Should the 5.56 be replaced?

[cavalrytrooper]

I was stating fact. Conserving ammunition, have you ever been in a fire fight and they are throwing everything against you and trying to kill you. Or if they capture you they'll cut your head off. You are going throw as much stuff at them as you possibly can. The last thing on your mind is conserving ammunition, your trying to save your ass and your buddies.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]cavalrytrooper[/FONT]: The 5.56 is a very effective killing round. The 5.56 is in fact deadlier than the 7.62X39mm round use by the AK-47. All that is needed is a 20 inch barrel like the M16A4 and M249 SAW uses and the 5.56 will have a very high muzzle velocity of 3200 ft per second. The bullet will yaw then fragment causing a more horrible and less survivable wound than the AK would produce. The M4 is better at close range which in most cases combat in Iraq is at closer ranges so the M16 is not needed every time. Those stupid rumors that the 5.56 is only designed to wound are just false urban legends nothing more. I have seen some very gruesome pictures of people who have been killed by the 5.56 but I wont post it here though.

But back to the 3 round burst vs full auto. I think if they do replace the 3 round burst with full auto in assault rifles they should at least reduce the rate of fire in the M4A1/ SCAR-L/H&K416 or whatever they use from 750 round per minute to about 600 round per minute rate of fire because it will be more controllable in automatic and you wont burn through a 30 round mag in just 2 seconds. Plus 600 RPM it still an excellent rate of fire for a rifle and it will keep the enemies heads down.

 

[Marc 1]

Plus 600 RPM it still an excellent rate of fire for a rifle and it will keep the enemies heads down.

Now you are talking about burning out barrels. The M16 is not an LMG - it should not be used as one. Supressive fire is fire that is preventing the enemy from interfering with the operations your side is conducting. To do that you only need to keep their heads down so they cannot see you or return fire - about one controlled aimed shot every second or two will do that - at a much lower expenditure of ammunition. Ergo a semiautomatic weapon is fine for this - hell even a couple of extremely well trained diggers with bolt action 303's could do that.

As I recall (I spent 5 or 6 weeks at Singleton in the middle of winter doing a master coaches course) the 3 round burst and the instilling of basic marksmanship principles were introduced into the US military as lessons learned after the US army's full auto 'yippee shoot' days in Vietnam - as Riksavage has pointed out.

Cavalrytrooper, in battles such as the one fought by D Coy 6 RAR in the rubber plantation at Long Tan 18 Aug '66, there would have been no survivors from the entire company had the diggers not conserved ammo and rationed and redistributed what they had. It got pretty desperate - spent a couple of nights around a campfire a few years back with one of the blokes who was there - dead and badly wounded were being stripped of ammo. For those who have never heard of this battle, there is a short synopsis here: Battle of Long T?n - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Remember, the average rifleman was equipped with semi-auto SLR's too.

 

[riksavage]

I was stating fact. Conserving ammunition, have you ever been in a fire fight and they are throwing everything against you and trying to kill you. Or if they capture you they'll cut your head off. You are going throw as much stuff at them as you possibly can. The last thing on your mind is conserving ammunition, your trying to save your ass and your buddies.

You are contradicting yourself here, by 'throwing everything against the enemy' and not conserving your ammo you are more likely to find yourself in a position where your head is going to get cut-off, by virtue of the fact that you suddenly find yourself ammo-less and reliant on the mark one bayonet! I don't agree that the only way to win a fire-fight is to throw everything you have at the enemy in a full-auto fire mode (back to the Vietnam method). You can still dominate your arcs by using controlled bursts of 3 rounds or intensive accurate semi-auto fire supported by interlocking LMG's and 61mm's (if you have them at the squad level).

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Now you are talking about burning out barrels. The M16 is not an LMG - it should not be used as one. Supressive fire is fire that is preventing the enemy from interfering with the operations your side is conducting. To do that you only need to keep their heads down so they cannot see you or return fire - about one controlled aimed shot every second or two will do that - at a much lower expenditure of ammunition. Ergo a semiautomatic weapon is fine for this - hell even a couple of extremely well trained diggers with bolt action 303's could do that.

As I recall (I spent 5 or 6 weeks at Singleton in the middle of winter doing a master coaches course) the 3 round burst and the instilling of basic marksmanship principles were introduced into the US military as lessons learned after the US army's full auto 'yippee shoot' days in Vietnam - as Riksavage has pointed out.

Cavalrytrooper, in battles such as the one fought by D Coy 6 RAR in the rubber plantation at Long Tan 18 Aug '66, there would have been no survivors from the entire company had the diggers not conserved ammo and rationed and redistributed what they had. It got pretty desperate - spent a couple of nights around a campfire a few years back with one of the blokes who was there - dead and badly wounded were being stripped of ammo. For those who have never heard of this battle, there is a short synopsis here: Battle of Long T?n - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Remember, the average rifleman was equipped with semi-auto SLR's too.

I've talked to someone who has been to Iraq before and he says they almost always use semi-auto only. They almost never use the 3 round burst mode because its hard as hell to hit a man sized target out at long ranges so they just use the 3 round burst at the shooting range just to burn through ammo and make noise for fun but they almost never use it in combat.

Speaking of bolt actions about 6-8 Kar98K's with 1-2 MG42's will do for suppressive fire even in modern day combat.

 

[mattyem]

IMO...



b) Full-auto, as taught in SAF (during my time), is for clearing rooms, trenches and bunkers.

c) Full-auto was also cited in books by veterans of Vietnam to be useful for engaging fast-moving targets at close range (jungle or CQB) that only appear for a fleeting moment.


3-rd burst is good for (c), not sure about (b)?

How often do we see trench fighting these days with the power of air support, equally said with bunkers and the "bunker busting muntions of today"

 

[riksavage]

How often do we see trench fighting these days with the power of air support, equally said with bunkers and the "bunker busting muntions of today"

Tell that to the infantry units in Afghanistan clearing compounds, deep drainage ditches, tunnels and corn fields with rifle and bayonet.

 

[mattyem]

Tell that to the infantry units in Afghanistan clearing compounds, deep drainage ditches, tunnels and corn fields with rifle and bayonet.

More skirmish type senarios from the convos ive had, with the australian infantry anyway. First contact I agree, then its sit and wait for air support and show of power which 9/10 instances sends them running. This is what I have been told from the Aussie and some Dutch forces. But back on point this isn't really a thread about selected fire types of rifles

 

[Cadredave]

More skirmish type senarios from the convos ive had, with the australian infantry anyway. First contact I agree, then its sit and wait for air support and show of power which 9/10 instances sends them running. This is what I have been told from the Aussie and some Dutch forces. But back on point this isn't really a thread about selected fire types of rifles

Mattyem the job of the infantry is to seek out & close with them, no amount of airpower is going to change that as Infantry we rely on marksmanship & the bayonet. The Aussie & Dutch Infantry forces operate on very tight controls which means they sit back & rely on airpower however the Aussie Infantry know how to shoot they know there marksmanship principles they are taught like us it dont matter what calibre you have if you cant aim & shoot you aren’t going to hit your target period. I find this debate very academic as every one has talked about barrel length, twists in the barrel, shooting conditions etc but have left out the most important aspect of all the person behind the rifle. You dig deep enough into all the after action reports from Timor, Astan & Iraq you will find that its not the calibre thats at fault but the way the soldier has applied his marksmanship principles as for me I find the 5.56mm SS109 to be perfectly fine for what it was intended to do.

 

[mattyem]

I totally agree,

though i dont know as much about infantry tactics as im in the Navy, it comes down to thew marksman, the man behind the rifle. My point has been blurred over the posts and I see no great need to change the current Nato 5.56 round either.

 

[Lekhite]

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.

Coming in late into the discussion so this might have been said already.

Even if a weapon was accurate or close enough that every round you fired in full auto hit it's target, it would still be a waste of ammo if only one or two rounds were needed to do the job. Why waste the extra ammo?

As a gunner in a section using M60, Mag58 and even the F89 Minimi, I was taught to fire 3 round bursts with these weapons. Full auto was used mainly for suppression, when the weapon was staked down , during planned ambushes or if a scout got himself into shit.

 

[extern]

A lot of situations (patroling, attack) put you with need to fire from unstable position (on moving) when you just cannot benefit from super accurateness of single shot. SO better to fire short bursts on moving enemies in such scenarios, than looking for cover, lying and turning to marksman tactics.

 

[Chino]

Coming in late into the discussion so this might have been said already.

Even if a weapon was accurate or close enough that every round you fired in full auto hit it's target, it would still be a waste of ammo if only one or two rounds were needed to do the job. Why waste the extra ammo?

As a gunner in a section using M60, Mag58 and even the F89 Minimi, I was taught to fire 3 round bursts with these weapons. Full auto was used mainly for suppression, when the weapon was staked down , during planned ambushes or if a scout got himself into shit.

sigh....

I am talking about the mechanical ability of the weapon to fire full auto vs the mechanical inability to fire full auto - i.e. M16A2 3-rd burst limit.

I am not talking about the operator's trigger finger.

Do you want your GPMG to be mechanically limited to a 3rd burst?

If YES, I am very curious to know why?

If NO, then we want the same thing and there's no need for you to further reply. Thanks.

 

[Maeda Toshiie]

A lot of situations (patroling, attack) put you with need to fire from unstable position (on moving) when you just cannot benefit from super accurateness of single shot. SO better to fire short bursts on moving enemies in such scenarios, than looking for cover, lying and turning to marksman tactics.

???

I don't know which army you have served in, but I was never taught to "fire on the move". The moment any properly trained infantry squad is "engaged" by the enemy, the whole squad takes cover immediately before returning fire. Granted, the adrenaline rush of combat will prevent most soldiers (especially non combat veterans) from remembering the few basic points of marksmanship, but running around and shooting belongs to games. When an infantry squad/platoon assaults an enemy position, fire and movement is utilized.

The only time I can imagine a soldier in real life firing his rifle at a target while moving is when storming a room during MOUT operations and targets at this time are less than 20m away.

 

[Chino]

???

I don't know which army you have served in, but I was never taught to "fire on the move". The moment any properly trained infantry squad is "engaged" by the enemy, the whole squad takes cover immediately before returning fire. Granted, the adrenaline rush of combat will prevent most soldiers (especially non combat veterans) from remembering the few basic points of marksmanship, but running around and shooting belongs to games. When an infantry squad/platoon assaults an enemy position, fire and movement is utilized.

The only time I can imagine a soldier in real life firing his rifle at a target while moving is when storming a room during MOUT operations and targets at this time are less than 20m away.

I'm from Singapore and I'm afraid my training is different from yours. So please do not speak for all Singaporeans.

I don't mean to be offensive but we each only know a small puzzle of the whole picture. There will again be other Singaporeans whose training is completely different to either yours or mine. This all depends on the period and the unit.

As should be expected, SAF training doctrines changes every year to keep up with new learnings.

 

[LloydTasiD]

Only Americans think the 5.56 needs replacing, they are too blind to see that the problem is with their M16/M4( V short barrel) rifles...

I don't think the 5.56 needs replacing. The 5.56 is a very effective high velocity round. It's a good round for standard assault rifles. It also is much lighter than the 7.62 when it comes to mass loads. But we do use the 7.62 for heavier purposes such as the M24 sniper and medium machine guns. The 7.62 also doesn't have near the accuracy without the long barrels of snipers, accuracy much needed for assault rifles. Also the 7.62 in an assault rifle is just too much recoil.
For instance, lets compare two 5.56 carbines. The M4 and micro Galil. The micro Galil is way less accurate because it is much lighter than the M4, so it has a harder recoil. The same thing applies to the same rifle with a 5.56 and 7.62.
If we were to replace the 5.56 though, it ought to be with the 6.8 since is has more power than a 5.56 but also much more accuracy than a 7.62.

 

[Armoured Recce]

Hi,

I found this particular thread very entertaining.

I have served in the Canadian Military ( both Infantry and Armoured Corps) and was active during the switch from the Canadian C1A1-C2A1 ( 7.62 Nato) to the C7 - C8 (5.56) and have used ALL the firearms in both series...

I find it interesting that repetedly, in countless forums and threads in many different areas that this debate surfaces...and generally involves tons of "paper speculation" by alot of people that really haven't used either much...

In my own experience I can hinestly say that that it wasn;t the switch in ammunition as it was a switch in doctrine...

The CF used the C1A1 - C2 for a long time, and as such the training and tactics right down to the fireteam level was geared towards personal marksmanship...in fact as a military we were proud of the fact that our ability with a semi-auto 7.62 weapon allowed for us to be able to HIT what we were aiming at, with few rounds fired....THAT all changed with the introduction of the C7 series....

We went from the tactical "double tap and down, aim and fire acurately" mentality to the spray, drop and fire......

I am of the honest opinion that personal marksmanship has declined INTERNATIONALLY with the introduction and adaptation of the lighter 5.56 series Infantry systems....hence we see the inclusion almost universally of sight systems, be it Eotechs, ALCANS, ACOG's or whatever system any Nation utilizes....The ability of individual troops to be able to USE acuratily simple open battle sights has dropped drastically...why?...simply because the current "trend" to issue sight systems.....to everyone.....

The ability of individual rounds are realistically indifferent.....because the troops on the ground have always used and accomplished their tasks with what is given them.....

Comparison like above of the M4 and mini Galil are rediculous as well...seeing as one operating system is NOT the same as the next...the rounds accuracy isn;t as effectively judged by "recoil" from the round being fired as by the design of the system that fires it....example....the Galil series is based around the AK series operating system..although modified and "tightened" it still operates on a "sloppy" concept...like the AK, it is more inaccurate due to that than the rounds fired....

I find it very intertaining that the these "new rounds" are being developed in the USA, seeing how it was the USA that screemed the "wonderfulness" of the 5.56 and led the world wide addaption of 5.56...instead of the older, proven 7.62 rounds....

The arguement about the wieght concerns of the number of rounds carried by individual troops is again a rediculous and pointless argument in itself...and seems to be perpitrated mostly by those that have NEVER either been forced to carry a combat load of any kind or limited to only one kind.....I;ve "humped" both for countless miles and I can say....You addapt..simple as that......

The wieght of rounds carried is also heavily offset by the "battle load" common now ( ie. Body armour, NV systems, grenade launchers, attached sight systems etc) when compared to the standard equipment carried by troops in the '80's and early 90's....

In closing YES, 7.62 rounds travel further, hit harder and penetrate more....also weigh more to carry, BUT the firearms carried also generally fired SEMI, so less rounds, fired more accurately were the norm....5.56 are lighter, more rounds carried and more fired for less effect overall but may cause more dibilitating "injury" when hits are made.........it's an old arguement that has no end or winner.......

The changing of ammo to anything isn;t going to "fix" the issues.......is a 6.5 or 6.8 round going to make an indvidual soldier shoot better?..NO......it's all "industry driven " and is rediculous to speculate on it........simple fact of the matter is this......NATO and every country that uses 5.56 now.....ISN'T going to switch because of what the US industry or military says........not again.......

case studies can be made from actual combat experience from many nations.....

examples being the 1982 Falklands War ( British troops with SEMI fire SLR's (7.62) vs. the Argentinian troops full auto capable 7.62 FN's)....outcome...TRAINING and experience and SEMI over came inexperience and full auto...)

USMC in Vietnam ( early deployment with selective fire M14's ( 7.62) accuracy and rnds fired to kill count vs. M16 ( 5.56) effectiveness....

will the 6.5 or 6.8 make any change ?.....doubtfull........ just cost billions for no or little gain........confuse NATO supply channels of ammo.......is it WORTH changeing should be the question........all IMHO of course.......

 

[Armoured Recce]

I believe that the entire point to that post was missed....and comparisons used were poor and quiet incorrect to say the least....

Yes the 5.56 light weight, a redundant point ...all it in reality accomplishes is facilitates uncontrolled full auto fire that is both ineffective and a waste of materiel...by allowing for a soldier to fire at full auto, the actual ability to hit ones "targets" diminshes. As has been the case for generations...the old adage of " one well placed shot is ten times more effective than 100 or even 10,000 inacurate ones"

The 7.62 round had more than sufficient stopping power, range and as quiet capable of being "carried"...trust me...I "humped" battle loads over more than a few miles with no detriment...

The entire "carrying 200 rnds. weighs to much" is completely rediculous...the fact that the average soldier is now burdened with body armour, NV, sight systems on his weapon and all the other equipment that is now " in fasion" is what limits a soldiers ability in sufficiently carrying a "load"..not a few measly magazines.....

Have you ever shot a 7.62 Nato chambered military rifle?.....I have...the C1A1 semi- auto Canadian rifle ...and carried it's 11 pounds of "20 rnd. box magazine fed, gas operated " wonderment for many miles and fires it effectively for years.....recoil is a fools excuse in military weapons...they have all been manageble, even by smaller statured females.... as well I have been issued with , carried and fired the 5.56 C7 series firearms as well.....I have practical experience with both calibres and their "abilities"

The arguement about acuracy is simply "paper" opinion as well.....a 5.56 rnd does not , will not travel as far, hit with as much punch as the tried and true 7.62.....
Full auto is also a lame excuse ...the British forces in the 1982 Falklands war were armed with semi auto 7.62 SLR's and more than out shot the fully auto capable Argentinian FN Fals, also 7.62

The acuracy issue is simple....that is todays over emphasis in troops using sight systems, be it ALCANS, EOtechs, or ACOGS or whatever "flavour" a nation choses...with the abandonment of simple shooting skills using open battle sights in favor of all the fancy electronic scopes, of course the ability to increse acurracy occurs...is the rounds?...absolutely not...a 6.5, or a 6.8 or a 5.56 or a 7.62 are simply the round chosen....they don;t do anything better or worse..it is the weapon system and the shooter that is really the issue....

Also, I find it very interesting to say the least that it was the USA that dragged the entire world in to the "5.56 is the thing since sliced bread" mentality...and all our counties followed along in the "interest" of NATO...NOW, that every country is stuck making and using these 5.56 weaponms and rnds....the US is the ones saying these" 5.56 just doesn;t cut it".....I doubt that any international countries will follow lead on this topic again......

 

[SteelTiger 177]

I heard there was a number of instances during the attempt to rescue the 2 MH60 crews that were shot down during Operation Gothic Serpent the Rangers and Delta operators involved in the rescue had to go through alot 5.56 ammo to bring down one Somali fighter.That being said I think maybe in addition to looking at new assualt rifle for the U.S.Army and Marine Corps we should look at adopting a new assault rifle round.In addition to going from 5.56 to either 6.5 or 6.8mm round for rifles we should from the stand point of pistols and smgs look at a return to .45 calibur given that the .45 calibur bullets are capable of doing more damage than a 9mm round.

 

[SignalGuy]

What about a two tier rifle system?

SteelTiger Brings up an interesting point about Rangers, Deltas and such needing a better performing round. I for one would like to see such advanced and / or battle hardened troops have a more robust rifle, and, a round in the 6-plus millimeter category.
However, I would also like to see the AR based technology (M16/M4 etc.) and the 5.56 round continue as the default rifle for troops engaged in support activities such as in medical units, equipment repairers, drivers, cooks, etc, you probably get the idea. The Army is a big organization and draws a lot of differing type of folks. My opinion is that our existing M series rifle and 5.56 shell is about as easy a rifle/cartridge combination to master as can be while still having a useable punch in battle. I do believe that many people succeed on this combo that would have more trouble with a harder kicking and louder round.
I'd like to share an example: I spent a little over two years as a signal soldier. I came from an urban, non gun owning family although I did get my first .22 rimfire a year before service, so had maybe 800 to 900 rounds through that. I did manage to shoot expert on the M16A1 in basic, and was able to re-qualify the following year no problem.
Two years later, I was out of the service and for the next two decades I did little shooting: just a few boxes of shotgun ammo while squirrel hunting (very infrequently) and three or four trips to the range with that .22.
Then in 2003, some extra money was available, I was feeling nostalgic about at least having tried out the service, so went out and treated myself to a brand new Bushmaster XM15 (a civilian legal M16A2 derivative). I rode out to the range, took the rifle out of it's shipping box, checked the bore for obstructions, fed the magazines, waited on the range safety guy, locked, loaded, and fired at a 50 yard target, standing off hand. Imagine my surprise when after two decades without more than token shooting experience, I was dead center on windage, only two inches low on elevation, and consistently shooting grapefruit sized groups offhand! Had I needed to kill a woodchuck, I would probably have hit it with an untested AR, straight out of the box!
Pure shoot-ability: If possible, keep the M series and the 5.56 for the average working troop, but give the advanced war-fighters a piston operated six-plus. Thanks for reading!