Should the 5.56 be replaced?

Should the 5.56 be replaced?


  • Total voters
    163

Vajt

New Member
So Tony, if you could have your pick of what a near-term future rifle might be like, what would you pick?

Here is what I would like:
-High use of polymers to make the weapon as light and as immune to environmental conditions as possible
-Caseless 6.5mm Grendel
-Modular to allow for easy changing of barrels and attachments (including the attachment of a MetalStorm projectile launcher)
-Use the Kriss V weapon principle to greatly reduce recoil
-Ergonomically designed to make it as comfortable to carry, hold and shoot as possible.

-----JT-----
 

Tony Williams

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
This is what I said on this subject in Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition

From all of the above it is possible to draw up a specification for the characteristics of an 'ideal' rifle, common to all calibres and even regardless of whether the preferred type has a traditional or bullpup layout, as follows:

1. Maximum reliability, even under the most adverse conditions. This also includes durability; tolerance of the kind of rough treatment common in warfare. Reliable functioning requires an action which is protected as far as possible from the ingress of dirt, and designed to expel any dirt which does get in. There should be a surplus of power available to drive the action and positive extraction, which implies a piston-type gas operation (preferably with an adjustable valve). Cleaning equipment should be provided in a compartment somewhere on the rifle.

2. Maximum ease of use for both right and left-handed users (few weapons score well at this). All controls should be ambidextrous, and all fall readily to hand and be operated in an instinctive way. It is common to combine the safety catch with the single shot/automatic fire selector, but this is arguably not ideal; a safety catch needs to be instantly and silently flipped on and off without moving the hand from the firing position and is best given just that function to do. (It could perhaps be a spring-loaded flap located within the trigger guard which has to be pushed to one side before the trigger can be pulled; it is then unnecessary to have to remember to switch it on and off.) The fire selector should be different, perhaps the ideal being the Steyr AUG's trigger control; normal pull for single shots, heavy pull for automatic fire; again, no switches to remember. The magazine release catch needs to be convenient to use by the hand grasping the magazine, but must not be easily hit by accident. The magazine should also be easy to locate in the magazine well, and click into place with a simple vertical push, without needing to be rocked from side-to-side or front-to-back.

3. Compactness for use in vehicles and in street-fighting, combined with a long enough barrel to provide the ballistics required to retain maximum effectiveness out to at least 300 metres. This implies either a bullpup layout or a folding/telescoping stock. In the latter case, care needs to be taken to ensure that the stock is quickly and easily extended, but is comfortable to use and remains rigid despite much use and abuse.

4. A flexible sight mounting system, which can accept a standard telescopic sight or night sights, but also has simple iron sights for emergencies. The ability to fit a range of accessories such as grenade launchers, torches, laser pointers etc is also important.

5. Other issues include:
a. a magazine hold-open device, which holds the bolt back when the last shot has been fired. This would seem obvious, but an astonishing number of weapons do not have it; the German G3, HK rifles generally, SIG and the original FAMAS are among the culprits (the later FAMAS has it). Their users only discover that the magazine is empty when they pull the trigger and nothing happens.
b. a trigger pull light and crisp enough to permit accurate firing on semi-automatic (unimportant in fully automatic fire, which should be for short-range emergencies only; in most circumstances, a trained rifleman will score more hits with rapid semi-automatic fire).
c. a charging handle (accessible to both hands, of course) which can also be used to force home a reluctant cartridge, or to kick a stuck case out of the chamber.
d. a trigger guard which permits the use of mittened hands; either one which can be pushed out of the way, or a full-hand guard like the Steyr AUG and the latest FAMAS.
e. a forward handguard shielded from heat build-up.
f. A design which enables the gun to be quickly and easily field-stripped for cleaning, without the risk of losing small parts or reassembling them in the wrong order

There is another important factor which is difficult to describe objectively, and that is the general handling of the weapon. The pistol grip and hand guard should be well shaped to provide a good grip, and the stock should provide a comfortable cheek rest. The gun should feel well-balanced, and come up to the aim naturally. The problem is that people differ in their views on this and, in particular, proponents of traditional rifles dislike bullpups, and vice versa. Finally, and bearing in mind that it is increasingly common to fit accessories of various types thereby adding noticeably to the weight, the weight of the basic rifle should be kept as low as is compatible with durability.
To that I would add another couple of points:

6. A bullpup layout is preferable for reasons I explain HERE.

7. I agree that the ideal calibre and ballistics should be pretty much the same as the 6.5mm Grendel, only using an advanced case or caseless design. I would call that "medium term" rather than near-term though. You'll find my arguments concerning assault rifle ballistic characteristics towards the end of THIS article.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
 

metalkat 77

New Member
I am not an expert about calibers, but well let see which is enough better even to penetrate a body personal armor :ar15 not talking about the .50 this is for vehicles and other parts covered by an armored sistem.
 

Tony Williams

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
There are different grades of body armour. The lightest will only keep out pistol bullets, the heaviest will stop full-power (7.62x51 or 7.62x54R) armour-piercing loads. The only answer to those will be tungsten-cored APDS rounds, which have already been developed and used for the 7.62x51, and could be for any 6.Xmm round.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
 

Vajt

New Member
I am not an expert about calibers, but well let see which is enough better even to penetrate a body personal armor :ar15 not talking about the .50 this is for vehicles and other parts covered by an armored sistem.
Or that's what the grenade launchers are for :)

-----JT-----
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
We don't need schools of thought - we've got ballistic gel tests. These reveal the size of the permanent wound channel (which, other things being equal, determines the speed of incapacitation). The 7.62x51 produces a consistently large one; the 5.56mm sometimes produces a large one, but sometimes zips straight through without tumbling. I explore the issue of terminal effectiveness in this article:
Yes, but even with ballistic gel tests it is impossible to generalise. I have a photocopy of an article that is at least 20 years old that compared the performance of a US or UK made 7.62 x 51 Std NATO ball round with a round produced in the then West Germany for their military.

The US or UK round produced a fairly small neat track and only started to tumble/deviate at around the 25 - 30cm mark, whereas the German round started tumbling after only 8 cm. The German round produced far greater cavitation and would have produced a far nastier injury to say a thigh than the US/UK round would have. The difference was attributed to the slightly different balance points of the projectiles (I cannot remember whether the german round had more of its mass in the nose or the tail - or even by what percentage) but it did mean that the German rounds became unstable much faster when encountering an object, thus creating more 'damage'.

The gist of the medical opinion was that an enemy shot through the thigh with the US/UK round may survive, but provided the bone was not impacted, the shot would maybe be a through and through injury with a reasonable chance of keeping the limb (depending on the involvement of the major arteries and veins). Whereas the same leg hit in the same place by the German round would likely have blown out the back of the leg with the victim suffering much larger and more debilitating injuries if he survived.

So there are obviously differences in stopping power even within ostensibly similar ball ammunition of the same calibre. This muddies the issue still further.
 

Tony Williams

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
So there are obviously differences in stopping power even within ostensibly similar ball ammunition of the same calibre. This muddies the issue still further.
That is certainly true. The Yugoslavian lead-cored 7.62x39 ammo is said to be much deadlier than the standard steel-cored Russian stuff, because the different balance causes it to yaw much more quickly on impact.

The lethality of the German 7.62x51 ball bullet was further enhanced by the thin jacket, which meant that the bullet would often fragment as it tumbled (like the 5.56mm M855 often does).

One of the problems with the M855 is that terminal performance is not specified (apart from armour penetration) so can be very variable from one batch of ammo to another, depending on production variations.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
reading through the thread there is lots of talk of one shot kills and velocilty and all yes the 5.56 is not the best bullet out there. I have been in the game for years on the sniper side. yes a kill shot does have it thrills and good pioints. the whole point in war is not just to kill the person but you want to tke him and as many of his buddy's out so if you wound i giy his buddy's will not leave him there. which will take about three to four people out of a contact. were if bang you dead your buddy carry's on fighting. also the range of targets you want to ingauge at 300yard it is not that easy to see what a person is doing there for leave it to the spesileasts they trained for it.
thats just my 2cents
The nature of combat has changed. The old concept of mass army vs mass army meant that causing wounds was the best approach to defeat the other army as a hole. But now its not army vs army but army vs potential suicide bomber terrorist. Causing wounds does not reduce the potential of the other side. They don't care about medical evacuation or treatment. Each wounded enemy becomes an intelligent landmine waiting for the chance for one last attack.

So one shoot, total incapacitation is what we now need out of our bullets. Nothing else has changed, we still need to be able to shoot huge numbers of bullets to suppress the enemy so we can maneuver and the engagement ranges are still pretty much the same. Also an issue waiting to arise is the proliferation of advanced CBA (body armour). If the enemy start wearing the same CBA as western ground forces what will that mean?

So what's to give? Will new technology like the LAST program (using in part 'old' German caseless tech) and bigger bullets for better terminal performance be the way? Or perhaps we need to scrap these 19th century legal impediment that makes the battlefield more dangerous for soldiers and civilians and significantly reduces lethality.
 

Firn

Active Member
Having hunting experience with a Tikka T3 Lite in the 6,5x55 SE I can assert that the recoil of such a medium caliber is far lighter the 7,62 NATO. It has excellent penetration due to the great sectional density, shoots quite flat and is with heavier bullets rather resistent in the wind. Very accurate and pleasant to shoot. Important things when shooting game in mountains. It is very reliable for large deer with expanding copper bullets (Lapua).

The 6.5 Grendel seems to be surprisingly close to the old Swede, if somewhat shorter. It would IMHO be a brilliant GPMG and DM/sniper round with a heavy bullet with high BC. However it is according to this article 40%heavier than the 5,56 NATO. This means a world of difference when it comes down to available rounds.

5.56x45 — 10 x 30-round magazines =
300 rounds

6x45 & 6.5x42 — 9 x 30-round magazines =
270 rounds

6.5x38 & 6.8x43 — 8 x 25-round magazines =
200 rounds

Fitted with a sound suppressor I would think that the recoil would be easy to handle even with heavier bullets.
 
Last edited:

SoCalSooner

New Member
Maybe it could be replaced by the .450/470 Nitro Express.:D

I am thinking of getting a hunting rifle, that will shoot a 300 grain .405. That should stop just about anybody.
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I always look to the IDF for reference whenever people start saying this or that is not working. And the wars that IDF fought in the past aren't exactly small or short distances.

The Isrealis - who fought in the wide open desert and the cities - also shelved its entire expensive arsenal of FN FAL in favour of a 5.56 calibre. Which they use to this day.

Does anyone know if the IDF are happy with the 5.56?
 
Last edited:

lobbie111

New Member
I think a lot of people here are now more inclined to 6.5mm or 6.8mm ammunition however I do recognise that some people do disagree. However, in this current situation where military technolgy is at such an advanced level does it really matter, if there is a profound need for change then surely all is needed will be a conversion kit. It would be quite useful if a squad had all 6.5/6.8mm and the DM and SAW could actually change to 7.62 when they need to go on vehicle and the DM to a useful .338 Lapua round.
 

Firn

Active Member
The most recent wars in Lebanon and Gaza were of course a mix of CQB and longer engagements. The Israeli have been seemingly steadily increasing the use of snipers and DM in the last 10-15 years, especially after the Intifada to benefit from the inherent tactical and strategical (political) advantages they offer. The new Tavor DMR should replace the older M4 DMR of the same caliber as it the other Tavors do the M4 in other roles. So it seems that the IDF is at least not too unhappy with the 5.56 Nato because the new weapon was the big chance in a generation to introduce a new assault rifle caliber.
 

Tony Williams

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
I think it is very unlikely that a small country like Israel would adopt a unique calibre, not shared with any other nation.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I think it is very unlikely that a small country like Israel would adopt a unique calibre, not shared with any other nation.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
True.

But I was suggesting that maybe they had the choice to retain the 7.62 if they found the 5.56 wanting? The Galil was made in both NATO and Warsaw 7.62 if IDF had found the 5.56 inefficient.
 
Last edited:

Tony Williams

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
You have to bear in mind that the Israeli Army is still predominantly armed with M16 and M4 rifles which were basically given to them free by the USA. That's quite a strong incentive to use 5.56mm...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
You have to bear in mind that the Israeli Army is still predominantly armed with M16 and M4 rifles which were basically given to them free by the USA. That's quite a strong incentive to use 5.56mm...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
But IIRC the decision to switch to 5.56 was made independently when they decided to develop their own rifle Galil, after dissatisfaction with the FN FAL, but before the freebies arrived.

The line I am taking is slightly different in that I am answering purely as to whether the 5.56 needs replacement. And not if such-and-such other new round is better.

Because it is necessary to establish first beyond any doubt, that the 5.56 is useless. And until that is proven beyond doubt, it is frivolous to talk about what new round is better.

(There will always be something better: women, BMW, rifle calibres etc. But unless you have money coming out of your ears, you have to decide wisely where to use it.)

To this end we should check if any other armies have experienced similar problems with the 5.56.

So until we hear the IDF also complaining about the 5.56, we should reserve our judgment as some of these US reports may be inspired by people who stand to gain financially.

Furthermore, US servicemen in the field themselves report satisfaction.

Every military round had at some point failed to stop as some folks are simply tough to kill, period. But people didn't break into hysterics over a few incidents back then.

However, in this computer age, everything is expected to be instant, even death. But ain't gonna happen.

If you adopt a new round like the 6-point-something, it won't be long before someone will start finding faults with it, too. That's life.
 

Tony Williams

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
But IIRC the decision to switch to 5.56 was made independently when they decided to develop their own rifle Galil, after dissatisfaction with the FN FAL, but before the freebies arrived.
The Israelis first acquired some M16A1s and CAR-15s, and decided that these were a better solution than the big FAL so started to design the Galil. At that time, the 5.56mm had a reasonable reputation with M193 ammunition (it influenced Russia to develop the 5.45mm) and serious questions about terminal effectiveness weren't asked until Somalia in 1993, when the new M855 ammo was being used. The M855 has different characteristics from the M193, being optimised for longer range and penetration, but it seems to have lost some short-range terminal effectiveness.

Because it is necessary to establish first beyond any doubt, that the 5.56 is useless. And until that is proven beyond doubt, it is frivolous to talk about what new round is better.
I don't agree. First because it clearly isn't "useless"; not even a .22LR rimfire is "useless". As I've posted before, terminal effectiveness is a matter of percentages. Experience - supported by ballistic gel testing - indicates that while the 5.56mm often does the job, it sometimes doesn't; it fails to a greater extent thhan the 7.62mm.

To this end we should check if any other armies have experienced similar problems with the 5.56.
As I've already mentioned, I've been told that complaints about ammo effectiveness have been made in the British Army.

Furthermore, US servicemen in the field themselves report satisfaction.
Most do, some report the opposite, which is exactly what you'd expect given the patchy performance of the 5.56mm. You also have to bear in mind that not too many infantry get to shoot many people at close range so they can observe the results.

It's a matter of striking the best compromise between conflicting characteristics. On the one hand, soldiers want a round which will reach out to long range, blast through intermediate barriers and drop the enemy where they stand. On the other hand, they want the recoil to be light enough for controlled automatic fire, and the ammo to be as light as possible. Obviously, you can't have all of this is one round. The 7.62x51 is too heavy and kicks too hard, the 5.56mm is lacking in effective range, penetration and reliable stopping power. So, something in between looks like the best compromise, and that should be borne in mind when developing the new generation of lightweight (plastic/caseless) ammo. Of course it won't be perfect - nothing ever is - and sometimes the enemy won't go down when shot, but it should happen significantly less often than with the 5.56mm.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
At that time, the 5.56mm had a reasonable reputation with M193 ammunition (it influenced Russia to develop the 5.45mm) and serious questions about terminal effectiveness weren't asked until Somalia in 1993, when the new M855 ammo was being used. The M855 has different characteristics from the M193, being optimised for longer range and penetration, but it seems to have lost some short-range terminal effectiveness.
Do you know if the Israelis switched to M855?

IIRC in SAF we were still using M193 when I last served 12 yrs ago.


I don't agree. First because it clearly isn't "useless"; not even a .22LR rimfire is "useless".
True. FBI data showed between 1993 - 2002 showed 28 police officers killed with .22 (9 of them while wearing body armour).

Same FBI study about the myth of "One-shot-drops" also quoted several incidents of crims shot multiple times at close range with big cal hollowpoints like .45, .40 and 9mm with little or no immediate effect.

It's all about shot placement....
 

Tony Williams

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
It's all about shot placement....
It's mostly about shot placement...if you hit them in exactly the right spot it doesn't matter much what you shoot them with, and if you hit them in a non-vital area it doesn't have much effect whatever you use. It's the in-between hits (probably most of them) where the round which creates the bigger wound channel is more likely to drop the target more quickly - but probably not immediately.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website
 
Top