Should the 5.56 be replaced?

[wtsimpson7]

Well, if the rifle that's firing the 5.56 x 45 round has a good muzzle velocity, then this standard NATO round is good enough for most applications. I think that the 5.56 is good in that it is so light, so troops can carry more of them. On the other hand, the 6.8 seems like a better bullet; but I have never personally fired a 6.8.

 

[Gremlin29]

There's 6.5 MPC that should be considered. You get better ballistics which are comparable to the 6.8 without any of the drawbacks. Downfall issues with the 6.8 are conversion costs. You need to convert mag followers, need new bolt, new barrel and a 30 round mag now only holds 25 rounds so less rounds in a basic load. And then there's the SAW, same issues as M4 PLUS the existing ammo links wont work.

6.5 MPC only requires a barrel change. Uses existing M4 mags without alterations, same mag cap, same bolt. And as an additional benefit the 6.5 MPC case fits the existing SAW links so, you only need change the barrel on the SAW.

Our procurement system is screwed up so they will probably continue to use the 5.56 for many years to come. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Marine Corps adopt their own design and stamp it with the Marine Corps registered trademark ala their current uniform. nfloorl:

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Well, if the rifle that's firing the 5.56 x 45 round has a good muzzle velocity, then this standard NATO round is good enough for most applications. I think that the 5.56 is good in that it is so light, so troops can carry more of them. On the other hand, the 6.8 seems like a better bullet; but I have never personally fired a 6.8.

The 5.56 is good overall but there is room for improvement. The 6.8 or 6.5 should be the next step...the ultimate assault rifle cartridge!:nutkick

There's 6.5 MPC that should be considered. You get better ballistics which are comparable to the 6.8 without any of the drawbacks. Downfall issues with the 6.8 are conversion costs. You need to convert mag followers, need new bolt, new barrel and a 30 round mag now only holds 25 rounds so less rounds in a basic load. And then there's the SAW, same issues as M4 PLUS the existing ammo links wont work.

6.5 MPC only requires a barrel change. Uses existing M4 mags without alterations, same mag cap, same bolt. And as an additional benefit the 6.5 MPC case fits the existing SAW links so, you only need change the barrel on the SAW.

Our procurement system is screwed up so they will probably continue to use the 5.56 for many years to come. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Marine Corps adopt their own design and stamp it with the Marine Corps registered trademark ala their current uniform. nfloorl:

Don't get me started on our procurement system. I hope they get things in order so they can buy new weapons and bullets for once.

By the way whats the difference between the normal 6.5 and the 6.5 MPC? Its has better ballistics, as good as the 6.8 you say?

 

[fulgur]

The 5.56 is good overall but there is room for improvement. The 6.8 or 6.5 should be the next step...the ultimate assault rifle cartridge!:nutkick



Don't get me started on our procurement system. I hope they get things in order so they can buy new weapons and bullets for once.

By the way whats the difference between the normal 6.5 and the 6.5 MPC? Its has better ballistics, as good as the 6.8 you say?

From what I have read; the 6.5MPC is just a necked up 5.56mm cartridge, while the 6.5Grendel is a larger round and cartridge. Just off the top of my head.

There's a few posts going around saying that the weight difference between 7.62mm and 5.56mm is a problem. I spent all of last year using the MAG58 (M240) in a LSW role (under the new HNA scheme). Between 800-1000 rounds was my usual load. Now that is a difference in weight! The half a kilogram difference between 150 rounds of 7.62 and 5.56 is really neither here nor there for a rifleman.

In conventional (read: usual ADF training terrain) I would guess that single, well aimed shots using 7.62mm ammunition would prove to be much more effective. In a room clearance scenario, 5.56mm ammunition would probably prove its worth (excellent barrier penetration on 7.62 could be a factor in its favour though).

A compromise between the two would be perfect in a one-size-fits-all scenario, imo. 6.5mm gets my vote.

 

[Gremlin29]

By the way whats the difference between the normal 6.5 and the 6.5 MPC? Its has better ballistics, as good as the 6.8 you say?

What fulgur said about the 6.5 MPC is sorta correct, it is very "similar" to a necked up 5.56 cartridge, not exactly a necked up cartridge but close enough not to argue over. The bullet is quite different, obviously larger caliber and heavier and with better ballistics. The problem the 6.8 and 6.5 Grendel have for the US at least, are conversion costs to change over rifles and LMG's, the the M249's especially would need alot of work. I believe the only way we will see these calibers en masse is if the Army or Marines switch over to a totally new rifle and LMG, which I don't think will happen soon. The cheapest way to upgrade would be the 6.5 MPC as I mentioned earlier, benefits from better ballistics with minimal conversion costs.

I've mentioned this in another thread but to me, the SF community is a great thermometer for what works and what doesn't with certain types of gear and battle rifles are one of those items. They get what they want/need and even though the 7.62 can be found in many organizations the 5.56 is still the predominate cartridge of choice which says alot, to me. Yes they use other types and yes some of those are becoming more common but consider they have the ability to procure weapons that will never see widespread use.

 

[cavalrytrooper]

yes the 5.56 should be replaced, 7.62 is a good round. You may think I'm crazy but I think the Army should AKs and RPGs.

 

[SoCalSooner]

First, my disclaimer:

I was in the Navy (Aviation), have only fired a couple of clips(mags) of 5.56.

BUT,

I hear all the time that the M4 in 5.56 is a great weapon for clearing buildings.

It won't go through all the walls in the block a kill your platoon leader in the next block. It is also great for people in vehicles, like Route Clearance Teams.

If you are trying to stop a car at a road block, it might not go through the windshield and through any body armor the driver is wearing.

I saw a 400 grain .50 cal on what looked like at first glance an M4. Had a 10 round mag. The mag, to me did not look that much different (on TV) than the standard 5.56 mag.

I think the troops that carry the M16, should probably have have a heavier round or a more powerful cartridge.

 

[Gremlin29]

yes the 5.56 should be replaced, 7.62 is a good round. You may think I'm crazy but I think the Army should AKs and RPGs.

I don't think your crazy. I would like to see the US at least give up that POS gas impingement system the AR's/M4's have. If they would just adopt the HK 416 all would be well.

 

[riksavage]

The UK has issued a UOR for a lighter, but heavier infantry support weapon for A-STAN - the pendulum is swinging back to 7.62mm

The current weapons mix of UK forces is to be reinforced with an additional lightweight machine gun (LMG) following operational calls for a lighter, more powerful support weapon. The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has asked industry for expressions of interest (EoI) for the supply of 190 LMGs and ancillaries.

Infantry units currently use:

SA80A2 assault rifle (5.56 mm);
L86A2 light support weapon (5.56 mm);
L110A1 Minimi LMG (5.56mm) and
L7A2 general purpose machine gun (GPMG).7.62 mm.


I'm trying to think what's on the market today that will fit the bill, maybe an opportunity for Singapore Technologies, I understand they produce a lightweight 7.62mm weapon? FN HERSTAL have also recently launched a MINIMI 7.62 x 51mm lightweight machine gun, to fulfil a growing worldwide requirement for a machine gun which provides the power of 7.62 ammunition in a 5.56 weight machine gun.

 

[Chino]

maybe an opportunity for Singapore Technologies, I understand they produce a lightweight 7.62mm weapon?

Not that I know of. We have a lightweight 5.56 LMG (Ultimax) and a somewhat lighter .5 HMG (CIS 50), but I often wonder why they don't attempt a lighter 7.62 GPMG?

The unlicensed FN MAG copy that they produce is great but it is a heavy fcuking beast. For troops not wearing body armour, it is already at the limit of what a Asian conscript trooper can hump.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I don't think your crazy. I would like to see the US at least give up that POS gas impingement system the AR's/M4's have. If they would just adopt the HK 416 all would be well.

I agree the H&K416 is much more reliable and I don't get why the Army just wont replace them. Plus the 416 has a full auto option rather than the 3 round burst that the M4 has, which is another plus for the 416.

 

[mattyem]

I agree the H&K416 is much more reliable and I don't get why the Army just wont replace them. Plus the 416 has a full auto option rather than the 3 round burst that the M4 has, which is another plus for the 416.

Wasn't the whole point of removing the auto and replacing it with the 3 round burst to decrease ammo wastage and increase marksmanship? In an ideal situation you shouldnt have to use full auto, unless in givin situations where surpressing fire is needed. Though the 3 round burst from several rifles does suffice!

 

[Chino]

IMO...

a) Suppressive fire from AR should be rapidly-squeezed semi.

b) Full-auto, as taught in SAF (during my time), is for clearing rooms, trenches and bunkers.

c) Full-auto was also cited in books by veterans of Vietnam to be useful for engaging fast-moving targets at close range (jungle or CQB) that only appear for a fleeting moment.


3-rd burst is good for (c), not sure about (b)?

 

[exported_kiwi]

The 5.56mm round isn't effective enough, It's light so more can be carried, yes, but unless the shot is placed properly, it's just not good enough. I voted...back to 7.62 mm. Sorry if my opinion rankls some of you!

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Wasn't the whole point of removing the auto and replacing it with the 3 round burst to decrease ammo wastage and increase marksmanship? In an ideal situation you shouldnt have to use full auto, unless in givin situations where surpressing fire is needed. Though the 3 round burst from several rifles does suffice!

Why not have semi-auto for marksmanship and full auto for room clearing and clearing trenches?

Just because you give up 3 round burst for full auto does not mean you have to be less accurate. If you need accuracy at long rages just use semi auto but for more close in fighting use full auto. Plus anyone with even just a little bit of training can fire short 3-5 round burst in a full auto weapon.

They put in full auto in the M16A2 to make up for the lack of training mostly, they could have just trained solders to fire in short burst with a full auto weapon but they took the lazy path and just put on a 3 round burst mode.

 

[riksavage]

The 3 round burst came out of the Vietnam expereince. Scenes similar to ones filmed at the battle of Hui showing Marines firing over the tops of walls without aiming on full-auto expending ammunition supplies in short order motivated the US Government to switch to a 3 round bursts.

Anyone who has tried to fire controlled bursts on a range normally ends up putting between three and five rounds down range - the number often increases in line with the amount of pressure one is under. How many of those rounds actually hit the critical areas on a properly designed target (fatal T) is another matter.

The fact that with a 3 round burst option you can keep pulling the trigger means you can keep banging out short controlled bursts one after another, so whats the issue with having this restriction? If you are involved in CQB, and there's a chance that civi's are present, then the last thing you want to be doing is wading in spraying the room with automatic fire. Why do you think most CT units still favour double taps or failure drills (double tap, followed by shot to the head in the event the perp doesn't drop immediately)?

Full auto soaks up ammo like nobodies business, even with modern weapon loads (eight magazines per man). You will soon be in trouble if you are clearing a built-up area over extended periods (Afghanistan - fighting patrols are in engagements lasting several hours).

The issue of trench clearing doesn't necessary mean you need to use full-auto. In 82 the UK forces cleared Argentine trench systems with single shot SLR's against troops armed with full-auto FN's - they didn't have a problem.

With the introduction of modern light LMG's to most sections (two minimum) you have sustained fire power to cover the advance of fire-teams armed with weapons restricted to three round bursts.

I certainly wouldn't advocate issuing troops with a full-auto 7.62mm NATO assault rifle. I mentioned before I have serious doubts that anyone (other than SF teams with serious range time under their belts) can put a burst of more than three rounds into the fatal 'T' of human beyond seven metres under extreme pressure.

There are plenty of historical examples of militaries winning the firefight without having to throw millions of rounds down range on full-auto.

 

[Chino]

The 3 round burst came out of the Vietnam expereince. Scenes similar to ones filmed at the battle of Hui showing Marines firing over the tops of walls without aiming on full-auto expending ammunition supplies in short order motivated the US Government to switch to a 3 round bursts.

.....snip....

There are plenty of historical examples of militaries winning the firefight without having to throw millions of rounds down range on full-auto.

I'll bow to your expertise with 3-rd burst weapons. Which one are you most experienced with?

But...

The Australian came out of the Vietnam War with the conclusion that they needed a fullauto capable rifle - the Austeyr. In fact, in VN the Oz troopers often jigged their SLRs to fire fullauto.

Surely you cannot believe that the British were happy with clearing trenches on semi? Any proof? How come their next rifle, the SA80, is fullauto? (But nobody is suggesting 7.62 NATO on fullauto.)

In fact, how many military standard assault rifles can you name that are 3-rd bursts only compared to those that are fullauto capable? (for brevity's sake I won't mention the mandatory semi option.)

Can't clear rooms with a fullauto rifle because of civilians? That's a new one. Why don't we ban grenades, too?

....

BOTH the Canadian C7 and C7A1 (basically M16's) are fullauto.

The M4A1 used by the nearly the entire US Army as standard, is fullauto. The fullauto M4A1 replaced the 3-rd burst M4. Wonder why?

The IDF, frequent war fighters, used only fullauto capable rifles for the last few decades. Their own products. the Galil and Tavor, are fullauto as well.

I am not inventing any theories and I am not saying anything that is not already fact: nearly all nations use fullauto capable rifles. Even in the US, the very common M4A1 is fullauto.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The M4A1 used by the nearly the entire US Army as standard, is fullauto. The fullauto M4A1 replaced the 3-rd burst M4. Wonder why?

The IDF, frequent war fighters, used only fullauto capable rifles for the last few decades. Their own products. the Galil and Tavor, are fullauto as well.

I am not inventing any theories and I am not saying anything that is not already fact: nearly all nations use fullauto capable rifles. Even in the US, the very common M4A1 is fullauto.

Actually I think most M4's used by the Army only have 3 round burst well the M4A1 is only used by the special forces. But I don't know for sure.

Perhaps someone who knows more about this could tell me.

 

[cavalrytrooper]

Three round burst

The 3 round burst came out of the Vietnam expereince. Scenes similar to ones filmed at the battle of Hui showing Marines firing over the tops of walls without aiming on full-auto expending ammunition supplies in short order motivated the US Government to switch to a 3 round bursts.

Anyone who has tried to fire controlled bursts on a range normally ends up putting between three and five rounds down range - the number often increases in line with the amount of pressure one is under. How many of those rounds actually hit the critical areas on a properly designed target (fatal T) is another matter.

The fact that with a 3 round burst option you can keep pulling the trigger means you can keep banging out short controlled bursts one after another, so whats the issue with having this restriction? If you are involved in CQB, and there's a chance that civi's are present, then the last thing you want to be doing is wading in spraying the room with automatic fire. Why do you think most CT units still favour double taps or failure drills (double tap, followed by shot to the head in the event the perp doesn't drop immediately)?

Full auto soaks up ammo like nobodies business, even with modern weapon loads (eight magazines per man). You will soon be in trouble if you are clearing a built-up area over extended periods (Afghanistan - fighting patrols are in engagements lasting several hours).

The issue of trench clearing doesn't necessary mean you need to use full-auto. In 82 the UK forces cleared Argentine trench systems with single shot SLR's against troops armed with full-auto FN's - they didn't have a problem.

With the introduction of modern light LMG's to most sections (two minimum) you have sustained fire power to cover the advance of fire-teams armed with weapons restricted to three round bursts.

I certainly wouldn't advocate issuing troops with a full-auto 7.62mm NATO assault rifle. I mentioned before I have serious doubts that anyone (other than SF teams with serious range time under their belts) can put a burst of more than three rounds into the fatal 'T' of human beyond seven metres under extreme pressure.

There are plenty of historical examples of militaries winning the firefight without having to throw millions of rounds down range on full-auto.

The three round burst was to prevent burning out the barrel. We learned that in training. I have seen it happen. We were in the middle of a fire fight and my track commander was putting some rounds throught his fifty. The barrel started to glow red it was so hot. He would squirt oil on the barrel to try and cool it. It would burn off and splatter on me down in the driver hole. The last round out of his barrel spiraled out. When things settled down I told the barrel was burned out. He didn't believe me. The next time we were in a fire fight the rounds came spiralling out. We had to change in the middle of a fire fight. Thats the reason for three round burst. In the middle of a fire fight you forget about three round burst. The 5.56 isn't an effective killing round.

 

[riksavage]

The three round burst was to prevent burning out the barrel. We learned that in training. I have seen it happen. We were in the middle of a fire fight and my track commander was putting some rounds throught his fifty. The barrel started to glow red it was so hot. He would squirt oil on the barrel to try and cool it. It would burn off and splatter on me down in the driver hole. The last round out of his barrel spiraled out. When things settled down I told the barrel was burned out. He didn't believe me. The next time we were in a fire fight the rounds came spiralling out. We had to change in the middle of a fire fight. Thats the reason for three round burst. In the middle of a fire fight you forget about three round burst. The 5.56 isn't an effective killing round.

My argument for sticking with a three round burst mode has nothing to do with barrel wear, it comes from a background where ammunition expenditure had to be controlled and collateral damage amongst noncombatants in close in CQB environments was simply unacceptable.

If you took two squads of infantry (not SF), each broken down into two fire teams, both equipped with an LMG (7.62mm or 5.56mm), but one squad having weapons with single / three round burst assault rifles and the other with full-auto / single round burst assault rifles and sent them through a proper battlefield live firing range with realistic moving and falling plate targets I would bet serious money that both squads would achieve similar results, however the team with restricted 3-round burst weapons would come out at the other end with a damn sight more ammo left in their pouches.

Winning the firefight is critical in any battle situation, however this can be achieved without throwing ammo down range simply to make a noise. Marksmanship principles are taught to ensure the minimum amount of ammo is expended to achieve the best result - kill the enemy as efficiently as possible at the longest distances.

Under pressure fire discipline is an issue and you can end-up draining ammo extremely quickly, which is fine if you have an in inexhaustible supply of rounds. However this is not always the case, so I still believe weapons need to be restricted to 3 or 5 round bursts at most for any unit other than teir 1 or 2 SF assets.

Also the choice between 7.62mm and 5.56mm is a difficult one. In open country, with long unrestricted fields of view in an environment where over penetration isn't an issue - then give me 7.62mm every time. However working in a built-up environment with a high mix of civilians and hostiles, then I would probably opt for 5.56mm.