New caliber for the U.S. Armed Forces - where is the road leading?

[simonrichter]

Recently, I've read a lot about ongoing attempts to replace both the 5.56 and the 7.62 with a new general-purpose caliber. I'm beginning to get a little confused with so many different systems being advertised as "the Army's / U.S.M.C. etc" new wonder round: Cased telescoped, caseless, hybrid - you name it, you have it. And that's only the level of the basic technology, we're not even speaking of actual calibers here. Recently, I gathered that anew SIG-made MG in .338 is being adopted by some branch.

Anybody here who knows more about what realistic developments are to be expected here?

[std7mag]

Military contracts are lucrative.
Hence everybody and their brother goes after them.
And if chosen, or even the appearance of a possible contract, a companys stock can go up.
Hence why everyone is advertizing that the military is looking at their new "Whiz Bang".

It isn't that the military is seriously looking to replace their current inventory, but they do continual testing.

[44 AMP]

New caliber for the U.S. Armed Forces - where is the road leading?

The road is leading to the beltway around DC and so far, all that's going on is articles talking about what exit to take, and signs on the roadside saying "eat here!"

The people driving are being paid to drive, and will happily continue to do so until they get to retirement age.

During development of the 7.562NATO some people thought they had the right round (and rifle) to do it all. They were not correct. A few short years later, a different bunch of people were in charge, and they thought they had the right round and rifle to do it all. Nearly. They were also incorrect.

Articles saying "they're looking at this" or "they are developing that" existed before the Internet term "click bait" was coined, but that's what they are.

Usually what happens is a lot of talk, and then another round of looking for the Grail/One Ring of small arms, and not finding it, again.

You'll know someone is seriously considering something when you see Congressional hearings with people screaming about what the new thing will cost.

And, even then its not a sure thing. Also, always remember that limited numbers of troops doing field testing = "Army adopts new....(round/rifle/combat boot/canteen/ etc.)" in the eyes of journalists, who earn their living writing about something...

[Scorch]

It's a dangerous road, and death lurks around every curve. They will find the old decayed carcasses of the 276 Pedersen, then farther on they will find the remains of the 6mm SAW, the bodies of the 30AR, the still quivering remains of the 6.8 SPC, the 6X47 Lapua will be discarded off to one side next to the 338 Lapua and the 338 Edge, and an uncertain future looms ahead. Will the US Congress fund another boondoggle that defies the laws of physics and reason? Find out in our next exciting episode "Death Lies In Appropriation Committees".

But seriously, what does this new boon to mankind promise to our future groundpounders? More weight to hump? More excuses why the enemy can't be killed? I am skeptical.

[44 AMP]

There was one, a few years back, some kind of 5.56 (used M16 mags) on top of a 20mm? grenade launcher with computer programable grenades. As I recall (vaguely) it died because they couldn't make weight (they did get down to 18lbs) and somebody found out that the grenade rounds cost several thousand dollars apiece.

We're willing to spend thousands of dollars apiece for artillery rounds, and even a million+ a pop for cruise missiles, but that much for infantry rifle grenades (even if you could program them to go through the window and THEN explode) was just too much.

I'm not sure, but I think the military no longer does its own development of small arms, they farm it out via "research contracts", and so they get all kinds of things for the money.

At the moment, and for the near term forseeable future, we're not engaging in land combat against the regular military of a nation state. And, while I'm sure there are contingency plans, at the moment there is no valid threat from anyone's organized military (China, and Russia are distant worries right now) facing human wave attacks from a "red horde" looks pretty slim.

The most credible threats on the horizon are not going to be faced with a "new and improved" infantry cartridge /rifle.

So finding something that "works better" than what we're currently using, and at an acceptable cost, has a pretty low priority.

We didn't adopt the .276 Pedersen, arguably a more efficient round, because of the huge investment we had in the .30-06. Whether or not you think the 5.56mm is the right round, we're not going to be replacing that, either, anytime soon, for the very same reasons.

Remember that while research can come up with all kinds of wonder weapons, if they aren't enough better to justify the cost of replacing what we use now, they aren't going to be bought in anything other than small numbers (if that) for testing.

Somewhere I read that the average infantryman's load in WWII was 40lbs, and the average load today is 80lbs. the numbers might be off, but the point is our GIs today are heavily loaded down, and I see lots of pictures of them going into combat with a full ruck load on their backs. Seems to me powered armor like sci-fi "mech suits" might be something we're going to need before long, just to carry what "higher" decides is needed.

That tech (to a military standard of function and reliability) is still a long way off. Drones (flying and ground operating) seems like something cheaper and more achievable. If we go that route, they aren't going to need a new rifle /cartridge, either...

[jmr40]

For general use I don't think 5.56 is going anywhere in my lifetime. I wouldn't be surprised to see a bigger cartridge in 6.5 or 6.8 issued in limited numbers for special uses.

While the 308/M14 is a great rifle and cartridge it didn't do what the military needed. For most uses, for most soldiers the 5.56/M4 does what needs to be done. And while there are times when it is lacking, we don't need for every soldier to carry a bigger gun in every situation.

All of the proposed 5.56 replacement cartridges I've seen discussed do offer somewhat better performance than 5.56 or even 308. But still have the same negatives that eliminated 308 as the primary weapon. Excessive recoil and limited ammo availability.

[mikejonestkd]

Grab a Coca cola and a bowl of popcorn, this topic has been discussed in the forum before

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=602725

[simonrichter]

thanks for the interesting, amusing and witty replies so far. Sorry if that has already been discussed in this forum.

Here is one of the articles I was referring to

[RC20]

You are getting different rounds and application mixed up.

First up in numbers is the general issue carbine. Currently its 5.56 caliber, mostly M4 ala M16 derivative. However, the Marines are moving to a HK 416 varainst (gas tappet no DGI as well as a heavy barrel) , still in 5.56.

This wold be the caliber that is going to be replaced with the 6.8 (new 6.8 not the old one). In this case its a bullet that has all the whiz bang range and lethality (something of a joke with armor piercing ammo) that the 5.56 supposedly lacks.

Keep in mind the M16 came with a 20 inch barrel and that is now down to 14.5 inches and the round was now 62 gr vs 55 (there are heavier gr bullets available in the 77 gr range). With the veolicy and bullet the round tumbled in non armor targets, with some affect. Now its stable again with the higher gr ones more unstable. Phew. And the barrel twist has changed dramatically changing things for performance.

The initial guns will be standard brass while the follow up is telescoping round of one sort or another. How well that all plays out is ???????????

The reality is that in some places range is not a major factor (in village, city and jungle fighting) and others like Afghanistan and Iraq desert, range is very important. One size fits all is impossible, you give up something (numbers of 5.56 carried) to get something (range) with a 6.8.

After than there is a whole series of support weapons that can loosely be called sniper.

Designated Marksman (DM) is a squad and platoon support position(s) that was a bolt action in 7.62 and now moved to semi auto in 7.623 to get 1000 yard range for the infantry units (they lacked with the M4). The M240 also supports that.

Then there are various true sniper types. Those issuance has range from 300 WM to 338 Lapua in a cartridges we are familiar with. There are also long range and anti materiel snipers that use 50 caliber rifles (some bolt, some semi auto).

Currently the move is to 338 Norma. All those choices are nuances of effective, but its the wild west in the flavor or the month. Due to lower numbers they can change though you have to wonder why.

There is a 338 Norma Machine gun coming out. That gets you more range at the cost of ammo quantity. Good or bad? Depends on the fight situation you are in.

Personally my take is the 6.8 will be the future caliber. It has the range to 800+ yards that then other munitions take over (mortars etc)

Reality is that some kind of a quick change barrel weapon that allows you do select the barrel length for the type of fighting would be the real answer in whatever caliber.

Some argue you can't carry the barrels which misses the point entirely. You don't carry the barrels, they are installed at your base by the armorer to suit the fighting conditions.

So if you are going into Faluja, most would be short barrel with some long barrels for the longer shooting support.

If you are patrolling Afghanistan you would have mostly long barrels for the distances with some short barrels for village searching and or fighting.

In fact WWII on our side morphed to that as many companies picked up 45 cal Machine guns to the tune of 50% as they got into more towns, villages and city fighting.

Or if you could wind up in about anything you cold equip with a medium that would do ok for all conditions.

The reality is that the military has always biassed to a round that will penetrate some degree of steel (and or armor). Expanding bullets won't do that, they splatter.

If you are facing Russian or Chinese with personal armor, that makes sense, if you are facing insurgents without it, not so much unless they are in fortification that you do want to penetrate (Faluja)

Its an impossible mix for one single answer though you could bias the riflemen to expanding and the machine gunners to penetration rounds with some riflemen carry of penetrating.

There is no perfect answer. There is always a compromise that some situations it does not work out the best or even falls short. War sucks and that is part of it.

[Jim Watson]

When they finally adopt a new LMG and rifle, they will be so expensive that only the most elite of the elite will get them and there will be catfights amongst the COs to get them to show how elite and important they are. They will probably stay clean and in the locker while the ordinary stuff gets shot.

[603Country]

Years ago I was talking with an old Marine (still alive, from the emails I get), and I asked him which weapon he preferred when he was in Korea. The short answer was that he usually preferred to match the weapon to the occasion. Sometimes an M1, sometimes a carbine, a Thompson, or even a ChiCom weapon. I suppose logic works as well today as it did then. One size won’t fit all.

[DaleA]

This has been the most entertaining thread in a long while.

Everyone should go back and read Scorch #4. It's a hoot.

When all is said and done much more will be said than done.

Oh please, please, please, PLEASE in my next life let me come back as a "Department of Defense Consultant". I will gladly put up with all the jibes as long as I get to pocket the paycheck.

"Consultants are SEAGULLS. They fly in from the coast, eat your lunch and crap all over you."

"Consultants, they borrow your watch and then tell you what time it is."

"Consultants: people willing to fly half way around the world to tell you you're wrong."

I remember for years and years and YEARS reading about how the 1911 .45 ACP was going to be replaced. It finally happen around 1986 but I believe the change was "in the works" from sometime in the 1950's.

Thanks to all the above that contributed to this thread. Like I said initially this has been the most entertaining thread in a long while.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

With what we have been willing to invest in firearms training, most of our military riflemen are unable to use 5.56mm to its full potential. Giving them a firearm that has an effective range two, three, or four times what they can’t hit now isn’t going to change that. The big difference will have to be a dramatic advance in sensors/optics or a serious outlay in training riflemen on par with what we’ve been doing for elite forces.

And even if you get those two things going, then all you have to do is address cost/logistics, weapon life, recoil, massive new range infrastructure, etc.