Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets

[Strip]

Rebarrel the M16s we have?

6.8mm SPC round

Cost a few hundred dollars per gun to switch over and the rounds are still fairly light compared to .308.

Strip

[ROX]

There has been far more politics in the Pentagon on this issue since WWII than most of us will ever know.

When the M-16 came into being and the Viet Nam Era saw it's extensive use, many troops (like my uncle) sent requests back home and GOT 12 gauge shotguns.  He had ditched the wood restrictor and loaded it up with deer shot-bird shot every other shell.

Soldiers since then have complained that what they got were glorified 22's and had just as little stopping power.  Answering an AK-47 with a M-16 seemed like a big let down.

I wish there would be a 21'st Century adaptation of the B-A-R.  The round had huge stopping power and if it had a larger than 20 round magazine--so much the merrier.  The Thompson, at 45 cal, was also a big target dropper and spawned fear into any enemy that heard one firing in their area...there HAS to be a way to deliver a 45 caliber round into a highly reliable weapon that was impervious to sand, dust, and moisture.  This is 2008, right?

Our guys out there fighting terrorists need something better than what they have. 

Also--the 30-0-06 shell is wonderful, even over long distances...why not something in that caliber with a 50 round magazine?


Just my 2 cents.



ROX

[Squire]

FN C1 in 7.62mm NATO, what Canada used to have (and still should). Extremely accurate and reliable. Killing shots at 600 yards are no problem for an average soldier, and the bad guy will not be getting back up.

http://www.eme421.com/fnc1a1.jpg

[APDrone]

Seems this comes under the category of 'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...'

I refer to the origin of the Colt 1911 semi-automatic pistol:

http://www.m1911.org/full_history.htm

"The pistol was designed to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Army, which, during its campaign against the Moros in Philippines, had seen its trusty .38 revolver to be incapable of stopping attackers. An Ordnance Board headed by Col. John T. Thomson (inventor of the Thomson sub-machine-gun) and Col. Louis A. La Garde, had reached the conclusion that the army needed a .45" caliber cartridge, to provide adequate stopping power. In the mean time, J. Browning who was working for Colt, had already designed an autoloader pistol, around a cartridge similar to contemporary .38 Super (dimension-wise). When the Army announced its interest in a new handgun, Browning re-engineered this handgun to accommodate a .45" diameter cartridge of his own design (with a 230 gr. FMJ bullet), and submitted the pistol to the Army for evaluation.

"

Or is this an apples vs. oranges argument?

[lasersailor184]

Exactly how far down the line of combat units do you figure this thing would go?  Are you implying that every unit have a multitude of shoulder arms just in case they might find a use for a specialty weapon???

I'm not suggesting that each infantry man have 4 different weapons he can choose from everytime he goes on a mission.  I'm talking about going back to a WW2 / Korea type squad fit out.

[Hornet33]

The .45 has been one of the most effective combat rounds the US has ever fielded, be it in an SMG or pistol. The great thing about the M1A1 Thompson was the barrel was long enough to provide a great deal of accuracy at ranges out to 200 yards and still provide enough energy at impact to put a person down. Next in line would be the 7.62 NATO / .308 of M-14 fame.

The problem with those rounds however is weight. They are heavy and you can't carry as much ammo as you can with the 5.56mm. Also the problem isn't so much with the caliber of the 5.56 as it is with the type of bullet used. The Army still insists on using light weight armor piercing rounds when the 5.56 would be much more effective with a heavier hollow point round.

[SIK1]

Well I don't want to refute all you ballistic experts, but I have shot a few rabbits with 5.56 55 GR. ball ammo at relatively close range(under 25 yards) and to say that the round just passes through is not correct. It does enter with a very small hole but the exit wound is the size of my fist. Granted the poor rabbit doesn't realize that it is dead for a second or two,( and that would be a definite negative in combat) but the wound is massive and traumatic. The 5.56 was designed to cause trauma, and iirc the biggest gripe against the M-16 in VietNam was that it would jam when it was needed most. Of course they were initially issued with out cleaning kits, because they didn't need to be cleaned, according to the Pentagon at the time.

Also the use of anything other than ball ammo is illegal, as per the Geneva convention. I'm surprised you ex-military types didn't say something. That is why our military does not use hollow points, or frangible ammunition.

[moot]

Are you sure rabbits don't produce a different result than humans?  Re: the fist size exit and internal damage.

[SteveBailey]

M-14

[Saxman]

Garands for everybody!

 

[moot]

Is there a significant advantage to Garands over M14s?

[SIK1]

Are you sure rabbits don't produce a different result than humans?  Re: the fist size exit and internal damage.

Yes rabbits would produce a differant result than humans, but you miss my point. Notice in my initial post I state that I was using 55 GR. ball ammo.

The biggest difference is that the military are being issued armor piercing rounds (M855). If they were issued standard ball ammo (M193) The wounds would be far more traumatic, and would not just pass through. As the original post stated.

You would however still have the issue of stopping power. Something the 5.56 has had difficulty with since it's introduction some forty-odd years ago.

I would also like to correct my statement in the previous thread: The use of anything other than ball or fully jacketed ammo is illegal per the Geneva convention. I don't want some of you more liberal types screaming that we are breaking international law by using steel jacketed armor piercing rounds.

[Shuckins]

Designing a weapon that will work accurately and reliably in every type of combat condition is problematic at best. 

A weapon designed to be extremely accurate requites that barrel, stock, and receiver be fitted tightly with little play between each.  An automatic weapon built to such a standard, such as the original M-16, will be prone to jamming from sand, grit, mud, and cold under battlefield conditions. 

A weapon built to somewhat looser tolerances, such as the AK-47, will work reliably and be far less prone to jamming under similar conditions.  Yet, the AK is a far from satisfactory weapon for engagements requiring extended range and accuracy, a battlefield venue for which the M-16 or M-14 is more aptly suited.

There doesn't seem to be a middle ground here.  Either you can meet one set of requirements at the expense of the other, or vice-versa, but definitely not both.  The only solution to meet the varying needs is to train the troops in the use of both types, and issue the suitable equipment when conditions call it, i.e., when troops are about to enter into street-sweeping combat, or open-field operations.

[SIK1]

Is there a significant advantage to Garands over M14s?

The M-14 has higher magazine capacity, it uses a 20 round detachable box magazine as opposed to an 8 round stripper clip for the Garand. The M-14 is a select fire weapon capable of full automatic fire, the Garand is semi auto only. The M-14 uses the 7.62x51 NATO round, The Garand uses the 30-06. Both are considered some of the finest battlefield rifles ever used in combat.

[68Hawk]

They do give our gunners shotguns to use as a backup in turrets for close range, and I love a good shottie, but I wouldn't want to carry one over here.

First off you'd have problems out at mid to long distance.  Sadr City is about 100m across the road from us.  I don't want to have to spray buckshot over there, or try to place a slug when I could have a rifle.  Up close it would be nice to have 12ga power, but the ammo capacity and loading time could be a hazard in a close quarters situation.

I still like AKs.  The round doesn't fly as well at range, but we don't do much shooting past 300m anyway.  I think if I was to ask for something new I'd call for the 6.8.  It's a good mix of range and power.  Just please give me something other than an M4.  I'm tired of the problems.  There are better types out there.