further development occurred. Developments which could have made the M14 better suited to the unrealistically broad range of roles the Army of the day expected from it. They wanted, and thought they got something that would fill all the roles from Tommygun to BAR.

NOTHING is going to do this well, without a LOT of experimentation and tweaking, if indeed anything actually can. The M14 is a pretty good RIFLE. Not a short handy carbine for CQB, though it could have been, if allowed to be, look at the short versions of the M1A popular today.

The M14 proved to be too light to serve as a squad automatic, too light for its caliber to be controllable on full auto by riflemen, resulting in the majority of them having their selectors locked in semi auto only. Modifications done to the rifle to reduce its cyclic rate cured this problem, and the problem of the receiver being too light to last in the BAR role. But these mods were NEVER done by the military, they were done by civilian enthusiasts years after the M14 was dropped, proving it could have been done, but wasn't.

It fills a role as a sniper round or for designated marksman, but would be a worse option today than 50 years ago for the same reasons it failed in the 1960's.

Again, I believe the reason it "failed" in the 1960s was a political decision, NOT the result of failure in combat. The rifle and its round didn't fail in combat, what failed was the idea that the M14 (as it was at the time) was adequate in ALL roles.

The M1 Garand didn't "fail" in WWII, and the M14 is essentially an upgraded Garand. However, even during WWII we had the Tommygun, Grease Gun, M1 Carbine, and BAR, along with the M1 GARAND.

No, I'm not saying we should go back to the M14 (even an improved one) for our basic infantry rifle. We've had half a century of issuing a light handy machinegun to every rifleman, and despite continued controversy over the effectiveness of the cartridge, our military will not go back to a semi auto only arm, or give up the ability to carry more rounds for the same weight.

Peace through superior firepower isn't just a catchy slogan, its what we do, and how we win battles and wars. And we have. IT works. And we're not going to walk away from that, even if it means each individual shot isn't as effective as a bigger heavier caliber.

In some ways the situation reminds me of WWII armor in Europe. The Sherman was lighter, faster, it had greater firepower (more shots, faster) than the Tiger, but couldn't match the Tiger's range and penetration.

We won, because war is more than just tank vs tank or rifle vs rifle, but our troops paid the price in blood for inferior equipment, all too often.

[HiBC]

Disclaimer: I have never been in battle,I'm not a Veteran.
I'm mostly posing questions.
How often is it an issue that the infantry rifle is the primary means of engagement over 300 yds?
With the modern ,heavier bullet ammo,is an enemy hit by one round of 5.56 in the torso or head area at 500 yds likely to be able to carry a fight effectively 500 yds?

How often is rifle fire area or suppressive fire? I understand that makes the enemy seek cover and denies movement,but didn't SLA Marshal or someone estimate about 30,000 rounds of small arms fire get used to kill one enemy,for the most part?
Yes,close quarters,the M-4 is the tool.
Forgive me for referring to youtube combat footage,....But I see some aimed,deliberate fire making casualties. Often,a sniper,SDMR,or grenadier.
I see LOTS of chewing up bushes and treelines ,hollering for more ammo,etc.
But that mostly seems to defensively buy time till the A-10's or other air or artillery support neutralizes the enemy.
Or mounted 50's ,mortars,etc chew up the target.

A good thing about this is,it seems fewer of our guys get killed by using the depth of combined arms.Why send a squad when a Hellfire,A-10,120's,etc will do.

Situations where our troops are isolated and don't have much support Mogadeshu comes to mind,more ammo to keep in the fight trumps 500 yd capability.

I absolutely believe in the importance of the infantry rifle or carbine,but under what specific conditions does having 15 lbs of 7.62 ammo to fight for two days make life better than 15 lbs of 5.56 ammo?
I learned a long time ago covey shooting quail does not work because there is always more sky than bird. Same with shooting area fire.

How often does essentially blind fire in the general direction hit anyone?If you get one hit per 1000 lbs of ammo...how much difference does it make?

If I'm plinking at people,in my experience a 300 yd prairie dog is no big deal with a 5.56. And a 600 yds I can make a clump of bushes and rocks uninhabitable.Its not hard.

If I'm being over run I'd rather have 140 rounds of 556 left versus being down to my bayonet and sidearm because the 7.62 is gone.

[Model12Win]

The obvious solution is to take everything in the arsenal and 300 BLK it. Should be fairly easy.

[FrankenMauser]

I never fired any of the variations of M16 that I was issued, in anger (nor the M9).

But, being in crappy locations and working on the helicopters that delivered and picked up the Army and Marine grunts, I had some opportunities to talk to quite a few of them under various circumstances in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nearly every grunt that I talked to was greatly envious of the SDM's that had the latest-and-greatest versions of the re-issued M14s. And nearly every one of them thought that 5.56 NATO was a waste of time.

A combat load-out for them was only 120 to 240 rounds, and they would have preferred it was 7.62x51mm or even 7.62x39mm over 5.56x45mm.
The conversations that lasted long enough to get to the fact that my load-out, as an Airforce puke hiding behind Hesco barriers and trip-wires, was 360 rounds, usually blew their minds.

Even so, they usually wanted a "bigger bullet" over more ammo.

As a bit of an aside, but continuation of the subject, nearly everyone that I broached the subject with thought the M249 was an absolute was of time, money, energy, and ammunition. To paraphrase the gist of many conversations, "If you're going to be spraying for suppression, it might as well be a bigger bullet that might actually kill something."

Getting into experience with casualties within my unit and our "partners" or "sister units", the idea is further supported. NO ONE shot with 5.56 NATO died (through friendly fire and infiltrated terrorists). Yet everyone shot by anything else did die (except for the three that survived an RPG hit ... but that was mostly luck ... and another story).
It's a small sample size (less than two dozen), but 5.56 NATO was never fatal in that group -- even for two guys shot in the head, point blank.

[marine6680]

Most individual soldiers are not really knowledgeable enough in ballistics and small arms to know what is best or not... Most st work under the idea of bigger must be better... Or are under the influence of rumor and/or inherited bias against the round and rifle from old timers and war stories from Vietnam...

Most guys I ever talked to, carried more ammo than a typical combat load, stashing extra mags wherever they could.


The new rounds we have been using, 262, 855A1, and 318... are said to be very effective compared to 855.

855 was definitely a poor performer, and worthy of criticism, and that has also tainted the idea of the use of 5.56.


If you move into a larger caliber, control during burst or automatic fire is more problematic. If you make the rifle more heavy, that is problematic. The amount of ammo per pound is lower, and that is not ideal.

It would be interesting to see something like a 6-6.5mm based on the 223 case, and have it push an 80-90gr projectile... Designed right, it should minimize the downsides, but that isn't a perfect solution, they still must make compromises due to the case capacity. But the weight per round would not be much higher.

300blk is fine for 300yds and in, but hits at farther ranges are more difficult due to the ballistics.

While we have the current batch of new rounds, a 69gr may have been a better way to go, but the desire to go lead free makes that difficult without sacrificing powder capacity.

[peggysue]

I don't know or understand.
.

[T. O'Heir]

"...as did McNamara..." Except for the troopies who died because the rifle and its ammo was not ready for issue and was shipped to VN without cleaning kits.
In any case, the current variation isn't the same rifle. It's had 50 years of development.
The Sherman was obsolete by 1944. There was a replacement ready for production (what became the M48 Patton tank) that could tangle with the Panther and Tiger(both of which were in short supply and mechanically unreliable), but Patton said it wasn't required. That killed a lot of troopies too.
"...shot in the head, point blank..." As daft as it sounds, head shots are more survivable than torso shots.

[rickyrick]

If a soldier knows of something "different" They will want it, good or bad, just saying.
After 15 years of service, I learned that soldiers are not the best source of technical information. Mostly just regurgitate anecdotal stories and myths they heard sitting around during down time

[44 AMP]

You can pick any (and every) caliber and find stories of failure, and success. One group might have none of the people shot with the 5.56mm die, and another might find everyone shot with it DRT. There's more involved than just the caliber, though it does play a part.

I have yet to find a group of soldiers, sailors, or airmen that didn't have at least some degree of the "grass is always greener on the other side" about something they used. SOMETIMES they were right. Sometimes not.

I'm sure there were a lot of people complaining about lack of combat effectiveness when we switched from the .45-70 to the "smallbore" .30 Army.

The US's first major ground combat of WWII began in August 42. Marines landed on Guadalcanal, armed with 1903 Springfield rifles, and carrying a "basic load" of 40 rnds of ammo, which was expected to last them 2 weeks.

Think about that. Bolt action 5 shot magazines, 40 rounds, and expected to last 2 weeks. Prewar doctrine was that riflemen fired only when they had targets (enemy soldiers), and suppressive fire was the job of belt fed machineguns.

Actual combat experience showed this doctrine to be in need of change. Veterans learned rapidly, and taught replacements to put a bullet into any and everything that could hide an enemy, and supply was chaotic, so the more ammo you had on you, the better off you were.

Eventually these lessons did get back to the training commands in the States, and changes were made, though it never became fully uniform until after the war. We are today, at the opposite end of the spectrum, and each rifleman has a LMG in their hands (assault rifle) to provide their own suppressive fire, in addition to belt fed support.

No army ever has, nor likely ever will been made up of expert shots. Long range performance of a round is lost in the majority of hands. Equipping long range specialists with a superior long range round makes sense. Equipping everyone with that round doesn't, simply due to cost vs. benefits.

WWII brought us the assault rifle, mechanized combat, and the realization that the overwhelming majority of combat shooting by riflemen happened at ranges of 400yards or less, and usually much less. In all terrains. And that more firepower was better than less.

Everyone arms their troops with assault rifles today, it's not just a follow the leader thing, it does work. And its not going away.

Here's a point to remember, how well a round performs and particularly how well it can defend the individual soldier is NOT (and never has been) the military's primary concern. What matters is missions success. Over and above all else. Fewer losses are preferred, but mission success is paramount.

[Stats Shooter]

44 AMP made all good points, and not all soldiers are ballistic idiots like some have suggested, but some are.

My Beretta M9 was junk, it jammed about every 3-4 mags.

Anyway, bullet diameter is the enemy of capacity, and the friend of stopping power (and down range energy if it is basically the same shape as the smaller bullet.)

It is why I prefer the 10 mm over a 45 ACP for a sidearm, because I can have a nice comfortable 15 round mag.

The 30 cal battle rifle is kind of, in my mind, like the .45. All kinds of stopping power and very accurate, but may be overkill in some cases and definitely hinders mag capacity/ ammo capacity.

The other issue then is Cartridge diameter. A .300 want is a nice short action, but it's a fat round. Same thing with the 6.5 creedmore. The bullet diameter is 1mm bigger than the .223 with wayy more energy, but the Cartridge is really fat...11.95 mm at the head of the creedmore vs 9.6 mm for .223. the 7.62x51 fyi is 12.01 mm at the case head so basically, a 6.5 creedmore would take up the same amount of room vertically in the magazine as a .308.

[ed308]

"It would be interesting to see something like a 6-6.5mm based on the 223 case, and have it push an 80-90gr projectile... Designed right, it should minimize the downsides, but that isn't a perfect solution, they still must make compromises due to the case capacity. But the weight per round would not be much higher."

Or a Six5 which uses a 6.5 bullet on a necked down 6.8 case. The 90 gr Speer Gold Dot in a 6.8 would also work. It's become the choice of several militaries using the 6.8.

[Deaf Smith]

Real cost/benefit vs pipedream,it would take a major breakthrough in ammunition technology to justify a change,IMO

100 percent agree. Totally new paradigm would be needed.

Now I might see aluminum case ammo (like CCI) to lighten the load but actually we need far more research in to body armor to lighten that! Body Armor, helmets, combat scopes and dot sights, radios, etc... I'd say we are more likely to find ways to lighten that load than the basic shoulder arm.

BTW... even if we did do that we would still adhere to Gen. Forrest's dictum.... 'get their first with the most'! Thus the powers to be will INCREASE THE LOAD back to the same level.

So were are not 'lightening the load' just increasing the usefulness in battle.

Deaf

[FrankenMauser]

I do agree with others here about the prohibitive cost of implementing a new cartridge, especially if it requires a completely new weapons platform.
I just don't see it happening.
Even if things could get started under Trump, we're certain to have a Liberal president elected in 2020 ... just in time to kill all funding for the program.

"...shot in the head, point blank..." As daft as it sounds, head shots are more survivable than torso shots.

It was a bit odd to see them survive.
One was shot in the back of the head, behind the right ear, exiting above the tear-duct of the right eye, from about 18", by an Iraqi Police infiltrator that thought he was going to hi-jack a helicopter.
He lost all vision and hearing on that side, but never even lost consciousness.

The other was shot in the back of the head from only six to eight inches away, with the bullet exiting the top of his skull. Somehow, the muzzle blast didn't cause more damage. (A "friendly" negligent discharge.) He was in a coma for several months, but survived and recovered with only minor cognitive and visual impairment.

[Jim Watson]

I am with Bartholoemew back in #16.

We can field a mix of 5.56 and 7.62 until a really improved cartridge and gun are ready, maybe a 6.5mm LSAT, maybe Something Else.

A different caliber brass case would not be worth the expense.

[Stats Shooter]

we're certain to have a Liberal president elected in 2020

I agree with everything Frankenmauser said except the quote above. I don't want to start going down this path on this thread, but the odds are overwhelmingly against beating an incumbent, no matter who it is. The press HATED Nixon as much as they hate Trump, he win re-election by winning 49/50 States. Press HATED Bush (W) and he barely won in the EC (273 votes) against Gore yet beat Kerry by a wider margin, but never as badly in the EC as Trump won....The only 1 termers in the last 100+ years, Bush 41 lost because of Pierrot, Ford lost because he pardoned Nixon, and because he was never elected, and Carter lost because he wasn't popular and only won in the first place because he ran against Ford, plus he ran against Regan.

2024 is likely when we will see the next liberal president. Unless you know something I don't?

But back to the subject.....

[HiBC]

When folks get the idea they are going elk hunting,and they conjure up ideas about what is needed in an elk rifle..
How many of them think of the thin air over 8000 ft,and walking uphill and down hill ,sometimes pretty far.
Some folks think "I'm going to spend 99.9 % of my time carrying this rifle,and 95% of the opportunities I will have,a 308 with a 4X will work fine"
And some folks have visions of the monster bull standing out in an open meadow at 680 yards so to be ready the have to show up with a 338 LapuaArctic Warrior with a 6.5 to 20 .And,of course,if they don't see any elk,next year they need a bigger gun.

I am not the guy to say what is needed.It might be that with the ammo tech we have,5.56 and 7.62 are two "golf clubs" that cover most of the shots.

As someone pointed out,WW2we had,in the field,45 ACP handguns and SMG's,the 30 carbine,the 1903/03A3/03A4,the Garand,the BAR,and the belt fed 30's. We also had ammo variants,ball,AP,etc.

The logistics were not assisted by computers.

IMO, the cartridges 5.56 and 7.62 cover 99% of what will get done with infantry small arms,unless there isan ammo tech breakthrough.

Situation,terrain,mission,etc will vary,and is best understood by the folks who have to fight the battle,not me.

It might make some sense to have enough AR-10/SR-25/M110 type rifles in inventory to arm SDMR's,etc with a heavier cartridge as needed.

That's easy compared to changing the cartridge and all weapons.

Every unit still needs 5.56 and 7.62.That supply is there.

Its just linked vs stripper clips or loose rounds.