Should the 5.56 be replaced?

[shrubage]

Yeah I've seen troops fire them at the enemies before I guess their fingers slipped.

I've encountered one incident of a soldier being struck by 40mm UGL round, it didn't detonate thankfully as it was a negligent discharge by somebody unfamiliar with the weapon. My understanding is the rounds aren't designed to detonate in contact with human tissue.

Incidentally I don't know even with significant training how you could target a human size target at ranges greater than 40 or 50 metres. Also I hope I don't sound repetitive but its illegal, and I don't know any infantry soldiers that would wish to do it.

 

[dobrodan]

I've encountered one incident of a soldier being struck by 40mm UGL round, it didn't detonate thankfully as it was a negligent discharge by somebody unfamiliar with the weapon. My understanding is the rounds aren't designed to detonate in contact with human tissue.

Incidentally I don't know even with significant training how you could target a human size target at ranges greater than 40 or 50 metres. Also I hope I don't sound repetitive but its illegal, and I don't know any infantry soldiers that would wish to do it.

It needs to fly a few meters to make enough revolutions to arm itself. I can´t remember how many meters, but at least 10... Also, it will even detonate (usually) when landing in snow, as long as it is not too loose and deep.

A 40mm grenade is not a precision-weapon... If you hit someone directly with it, it´s more or less pure luck, but you still need to hit reasonably close to have any effect (closer than 5m), so you will try to aim for that person anyway...

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I've encountered one incident of a soldier being struck by 40mm UGL round, it didn't detonate thankfully as it was a negligent discharge by somebody unfamiliar with the weapon. My understanding is the rounds aren't designed to detonate in contact with human tissue.

Incidentally I don't know even with significant training how you could target a human size target at ranges greater than 40 or 50 metres. Also I hope I don't sound repetitive but its illegal, and I don't know any infantry soldiers that would wish to do it.

Its not illegal because they have the MK-19 and M203 and many others such as the 25mm for the M2/M3 Bradley APC so if they use it i combat which they do it can't be illegal plus its war, war is not supposed to be pretty.

 

[dobrodan]

Its not illegal because they have the MK-19 and M203 and many others such as the 25mm for the M2/M3 Bradley APC so if they use it i combat which they do it can't be illegal plus its war, war is not supposed to be pretty.

To intentionally hit someone with a grenade is VERY illegal, especially if fired from a precision-platform such as a 25mm machinecannon, with "sniper-like" accuracy... It is though legal to fire it on area-targets, and material-targets, so to avoid problems with the Haague-convention, you aim for the ground next to the target, or even better, take them out with the co-ax (if within practical range), as bullets are A LOT cheaper than grenades...

 

[willur]

I think ROK is fielding a weapon which is moving in the same direction as the WEST the short barrel and if the weapon is a full size 20 would be almost impossible for a person of there statue to fire accuately and the move to under 40mm grenades is the same reasoning as the switch to 5.56mm from 7.62mm its genectics. you can train service personal to fire a 5.56mm weapon to hit a moving target in single shot at a max range of 125m 55% first round hit, 80% second round hit.
5.56mm round was developed for wounding not killing and allowed the soldier to carry more. the new calibres will be the same thought as genetics in the west is producing a weaker strain. this is not a have a go at the west it is genectics the current and future generations are weaker than the previous.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I really think the 5.56 needs to go ASAP and replace it with ether the 6.8mm or 6.5mm rounds.

 

[willur]

It needs to fly a few meters to make enough revolutions to arm itself. I can´t remember how many meters, but at least 10... Also, it will even detonate (usually) when landing in snow, as long as it is not too loose and deep.

A 40mm grenade is not a precision-weapon... If you hit someone directly with it, it´s more or less pure luck, but you still need to hit reasonably close to have any effect (closer than 5m), so you will try to aim for that person anyway...

with the arming distance of a 40mm grenade out of m203 i think (from vodka drenched memory) is twelve turns or 14 m as the casaulty radius is 10m. so coming back to the replacement of the 5.56mm yes it will happen probably to something 6.5 to 7mm mark on a smaller casing with nearly no bottle neck and faster powder, engagment range around 250-300 range and harassing out to 400m. just so the solder can carry more rounds and less like to jam. personally i always liked the .300 whisper round.
and believe the grenade launcher on IW will go to near 20mm-30mm for the same reason shorter range, more you can carry.

 

[AaronP]

You are all incorrect, for a 40mm round it is 80 revolutions, which equates to to 80 meters to activate the round, at least that's what they teach in MP school. So unless anyone else has had a more recent brief on this round (more recent than a few months ago) and personal experiences, don't bother arguing, I can guarantee that this is the case, and this is what the army teaches.

 

[AaronP]

Just look at the blast radius for a 40mm, if it was 14 meters, the person firing it would be dead! Come on guys...do a little research at least, I understand not all of you are military or have access to such information, but even this can be found on wikipedia, although that is not my source, my source is from an unclassified training brief.

 

[AaronP]

In regards to a 5.56 for all the armchair generals, from a regular M4 with an ACOG (optics), it has dropped enemy combatants at 700+ yards. This was fired by a basic infantryman in A-stan and is not unusual. The ballistics on a 5.56 are great, you can carry alot of it, which is great in the field, because rounds are heavy (stop eating potato chips and go carry a 20 or 30 30 rounds magazines around with a ruck and all your gear for a while). Further, I have never seen a .223 fail to stop an enemy combatant, big or small. It's a nasty, effective round that has been combat proven, it's not like the arms experts in the military are dumb, this round was chosen for a reason. Sure a .50 round is better for anti-personnel than a .223, but how many of those can you carry on your person? Remember, Marines and Soldiers are not sitting at a bench, they are walking, running and are required to carry this ammo for days or weeks on end, and it would suck to run out of ammo in a firefight. I'd rather have 300 rounds of 5.56 in a firefight than 100 rounds of 7.62. The 5.56 fits our tactics and war fighting style very well, and it is a very effective round. Argue with me when you have experience with it in combat, not information garnered from someone's academically oriented report on the 5.56 round. It's a great round, take the whole picture into account.

Further, my experience dictates that when clothing and everything else is involved, larger rounds make a single wound channel, for example, the 7.62 round may split into two pieces at most. The 5.56 is traveling much faster and causes a more detrimental wound channel and great trauma, the round also "shatters" in many directions after penetration causing many wounds that bleed into this massive wound channel, thus it is much harder to treat a 5.56 wound.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

In regards to a 5.56 for all the armchair generals, from a regular M4 with an ACOG (optics), it has dropped enemy combatants at 700+ yards. This was fired by a basic infantryman in A-stan and is not unusual. The ballistics on a 5.56 are great, you can carry alot of it, which is great in the field, because rounds are heavy (stop eating potato chips and go carry a 20 or 30 30 rounds magazines around with a ruck and all your gear for a while). Further, I have never seen a .223 fail to stop an enemy combatant, big or small. It's a nasty, effective round that has been combat proven, it's not like the arms experts in the military are dumb, this round was chosen for a reason. Sure a .50 round is better for anti-personnel than a .223, but how many of those can you carry on your person? Remember, Marines and Soldiers are not sitting at a bench, they are walking, running and are required to carry this ammo for days or weeks on end, and it would suck to run out of ammo in a firefight. I'd rather have 300 rounds of 5.56 in a firefight than 100 rounds of 7.62. The 5.56 fits our tactics and war fighting style very well, and it is a very effective round. Argue with me when you have experience with it in combat, not information garnered from someone's academically oriented report on the 5.56 round. It's a great round, take the whole picture into account.

Further, my experience dictates that when clothing and everything else is involved, larger rounds make a single wound channel, for example, the 7.62 round may split into two pieces at most. The 5.56 is traveling much faster and causes a more detrimental wound channel and great trauma, the round also "shatters" in many directions after penetration causing many wounds that bleed into this massive wound channel, thus it is much harder to treat a 5.56 wound.

Wait you have seen people just drop dead from an M4 at 700yds?

 

[AaronP]

From a vital area shot (admittedly it was luck that it hit a vital area, but skill in hitting the combatant, not my shot though).

 

[willur]

Hi aaronP
something interesting I understand and am now a arm chair general(thanks for the upgrade), also armchair racer, armchair porn activist-critic.......also an ex-mil with some experience.
so here is an extract from the net
"NATO specifications for SS109 (U.S. M855) Ball require a 61.7 grain
(q 1.5 grains) with a hardened steel penetrator at a velocity of 3,025 fps
(q 40 fps) from a 20 inch barrel 25 meters from the muzzle. Typical
velocity 15 feet from the M16A2's muzzle is around 3,100 fps. The accuracy
requirement from a test fixture equates to a maximum of approximately four
MOA over the 100 to 600 yard range. Typical accuracy of average lots in an
M16A2 is about 2+ MOA. This round must also penetrate a nominal 10 gauge
SAE 1010 or 1020 steel test plate at a range of at least 570 meters (623
yards). The M193 round will penetrate this same plate reliably at 400
yards, and about half the time at 500 yards. The 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO
rounds will penetrate it reliably out to 700 yards or more. Nominal
ballistics for M193 and M855 Ball rounds are given in an accompanying
table. The tables were constructed from the latest data supplied by the
U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Maryland.
5.56 NATO Ball Ammunition Ballistic Comparison
based on Aberdeen Proving Ground Data
velocity (fps) trajectory (in.) drop (inches) drift (inches)*
range M193 M855 M193 M855 M193 M855 M193 M855
(meters)
0 3,200 3,100 -2.5 -2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
100 2,774 2,751 +2.8 +4.4 -2.2 -2.3 1.3 1.1
200 2,374 2,420 +2.7 +5.8 -9.9 -10.2 5.8 4.9
300 2,012 2,115 -4.9 0.0 -25.1 -25.3 14.2 11.8
400 1,680 1,833 -23.0 -15.0 -50.8 -49.5 27.6 22.4
500 1,373 1,569 -56.2 -42.9 -91.6 -86.7 47.5 38.0
600 1,106 1,323 -113.1 -88.2 -156.1 -141.3 76.4 59.5
700 995 1,106 -206.8 -156.1 -257.3 -220.9 113.5 88.4
800 927 1,010 -339.9 -267.7 -398.0 -339.2 156.1 124.9

* Drift for 10 mph wind.
M193 Ball ammunition fired in M16A1 rifle with 250 meter battle sight zero.
M855 Ball ammunition fired in M16A2 rifle with 300 meter battle sight zero.
http://www.ak-47.net/ammo/ss109.txt
my experience as a weapons instructor I agree with you, although not impossible to achieve it was a damn lucky shot most likely aimed for the head and was hit in the leg severed a main artery .
I will say that a m4 with ACOG really wasn't designed to effectively engage targets at that range and if engagement is undertaken then it would be harressing fire due to probability of hit, this includes any weapon firing 7.62mm nato round as the russian one can only barely hit a target at 100m out of a ak47 of cold war manufacture.
of course any optics increase the ability of the shooter to engage targets at such ranges. And don't doubt the training of any soldiers, I just believe that there is a need to replace the 5.56mm to a more effective round as the current m855 is adequate but thats what a woman says when you ask her about penises.
doing so would allow greater carriage and allow the fitment of advanced optic and area engagment devices and greater effectiveness over a greater variety of theatres.Once again I have only some doubt of the effectivness of the 5.56mm in all terrians, this is from my experience and I don't doubt the use and effectiveness in open terrain. Thank you for your service.
this is only a discussion not an attack on you.
Cheers

 

[extern]

Level-IV armored vests appearance in broad service makes any low caliber rounds quite obsolete. It's time to decide about subcaliber bullets for 7.62 mm. We Russians have some old developmens on the issue, that were then conserved due to lack of need. Stoping variants of 5.56/5.45 mm should remain for counter insurgency and police actions only.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

From a vital area shot (admittedly it was luck that it hit a vital area, but skill in hitting the combatant, not my shot though).

People have been killed by 9mm pistol bullets at ranges of several miles. If a 5.56mm hits a vital area at even longer than 700m ranges you are in trouble. But this is not the issue.

At medium to long ranges (over 100m) and in many combat situations (shooting at moving and fleeting targets) you are only going to get a single hit (if you’re lucky) and have no way of making sure this is a vital area hit (anti-terror snipers are trained for close range head shots but this is not normal infantry combat). There is no reason why we should accept that these hits into targets in non vital areas do not cause incapacitation.

No one wants to add weight and other burdens to the soldiers. This is why the 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds have been developed. That at most result in a 15% reduction in rounds carried for the same weight but provide enough wounding potential that if a single round hits the enemy in the torso they are going down and staying down. Since such ammunition can also replace 7.62mm GPMGs and 7.62mm marksman rifles (Mk 11s) and achieve a REAL single round for the infantry combat team (company group) the slight reduction in rounds per weight is compensated by more rounds per unit.

 

[PeterM]

The SS109 round has been in service for over 30 years.

Whilst it has performed well, there have been many advances with ballistic technology and military combat experience in that time.

Both the 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds seem to offer significant improvements over the current standard ammunition for a reasonable cost.

As an admitted 'armchair general', I am not saying that there should or should not be a wholesale change in calibre. I do think there is sufficient potential benefit for a series of comprehensive testing to determine:

1. How much the new rounds would increase a solider's combat effectiveness accross all situations/environments.

2. How much it would cost for a large-scale retooling of calibre

3. How cost-effective is the retooling in calibre vs increase in combat ability?

4. How long would it take to make the switch and what are the expected future advances in this period (eg: could their be a more effective option in the near future)?

5. Is the cost justified with the current global economic climate and defence priorites?

6. What would a change in standard calibre mean for the current defence suppliers and contracts? How would a change in standard calibre impact our allies (if at all), particularly those currently involved in operational activities?



Does anyone know how much it cost the US military to switch from the m193 to the ss109? I imagine it would be something similar.

If the change were to happen, I would imagine that it would be a gradual change taking considerable time.

On the surface a change in calibre seems like a simple/easy decision to make; unfortunately (as always) it is potentially alot more complex.

 

[Vajt]

If the trend is for one of the 6.5/6.8mm rounds, possibly even case telescoped or caseless (as AAI was recently awarded a contract to continue developing these), would all the effort and money placed in these options grant enough of an improvement over what we currently have to go through with them? This was essentially what killed the US's ACR project of the 90's. Not enough of an improvement with what we currently have to justify further pursuing the effort.

The trend of adding a multi-round projectile launcher to a standard weapon also seems to have taken a back seat, such as the XM-29, Singapore's study of a 5.7mm PDW with attached launcher and the French Papop, due to increased weight, complexity and cost (although S. Korea seems to be releasing such a weapon).

Probably a great weapon would be a very lightweight, low-recoil, 6.8mm caseless rifle with an attached MetalStorm multi-projectile launcher. But again, who knows if the improvement gained would justify the cost, weight, complexity versus a good 5.56mm/7.62mm weapon with a new generation 40mm grenade launcher or having a seprate multi-round launcher as part of the squad to deliver the heavy fire support (such as the XM-25 or Milkor 40mm....etc.).

Besides getting into very exotic technologies which are decades away for a hand-held weapon, such as lasers and electromagnetic propulsion, the next radical, short-term improvement I see is a light weapon firing clips of mini-guided rockets. Either IR guided or using some other method, the ever decreasing size of electronics and parts, could make this feasible and offer a weapon capable of producing the desired damage at short and long distances. Obviously it would also have great costs and complexity issues, but the percentage increase in effectiveness may actually be worth it and make this the next great leap since WWII.

-----JT-----

 

[willur]

If the trend is for one of the 6.5/6.8mm rounds, possibly even case telescoped or caseless (as AAI was recently awarded a contract to continue developing these), would all the effort and money placed in these options grant enough of an improvement over what we currently have to go through with them? This was essentially what killed the US's ACR project of the 90's. Not enough of an improvement with what we currently have to justify further pursuing the effort.

The trend of adding a multi-round projectile launcher to a standard weapon also seems to have taken a back seat, such as the XM-29, Singapore's study of a 5.7mm PDW with attached launcher and the French Papop, due to increased weight, complexity and cost (although S. Korea seems to be releasing such a weapon).

Probably a great weapon would be a very lightweight, low-recoil, 6.8mm caseless rifle with an attached MetalStorm multi-projectile launcher. But again, who knows if the improvement gained would justify the cost, weight, complexity versus a good 5.56mm/7.62mm weapon with a new generation 40mm grenade launcher or having a seprate multi-round launcher as part of the squad to deliver the heavy fire support (such as the XM-25 or Milkor 40mm....etc.).

Besides getting into very exotic technologies which are decades away for a hand-held weapon, such as lasers and electromagnetic propulsion, the next radical, short-term improvement I see is a light weapon firing clips of mini-guided rockets. Either IR guided or using some other method, the ever decreasing size of electronics and parts, could make this feasible and offer a weapon capable of producing the desired damage at short and long distances. Obviously it would also have great costs and complexity issues, but the percentage increase in effectiveness may actually be worth it and make this the next great leap since WWII.

-----JT-----

I suppose from what your saying its like the IR missle compared to Guns during the korean war....we must accept that we have to move forward just because something was great before does not make it great now otherwise we would still be using SMLE.303
also you can not have the best weapon system for all enviroments it is only as good as the person using it. Every weapon system is always better suited in another enviroment, the pros and cons are always trained to almost extinction.
Cost of moving to another calibre I belive is a moot point as it has become common that the 5.56mm is now being fielded alot by our enemies and changing is a matter of security and progression, with thoughts towards the 5.7mm pdw in trials by singapore the PDW was designed as a replacement to the L2 sub gun in britsh service also the p90 was also trialed the weapons offered easier use,lighter weight, greater firepower and penetration.
the biggest hurdle that happened with SS109 was that each member country went its own way as to the design of the projectile, all types are basically the same and had the same tech problems. And giant leaps still happen I remember the change from 7.62mm to 5.56mm. All thoughts with the future who knows I just believe changing 5.56mm to a more effective design and calibre so as to faciltate more possibilites for the future.
I am a old grunt if I could go from 7.62mm to 5.56mm I think the rest of all you can too.
Also there is a science called genectics I remember a few years ago (17yrs it is only a few)I had a recruits who have problems with SLR(kicks, its loud)and then a few years later another not liking how much a M16 kicks and then later again another saying the f88 was too heavy and wanted adjustable zoom on the sight like they had on there .22 sterling at home....the past is to be remembered and used in as experience towards the future, the future is for the brave and courageous who use our experience win and prosper.
also nice pictures of the slap rounds and sub cal hyper velocity round.
also another story while on a 32km force march I was passing a young recruit who complained to me about how heavy the M16 he was carrying had got after close to 17km, his head was down and I must say that he was still going strong.

 

[Tavarisch]

To replace 5.56mm x 45 isn't a bad idea, but it will be logistically hard to do. There are roughly 27,000 men in Iraq, and yeah they will be pulled out soon. Never the less, to replace the 5.56 that is in service with roughly 1 to 2 million men would not be done overnight.

It would leave several units unarmed for quite a while, which presents possible opportunities to foreign powers which are just DYING to kick the US in the ass. (China and Russia anyone?) Although I agree the 6.5 Grendel seems to be a possible replacement, to replace all of these rounds would not be logistically sound if it were to be done on a short timetable. Producing the round is one thing, sending it to the Army and Marines in short order is no small feat. Once arrived, the rounds will also need parts, mostly the barrels and the chambers as well as the magazines, to be replaced with ones changed to fit the dimensions of a new caliber. All sights need to be recalibrated to the dimensions of the bullet as well.

Anyways, most of the Troops serving their time seem to be quite happy with the 5.56. If it were to be replaced, I don't think they would complain but it's just logistically unsound for Army and Marines logistics to do in a short time frame. The only reason the M4 and the M16 jam is because of the extremely dusty desert environment they are fighting in. Keeping a weapon clean is essential in any gun, no matter what the caliber is.

 

[Driller]

From looking at the videos on future weapons, youtube, liveleak and reading a various forums i would say they should deffiently look at moving to the 6.5 or 6.8 just because the power and accuracy is extremely reliable. But, looking at the HK416 maybe there is room for improvement in the 5.56?