U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate

[Yeager]

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20060607.aspx

"The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away."

Sure, tell a guy to "aim better" when he is under immediate threat of violant death.  Why not just provide a heavier bullet that would drop bad guys straight to the dirt with even a grazing shot, like a .308 or 30-06.  What the hell are they thinking anyway...this 5.56 round has been a problem since 1965

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Yeager
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20060607.aspx

"The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away."

Sure, tell a guy to "aim better" when he is under immediate threat of violant death.  Why not just provide a heavier bullet that would drop bad guys straight to the dirt with even a grazing shot, like a .308 or 30-06.  What the hell are they thinking anyway...this 5.56 round has been a problem since 1965

It's all symptomatic of the shift away from the 'marksmanship' skills that were a very large part of infantry training up to about 30 years ago. Now, it's volume of fire and manuver skills that are focused on. Individual long range rifle skills are no longer given much attention in basic or 11B AIT.

EDIT: which is a shame.. the M-16 IS an accurate weapon and can hit reliably at 300-500 yards if the shooter knows how to shoot. I don't think much of it's penetration capability relative to battlefield cover.. but it CAN hit out there.

[soda72]

My only complaint about the m16 is that you have to keep it very clean otherwise it's prone to jamming...

[Swoop]

The 5.56mm is a pansy round and always has been.  Hit someone with a 7.62mm round and they tend to stay still for a while afterwards.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from the article:

"The army had been considering a switch of a larger (6.8mm) round, and the Special Forces has been testing such a round in the field. But a switch is apparently off the table at the moment."


Really?

Cool!


What fires a 6.8mm round?

[Dago]

Originally posted by Swoop


What fires a 6.8mm round?

A 6.8mm gun.  

The U.S. Army is pretty serious about adopting a new caliber bullet for its infantry weapons. Now is the time to do it, as a new infantry rifle, the XM-8, is moving quickly through field testing. The proposed new caliber is 6.8mm (also known as .270). Officially, it's the 6.8mm Remington SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) Special Forces troops were the first to use 6.8mm ammo in combat, and they were impressed with it's better (than 5.56mm bullets) ability to take down enemy troops. This should be no surprise, as the 6.8mm round is based on the 19th century 30-30 round. The 6.8mm round is a modified 30-30 caliber round based on the Remington 30 cartridge (first introduced in 1906). The 30-30 is a rimless round first designed for lever action rifles. Most of those lever action rifles you see in cowboy movies are 30-30s. The 30-30 round is still popular with deer hunters because of its ability to bring down deer (of up to about 400 pounds) or wild pigs (up to 300 pounds) at common hunting ranges (100-150 meters) without producing a lot of recoil, or requiring a heavy rifle. The 6.8mm round has a bullet that's about 40 percent lighter than 30-30 rounds, but about twice as heavy as the current 5.56mm bullet. The superior hitting power can be seen in comparing muzzle energy (1158 foot pounds for the 5.56mm bullet versus 1793 for the 6.8mm round.) At 500 meters it's 338 versus 600 foot pounds. This means that, out to about 600 meters, the 6.8mm round has about the same impact as the heavier 7.62mm round used in sniper rifles and medium machine-guns.

[007Rusty]

grandpa always said ""no lead out no meat in""  bigger is always better

[Shuckins]

Dago,

If memory serves, those muzzle energy stats you just quoted for the 6.8mm round are virtually identical to the century old 6.5mm Swedish cartridge.

That cartridge size has always made a ton of sense, and was adopted in various forms by the military forces of many nations around the world.  Low recoil enhances the shooter's ability to hit his target with a cartridge that is already inherently more accurate than the vast majority of cartridges in use around the world.

Regards, Shuckins

[Maverick]

I had been thinking that a round based on either the .270 or the .243 with a smaller case similar to the 5.56mm would be a good compromise. It would allow better ballistics, better penetration and still allow a good ammunition load to be carried by the troops. Extreme range isn't the main focus for the individual rifleman. Much has been said about it but maintaining a high rate of supression fire allows maneuver against the enemy. Slow fire, even accurate slow fire doesn't get the job done which is why modern armies went to a multishot rifle. If the job could be done with slow fire, the old sharps with a smokeless load would be the premier arm.

[68Hawk]

So far in my experience, the 5.56mm(.223) round is a very good round for an assault rifle.  All in all it is superior to the 7.62x39 round and would be superior to the 7.62x51(.308) round for an assault weapon application.  Remember, a controlled rate of fire is important to these weapons.  

While a .308 would certainly be better at long range, an M16 isnt made to reach out 600 yrds and touch someone.  The article mentioned something about 100m long shots, but thats not even a particularly long shot for my SKS, which is not nearly as accurate at ranged shots as an AR15.  

I go out shooting with my friend all the time.  My 7.62 vs his 5.56 leaves me wishing I had the 800 bucks for a bushmaster.  The 5.56 carries better at longer ranges and does not start to tumble as quickly.  It has a higher muzzle velocity, possibly why the smaller round is carrying clear through soft tissue.  The recomendation that troops aim higher is to get them to impact organs or bone so that the round will fragment.  Aside from a fluke round passing through someones half eaten sandwich, the 5.56 fragments nicely, and combined with the added velocity will shred someone better than a 7.62.  My hollow points do kick up a little more dirt when the impact at closer ranges than my friends FMJ, but its not a lot of difference.  

Something else important is weight.  The 5.56 round is WAY lighter than a 7.62 round, and carrying a full load of ammunition is much less a burdon.  The 5.56 is also cheaper in this country right now, but that is partly due to import restrictions and customs hassles.  Also both these rounds have gone up in price due to how much of both are being fired all over the middle east now.  

Im sorry, but giving our troops a .308 rifle to raid houses with would be overkill and a tactically unsound decision.  There would be much more collateral damage from wall penetrations and our troops might get into close quarters trouble without a decent rate of fire.  I'd rather have an M16 to clear a room than a M14.  Snipers need a .308 or equivalent round, but going back to the M14 or something else like it would be like issuing the 12" barrel bushmaster pistols to our troops in place of a 9mm side arm.  Remember that many of the long rifles of WW1 were actually unsuited to the battlefield, being designed to fire at much longer ranges than the troops ever encountered.  It was conventional thinking on the part of those in offices that ordered the equipment.  The result in arms development was the use of a combat version of the winchester 1897 and the invention of the Thompson, followed by the development of semi automatic rifles and assault weapons leading up to and during WW2 (amongst other developments).  

Im not a member of the military, nor do I play one on TV.  These are my humble thoughts, but I wonder, what do our troops think?  I havn't personally heard them complaining about the 5.56 round or the M16, though I know it is a ***** to keep clean, and have seen how easily it will jam or misload when not properly cleaned and lubed.  Also, I think there are plenty of dead people across the world that can testify that this round is capable.  

So what do you think?

[Maverick]

I still think there is room for an improvement in the ammunition. I think a slightly heavier round will do the job better and still have the advantages of larger ammunition load and velocity.

The idea that troops aim higher seems a bit bogus. The tendency is for troops to fire to high already. Double taps are fine.

[Dago]

Originally posted by 68Hawk
So far in my experience, the 5.56mm(.223) round is a very good round for an assault rifle.  All in all it is superior to the 7.62x39 round and would be superior to the 7.62x51(.308) round for an assault weapon application.  Remember, a controlled rate of fire is important to these weapons.  

While a .308 would certainly be better at long range, an M16 isnt made to reach out 600 yrds and touch someone.  The article mentioned something about 100m long shots, but thats not even a particularly long shot for my SKS, which is not nearly as accurate at ranged shots as an AR15.  

I go out shooting with my friend all the time.  My 7.62 vs his 5.56 leaves me wishing I had the 800 bucks for a bushmaster.  The 5.56 carries better at longer ranges and does not start to tumble as quickly.  

What is the groove and twist count of your .308 barrel? That can have a lot to do with your round carrying accurately to range, and loosing stability, as can the bullet weight and load.

[Squire]

Here is the essential problem:

Armies fight in all terrains. Desert, Jungle, Forest, Scrub, in winter, summer, spring and fall. They fight in urban and rural areas. They fight other armies, terrorists, and other organisations large and small. They fight all out wars, counter-insurgency, anti drug raids, they conduct occupation and security duty, ect, ect, ect.

They deploy airborne and armor forces, light infantry, heliborne infantry, commandos, naval forces (marines), security troops...

....now find a rifle/caliber that will work the best in ALL those situations.

Good luck. It hasnt been done since gunpowder was invented, and it never will be. Finding a "middle ground" will never silence the critics over whatever you chose, 7.62 x 39, 5.56, .308, whatever.

[Hangtime]

LOL!

Here we go again.

We were at the 200 yard posts about a month back. We hauled out some sierra mist 2L bottles filled with water. I had my STG58C (FAL), the other two guys were equipped with bushmasters. Nice little mouse guns. All of us shooting mil surp FMJ. Two of the bottles were placed in front of the telephone pole that was laid out on the ground across the target frame bases. The other two I put behind the phone pole 'for later'. We stapled up some 9" targets to 'zero', then the guys were gonna shoot the bottles.

I put a coupla mags through my paper target to settle in.. the other two guys did the same then happily popped their sierra mist bottles. The first hits were kinda neet.. the big gout of spray was unmistakeable. One skittered sideways, and he kept poppin it till it went over the pole.

Then I said "My Turn". They said.. 'well.. lets get the other two out from.. '

"CARUMP*CARUMP*

Two big splashes. Nailed the two full ones... right through the pole.

I pulled the FAL down to rest and smiled. "Ain't no hiding from a .308 Battle Rifle.... but those lil mouseguns sure look like fun. Do yer girfriends like 'em?'

hehehehhehhe. I love being a miserable old salamander.

[Dago]

Originally posted by Hangtime
LOL!

Here we go again.

We were at the 200 yard posts about a month back. We hauled out some sierra mist 2L bottles filled with water. I had my STG58C (FAL), the other two guys were equipped with bushmasters. Nice little mouse guns. All of us shooting mil surp FMJ. Two of the bottles were placed in front of the telephone pole that was laid out on the ground across the target frame bases. The other two I put behind the phone pole 'for later'. We stapled up some 9" targets to 'zero', then the guys were gonna shoot the bottles.

I put a coupla mags through my paper target to settle in.. the other two guys did the same then happily popped their sierra mist bottles. The first hits were kinda neet.. the big gout of spray was unmistakeable. One skittered sideways, and he kept poppin it till it went over the pole.

Then I said "My Turn". They said.. 'well.. lets get the other two out from.. '

"CARUMP*CARUMP*

Two big splashes. Nailed the two full ones... right through the pole.

I pulled the FAL down to rest and smiled. "Ain't no hiding from a .308 Battle Rifle.... but those lil mouseguns sure look like fun. Do yer girfriends like 'em?'

hehehehhehhe. I love being a miserable old salamander.

LOL , you show off.

Hang, what milsurp you shooting now?

I have plenty Port and Aussie left, and a grand of Belgian, but thinking about picking up some of the SA on the market.  Supply of milsurp 7.62 is drying up.

[Chairboy]

What are the relative bullet weights?  With standard powder loads, what is the difference in weight between a thousand of each of the calibers?

Just a thought, wonder if there might be an extra datapoint to this.  If the smaller caliber works fine in a single shot 80% of the time and there's a 30% reduction in weight, then you can carry more effective firepower for the equivalent weight.

A thought...