Should the 5.56 be replaced?

[Firn]

I chose the 6,5x55 after informing me about the terminal ballistics of bullets. Seems that a heaviest high-quality copper bullet (Barnes TSX) with good expension is the way to go for most game. According to AmmoOracle the very heavy 5.56mm bullets prone to fragmentation(military)/expansion performed very well in gelatine tests. The Special Forces also use a heavy 77gr match bullet instead of the traditional 62gr one. Especially with shorter barrels this helps a great deal.

 

[willur]

I still believe that although the 5.56mm is effective I believe the move would be motivated not only by the effective of ballistics of the new round, but by the fact that the noggies are now using the same current effective round. As alot of 5.56mm weapons have been fielded and are currently available as a option in AK100 series.

 

[Marc 1]

the noggies

Mate, who?

 

[Citgab]

The Army's embracing the 5.56mm round concerned the staggering Vietnam era statistic of 50,000 rounds shot to kill each enemy soldier in the conflict. The accountants won that battle, the 5.56 is cheaper than the 7.62. US marksmanship has improved markedly since then, as shown by the Marines in the battle of Khafji during DS. There were so many Iraqi deaths due to headshots, there was suspicion of executions - no executions, just bloody good American shooting. The 5.56 mm is dern lethal, in a headshot scenario.

But why should the American soldier be carrying a round to combat crazed Jihad -ists that no hunter would equip himself with to hunt bambi? Whatever the round, 7.62, 6.5, 6.8 or .50?! Soldiers should have a round with enough force to kill his target with a body shot, first time, every time.

"Soldiers should have a round with enough force to kill his target with a body shot, first time, every time."

Never has and never will. Even the .30-06 and 8x57 could not do that. Swedish studies indicate that bullet effeciveness are 80% dependent on bullet placement independent of caliber. Add the lost 6" to the barrels of the M-4 and there will be as much improvemnt as there would be in going to 6.8 or 6.5 Grendel. Simply increasing the caliber to 6.5 or 6.8 while keeping the basic 5.56 case would have similar effect while minimizing conversion and supply problems.

Nitpicking over minor ballistic differences is just that nitpicking.

"The best is the enemy of the good" [enough]
keeping openin

 

[Chino]

Since Hollywood and the "instant death single gunshot wound" came along, people will accept nothing less.

 

[robbo_c]

7.62mm it's suppose to kill enemy combatants in an instant.

More humane way to kill..

Yeah but you would rather the enemy seriously wounded than killed.Because if they get killed there mates are just goin to keep on shooting back,but if they are injured they are going to stop firing and help them.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

7.62mm it's suppose to kill enemy combatants in an instant.

More humane way to kill..

Not exactly, not even a 30-06, .308 or 7.92X57mm can always kill a human instantly, never has and never will.

Yeah but you would rather the enemy seriously wounded than killed.Because if they get killed there mates are just goin to keep on shooting back,but if they are injured they are going to stop firing and help them.

Not in Iraq where the insurgents don't even help their wounded, they just let them bleed out and die and they keep on fighting by themselves.

Also the 5.56 does not always just wound, it can kill very easily. The bullet yaws or tumbles and then fragments causing a wound that can be bigger than a 7.62 NATO even. It helps to have a 20 inch barrel though, they do have problems with the M4 with the 14.5 inch barrel sometimes but not always.

 

[Tony Williams]

Not exactly, not even a 30-06, .308 or 7.92X57mm can always kill a human instantly, never has and never will.

No bullet (even from a .50 BMG) kills instantly unless it hits the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine). If a bullet destroys the heart, the victim has maybe 7-10 secs of consciousness before the brain runs out of oxygen, with death following in maybe 30 seconds.

Bullet strike effectiveness depends on many factors, psychological as well as physical. The most you can say is that, other things being equal, the bigger the wounding channel created, the more likely the bullet is to put someone out of the fight quickly.

Not in Iraq where the insurgents don't even help their wounded, they just let them bleed out and die and they keep on fighting by themselves.

Even in other circumstances this story owes more to myth than reality. It takes far more energy to incapacitate your enemy quickly (which is what you want, so that your enemy can't fight back) than it does to inflict a lethal injury. Tens of thousands of people have been killed by the little .22LR rimfire.

Also the 5.56 does not always just wound, it can kill very easily. The bullet yaws or tumbles and then fragments causing a wound that can be bigger than a 7.62 NATO even. It helps to have a 20 inch barrel though, they do have problems with the M4 with the 14.5 inch barrel sometimes but not always.

It would be more accurate to say the the 5.56mm SS109/M855 can tumble rapidly on impact (but only if it's yawing when it strikes - if it hits exactly point-first, it'll zip straight through making a small hole), and that if it tumbles, it can fragment (if it strikes at a high enough velocity). From a 14.5 inch barrel, the velocity is such that it is unlikely to fragment at ranges of more than 100m.

 

[Marc 1]

Not in Iraq where the insurgents don't even help their wounded, they just let them bleed out and die and they keep on fighting by themselves.
.

This is actually what is taught in the Australian Army too - if one of your mates is wounded, you are supposed to leave them and continue with the assault - as if you start to have people stop to help others during the assault phase of an attack it may jepordise the actual assault - then you have troops pinned down sustaining more casualties. Doctrine says win the fight, then during the reorganisation after the battle attend to casualties etc. It may seem harsh but once a battle has been 'won' you can organise far better care and medivac than during some sustained contact that just seems to go on and on because the assault lost its momentum. Of course this is the ideal situation and it is said that a battle plan never survives contact with the enemy, so it may not always be possible to do this. But the theory remains the same - fight the fight first, wounded second.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I think the 5.56 needs to be replace by the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel soon. The 5.56's time has come and gone and a newer better round should be produced.

 

[USNlover]

YES,Mod edit: Text deleted. A single "Yes" was sufficient. In the future, place make appropriate and relevant posts. Just as the use of a large number of emoticons is irrelevant and distracting, so to is using the same word over and over again. Similarly, posting largely in CAPS is considered shouting and rude, particularly if done often.
-Preceptor

5.56 SHOULD BE REPLACED I THINK THAT IT IS TOO WEAK, yes it is lighter but i would rather have a more powerful one shot-one kill bullet than a one 3-round burst-one kill bullet. :vamp

 

[lobbie111]

I see this debate is still raging, if countries were to switch to different ammunition it would be some time before any major switch happens, the US and asociated countries has a HUGE stockpile of 5.56mm Nato, you can't simply change and waste all that ammunition.

I have found stopping power comes from the use of hollowpoints as hunters use. An inadequetly aimed hollowpoint still often brings a kangaroo down. Unfortunatly as hollowpoint rounds are illegal by military law/geneva convention this is not an option.

If a 5.56 or 6.5/6.8mm round was developed that has propeties similar to a hollowpoint I'm sure you would double the effectivness of both rounds.

 

[Tony Williams]

I see this debate is still raging, if countries were to switch to different ammunition it would be some time before any major switch happens, the US and asociated countries has a HUGE stockpile of 5.56mm Nato, you can't simply change and waste all that ammunition.

Actually, there was a shortage of the stuff not long ago, because it was being used up on operations much faster than the normal peacetime production rate. The USA ended up buying Israeli ammo for training purposes. So, no huge stockpiles.

I have found stopping power comes from the use of hollowpoints as hunters use. An inadequetly aimed hollowpoint still often brings a kangaroo down. Unfortunatly as hollowpoint rounds are illegal by military law/geneva convention this is not an option.

If a 5.56 or 6.5/6.8mm round was developed that has propeties similar to a hollowpoint I'm sure you would double the effectivness of both rounds.

True enough but, as you say, bullets designed to expand are regarded as illegal and I am unaware of any serious efforts to change that.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[kato]

The USA ended up buying Israeli ammo for training purposes.

And having a good proportion of the German wartime stock (that didn't really need renewal yet) donated pretty early on already...

 

[lobbie111]

Actually, there was a shortage of the stuff not long ago, because it was being used up on operations much faster than the normal peacetime production rate. The USA ended up buying Israeli ammo for training purposes. So, no huge stockpiles.


True enough but, as you say, bullets designed to expand are regarded as illegal and I am unaware of any serious efforts to change that.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

So all the cold war stock has been used up/destroyed? wow the US must chew through a lot of ammunition.

I know of certain ammunition where the mid section of the round is designed to expand and not fragment. What context of expanding are we tlaking about here fragmenting or non fragmenting?

 

[Tony Williams]

I know of certain ammunition where the mid section of the round is designed to expand and not fragment. What context of expanding are we tlaking about here fragmenting or non fragmenting?

This is a tricky subject. There have been various international agreements limiting the type of ammunition used in warfare. They vary in what they proscribe, and also in who signed up to them and in what circumstances they apply.

Generally speaking, however, bullets which are designed to expand on impact are considered to be illegal. This dates from Hague 1899 which prohibits the use, in international armed conflict, of bullets "which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions". This was extended by a more general provision in Hague 1907, clarified as recently in Geneva 1977, which states "It is prohibited to employ weapons (and) projectiles of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering". This definition could of course provide a field day for lawyers, but it is usually taken to mean that the degree of "superflous" injury must not be disproportionate to military necessity in meeting legitimate objectives.

A key point in all this seems to be "designed" - the intended purpose of the weapon. For example, some modern sniper bullets have a small hollow point, which technically infringes Hague 1899, but that is considered OK because it is only there as a side-effect of the method of bullet construction, not to aid expansion. I also suspect that any bullet designed to fragment on impact would fall foul of Geneva 1977; the fact that some bullets do fragment in some circumstances is an accident of construction, not an intended design feature or a requirement in the production standards.

All very odd, I know - but I'm not trying to defend the law, just to explain it!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I hope they switch over to the 6.5 or 6.8 very soon. They would have the stopping power of the AK but the range and accuracy of the 5.56. Plus they would only need to change certain parts of our 5.56 weapons, they can still keep the current M4s and M16s and M249s just change out the parts that touch the rounds.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

5.56 SHOULD BE REPLACED I THINK THAT IT IS TOO WEAK, yes it is lighter but i would rather have a more powerful one shot-one kill bullet than a one 3-round burst-one kill bullet. :vamp

The 6.5 and 6.8 are not much heavier than the 5.56 in terms of overall weight so you can still carry the same amount of ammo and only add just a little bit more weight.

The 6.5 and 6.8 can transfer all of its energy to the target thus giving it real knock down power. The 5.56 falls short in modern warfare and lesions learned from Iraq show that a better round is needed.

 

[lobbie111]

The 6.5 and 6.8 are not much heavier than the 5.56 in terms of overall weight so you can still carry the same amount of ammo and only add just a little bit more weight.

The 6.5 and 6.8 can transfer all of its energy to the target thus giving it real knock down power. The 5.56 falls short in modern warfare and lesions learned from Iraq show that a better round is needed.

I think you are confusing modern ammunition technology with benefits. The 6.5/6.8 is a more powerful round (thats obvious) but the 6.5/6.8 rounds are much more modern and can take advantage of more modern ballistic technology than the 5.56 (which isn't that old). Newer 5.56 rounds are some of the most lethal rounds out there today, the problem is how small and thin the round is, we are talking 1-1.3 of a mm difference get a ruler and see how different that is, not by that much!

 

[Chrom]

So all the cold war stock has been used up/destroyed? wow the US must chew through a lot of ammunition.

I know of certain ammunition where the mid section of the round is designed to expand and not fragment. What context of expanding are we tlaking about here fragmenting or non fragmenting?

This is usuall misuderstanding and (sometimes intentional) musinterpretation of "old huge stock" fact.

Every country maintain pretty large strategic reserve of ammo, weapons, etc. This strategic reserve get constanly refilled by factories so it didnt fall too low.

"Shortage" actually means what army used all "every-day" ammo stocks, and started to touch strategic reserve. So, in fact, there is still huge stockpile of old ammo left.

Now, if army at sometime DO NOT meet hard decision to change ammo caliber, there will be always huge stock of old ammo in reserve. Becouse, again, strategic reserve cant fall too low. So, basically, this argument about huge old stockpiles is quite irrelevant.

If US stops produce 5.56 ammo, all old stock will be expended in few years. Through various operations a-la Iraq, training, even selling amm abroad.

In short, get "new" ammo cost out of equation. It doesnt matter in long run.