LloydTasiD
New Member
As for the SMGs better than going back to .45s would be 4.6mm. The MP7 is a 4.6. It keeps the low weight of the 9mm, but has armor penetrating power. It also helps with accurracy as compared to the .45.
Should the 5.56 be replaced?
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
LloydTasiD
New Member
Also with the pistols, there's not really any purpose going back to .45 for usage. The 9mm gives you more ammo capacity. That really outweighs the other factors when it comes to pistols. First, pistols are not used very often at all. Both are effective to about 50yds. Both cannot penetrate body armor. Both kill without armor. So more rounds becomes the advantage in pistol situations.
The M885 62 gr 5.56x45mm is an adequate battlefield perfomer. The new all copper M885A1 is better, and performance reports of the Mk 262 72 gr round (used by certain SOCOM units) are even more promising.
Is the 5.56x45mm the best round possible? Probably not - but does hypothetical advantage of a new caliber outweigh the costs of fielding it? So far, no.
The bottom line real-world performance of a rifle cartridge in combat is more a function of the weapon system (sighting system, barrell length, etc.) and of the training of the operator than it is of any particular characteristic of the round itself.
If you put enough 62 gr 5.56x45 center mass, people will fall down and stop bothering you. The only place where anyone should care about 1 shot performance of a particular round is in the sniper/DM world, and in most cases they are using a 7.62x51mm/.300 Win Mag/.338 Lapua Magnum etc. where one round is usually plenty.
The whole "one-shot, one-kill" mantra is BS for a typical rifle
man. The key to success is rapid, well aimed shots into a target until it falls down. Particulalry in a CQB enviornment, I'm not going to fire one shot and see what happens. I'm going to bang out controlled pairs (or triples...) until I get the desired effect.
Sure there are circumstances where 7.62mm or 6.8mm or 6.5mm might give you an edge - better range, better penetration, etc. But there are always trade offs. 30 rounds of 5.56mm weighs 1.07lbs. I typically carried a basic load of 9 30 round magazines (8 on me, 1 in the weapon) - thats a 270 round combat load. 9 mags x 1.07 lb = 9.6 lbs of ammo. A magazine of 20 rounds 7.62x51mm (for an M-14) weighs 1.6 pounds. So a 10 pound load of 7.62x51mm only gets me 6 magazines - 120 rounds. I'd rather have more bullets. To carry aproximately the same load out I would have to carry 13 magazines at 20.8 lbs. Twice the weight.
I don't think US Army is going to change rifle caliber until some more significant change in technology matures - plastic cased telescoping ammo, etc. that deals with the weight issue.
As far as full-auto - I think in a rifle it is rarely necessary, nor particulary useful most of the time. That being said, I think the 3-round burst setting on the M16A/A4 & M4 is pointless. Too much for when semi will do, and not enough when semi isn't enough. Good training will determine that Soldiers employ full auto properly and in the correct circumstances. The US Army is moving that direction by converting more M4's into the M4A1 "special ops" configuration, which has full-auto.
Adrian
Is the 5.56x45mm the best round possible? Probably not - but does hypothetical advantage of a new caliber outweigh the costs of fielding it? So far, no.
The bottom line real-world performance of a rifle cartridge in combat is more a function of the weapon system (sighting system, barrell length, etc.) and of the training of the operator than it is of any particular characteristic of the round itself.
If you put enough 62 gr 5.56x45 center mass, people will fall down and stop bothering you. The only place where anyone should care about 1 shot performance of a particular round is in the sniper/DM world, and in most cases they are using a 7.62x51mm/.300 Win Mag/.338 Lapua Magnum etc. where one round is usually plenty.
The whole "one-shot, one-kill" mantra is BS for a typical rifle
man. The key to success is rapid, well aimed shots into a target until it falls down. Particulalry in a CQB enviornment, I'm not going to fire one shot and see what happens. I'm going to bang out controlled pairs (or triples...) until I get the desired effect.
Sure there are circumstances where 7.62mm or 6.8mm or 6.5mm might give you an edge - better range, better penetration, etc. But there are always trade offs. 30 rounds of 5.56mm weighs 1.07lbs. I typically carried a basic load of 9 30 round magazines (8 on me, 1 in the weapon) - thats a 270 round combat load. 9 mags x 1.07 lb = 9.6 lbs of ammo. A magazine of 20 rounds 7.62x51mm (for an M-14) weighs 1.6 pounds. So a 10 pound load of 7.62x51mm only gets me 6 magazines - 120 rounds. I'd rather have more bullets. To carry aproximately the same load out I would have to carry 13 magazines at 20.8 lbs. Twice the weight.
I don't think US Army is going to change rifle caliber until some more significant change in technology matures - plastic cased telescoping ammo, etc. that deals with the weight issue.
As far as full-auto - I think in a rifle it is rarely necessary, nor particulary useful most of the time. That being said, I think the 3-round burst setting on the M16A/A4 & M4 is pointless. Too much for when semi will do, and not enough when semi isn't enough. Good training will determine that Soldiers employ full auto properly and in the correct circumstances. The US Army is moving that direction by converting more M4's into the M4A1 "special ops" configuration, which has full-auto.
Adrian
SGT Gunn, im with you on this, give me 300 rounds of 5.56 over 120 of 7.62 in 90% of situations, then add 16 rounds of 40mm with those 5.56 and im a happy man.
I started my career with an L1A1 SLR, with 3 x 20 rd mags.(peace time). Thats rediculous,60 rounds!
I loved my SLR, and in some situations it would still be relevant, but If I was sent some where pretty hot today, I would want an M4/203 combo, no questions please Q staff!
The 70 odd gn projectile sounds interesting, our old SS109 was 63 gn, and the old M193 was 55gn.
I started my career with an L1A1 SLR, with 3 x 20 rd mags.(peace time). Thats rediculous,60 rounds!
I loved my SLR, and in some situations it would still be relevant, but If I was sent some where pretty hot today, I would want an M4/203 combo, no questions please Q staff!
The 70 odd gn projectile sounds interesting, our old SS109 was 63 gn, and the old M193 was 55gn.
Here is a fantasic article for anyone who wants to b better understand the realities and science behind bullet leathality. It is on a US Army study based on feedback from Iraq & Afghanistan and was originally published in Infantry Magazine (the proffesional journal of the US Army Infantry School)
http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf
One conculsion I found that was interesting was that at close quarters range (>100m) that the tested 7.62x51mm round was no more lethal than any of the 5.56x45mm rounds that were evaluated!
Adrian
http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf
One conculsion I found that was interesting was that at close quarters range (>100m) that the tested 7.62x51mm round was no more lethal than any of the 5.56x45mm rounds that were evaluated!
Adrian
Except one: weight.
A loaded 30 round magazine of 5.56x45mm weights ~1.07 lbs.
A loaded 30 round magazine of 6.8x43mm weighs ~1.62 pounds (Barrett 30 round 6.8 SPC mag used as example).
210 round basic load for a US Army Rifle man in 5.56mm = 7.49 lbs.
210 round basic load for a US Army Rifle man in 6.8mm = 11.34 lbs.
That's 4 lbs heavier for the same combat load. Most guys I know carry more than 7 mags, so as we add ammo, that weight difference is going to climb.
At 9 magazines (270 rounds) it climbs to 5 pounds, etc.
4-5 pounds may not seem like much, but given the fact that an M4 Carbine weighs just under 6.5lbs empty (before we hang all our cool guy gadgetry on it) - it's a big difference.
Does the potential increase in performance of the 6.8mm over 5.56mm justify the weight cost? I would say - it depends on the circumstaces. Which is why special operations units often have the luxury of tailoring thier weapon, equipment and ammo loadouts for specific missions. Line units don't have that luxury, and need something that works pretty good, most of the time. For me, the weight penaltly is to high. Given the fact that the vast majority of rounds fired in combat don't hit a badguy (regardless of what we might like to think), my #1 requirement is the ability to carry the maximum amount of an adequate round, with out carrying so much shit I can't move (or walk for 8-12 hours in 120 degree heat).
I think 5.56mm does that well enough. Now, if someone comes up with a round that has superior performace to 5.56mm and weighs the same (or even less) - then sign me up!
Adrian
Isn't that the thinking behind the KAC 6x45mm PDW?
Knight's Armament Company PDW - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Similar or better performance to 5.56x45mm out to 300m in a smaller, lighter easiers to use weapon.
I note that it is described as a PDW and pushed as being suitable for vehicle crews etc but no mention of infantry, so it may not be seen as a suitable replacement for the M4. Then again if you are issuing 7.62x51 battle rifles as DMRs and ARs, have a decent LMG and a maybe the XM25 it might fit.
SteelTiger 177
New Member
Now I've heard some people here talking about weapons like the HKsMP-7 and FNs P-90 and from what I've heard they're pretty good.But should also give consideration to the Kriis V smg the first weapon in over 60 yrs to fire the 45.cal round and it should be given some thought as a replacement for the HK MP-5.
LloydTasiD
New Member
I agree with you. The Kriis submachinegun is a very excellent smg. I have fired one myself. They shoot the .45 which is much more powerful than the 9mm, without the usual recoil of such a round. The Kriis's design drastically reduces recoil. It has about the same recoil as an M16. It is very easy to keep on target, even in full auto.
I would say it comes down between the Kriis and the MP7, the MP7 due to its penetration capability.
Thought this might be interesting, study by the US Army announced a few days ago which is supposed to ultimately result in the replacement of all 5.56 weapons in the inventory with one single modular weapons system although it's unclear if it will be chambered in 5.56 or a new calibre. The weapon system is meant to come in several variations; a carbine rifle, assault rifle, DMR & SAW/LMG.
Sounds alot like what the Stoner-63 used to be.
US Army to study new small-arms calibers - IHS Jane's 360
Two programs
Sounds alot like what the Stoner-63 used to be.
US Army to study new small-arms calibers - IHS Jane's 360
Two programs
- Combat Lightweight Automatic Weapon System - CLAWS
- Lightweight Dismounted Automatic Machinegun - LDAM
I'd be highly surprised if at least some elements weren't included in the second program, "Lightweight Dismounted Automatic Machinegun".
The stats are impressive, half the weight of an M249 empty, ammo is 40% lighter & it's been worked out that an LSAT + 1000 rounds is close to 3lbs lighter than 1000 rounds of regular 5.56 alone.
The system + ammo has supposedly reached Technology Readiness Level 7 which equates to that the prototypes built do work
The stats are impressive, half the weight of an M249 empty, ammo is 40% lighter & it's been worked out that an LSAT + 1000 rounds is close to 3lbs lighter than 1000 rounds of regular 5.56 alone.
The system + ammo has supposedly reached Technology Readiness Level 7 which equates to that the prototypes built do work
Wish we knew what a Caliber Configuration Study meant. Are they looking for the best bullet, the best cartridge, or the best gun and cartridge combination?
And how are they going to conduct the testing and evaluation? The last time they tried for a new weapon any caliber was acceptable, but if it wasn't 5.56 NATO the manufacturer had to supply the 500,000 rounds of ammunition for the testing process without being reimbursed. Since without a caliber change this would have just been a repeat of the competition for a replacement for the current version M-4 (which won the competition to replace the old M-4) all the vendors withdrew from the competition and it collapsed in a little over a month.
And how are they going to conduct the testing and evaluation? The last time they tried for a new weapon any caliber was acceptable, but if it wasn't 5.56 NATO the manufacturer had to supply the 500,000 rounds of ammunition for the testing process without being reimbursed. Since without a caliber change this would have just been a repeat of the competition for a replacement for the current version M-4 (which won the competition to replace the old M-4) all the vendors withdrew from the competition and it collapsed in a little over a month.
Presumably the latter, the headline indicates they're after a new calibre and the actual meat of the article says they're after a new weapon system.
Basically, sounds like a clean slate to me. Reading it again, LSAT would fit more in with CLAWS for the last requirement meaning that - presumably - LDAM is looking at a weapon in the region of the M240. Something like this perhaps? But GD has said that it's not supposed to be a replacement for the M240, more a bridge between the M240 & M2HB
General Dynamics announces .338 LWMMG | Military Times GearScout
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klr0EXZty6s"]NDIA - General Dynamics .338 Norma Magnum Machine Gun - YouTube[/nomedia]
Basically, sounds like a clean slate to me. Reading it again, LSAT would fit more in with CLAWS for the last requirement meaning that - presumably - LDAM is looking at a weapon in the region of the M240. Something like this perhaps? But GD has said that it's not supposed to be a replacement for the M240, more a bridge between the M240 & M2HB
General Dynamics announces .338 LWMMG | Military Times GearScout
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klr0EXZty6s"]NDIA - General Dynamics .338 Norma Magnum Machine Gun - YouTube[/nomedia]
Let me quote a short passage from a study conducted by our Project officer for the IW Steyr upgrade team.
In this debate about calibre a key component is often glanced over or not even included in the debate IMHO.
"Barrel length is however the key to ballistic performance because the velocity potential is proportional to its length and is the primary component in producing the kinetic potential of an inert projectile".
CD
The whole 5.56mm replacement issue is one that misses the point of current Western military reality. Yes, there are limitations to the current 5.56mm round. Yes, in many situations a 6.8mm or even 'traditional' 7.62mm is preferable. However, given that the US Army has been searching for a replacement for the M16 family for nearly 20 years now and has only managed limited adoption of the superb and low-risk HK 416 to replace the M4, the idea that the Western military complex would devote the resources to developing and standardising weapons completely different calibre is mad. Although there might be benefits, there are gaping holes appearing in Western military capability due to lack of funding that are far more critical than the limitations of the 5.56. Unfortunately, it's just not an issue that's going to be addressed on any real scale any time soon.
What is the main difference with the 6,5 Grendel and the 6.5×55 Swedish?
I've only shot 6.5 Swedish, really nice for hunting, use it for moose.
Don't know how it is in a battle situation but it was made for the Swedish army to be used effectivly in a belt feed system and bolt action rifles.
I've only shot 6.5 Swedish, really nice for hunting, use it for moose.
Don't know how it is in a battle situation but it was made for the Swedish army to be used effectivly in a belt feed system and bolt action rifles.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Here's an interesting article about research into a 6.5 mm cartridge over 100 years ago! Like many persons today, this Russian officer concluded the 6.5mm would be a good choice.
The Original 6.5mm Cartridge of the Fedorov Avtomat - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog
The Original 6.5mm Cartridge of the Fedorov Avtomat - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog
Post moved from Made in Singapore Equipment to this relevant thread.
A follow-up question.
I recently watched this video on the US trials for a 6.8mm rifle and round (and another on the trials for a .338 MG) from Task & Purpose.
If, in 10 years, the US moves to a brand new 6.8mm cartridge, would Singapore follow suit?
A follow-up question.
I recently watched this video on the US trials for a 6.8mm rifle and round (and another on the trials for a .338 MG) from Task & Purpose.
If, in 10 years, the US moves to a brand new 6.8mm cartridge, would Singapore follow suit?
Last edited by a moderator: