Army Chief of Staff Testifies Before Senate Regarding New Ammo

[Bartholomew Roberts]

As reported by Army Times:*

"(Senator) King asked if the new bullet would require a new rifle.

"It might, but probably not," (Chief of Staff) Milley replied."

So whatever round they are looking at will fit in an AR15 mag well. More interestingly, it seems to indicate the Army is actually serious about changing ammo ahead of a caseless or telescoped solution - though they may just be throwing a bone to King, who has been critical of both 5.56 and the M16.

*Normally, I'd link to the article but the article is complete nonsense for the most part - as if a 5yr old was writing the sex column for Playboy.

[Metal god]

How difficult or costly would it be to just make a stripped lower that had a longer mag well and still used all other milspec parts ? Barrel nut , buffef tube , springs , trigger etc ???

What round are they looking at that will fit in a AR mag well and be more effective T longer ranges ?

[JoeSixpack]

Personally I hate to see them move from 5.56
I think we should stick to a NATO round.

Special units can use what ever they feel they need of course.

[TruthTellers]

Personally I hate to see them move from 5.56
I think we should stick to a NATO round.

The USA is NATO. Whatever cartridge we move to, NATO will move to.

I don't know what the disposition is towards moving away from the 5.56 is in the armed forces, but it's clear that in the 50+ years since the 5.56 was adopted, there are better options available today that are more effective.

Same goes for 9mm, if hollow point ammo is acceptable.

Does this mean the AR-15 platform is going to be rendered to the scrap heap? Probably not, but whatever rifle the military moves to, I think the 5.56 is not the cartridge that it should be using. It's 2017, the US military can do better than 50+ year old technology.

[JoeSixpack]

That's interesting I wasn't aware we got to set the calibers, I thought it was voted on.

Seems like a terrible burden on other nations to have to follow our move to a different caliber.. and I really don't see us moving to anything on pistols.

what else would you suggest? .40? lol.. and we going back to .45? nah.
I mean I'd assume if you're sticking with FMJ the only thing to do is go up in size.

but there is a reason they ditched the 1911's and 45acp long ago.
They wanted more capacity for volume of fire not necessarily for kills but to keep enemies at bay.

I don't anyone at the time thought 9mm was going to be more effective then 45 at killing.



Im not worried about AR15's becoming scarce, to big a market, you can freely copy the design now due to age, it would remain popular.
5.56/.223 ammo might possibly get a bit more expensive but it won't go anywhere either.

If they wanna investigate a new rifle fine, I just think we should stick with 5.56.. or go with .308 but there again they decided to move away from that to 5.56 for similar reasons.. can carry more.. shoot more.

[jmr40]

It's 2017, the US military can do better than 50+ year old technology.

The B-52 is over 50 years old and is projected to be in service for 100 years.

The M1919 machine gun and 50 caliber cartridge is 98 years old and is still cutting edge.

The 6.5X55 was developed in 1891. The 6.5 Creedmoor is it's ballistic twin and is proving to be the best all around long range target shooting and medium game hunting cartridge.

The 9mm and 45 ACP are both over 100 years old. Despite the hyperbole surrounding 45 ACP there has never been any concrete proof that either has an edge in terminal performance. Assuming similar ammo they have always been equally effective. But there is no denying 9mm has the edge in barrier and body armor penetration, it holds more rounds, recoils less and is cheaper to operate. The military proved all this in 1946 and wanted to adopt 9mm then. The 45 only hung on as long as it did for political reasons.

I still haven't seen any cartridge that beats the 5.56 round for the role of todays military rifle. There are other cartridges that do somethings better. But those are not the things we are asking 95% of our troops to do. I'd have no problems with a different round or rifle being issues to special forces who are asked to complete missions not suited for the 5.56 round.

[Andy Blozinski]

Every soldier I've asked and every post I've read from guys over in Iraq said they preferred the .45 and the .308 over the 9mm and 5.56. At least the ones that were actually in killing combat.
http://nation.foxnews.com/military/2...colt-45-pistol

[rickyrick]

The size of the action is the limiting factor. Should stay 5.56 if they aren't going to change the available length.

[manta49]

Iraq said they preferred the .45

Why if they were not using .45 in combat in Iraq etc how do they know it would be any more effective. ?

[TruthTellers]

Why if they were not using .45 in combat in Iraq etc how do they know it would be any more effective. ?

They were either special forces who were able to use .45 pistols or were really old vets who were around at the time the military switched from the 1911 to the M9

[Metal god]

Id ask those same soilders do you really want to go into combat with half the ammo you're used to going with because that's what that means if you are carrying 308 and 45

[g.willikers]

The last time the military changed calibers, it made life easier for the rest of us.
All that readily available surplus ammo on the market.

[manta49]

Quote:
Why if they were not using .45 in combat in Iraq etc how do they know it would be any more effective. ?
They were either special forces who were able to use .45 pistols or were really old vets who were around at the time the military switched from the 1911 to the M9

Do most special forces not use 9MM.

Many readers are under the impression that U.S. special operations forces have returned to using .45 caliber pistols since the adoption of the M9 9mm in 1985. The Army’s Delta Force adopted .40 caliber, but the elite unit is having the same problems as the FBI – the heavier caliber is causing excessive wear problems in guns that were originally designed to be 9mm. Delta is now using 9mm Glock 17s, 19s and 34s.

[johnwilliamson062]

Hopefully something in 6.5mm that fits in an AR magwell. 6.5 PCC would be quite interesting, but the developer is strangling the cartridge by not letting it loose on the market.

[gunrunner1]

I would guess that there are 10s of thousands of dead men who could testify that the 5.56mm and 9mm cartridges are not as ineffective at killing as many of the living say they are.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In a perfect world, people would have to demonstrate a working knowledge of Hitchman's "Operational Requirements of an Infantry Hand Weapon" before even being allowed to comment on military caliber selection. Though I suppose that would cut down on both the amusement and frequency of such discussions.

[cslinger]

The biggest detriment to military small arms is less about caliber and more about projectile construction.

Look at the current state of 9x19 defensive ammo. HST penetrates and expands well, while being only 9mm.

I think the military would do well to experiment with projectile technology vs caliber changes.

Larger calibers have their place but when your modern military doctrine is basically fire and maneuver more rounds to keeep the enemy pinned is probably better then less rounds of a more effective caliber.

Besides I honestly believe it will not be too long before we are relying more and more on drone type equipment for both air and land operations.

[Cirdan]

"That's interesting I wasn't aware we got to set the calibers, I thought it was voted on."

Theoretically, but as Orwell pointed out some pigs are more equal than others. No one's going to stop us from changing.

"Seems like a terrible burden on other nations to have to follow our move to a different caliber.. "

They don't have to, and some nations still use a different cartridge than the 5.56.

Members are encouraged to do so to simplify logistics. Since most of them really depend on the US for logistics, there's an advantage to copying us. I'd bet if we change it will be a while before everyone follows. No one's going to want to change out all their guns.

How about 300 blackout? Simple change to the upper and everything else works.

For pistols, I don't see any real reason to switch from 9mm, especially if they can use +p hollow points. It's not a primary combat weapon.

[44 AMP]

but there is a reason they ditched the 1911's and 45acp long ago.

Yes, there is a reason we replaced the 1911A1 and the .45acp in the mid 80s.
This,

They wanted more capacity for volume of fire not necessarily for kills but to keep enemies at bay.

wasn't it.

It sounds plausible, it may even be true, but it isn't the reason we went from the .45acp to the 9mm Luger. The reason is that we made a deal with the Europeans (NATO) back in the later 1950s, and wonder of wonders, actually kept our word, though it was nearly 30 years later.

Back then, we wanted our (then new) 7.62mm round (aka .308Win) to be the new NATO standard rifle and MG round. Several European NATO members strongly objected.

Simply put, changing to an entirely new rifle & MG round is EXPENSIVE. (switching to a new handgun round is also expensive, but significantly less expensive than changing rifle rounds).

To make a long story shorter, (and leaving out a lot of details) a deal was struck, where, if the Europeans adopted our 7.62x51mm round as the NATO standard (AND paid their own expenses to do it), then WE (the US) would adopt their 9mm pistol round as our NATO standard, when we replaced our aging 1911A1 .45ACP pistols.

NATO members accepted that (though there was still a lot of griping and discontent), and adopted the 7.62x51mm NATO, expecting the US to convert to the 9mm NATO (aka 9x19mm, aka 9mm Luger) in a few years, as the newest 1911A1s in the US inventory were bought in 1945.

We didn't replace the 1911A1 and .45ACP until 1984. And when we did replace the 1911A1, we DID keep our word and adopted the 9mm NATO.

Many Europeans felt that it was a deliberate insult, that we waited so long to adopt the 9mm, particularly in light of the fact that a few short years AFTER they spent their own money adopting the 7.62NATO, the US adopted the 5.56mm as our new rifle round, which lead NATO member nations to have to spend their own money again, to change to the new US standard. To say they weren't really happy about that is a huge understatement. Barking mad and foaming at the mouth isn't a huge overstatement, either.

The M1919 machine gun and 50 caliber cartridge is 98 years old and is still cutting edge.

Sorry, this is slightly incorrect. The M1919 machine gun is the aircooled version of the M1917 water cooled machine gun, and both are .30-06 caliber, not .50 cal. And neither the 1917 nor the 1919 have been cutting edge for well over 45 years now. The 1919 was replaced by the M60 as our GPMG in the 1960s, and the M60 has been largely replaced with the M240 beginning in the 1980s.

The .50BMG (Browning Machine Gun) round was developed in the 1920s, and its gun the M2 .50 cal entered service in the late 20s, and is STILL on active duty as our mainstream heavy machine gun. And for very good reason. No one has yet come up with a gun that is significantly better than the old Browning M2 design in ALL aspects.

As to the Army Chief of Staff testifying before the Senate about the "new rifle round" at this point, it means NOTHING, really. It may make the Senators happy or unhappy, but it means nothing. The round has NOT yet been chosen, and all the Chief of Staff can tell Congress is his opinion about what is under consideration. And while his opinion may carry some weight in some circles, it may not apply to what is eventually chosen, when/IF something is actually chosen.

We are still at the point where there is a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying nothing". Yes, many people, and even some with some influence are listening to our troops requests for a round with better performance, and making public noises to show that they are listening.

However, this does NOT mean that we will adopt a new round. Sure, we ought to, but that doesn't mean we actually WILL.

I remind all of the historical precedent, that the .276 Pedersen had ballistic advantages over the .30-06, and yet we did not adopt it, we kept the .30-06 for nearly two decades after the .276 could have been adopted, which included the entirety of WW II and the Korean conflict. And then, when we did change its wasn't to the .276 round but to a new round, which became the 7.62x51mm NATO. AND which had EXACTLY the same ballistics as the .30-06 round it replaced.

Just because they are talking about it, examining possible candidates, etc., doesn't mean its going to happen soon, or even at all. It COULD, but if it does, it would be a huge change from our historical pattern. And I wouldn't put any great faith in it actually happening in the next few years, no matter what is being said right now.

Personally, I would love to see our sons and daughters provided with something more effective than the 5.56mm the MacNamara defense dept stuck us with half a nearly century ago. I do not however, believe it will happen any time soon.

I'd love to be wrong about this, but I don't think I am. Time will tell.

[johnwilliamson062]

In a perfect world, people would have to demonstrate a working knowledge of Hitchman's "Operational Requirements of an Infantry Hand Weapon" before even being allowed to comment on military caliber selection.

You assume I want to select the best weapon for the infantryman. The infantrymans job is now to take fire until bombs can be dropped on the source of that fire. As touched on in a post above that is going to become more and more true as time passes and drones take a greater role. Why in the world drones with MGs and rifles are not more widely in use is beyond me. It must be some Army Generals worried about their commands becoming obsolete fighting the advances.
I'd like them to pick a caliber where the economies of scale benefits hitting the civilian market would benefit me 556 isn't good for a whole lot.

[amd6547]

When I hear claims that the old vets preferred the 45 to the 9mm, I think of the vets I knew. Men like my father and uncles. They had a pretty good respect for the parabellum they had faced in MP40's and pistols.
My dad was tickled pink when he traded a 22 rifle for a 9mm Radom P35, a pistol which later became my first centerfire self defense pistol.

[44 AMP]

Why in the world drones with MGs and rifles are not more widely in use is beyond me.

It could be a number of things, probably in combination. I'll list some things as I think of them, you figure out which ones might apply, and how much...

Rifles require precision to hit. Machine guns require area saturation to be effective. Both require a (relatively) stable gun platform. And in the case of machine guns they need time on target (firing time). Aircraft, piloted or not, are difficult platforms to achieve this with. Not impossible, just difficult. Today we "easily" (read expensively) over come this with guided missiles and stabilized tracking systems that stay on target no matter what the launch vehicle does.

Range: Rifle caliber machine guns are effective to about 1km. .50cal guns can double this. Guided missiles have ranges measured in miles, often several miles.

There's a big difference between delivering several hundred or thousand(?) machine gun bullets from a distance where its possible to SEE the attacking aircraft and delivering a couple dozen pounds of high explosive from an aircraft out of visual range from the target location.

heavy machineguns, and the ammo weigh a lot. And while the ammo weight goes away when expended, the weight of the guns and mounts is a constant. SO, the aircraft has to be built to handle the weight, and the recoil. Missiles, on the other hand are rockets, essentially recoilless, and the weight penalty only applies until they are fired.

Based on what I've seen, and what I know (though by no means an expert) drones are built as "lightly" as possible to perform their mission. This has always been true of all aircraft, of course, but drones take advantage of a host of things in their strength requirements that manned aircraft cannot.

Example: aircraft have to be strong enough to survive air to air combat loads (especially fighters), drones only have to be built strong enough to carry their intended load, and fly.

And, while missiles are much more expensive than machineguns, #1 they deliver orders of magnitude more "bang" per shot. And while they are not reusable, they have the range to reduce the odds of the drone even being spotted, let alone shot down.

Missiles also offer a versatility that guns cannot. A missile could be solid shot (though that's more than a bit of a waste of money) to a warhead that can take out a bunker or a tank. Literally, a missile can range from "dropping a grenade" to "dropping a nuke" in power, depending on what warhead the EO techs bolt on the missile body.

I'm sure there's a number of important things I haven't thought of, again, no expert, but my point is that drones firing missiles offer a wide range of capabilities and advantages that drones firing machineguns do not.

Although, now I am curious about a drone built with the ruggedness and armament of a P-47 Thunderbolt......and modern engines allowing a good amount of "hang time..." Be WAAAY cool if it looked like the P-47, too..

[bamaranger]

The most recent issue of the "American Rifleman" has an article discussing what appears to be a 9mm hollowpoint round for the military. I have not read article.

[johnwilliamson062]

44AMP,
Much of what you say is true, but it is as flawed as the arguments for building battleships in the run-up to WWII.
Machineguns will be as obsolete as grape-shot once this technology is in place.

Civilian scopes that overcome the stability issues have already been demonstrated for hunting. The drone operator can paint the targets and whenever the reticle is on target it can fire a single bullet with hit rates above 90%.
The drone operator may feel stressed and hurried, but not like someone actually receiving fire.
Drones can 'flank' beyond belief and at incredible speeds.
The rifle has a range of 2000M, but the drone has a range of miles.
The military has, at least based off what has leaked, put their research into heavy weapons and long ranged sniper platforms. A drone can easily get within 300 yards and take a shot from any angle. No need to use a 338 with 24 inch barrel or belts of ammo. A 10" 556 with a full mag can do a lot of damage. 300 yards and the ability to move at several hundred miles per hour give it a decent level of protection against most enemies the US faces.

The magnitudes of damage applied by the missiles is rarely limited to intended targets. It doesn't matter how many target you hit if for every target hit you spawn 5 more.

I don't think it replaces anything completely. I haven't seen much in the way of drones that look to be capable of CQB and there will always be a need for high explosives, but why rifle drones aren't being deployed in an augmented designated marksman role baffles me.

[44 AMP]

Much of what you say is true, but it is as flawed as the arguments for building battleships in the run-up to WWII.

Ok, you lost me here. If its true, how is it flawed?

And, how was building battleships prior to WWII flawed? Because Billy Mitchel proved aircraft could sink one? I suppose looking back now its obvious, but a lot of people didn't think so then, until WWII showed how well an aircraft attack let a battleship "hold water", and the argument that aircraft weren't dangerous to a manned battleship underway, simply didn't.

The invention of the hand held shaped charge warhead (bazooka, Panzerfaust, RPG etc.) capable of burning through the thickest practical armor "doomed" the tank to "instant obsolescence" on the battlefield. Except, it didn't.

someday, it might, but that day isn't here, yet.

TO hold ground, will always take boots on the ground. To just kill the enemy, drones might turn out to be the very thing. Go far enough with the tech, in Scifi, the boots on the ground might be robots, remote controlled or self operating.

I admit not being well versed in drone capabilities, so I accept they can do what you say, and if so, why they aren't being used as flying snipers is puzzling. On the other hand, maybe they are being used that way, and they just aren't telling us???