Military Caliber
- Thread starter ArtP
- Start date
- Status
PandaBearBG
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2009
- Messages
- 463
This is the endless topic that always peeks its nose out. Sam1911 I think has basiclly said it all. It's not just about the caliber it's about how the round works with everything else logistically and tactically. Not every soldier or marine is a one man killing machine/sniper/doorbuster/machine gunner/CQB guru, that's why the military works in squads, different weapon systems combined together used in a offensive and defensive tactics to accomplish the mission for different situations. That's why there are different guns in different calibers, 5.56/7.62 etc. We all strive to get the one shot one kill, but it's hard and conditions are usually against the perfect shot even with fancy scopes and fireteam support.
A machine gunner is all about more ammunition because his usual primary goal is support and suppression fire taking pressure and fire off of riflemen/sniper/dmr so they can do their thing. Most modern day engagements are small teams, carrying a mountain of gear on foot in closer (300 less yard) engagements (never been to Aghani land....) and rapid response and long patrols are not uncommon so lighter rounds with higher carry capacity is always a win.
Most firefights aren't gonna be well aimed timed perfect shots, things are too hectic and too much adrenaline opts for more rounds down range, 5.56 is lethal and does the trick for it's size and if ever there was a need for more penetration or "stopping power" (which is a KEY WORD with internet trolls, haaha) that's why you have a radio to call in the 50's. snipers, 81's, 240 Gulf, and any support you have.
Of course every troop would like a bigger badder round.... and a 4 wheeler to carry all their gear, tripod and chair to shoot their targets and McDonald's delivered hot wherever they are deployed. But they don't. Most people extol the virtues of this round or that because it is ballisticly better and most often than not it is, but a military round isn't all about the "stopping power" it's about how that round functions in real world military tactics and operations. Most people haven't had to lug around 210 to 300 rounds of ammuntion ontop of 70 lbs of gear hunting or in any civilian situation.
um that might have been more of a rant....
A machine gunner is all about more ammunition because his usual primary goal is support and suppression fire taking pressure and fire off of riflemen/sniper/dmr so they can do their thing. Most modern day engagements are small teams, carrying a mountain of gear on foot in closer (300 less yard) engagements (never been to Aghani land....) and rapid response and long patrols are not uncommon so lighter rounds with higher carry capacity is always a win.
Most firefights aren't gonna be well aimed timed perfect shots, things are too hectic and too much adrenaline opts for more rounds down range, 5.56 is lethal and does the trick for it's size and if ever there was a need for more penetration or "stopping power" (which is a KEY WORD with internet trolls, haaha) that's why you have a radio to call in the 50's. snipers, 81's, 240 Gulf, and any support you have.
Of course every troop would like a bigger badder round.... and a 4 wheeler to carry all their gear, tripod and chair to shoot their targets and McDonald's delivered hot wherever they are deployed. But they don't. Most people extol the virtues of this round or that because it is ballisticly better and most often than not it is, but a military round isn't all about the "stopping power" it's about how that round functions in real world military tactics and operations. Most people haven't had to lug around 210 to 300 rounds of ammuntion ontop of 70 lbs of gear hunting or in any civilian situation.
um that might have been more of a rant....
There's some very fundamental misconceptions that pop up in these discussions.
1) Expense. Changing over completely to a new caliber and weapons might cost millions, but in reality, that's less than two new fighter planes. And we seem to lose that many every year just keeping the pilots trained. It's really a very small line item in the budget compared to say, FUEL. Add up all the diesel, gas, aviation, and bunker fuel used by DOD, a new caliber and weapon is insignificant. That's how far off base these discussions are.
2) "The 5.56 is 'too light.'" Well, it's not surprising in this day and age, with only 1 in 100 citizens volunteering to serve, that the general public missed out on why power levels were reconsidered.
The Defense Department has been studying this since the days they were known as the Department of WAR, and the harsh reality is that the heavier .30 cal weapons aren't well liked or shot by soldiers. Recoil doesn't help. What's even more disappointing are the results of all the armed fire - an enemy soldier is likely to get hit by an unaimed shot as much as aimed fire. We increased the number of bullets being shot by making the gun easier to shoot, having large magazines on them, and giving them less recoil. Now, soldiers shoot them a LOT more, there are more of our bullets in the air, and more enemy soldiers are hit.
AS FIRST INTRODUCED, the M16 shot a 55gr bullet at over 3,100 fps, and if hit, the enemy soldier likely stopped shooting back. That was the goal - getting the other soldier to stop fighting. And where most civilians miss the point is that the other enemy soldier doesn't have to die right there. Just stop fighting.
It's NOT Deer Season, Elmer. He's not likely to run away and hide so you can't tag him and truck him to Hatfield's Processing. He'll be right there to handle during Consolidation of the Objective. Medics can patch him up, MI will debrief him, and MP's will house him.
For every combat soldier, there's 9 support soldiers. They all use the same weapon. What you burden with one, you burden on all. What went wrong with the M4 is that it was meant for support, command, and special units, NOT the combat arms. But, being the competitive guys they are at interservice rivalry, combat arms wanted cool guns, too. Just like everyone wearing a beret, everyone got a M4, and now, the 5.56 was cheated out of 5 1/2" of barrel velocity at 50fps per inch. It lost speed and range.
Bad decision. The Marines didn't do it, the M16A4 in 20" is still standard issue. The Air Force still uses M16's, A1's, and A2's. It's NOT a service wide problem, it's Army Combat Arms specific.
That's the third generalization most get wrong. We don't need a new high power cartridge, we just need to quit playing commando joe and go back to 20" barrels. Which are actually in larger numbers to this day.
FIGHTING INFANTRYMEN carry RIFLES. Those get the job done. When you cut them down, then you might consider a cartridge change. I did, built a 16" 6.8SPC. The Army? Not really needed.
1) Expense. Changing over completely to a new caliber and weapons might cost millions, but in reality, that's less than two new fighter planes. And we seem to lose that many every year just keeping the pilots trained. It's really a very small line item in the budget compared to say, FUEL. Add up all the diesel, gas, aviation, and bunker fuel used by DOD, a new caliber and weapon is insignificant. That's how far off base these discussions are.
2) "The 5.56 is 'too light.'" Well, it's not surprising in this day and age, with only 1 in 100 citizens volunteering to serve, that the general public missed out on why power levels were reconsidered.
The Defense Department has been studying this since the days they were known as the Department of WAR, and the harsh reality is that the heavier .30 cal weapons aren't well liked or shot by soldiers. Recoil doesn't help. What's even more disappointing are the results of all the armed fire - an enemy soldier is likely to get hit by an unaimed shot as much as aimed fire. We increased the number of bullets being shot by making the gun easier to shoot, having large magazines on them, and giving them less recoil. Now, soldiers shoot them a LOT more, there are more of our bullets in the air, and more enemy soldiers are hit.
AS FIRST INTRODUCED, the M16 shot a 55gr bullet at over 3,100 fps, and if hit, the enemy soldier likely stopped shooting back. That was the goal - getting the other soldier to stop fighting. And where most civilians miss the point is that the other enemy soldier doesn't have to die right there. Just stop fighting.
It's NOT Deer Season, Elmer. He's not likely to run away and hide so you can't tag him and truck him to Hatfield's Processing. He'll be right there to handle during Consolidation of the Objective. Medics can patch him up, MI will debrief him, and MP's will house him.
For every combat soldier, there's 9 support soldiers. They all use the same weapon. What you burden with one, you burden on all. What went wrong with the M4 is that it was meant for support, command, and special units, NOT the combat arms. But, being the competitive guys they are at interservice rivalry, combat arms wanted cool guns, too. Just like everyone wearing a beret, everyone got a M4, and now, the 5.56 was cheated out of 5 1/2" of barrel velocity at 50fps per inch. It lost speed and range.
Bad decision. The Marines didn't do it, the M16A4 in 20" is still standard issue. The Air Force still uses M16's, A1's, and A2's. It's NOT a service wide problem, it's Army Combat Arms specific.
That's the third generalization most get wrong. We don't need a new high power cartridge, we just need to quit playing commando joe and go back to 20" barrels. Which are actually in larger numbers to this day.
FIGHTING INFANTRYMEN carry RIFLES. Those get the job done. When you cut them down, then you might consider a cartridge change. I did, built a 16" 6.8SPC. The Army? Not really needed.
Kachok
Member
The 5.56 is a fantastic round for our boots on the ground. No it is not a one hit magic kill, but it is very effective. It does not penatrate hardend barriers but we can call in artillery or air strike if an uber bunker is blocking our path.
It shoots flat.
It shoot good with full auto.
It defeats all soft body armor.
A clean hit will at leased take the badguy out of the fight.
And we can carry a whole bunch of it. Not saying it is the best thing out there but it does the job for sure.
It shoots flat.
It shoot good with full auto.
It defeats all soft body armor.
A clean hit will at leased take the badguy out of the fight.
And we can carry a whole bunch of it. Not saying it is the best thing out there but it does the job for sure.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
As a thought experiment, I can enjoy the caliber debate. You know, 6.8 SPC -- or 6.5 Grendel if you want to stir the pot! -- IS a better, more effective round than 5.56mm. If I was setting out to choose what round I would use for my own hypothetical military, I'd probably pick something like that. Or maybe the 6mmx45 (.243) wildcat, or maybe a 7mm version.
It surely would be possible to feed an enormous pile of statistics into a computer -- things like optimized trajectory, most useful/relevant maximum effective range by delivered energy, ballistic coefficients and sectional densities of bullets cross-referenced by velocity divided by bullet weight, and all balanced against cartridge length, cartridge size/volume, controllability at higher rates of fire, etc., etc -- and come up with exactly, PRECISELY, the very best balance of all factors for a military troop to use.
I'm guessing it would be something like a 6.7mmx49mm cartridge fired from something like the next version of the SCAR or XM8 or...whatever.
Man, it will be THE PERFECT ... compromise. Which means it won't do long range as well as a .300 Win Mag, it won't do CQB like a 5.56 or 5.7FN, it will be a little too heavy to carry, take up just a little too much room, won't penetrate quite far enough, won't expand quite far enough -- and still won't be all things for all people.
But it will be better.
So what? The military isn't in the business of making the world's most perfect round. With limited time and money to improve the effectiveness and safety of their fighting men, they've got bigger fish to fry. Rifle fire doesn't kill the vast majority of enemy soldiers anyway, nor save the most US lives. It is necessary, of course, but when what we're doing works well, and changing will cost extravagant piles of money and a decade of logistical nightmares, "improving" must mean a quantum leap forward in value, not a baby step.
And a new 6.???mm infantry round is just a baby step. Not worth the costs.
It surely would be possible to feed an enormous pile of statistics into a computer -- things like optimized trajectory, most useful/relevant maximum effective range by delivered energy, ballistic coefficients and sectional densities of bullets cross-referenced by velocity divided by bullet weight, and all balanced against cartridge length, cartridge size/volume, controllability at higher rates of fire, etc., etc -- and come up with exactly, PRECISELY, the very best balance of all factors for a military troop to use.
I'm guessing it would be something like a 6.7mmx49mm cartridge fired from something like the next version of the SCAR or XM8 or...whatever.
Man, it will be THE PERFECT ... compromise. Which means it won't do long range as well as a .300 Win Mag, it won't do CQB like a 5.56 or 5.7FN, it will be a little too heavy to carry, take up just a little too much room, won't penetrate quite far enough, won't expand quite far enough -- and still won't be all things for all people.
But it will be better.
So what? The military isn't in the business of making the world's most perfect round. With limited time and money to improve the effectiveness and safety of their fighting men, they've got bigger fish to fry. Rifle fire doesn't kill the vast majority of enemy soldiers anyway, nor save the most US lives. It is necessary, of course, but when what we're doing works well, and changing will cost extravagant piles of money and a decade of logistical nightmares, "improving" must mean a quantum leap forward in value, not a baby step.
And a new 6.???mm infantry round is just a baby step. Not worth the costs.
Tallinar
Member
Can't really add to what Sam said. So uh... +1 to Sam.
if the 5.56 isn't effective than how is it that Marcus Latrell and 3 other navy seals were able to kill several hundred taliban in less than an hour? they were being fired at with a much more intermediate cartridge(x39), granted the ak's were inherently less accurate rifles, however two of his friends sustained as many as many as 5 .30 caliber wounds and continued to drop towel heads dead with a 5.56.. they did pass eventually after succumbing to their wounds.. these guys were HEROES!
But to the point, our guys "got up" after as many as 5 .30 cal wounds. And many taliban died instantly with a single shot, some probably did not.. the caliber seems irrelevant in this particular battle scenario
But to the point, our guys "got up" after as many as 5 .30 cal wounds. And many taliban died instantly with a single shot, some probably did not.. the caliber seems irrelevant in this particular battle scenario
InkEd
Member
Think of all the firearms that use STANAG magazines. It would be a huge waste of money and few other countries would go with it. It's too expensive.
Hangingrock
Member
The electro/optical/mechanical sighting systems have improved hit potential significantly that’s my understanding. That being true is there now a problem of the opponent being hit but staying in the fight driving the issue of caliber change?
dprice3844444
member
the 556 capabilities usually exceed the capabilities of the standard shooters.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
If so, then I think we've missed an important point:
Living things have an amazing ability to keep on functioning even after being seriously -- even mortally -- wounded. Military engagements aren't like hunting where you can always place your shot with great precision at the point of greatest effectiveness (wait...HUNTING isn't always like that either, but it's closer) so there will be a lot of lower abdomen hits, hits to extremeties, etc. that just don't kill the enemy "Dead Right There." Even if we were shooting 7.62 NATO still -- or .30-'06 ... or heck, go back to the .45-70 Govt! -- wounded soldiers manage to fight on.
Consider that there were a GREAT many soldiers here at Gettysburg in 1863 who got up and fought on after absorbing a FIVE HUNDRED GRAIN .58 Minne ball!
We're not going to find the one-shot stop.
maybe this is relevant here... of course I might be completely wrong about this too, if so excuse my ignorance and please correct me.
Wasn't there a treaty signed by most large nations of the world at some point that full metal jacket ammo was the only ammo to be used in war? Something about hollow points being inhumane and that the fmj would wound rather than kill or terribly mangle so it actually worked better effectively taking out multiple enemies since a wounded soldier would need carried, medical care, and lots of other resources whereas a dead soldier was less of a drain on the enemy's resources?
Using that logic, it seems the smaller rounds are ideal since you're not looking to kill as much as to wound as many people as possible.
Wasn't there a treaty signed by most large nations of the world at some point that full metal jacket ammo was the only ammo to be used in war? Something about hollow points being inhumane and that the fmj would wound rather than kill or terribly mangle so it actually worked better effectively taking out multiple enemies since a wounded soldier would need carried, medical care, and lots of other resources whereas a dead soldier was less of a drain on the enemy's resources?
Using that logic, it seems the smaller rounds are ideal since you're not looking to kill as much as to wound as many people as possible.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III is what you're thinking of. We were not signatory to that, but we've more or less followed it.
Killing wasn't a problem. The issue was with creating wounds which were very hard to treat. Sometimes we have funny notions of what is "humane."
Following it is more a tradition and public relations matter than anything else. Realize that we don't use hollow-points because they flatten and cause great damage in human tissues, but we do use base-heavy FMJ bullets that tumble, yaw, and fragment devistatingly in human tissue.
The idea that killing a soldier is less desirable than wounding one is compelling in theory, but no nations seem to have actually espoused that idea. And, quite demonstrably, only some of the more "developed" nations (like the US) seem to expend a whole lot of effort in recovering and care for the wounded, so that works against us more than for us in a lot of ways.
Again, small arms fire is a relatively less significant killer of soldiers on the battlefield. Artillery and air power do most of the real troop destruction. It's kind of hard to say we're real concerned with using projectiles that are too big, or not humane enough, when we're killing most of the enemy with shrapnel and high explosives. IMHO.
Killing wasn't a problem. The issue was with creating wounds which were very hard to treat. Sometimes we have funny notions of what is "humane."
Following it is more a tradition and public relations matter than anything else. Realize that we don't use hollow-points because they flatten and cause great damage in human tissues, but we do use base-heavy FMJ bullets that tumble, yaw, and fragment devistatingly in human tissue.
The idea that killing a soldier is less desirable than wounding one is compelling in theory, but no nations seem to have actually espoused that idea. And, quite demonstrably, only some of the more "developed" nations (like the US) seem to expend a whole lot of effort in recovering and care for the wounded, so that works against us more than for us in a lot of ways.
Again, small arms fire is a relatively less significant killer of soldiers on the battlefield. Artillery and air power do most of the real troop destruction. It's kind of hard to say we're real concerned with using projectiles that are too big, or not humane enough, when we're killing most of the enemy with shrapnel and high explosives. IMHO.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
I think the only thing wrong with the 5.56 as a stopper is, they chose a 1/7 rifling twist & a 14.4" barrel for 62 grain bullets.
So it drills nice clean .22 cal holes at long range sometimes because the bullets are too slow, and too stable to tumble.
The old M16 used in Vietnam had a 1/12 20" barrel, and shot 55 grain bullets on the verge of instability.
And there were very few complaints of it not stopping people when you shot them.
People didn't get up and walk away from them!
Of course the engagement ranges were also generally much closer then they often are in the sandbox.
rc
interesting sam, thanks for the clarification and the history lesson! I was wondering how far off I was on that.
so even though there were intentions in place to be more 'humane' by not using hollow point or soft projectiles, it doesn't really matter because the fmj fragments.
so is it basically, b.s. when a state says you can't use fmj for hunting because it isn't as good of a killer, when actually it will tumble and fragment? I'm just curious for my own reasons here.
so even though there were intentions in place to be more 'humane' by not using hollow point or soft projectiles, it doesn't really matter because the fmj fragments.
so is it basically, b.s. when a state says you can't use fmj for hunting because it isn't as good of a killer, when actually it will tumble and fragment? I'm just curious for my own reasons here.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Not all FMJ. Sorry for the confusion. Certain 5.56 mm FMJs when driven at high enough speed, and even better when fired through a slow-twist barrel so they're just on the edge of stability -- which is exactly what rcmodel is saying above.
But expecting 9mm or .45ACP FMJs to do that, or 7.62, etc is not likely to be a good thing.
Cosmoline
Member
Unless Hague is repudiated, there's not a lot of point in going heavier. A .243 or 6.5 G. can be very impressive taking game, but if you use FMJ's they are just punching holes.
But Hague's prohibition absolutely should be repudiated. It was insane a century ago, and remains insane. A vestigial remnant of bizarre ideas held by 19th century European diplomats about how wars were to be conducted. Infantry was hamstrung, artillery got the thumbs up. The end result being you can explode people with 30mm cannon rounds but can't even put a SP on a little rifle bullet.
Unless he's heading towards you in a car packed with high explosives, as so many are now. To put it bluntly, I want our guys to be able to kill the enemy dead as fast as possible. I have zero interest in just wounding them, particularly since so many want to explode on us. So yes I would absolutely like to see our guys armed on patrol and at checkpoints with a 6.5 or 6.8 SP round that will blow a face through the back of the head or lacerate heart and lungs out. Since the Taliban are not a lawful organization, any fighting with them or any insurgent group is a matter of self defense NOT traditional warfare, which *TECHNICALLY* means that it would be permissible to use SP's, though nobody at the DOD is willing to go out on a limb and actually permit it.
Sadly, any effort to effect a change would meet opposition from the DOD itself, as well as vitriolic challenge from our NATO cousins. They'd accuse us of being bloodthirsty war criminals. Once a doctrine gets this deeply embedded, it's almost impossible to remove.
But Hague's prohibition absolutely should be repudiated. It was insane a century ago, and remains insane. A vestigial remnant of bizarre ideas held by 19th century European diplomats about how wars were to be conducted. Infantry was hamstrung, artillery got the thumbs up. The end result being you can explode people with 30mm cannon rounds but can't even put a SP on a little rifle bullet.
Unless he's heading towards you in a car packed with high explosives, as so many are now. To put it bluntly, I want our guys to be able to kill the enemy dead as fast as possible. I have zero interest in just wounding them, particularly since so many want to explode on us. So yes I would absolutely like to see our guys armed on patrol and at checkpoints with a 6.5 or 6.8 SP round that will blow a face through the back of the head or lacerate heart and lungs out. Since the Taliban are not a lawful organization, any fighting with them or any insurgent group is a matter of self defense NOT traditional warfare, which *TECHNICALLY* means that it would be permissible to use SP's, though nobody at the DOD is willing to go out on a limb and actually permit it.
Sadly, any effort to effect a change would meet opposition from the DOD itself, as well as vitriolic challenge from our NATO cousins. They'd accuse us of being bloodthirsty war criminals. Once a doctrine gets this deeply embedded, it's almost impossible to remove.
Last edited:
henschman
Member
I think they should switch to .17 HMR. Just think how many more rounds could be carried. And as everybody says, almost all combat shooting is done under 150 yards anyway. And if the whole point is just to cause casualties, a dude shot in the arm with a .17 is probably going to stop shooting back just like if he got hit with a .22 or a 6.5 or a .30 cal.
Shadow 7D
Member
See the funny thing out these topics
THEY ARE ALWAYS BROUGHT UP BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THE MILITARY
THEY ARE ALWAYS BROUGHT UP BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THE MILITARY
Cosmoline
Member
So what? We're buying the bullets my friend. We're buying the weapons. WE are responsible if the arms and ammo are not doing the job. I'm tired of reading about some excellent young man blown up by utterly worthless scum who should have been shot down long before he had the chance to detonate himself. And I know Hague to be the product of a twisted, archaic society that was rightly destroyed in the fields of the Great War. Unfortunately we are stuck with this vestigial remnant of their very bizarre view of warfare.
BrocLuno
Member
When I was in the "Green Machine" I was perfectly happy with my Mattel Rifle and the 5.56. One hit in a non-vital zone may not in incapacitate (with any rifle), but a second hit with a 5.56 will do the number. We carried enough for second hits 
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Or, who have been out of the military since Westmorland left Vietnam. (There are some members here who will never accept the loss of the wood & iron rifles of WWII and Korea, and will never forgive the M-16 the growing pains of its early years.)
But I understand Cosmo's point, too. It isn't unreasonable to ask the question, but many reasons for the answer being, "no."
ExAgoradzo
Member
@ Dale
Please help me understand: this is an honest question, not 'fightin' words'...
What does 'overboar' mean? I was under the impression that my 30-06 and my 270 were darn good rifles...albeit for taking out deer and boar (I'm not talking about Afghanistan).
Men who have served...thank you from one who seeks to honor your sacrifice and serve our nation in other ways (that I believe) are important as well.
Please help me understand: this is an honest question, not 'fightin' words'...
What does 'overboar' mean? I was under the impression that my 30-06 and my 270 were darn good rifles...albeit for taking out deer and boar (I'm not talking about Afghanistan).
Men who have served...thank you from one who seeks to honor your sacrifice and serve our nation in other ways (that I believe) are important as well.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not him, but "overbore" means that there is a lot of case volume, and thus powder, behind a relatively small bullet. Generally this means faster velocities, but also faster throat erosion and barrel wear. Heavily over-bore rifles tend to maintain peak accuracy for only a few thousand shots, whereas a more mild cartridge with it's bullet size and weight more proportional to the volume of powder pushing it will keep a barrel in good shape for many times that many rounds.
.243, .25-'06, .220 Swift, and the others at the bottom of that chart tend to be spectacular velocity performers, but have short lifespans.
The idea is somewhat related to cartridge efficiency. You can see velocity gains by adding more and more case volume (more powder) behind a bullet, but the gains get to be relatively small in proportion to how much powder you're burning, how much recoil the gun produces, and how fast you're killing the barrel.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
