Should the 5.56 be replaced?

Should the 5.56 be replaced?


  • Total voters
    163

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.
The M4A1 has a "S-1-F" (safe/semi-automatic/fully automatic) trigger group while only the M4 has a "S-1-3" (safe/semi-automatic/3-round burst) trigger group. Most combat use the carbines are fired on semi-automatic. Its not hard to create a full auto effect with a three round burst gun. You can keep pressing the trigger faster than it can cycle through the burst.

The US 5.56mm "Black Tip" M995 is the standard issue AP round for the last 12 years and will punch through light armoured vehicles. The round were tested against the BRDM-2 and not only penetrated but provided enough behind armour effect to incapacitate the crews.
 

extern

New Member
The US 5.56mm "Black Tip" M995 is the standard issue AP round for the last 12 years and will punch through light armoured vehicles. The round were tested against the BRDM-2 and not only penetrated but provided enough behind armour effect to incapacitate the crews.
Does the ammo penetrate the ceramic based level IV bodyarmor ? I think no. According to some news the American army will be equipped soon with level IV additional armor elements too:
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Firing M995 in a urbanized environment is not the preferred choice due to ricocheting, but I have brought this type of small arms projectile technology up to some of you guys before, this is a tungsten based projectile and research is being conducted with that alloy for a projectile that will penetrate a advanced ballistic armored vest consisting of ceramic materials and a few other materials that I do not care to mention. As Abraham Gubler has mention, the M995 is a good AP projectile up around 200 meters for taking out light armored vehicle crewmembers providing that spall liners are not being used.
 

extern

New Member
Firing M995 in a urbanized environment is not the preferred choice due to ricocheting, but I have brought this type of small arms projectile technology up to some of you guys before, this is a tungsten based projectile and research is being conducted with that alloy for a projectile that will penetrate a advanced ballistic armored vest consisting of ceramic materials and a few other materials that I do not care to mention. As Abraham Gubler has mention, the M995 is a good AP projectile up around 200 meters for taking out light armored vehicle crewmembers providing that spall liners are not being used.
Donno about M995 particulary, but level IV is normally withstanding B32 AP bullet of 7.62x54R that takes on BTR-80 without big problem. So I think in the perpetual weapon\armor competition the last is on the upper hand.
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Its not hard to create a full auto effect with a three round burst gun. You can keep pressing the trigger faster than it can cycle through the burst.
With practice I'm sure that is possible.

But silly rhetorical question: Is a "trigger finger freeze" moment possible? Meaning you have a 3-rd burst weapon and you bump into 3 bad guys in a room. You only managed to squeeze off 1 burst of 3 rds because your finger froze with fear.

Whereas with a FA weapon you can "hose" the room.
 

sgtgunn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
With practice I'm sure that is possible.

But silly rhetorical question: Is a "trigger finger freeze" moment possible? Meaning you have a 3-rd burst weapon and you bump into 3 bad guys in a room. You only managed to squeeze off 1 burst of 3 rds because your finger froze with fear.

Whereas with a FA weapon you can "hose" the room.
Anything is possible I suppose, but I can't see that being a serious issue with good training. If I bump into three "bad guys" in a room and get the drop on them, I'm not using 3-rd burst anyways. I'm going give each of them a double tap (excuse me, I meant "controlled pair" ;) ) center mass. A double tap on semi allows 2 shots to be rapidly placed in roughly the same spot on the target without allowing recoil to completely blow your aim. The problem with 3-rd burst (on an M16/M4 at least) is that the 3rd round often ends up sailing over the target's shoulder. I wouldn't mind seeing 3rd burst replaced with 2rd burst setting - especially if the ROF is super high to get a sort of an "auto" double tap 2 rounds 1 hole feature.

IMHO full auto capability is generally uneccesary in a rifle. It wastes ammo. Ditto for 3 round burst. During my time in Iraq I never felt the need to use anything but semi-auto. Worked for me.

Adrian
 

Vajt

New Member
Probably the ultimate round would be a caseless 6.8mm....although the cost to develop it is probably something that no one will pursue.

-----JT-----
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #108
Probably the ultimate round would be a caseless 6.8mm....although the cost to develop it is probably something that no one will pursue.

-----JT-----
Two points I would like to make here.

1. The 6.5mm would be a better choice because it retains more of its energy at long range than the 6.8 and it still has more power than the 7.62X39mm but it is accurate and has the range of the 5.56mm.

2. Cost is a very lame excuse to not make better bullets. How much would it cost? A few million maybe a few billion? Come on they spend more on high tech fighter jets and submarines but your telling me they can't spend a little more on just to buy bigger bullets?

What I'm getting out of this is that the Pentagon just does not want to buy newer bullets not because of cost but because they don't have the will to do so.
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Two points I would like to make here.

1. The 6.5mm would be a better choice because it retains more of its energy at long range than the 6.8 and it still has more power than the 7.62X39mm but it is accurate and has the range of the 5.56mm.

2. Cost is a very lame excuse to not make better bullets. How much would it cost? A few million maybe a few billion? Come on they spend more on high tech fighter jets and submarines but your telling me they can't spend a little more on just to buy bigger bullets?

What I'm getting out of this is that the Pentagon just does not want to buy newer bullets not because of cost but because they don't have the will to do so.
I think you'll find that what Vajt is talking about is that as a caseless round does not have a brass case that helps to seal the breach there are significant issues in the design of the breach/firing chamber, that's without looking at the issues involving ammunition feed, ammunition transport, shelf life etc.

Caseless ammo basically means the propellant needs to be tough enough to stay formed as a block at the base of the round despite getting wet, gouged by the feed lips of the magazine, dropped etc, yet when fired consume all of itself leaving no residue in the chamber (or that will build up and cause stoppages) or any change in the velocity of the round, and without leaving a visible signature that may obscure the target, and that is an extremely tough task.

It wouldn't surprise me that even throwing Billions at the problem that it may remain unsolvable. Even if solved, it would mean a totally new weapon design, inventory as well as new ammunition handling etc. Too expensive. If you managed to solve the breach obturation problem, you might find that having some form of seperate bullet/liquid propellant would be easier to develop. The ammo would consist of just the naked bullet and an aerosol can or liquid bottle of propellant - you may even be able to vary the velocity and range based on the amount of propellant injected prior to firing. But all of this is just as far as I know just a fantasy.

On Chino's question about the 3 round trigger freeze -sgtgunn has covered it well. Training can overcome this issue if needed. We were always taught that full auto just chews up the ammo, so it was rare to use it even with full auto available just by squeezing harder. There are better ways to clear a room than just hosing it with full auto fire.
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Might have spoken too soon about the caseless ammo. The telescoped rounds are a known tecnhology (I think the swedes have a 40mmCTA going don't they?) - the caseless is still under development though.

"Under this follow-on contract, AAI will continue work it began under a prior contract to develop the 5.56-millimeter light machine gun and two lightweight ammunition technologies, including a cased telescoped (plastic-cased) design and a caseless design. With a focus on increasing the maturity of these technologies even further, AAI also will begin development of a new cased telescoped carbine rifle variant, a valuable addition to this family of high-performance, lightweight weaponry.

The contract is expected to culminate in an operational demonstration of LSAT in 2011, for which AAI will provide 100,000 rounds of cased telescoped ammunition and eight light machine guns. Options under the contract that the Army may exercise include development of a caseless carbine, fabrication of additional caseless ammunition, a subcompact weapon study, and implementation of alternate bullet configurations."


Quote taken from a Textron Systems press release via another site.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #111
I don't know much about the caseless ammunition I have not heard of it until recently but to be honest I don't see it ever happening. It appears to me to be too radical and unproven on an idea that it will never be used but thats just my opinion on the matter.

Sorry Vajt I did not know you were talking about the caseless ammunition I thought you were just talking about the 6.5mm in general.

I think replacing the 5.56mm with the 6.5 or 6.8 is possible and a good idea but it wont be the caseless rounds that your were talking about.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #112
On Chino's question about the 3 round trigger freeze -sgtgunn has covered it well. Training can overcome this issue if needed. We were always taught that full auto just chews up the ammo, so it was rare to use it even with full auto available just by squeezing harder. There are better ways to clear a room than just hosing it with full auto fire.
I think when heavy suppressive fire is need that full auto would be nice along with the SAW to provide heavy fire in a firefight. Also anyone can fire short bursts in a full auto weapon with ease so the 3 round burst is really not needed, all that is needed is a full auto assault rifle firing in short bursts and full auto when its really needed.

America is the only nation that I know that uses the 3-round bursts well every other nation has full auto that they get by just fine. That should be saying something.
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Terms like "double tap" sound very sexy on internet forums like these.

But the hypothetical scenario I described was "bumping into 3 enemy in a room" or something to that effect. I am not sure if 3 armed men are gonna just stand there and let you "double tap" each of them in turns.

We have in Singapore 2 weapons that are very controllable in fullauto: Ultimax 100, which I have personal experience with, and the SAR21, which both David Crane and Charlie Cutshaw described as being very controllable and accurate fully auto out to 25 yards - which is more than adequate for CQB.

Why does everyone have the impression that fully auto is a waste of ammo? Is it because you are using a weapon that is inaccurate and uncontrollable fully auto? It is not a waste of ammo if you hit what you point your weapon at.

If fullauto is a waste of ammo then all GPMG will be made with 3-rd bursts only.

Besides, no one said we should put your weapon fully auto at ALL times. But there are situations where this could save your life. No point saving ammo and then being dead.

In WW1 fullauto SMG were needed to "sweep" or clear trenches. I don't see how that has changed.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hello Chino, good to see you around in the forums (being a fellow infantryman). If you don't mind, I'm going to qualify what you mentioned, just a little.

I feel that the "double tap" has its place in urban warfare and is a very valuable tactic, if a solider is properly trained to apply it.

But you are right, the hypothetical scenario you described does not require the "double tap".

I believe what we learned in our prior infantry training modules (FIBUA/CQB), is by now outdated. Back then, we were essentially trained to clear rooms with our weapons (be it M16/SAR 21/Ultimax) in auto mode. This old style of training is not suited for modern COIN operations, where the insurgents are intermingled with the population. The use of this tactic (back then) was a result of the limitation of our infantry shooting syllabus. A 5.56mm auto spray into a room may kill all the occupants of a room. If you have intermingling of civilians and insurgents, not a good outcome.

The old methods that I used to teach my men for marksmanship syllabus training is inferior to reflex shooting style that the 4 SIR boys were exposed to in Alaska, when they were sent for training in the US with a US Stryker Bde.

In fact, our hostage rescue teams (HRTs) also use reflex shooting. From this base, they then progress in their training to the kill rooms. At the kill rooms, the "double tap" is frequently used, to enable discrimination between insurgent and civilian. However, the ammo of choice is often the 9mm for the HRTs.

The old urban infantry tactics we used were more a reflection of the limitations of our shooting syllabus (that I used to teach). Looking at the new urban training facilities, with video playback, the current SAF infantry trooper's tactics in an urban fight, are miles ahead of what us old timers were trained in.

BTW, I was also trained to use the GPMG and the 84MM RR. While the 7.62mm GPMG is a full auto, we used trigger control (very simple, just intermittent firing) to conserve ammo and to avoid overheating the gun (which will result in a run-away gun). It gets quite freaky when GPMG barrel gets too hot from prolonged fire support. We try to do a barrel change before we get into a run-away gun situation.

Note: Run-away gun occurs when the barrel of a GPMG gets too hot. Essentially, even if you don't squeeze the trigger, the gun keeps firing because the rounds have cooked off upon entry. The only way to stop the gun from firing is to cut the ammo supply (i.e. break the chains, since the GPMG is belt fed).
 
Last edited:

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Why does everyone have the impression that fully auto is a waste of ammo?
Full auto is not necessarily a waste of ammo - but it has a limited application spectrum where it's not a waste. Essentially, full auto is used even with battle rifles whenever timing of use or psychological effect instead of the resulting effect on target is the current problem.
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Hello Chino, good to see you around in the forums (being a fellow infantryman).
Erm... I think you are over-complicating things.

The point I originally wanted to make was simply a preference between a 3-rd burst or fullauto weapon.
 

usgn

New Member
Be it a 3-rds burst, double taps or full auto, depending on the situation called for, each have its purpose in trained hand.
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I am not talking about tactics, training etc. I am simply asking a question about hardware.

In your trained (or untrained) hands, would you prefer a fullauto or 3rd burst M4 (for example)?

Or since everyone is so big on "tapping" maybe we should just issue semi-only rifles, seeing how we don't want to shoot everyone in the room or waste ammo? :)

All this talk of training is completely irrelevant as in the hands of someone stupid or untrained, even a bolt-action rifle given them would be a waste of ammo.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #119
Since the M249 SAW is the only full auto weapon used by U.S. infantry with the exception of the M240, M2 and MK-19 how many M249 SAWs are in service with the U.S. Army and USMC?

Also does the British SA80 use full auto or 3 round burst?
 
Last edited:
Top