Should the 5.56 be replaced?

[DefConGuru]

How many FN SCAR and HK 416/417 are being procured by the US and when will they be standardized? Will it be a general issue rifle or only spec ops? A combo of 5.56 and 7.62 setup is deadly but leaves no room for experimental 6.5 and 6.8 rounds.

 

[Human Bass]

Dragon Skin

Frankly, I've heard the fans of 6.8mm bitching about the 6.5 having too much penetration and "little punch", but everybody recognizes how a good piercing ammo it is. Im pretty sure a 123 grain or heavier 6.5 would pierce level III

 

[Human Bass]

The HK416 is used by the Detal Force, FN SCAR is used by other special force that i dont recall right now. I doubt any of them will replace the Colt M4, Colt has a strong lobby, what allows them to sell sub par weapons. And the Army claim that gas piston system is not a great improvement,and that they wait for "something really revolutinary".

It seems that only laser guns will replace M16/M4

 

[Cadeyrn]

Okay, so I was only using Dragon skin because A) I saw it survive a detonation and B) I was too lasy to look up another brand of Level III armour. I'll agree to disagree with you over whether or not the 6.5 Grendel will penetrate Level III armour, because there's no way for us to test it (unless you just so happen to be buddies with someone who makes Level III armour ).

And I agree with you that the M4 probably won't get replaced anytime soon. Personally, while I think that caseless ammo would be great and that it's the next logical step, I'm not entirely convinced that it will be any more reliable than the M4, because it has more moving parts, which provides more area for dirt to cling to. But, having said that, the LSAT project's probably going to produce a LMG/rifle that can rival the AK-47 for reliability.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Does the U.S. Military still use the M60 Machine gun or has that been completely replaced by the M240?

 

[Cadeyrn]

From what I can find out, almost all of the M60s have been replaced, but some still remain in the co-axial role and will be phased out when they wear out.

 

[o4r]

Every forum I go, they will discuss about this.

So after replace the our 5.56x45 where the hell are we going to dump the ten or hundred of millions round of bullets to? What is the cost to set up the factory to remachine all the tools. So for how long will one country need to build up their surplus of ammo reserved?

What is the tactical advantage of all the rifles mentioned over M16 or M4? Is American soliders which using M16 and M4 all dead in the Iraq desert war? Solider that complained about the rifle jammed etc etc have we questioned them yet? Why only question the rifle? Why the SEAL rifle don't jammed often despite they goes to the sea and land...?

Until somebody can invented a method a rifle can at one shot firing out 3 round in a single line, oh it also must be as cheap and less maintanence than the existing rifle - AN 94 (??? 2 round burst Russian made is too expensive and too complicated) then will somebody replace all those rifle.

It is cheaper to give all service men a (whether 9mm or .45 ACP)pistol in close combat then to replace all the bullets in the world for close combat.

 

[sgtgunn]

Getting rid of surplus 5.56mmx45 would be fairly easy. A US change in caliber would not automatically mean a similar change in caliber by other 5.56mm users - I doubt many NATO countries would be in a hurry to change at all, especially to a somewhat esoteric US caliber like 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8mm SPC. That leave a large market for surplus US 5.56mm. In addition there would be a huge civilian market within the US for inexpensive surplus milspec 5.56mm. The cost of switching to a new caliber, and what do do with the 5.56mm that we currently have is certainly a factor in influencing any decision to change, and will probably ultimately prevent any changes for the forseeable future.

I do think the US military needs to serioulsy consider a caliber change despite cost issues. We are increasingly fighting in urban enviornments and at closer ranges, and we will eventually begin to face enemy combatants equiped with body armor. A heavier round with greater energy and better penetration would be very valuable in those conditions. Also having an "intermediate" round between 5.56mm & 7.62mm could be useful in simplifying logistics, allowing a return to one rifle caliber cartridge for infantry weapons. A 6.5mm or 6.8mm M240E6 or Mk48 Mod 0 could replace both the 7.62mm M240B and the 5.56mm M249 SAW.

The M16 & M4 are both excellent systems (now that they have matured) but there are some legitmate concerns about their reliability in hot, dusty enviornments. The direct gas system is very dirty, runs hot and requires fairly dilligent maintainance. If the US keeps the M16/M4 system they should upgrade it to a gas-piston operating system (like the HK 416) which would significantly reduce those problems. I have a POF 416-16 gas piston M4 upper and it runs far cleaner, and cooler than a regular M4.

Adrian

Every forum I go, they will discuss about this.

So after replace the our 5.56x45 where the hell are we going to dump the ten or hundred of millions round of bullets to? What is the cost to set up the factory to remachine all the tools. So for how long will one country need to build up their surplus of ammo reserved?

What is the tactical advantage of all the rifles mentioned over M16 or M4? Is American soliders which using M16 and M4 all dead in the Iraq desert war? Solider that complained about the rifle jammed etc etc have we questioned them yet? Why only question the rifle? Why the SEAL rifle don't jammed often despite they goes to the sea and land...?

Until somebody can invented a method a rifle can at one shot firing out 3 round in a single line, oh it also must be as cheap and less maintanence than the existing rifle - AN 94 (??? 2 round burst Russian made is too expensive and too complicated) then will somebody replace all those rifle.

It is cheaper to give all service men a (whether 9mm or .45 ACP)pistol in close combat then to replace all the bullets in the world for close combat.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

A 6.5mm or 6.8mm M240E6 or Mk48 Mod 0 could replace both the 7.62mm M240B and the 5.56mm M249 SAW.

Adrian

What replace the 7.62 with the 6.5 or 6.8? Sorry but thats not going to happen, they just don't have the range or power that the 7.62 has. Plus the 6.8 or 6.5 were meant to replace the 5.56 not the 7.62.

 

[Chino]

Every forum I go, they will discuss about this.

So after replace the our 5.56x45 where the hell are we going to dump the ten or hundred of millions round of bullets to? What is the cost to set up the factory to remachine all the tools. So for how long will one country need to build up their surplus of ammo reserved?

It would seem that every forum you go you will rehash this argument about surplus stock of ammo.

Let me ask you, what happened to the 7.62 surplus when USSR switched to 5.45?

What happened to the 7.62 NATO when NATO switched to 5.56?

Did this issue of existing ammo stock stopped people from switching calibres back then?

No.

So why now?

And newsflash for you: the US had to import 5.56 rounds for its WOT.

"Hundreds of millions of rounds?" Where did you hear that?

And strangely, the last thing you should be concerned only about the ammo but not the weapons being replaced. The weapons costs more. But in the end, both can be sold off or given away as aid.

Whether or not 5.56 should be replaced would depend on many factors, the existent of ammo stock is one consideration, but hardly the most important.

The switch from 7.62 to 5.56 took place during the Vietnam War, but that little inconvenience didn't stop the US from switching.

 

[sgtgunn]

What replace the 7.62 with the 6.5 or 6.8? Sorry but thats not going to happen, they just don't have the range or power that the 7.62 has. Plus the 6.8 or 6.5 were meant to replace the 5.56 not the 7.62.

The 6.5mm Grendel with a 144 gr. FMJBT actually has equivilent ballistic performance to 7.62mm NATO at 600m and superior performance from 800-1000m in energy, velocity and bullet drop. At ranges under 600m the 7.62mm NATO has greater energy (by about 20%) but considering the fact that the 7.62mm NATO has almost twice the energy of the 5.56mm NATO at 100m, that's a pretty small difference.

While I have not seen ballistic data for ranges beyond 1000m, the 6.5mm's high ballistic coeffecient and the fact that it equals or outperforms 7.62mm from 800m-1000m, it seems reasonable that 6.5mm would be a more than capable cartridge for a MMG role (the M240B in 7.62mm has a max. effective range of 1800m vs. an area target while tripod mounted).

Most engagments with both rifle, SAW and machinegun take place at much shorter ranges where the 6.5mm is almost as powerful as the 7.62mm NATO and around 60% more powerful than the 5.56mm. Having one cartridge that can be used in the infantry rifle/carbine, designated marksman rifle, sniper rifle, squad automatic weapon and medium machinegun role would greatly simplify logistics on the ground.

Now having said all that - is it going to happen? No, probably not - or at least not any time soon, but not becuase the 6.5mm would be ineffective in the role of a "universal" cartridge, rather due to the cost of the switch and inherent bureaucratic resistance to change.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I'm not into the actual science of this enough to suggest any size round or anything but I know that alot of the boys in the regiment who have been to Afghanistan are complaining that the Taliban aren't going down after being shot by the 5.56mm rounds. It doesn't weigh anything for me to carry them around and I don't find the 7.62 to be a whole lot heavier either, and if it is I'd rather carry slightly less ammunition that is effective then more ammunition that isn't getting the job done. The 5.56 is probably fine for carbines and the such where size is a factor and you don't want to increase the size of the weapon to accomadate the larger rounds but for my rifle and LMG I'd like a round that you can trust to stop someone the first time. As for the people that complain that only the US military is complaining about the small rounds I'm Canadian and were using the C7A2 in theatre so I doubt its the rifle, its just a really small bullet.

 

[Vajt]

The two posts above this one make a good case to standardize back to the 7.62mm. That round has the heavy punch needed and can be used for the carbine, assault rifle, sharp-shooter, machine gun round. It also requires the least amount of $$ to make it happen versus mass producing a new round such as the 6.5mm or 6.8mm. Pick either the SCAR-H, HK 417 or the Magpul ACR in 7.62mm.

Interesting how there are no serious 7.62mm bull-pup developments...

-----JT-----

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I think both the SCAR-L and SCAR-H are needed to replace the M16/M4. One is 5.56mm, 30 round mags and has semi and full auto and the other comes in 7.62mm, 20 round mags and it also has semi and full auto capabilities. That way we would have the best of both.

 

[eckherl]

I think both the SCAR-L and SCAR-H are needed to replace the M16/M4. One is 5.56mm, 30 round mags and has semi and full auto and the other comes in 7.62mm, 20 round mags and it also has semi and full auto capabilities. That way we would have the best of both.

This is not going to happen, DOD has already stated that they are going to stick it out with the M4, additional funds will be released for improved versions of this rifle, and the bugger is for some of you will be that it will still chamber 5.56mm.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

This is not going to happen, DOD has already stated that they are going to stick it out with the M4, additional funds will be released for improved versions of this rifle, and the bugger is for some of you will be that it will still chamber 5.56mm.

Its not so much the 5.56 that needs to be replaced its that they need to get rid of the 3 round burst thing on the M4 and go back to the full auto option such as convert from the M4 to the M4A1.

Also I thought there are reports that the Army is looking at studies to what might replace the M4?

 

[eckherl]

Its not so much the 5.56 that needs to be replaced its that they need to get rid of the 3 round burst thing on the M4 and go back to the full auto option such as convert from the M4 to the M4A1.

Also I thought there are reports that the Army is looking at studies to what might replace the M4?

The latest information that is a few weeks old is that they will continue to look at improvement options for the M4 series, this decision is most likely due to some degree with budget restraints. Mr. Gates is quite tight with the purse strings, just ask the U.S Airforce.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The latest information that is a few weeks old is that they will continue to look at improvement options for the M4 series, this decision is most likely due to some degree with budget restraints. Mr. Gates is quite tight with the purse strings, just ask the U.S Airforce.

Come on dude thats not funny the USAF really needs new fighters but I guess we wont have the best air force any more? In fact lets just not build any new weapons we don't need a military because its not suited for post cold war conflicts and there are no major adversaries so lets just cut military spending by 100% and invest in a welfare sate.nfloorl:

 

[eckherl]

Come on dude thats not funny the USAF really needs new fighters but I guess we wont have the best air force any more? In fact lets just not build any new weapons we don't need a military because its not suited for post cold war conflicts and there are no major adversaries so lets just cut military spending by 100% and invest in a welfare sate.nfloorl:

Hey,

I do not agree with all of Mr. Gates decisions, I am just as bummed out as alot of other folks in regards to his outlook towards additional F-22 purchases, but with all of the pro Air Force Dems out there I am willing to bet that a estimated 50 additional F-22s will be purchased, also look at Japan getting approval for F-22.

Getting back on topic, I know alot of troops who carry the M4 series and they think that alot of the rubbish that gets posted on some of the internet sites is overblown hype. They are concerned though with the trend of modern militaries going with ballistic armor protection. This can be solved though with better projectile technologies. have you wondered why the Russians are not going back to the 7.62X39, 5.45 mm is still the route for them.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Hey,

I do not agree with all of Mr. Gates decisions, I am just as bummed out as alot of other folks in regards to his outlook towards additional F-22 purchases, but with all of the pro Air Force Dems out there I am willing to bet that a estimated 50 additional F-22s will be purchased, also look at Japan getting approval for F-22.

Getting back on topic, I know alot of troops who carry the M4 series and they think that alot of the rubbish that gets posted on some of the internet sites is overblown hype. They are concerned though with the trend of modern militaries going with ballistic armor protection. This can be solved though with better projectile technologies. have you wondered why the Russians are not going back to the 7.62X39, 5.54 is still the route for them.

I don't think the 5.56 needs to be completely replaced, they just need full auto M4s with better 5.56mm bullets that have better armor penetration and maybe have each squad carry a 7.62X51mm DMR like the M14.