Military Caliber

Should the Armed Services get stop using NATO cartridges?

  • Go back to the .45 ACP for sidearms.

    Votes: 25 30.5%
  • Replace the 5.56 with a 6.5 or 6.8 for rifles?

    Votes: 22 26.8%
  • Stick with NATO and keep the 9mm for sidearms.

    Votes: 21 25.6%
  • Continue to issue the 5.56 and dismiss the 6.5 or 6.8 calibers for rifles.

    Votes: 14 17.1%

  • Total voters
    82
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I go back to the M14/16 days and I didn't like firing the M14 on full auto. By time I made it to the Mekong Delta, the M16 bugs (chrome for one) had been worked out and it was a better carry for me and a lot of others.

I still like the AR platform in 5.56, especially for home defense (Hornady 75gr BTHP), and don't see what would be gained with a military .243 FMJ chambering.

FWIW, I recently had the opportunity to shoot a SWAT member's G33 in full auto, complete with zebra striped ejected brass like its 7.62 sibling, and thought the HK's weight was very heavy for its intended task. The SWAT member is looking forward to his upcoming Colt M4 replacement.
 
The 5.56 is a fantastic service rifle caliber. With the advent of the newer Mk318 and M855A1 it is even better. It has low recoil, low weight, accurate, and works very well in the normal combat distances of under 300 meters.

Here is my basic carry load for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 when I was a SAW gunner. Thats 900 rounds of linked ammo. With that ammo, my vest, my gun, water and other miscellaneous crap my gear was right around 96 pounds. That doesnt include my ruck.

bdbaz.jpg

Everyone talks about the lack of lethality of the 5.56 at range. I will agree that it lacks good punch at range but it still is effective and I have a story for that. But the fact is that the vast majority of Soldiers and Marines are not making solid if any hits at that range. The enemy isnt standing out in the open wearing orange hunting safety vests. They tend to hide and use cover and camouflage.

Adding the ACOG to the rifles and carbines had made a huge difference.

Story: Note this story is about combat in Iraq in 2005.

In 2005 my unit was in eastern Iraq near the Iran border. We had a mission to escort high ranking officers to a meet and greet in a small farming town in our AO to offer aide and money after one of our Abrams had run over a bus and killed several locals. It was the bus drivers fault by the way.

So my platoon is tasked with outer security around the town which was surrounded on three sides by canals. I was on a hill on the outside of the town and was able to over-watch almost one whole side of the town. they had me there because I was a squad designated marksman and had a modified M16A4 with a stainless fluted free floated barrel, an ACOG, and M262 77 grain OTM ammo.

Towards the end of the meet and greet an Iraqi Army patrol drives by in some Toyota and Nissan gun trucks. They pass my position and start heading down the road alongside one of the canals. The patrol was hit by an IED and begins to take small arms fire from a wooded area inside the town alongside the canal. They engage in a fierce firefight back and forth across the canal.

I follow the IA tracers back to the wooded area and see some guys by a building. i should point out that the IA, the insurgent position and my position were laid out like a L shape with the bad guys in the middle. As they engaged the IA the insurgents gave me their flank.

earlier my team leader, who was with me, and I had estimated the range to the town wall, which was a rather low 2 to 3 feet, at around 350 meters. I look through my ACOG at the guys in the wooded area and see that they are firing AK-47s at the IA as well as directly 180 degrees towards some other soldiers in my platoon who were manning a check point approximately 300 meters away. Those soldiers were busy fighting other insurgents as this was apparently a planned attack with multiple ambush/fighting positions.

I take aim at the easiest guy, he was standing still, who was firing at my friends. I placed the 300 meter line of my ACOG at high chest and squeezed off the round. The bad guy fell instantly to the ground. Another bad guy stopped shooting and ran up to him and started dragging him back into the woodline which was slightly up hill. As he was dragging the guy away I shot off a few more rounds which missed. As the bad guy was being drug away I could see him holding his stomach. They got into the woodline so I started engaging other targets that popped up. I made no more hits as the others got wise and started moving about. Shortly after they retreated into the woodline and merged back into the population.

During the AAR we measured the shot on a map and found it to be 400 meters +/-10. We had killed 3 enemy that day including one that had a single shot through the abdomen near the belly button. A misjudgement of distance caused my shot to go low but the heavy 5.56 still took the bad guy out of the fight.

Pic of me and my rifle in 2005.

dfADFD.jpg
 
We screwed up when we didn't go with the .276 Pedersen and it's been downhill for our small arms since. We got a chance for a Mulligan with the .280 British but still screwed up.
 
Same here C-grunt. Well said, and have the highest respect for both your opinion and you.
 
C-Grunt, I enjoyed your story, but I hate enjoying stories at the cost of the hardship our personnel endure. My taxes cannot repay you for the freedom I enjoy.

I'd like to add that I value your opinion and I value your service.

Thank you!
 
Unlike some of the posters on this thread, I have used 5.56 in an actual gunfight. I WILL NOT go into details, but it was immediately effective and created wounds any one of which would have been immediately incapacitating. Know where to put the rounds and hit what you aim at and it will do the job at most actual combat ranges. Out past 300 I'd rather have 7.62. I'd also rather have a tank and air support.
 
Don't forget, Armies fight as a group,
as my old Doc (the doctors and PA's are the 'doc' to the doc's (medics)
a 'retired' SF medic used to say
If you can't shoot them, they aren't danger close
let the Air Force dig them out...
 
Not being a combat veteran, I am not experienced in shooting at foreigners or marching with supplies, so I won't get into that. Other stuff, well, see the sig line.

I think we will be with the 5.56x45 round and AR platform for the forseeable future, that the money and determination to change to a somewhat better conventional cartridge and rifle are not there. Remember, it is not just our issue and production base, it is all those "allies" we have pushed into using our rifle caliber not once but twice. They would be even more reluctant to change and we don't want to upset our "friends", do we? Yes, we threw the Continentals the bone of 9mm pistols, but that isn't much with fewer SMGs on issue.

I wonder how the (plastic) cased telescoped ammunition R&D is doing. That seems to be the way to go. And maybe we would get a larger caliber along with it.

The ballistics can and are being improved.
The M193 of Viet Nam is a decent medium-close range round. I think the "tumbling" business is overstated, no pointed bullet is "stable" in a dense medium like a Communist. Fragmentation while velocity is high seems to be what gets 'em.
The M855 will break up, too; the seam between the nose penetrator and base core does the trick. But you have to have velocity which the M4 delivers less of.

Ammunition has been modernized and the Hague Accords are a dead letter in practice with a wink and a nod from the JAG in a document stating our use of hollowpoint match bullets is OK because it is meant to improve accuracy and make it easier to hit the enemy, not hurt him worse. That takes care of the M118 Special Match used by snipers who have not graduated to .300 WM, .338 Lap, or .50 BMG for greater range; and the M262 for designated marksmen.
The USMC is getting M318 with a bullet officially intended to improve accuracy from short barrels and penetrate barriers better. Doesn't officially matter that it is based on the Trophy Bonded Bear Claw softpoint which I will expect still "deforms" considerably upon impact, but I bet the Marines like it and the Muj hate it.
And now we are getting Green with the M855A1 copper+steel bullet meant to avoid lead contamination of the backward lands where we depose dictators, that apparently being our current thrust of foreign policy. I have seen no field reports on its effectiveness.


I think the "one fighter plane" business is an apples-oranges thing. It appears to be the current posture among non-USAF parties that we will not have to fight or even confront an opponent with a modern air force. That air power can comprise UAVs and elderly manned aircraft bombing backward lands to depose the dictators (or the insurgents who hate us worse than the departed dictator.) Oh, yes, and plenty of cargo planes for routine transport of supplies and personnel because the insurgents' IEDs and ambushes have made surface travel unsafe. I realize the "aircraft older than the pilot" quote has become a cliche, but it is true. After all the maneuvering to get the contract to an American owned company, it is now estimated that the KC135s will continue in use until 80 years old before there are enough KC46s to get by. That is "get by" because there is no intention of actually replacing the old tankers one for one.
 
Last edited:
here goes, I carried a 5.56 type weapon on vaction to Afghanistan. I also carried the same weapon to Iraq twice. The weight factor is my biggest concern. Carry a full load of 5.56, Weapon with sights and laser, ruck with food/ clothes/ extra ammo and whatever else you can think of. Add the fact that you are on a crew served weapon, factor in 7.62 ammo, heavy team additional rounds for mortars what have you, and the weight adds up. We all know there are better rounds out there, but cost, and weight and service life of equipment becomes an issue. 556 ammo well placed like any other round will stop an individual, but if it doesnt, just add more ammo to the equation. Everyone I worked with carried upwards of 80lbs worth of additional weight. That is really hard on your buddy who weighs 140 lbs soaking wet.
 
I'm not in the military and I don't know. But I have heard reports that it's too light and lacks power. If you're so willing, would you tell what "gets the job done" means to you regarding your use

Do you think you would be able to continue aggressing to a target with a .223 round in the chest? I rather doubt it. In war it is not killing but stopping the enemy and a .223 in the chest will stop an aggressor just fine. The round's light weight allows you to carry more ammo, it does it's job very well out to 600+ yards, it is being used in an accurate platform. I just don't have a problem with it...and yes I served, 19D.
 
I want to address the opinion that if you are not a veteran your opinion on firearms, round effectiveness is worth squat.

The user does get to state goals in the Operational Requirements Document. But what you will find is that the actual weapon developers are not active infantry/tankers/air defense. The guy in charge of the program will be active duty military but the people setting the system trades, creating the designs, testing the weapons, are civilians and contractors. They actually have far more influence on weapon program development than the guy on top, as he/she spends most of their time keeping "answering the mail" and keeping the program from being canceled.

What you find if you ever deal with the user is that they like what they have, want something better but only a little different, and totally reject revolutionary change.

The user is extremely conservative and does not like change. Pointy sticks had to be wrestled away from the hands of Troglodyte Infantry before they were issued stone tipped spears, and until they retired, grizzled Troglodyte NCO’s pouted that nothing was as ever as good as their old pointy sticks.

Just as there are user fans of the .223, so there were just as adamant user fans of the 58 Minie, 45-70, 30-06 and 308. There are thousands of claw marks on the barrack floors at Fort Benning where unhappy users were dragged away from the firearm turn in rack.

I understand they carry crying towels in the firearms section of the Infantry Musuem at Benning. http://www.nationalinfantrymuseum.com/

This has happened before and will happen again.
 
Yes, it's true, but look at DARPA, and soldier systems the FCS etc. initiatives to develop a 'better' gun/system, yet other than the 20mm laser ranged grenade?? round and the light weight 20mm/.50 HMG the basic rifle hasn't changed in 50 years, but then point to a 'better' gun if you can.

there are ones that excel in certain areas but nothing that is a stellar revolution, for all it's shortcomings the M16 family did result in an improvement for the average grunt compared to the previous weapons.
 
So Slamfire, you think us veterans (users) are crybabies and idiots. Also you somehow reason that we do not appreciate that our weapons are chosen on the basis of research and development. Also you disregard that experience is not a factor in understanding what a good weapon is. Friends with Jane Fonda?
 
Once again, misconceptions are continuing to be repeated. So I will say it again, and I'll type real slow for those who aren't able to read fast:

New guns for everyone cost less than a new fighter plane, or a years worth to fuel in the DOD budget. Guns and ammo are cheap. And maybe we SHOULD toss the M16 mag design. Malfunctions in the M16 are caused by mags and ammo, #1 and #2. A better magazine is EXACTLY what Magpul is making MILLIONS of and selling to the US and Britain because the issue mag will dent the feed lips when dropped once on them fully loaded.

The bullet does NOT have to drop the enemy in their tracks Dead Right There. Be advised, the .308 won't either. That point is being completely ignored. Since .308, .30-06, even 8mm Mauser can't guarantee it, why accept bigger guns with more recoil and less ammo as the answer? It's exactly the PROBLEM, not the solution, and what we are using NOW is the better answer.

As for making a change, if it's not money, or needing a bigger round, what could we do to make things even better?

Well, we have, we added red dot optics, and that improved hit probability far beyond their equivalent monetary value in practice ammo.

We could take more weight off the soldier. Who volunteers to leave their plate carrier, armor, and helmet behind? Well, you don't get to say. Commanders answer to Congress, and Congress answers to YOU, MOM and DAD, who do vote, and who DEMAND their child come home safe. It's not a just a systemic problem with the Army putting weight on the soldier, it's cultural, too. We The People are dumping weight on the soldier.

When it comes to weight, historically, all we do is change the proportion of ammo, not the overall total. One way to do that is carry more ammo, and the best way to do that is issue no brass ammo like the LSAT. What's not evident to civilians, but very clear to commanders and developers, is that the LSAT cartridges weigh 40% less - which means Joe Grunt can carry 40% more. And those commanders and developers understand it's not a matter of if, but when. It's entirely in their experience to see new items envisioned, developed, perfected, and fielded.

The Veterans keep pointing this out, and it's appreciated when someone recognizes it, but since only one in one hundred have now served, it's a drop in the bucket. The days when someone in your immediate family, when one in TEN had served, are long gone. Moving to an all volunteer Army has actually created a huge number of citizens who don't have a clue about service or combat, and who keep repeating the same misinformation over and over.

It's very much the same as the Delaware residents cursing electric crews trying to restore power, when in fact, they impeded them by not allowing the trees to be trimmed at all. Ask residents in my neighborhood about it. In the last 8 years, we've had a tornado, two ice storms, and a cyclonic windstorm. Joplin had an EF5 wipe out 6 square miles of homes, and destroy a hospital. No power for 6-10 days? No problem. We know what it takes to deal with it.

The Army knows the capability of the M4 and 5.56, they deal with it and make it work. Civilians just gripe about it because they don't understand the conditions, what is really needed, and how much they actually contribute to the problem.

Tell YOUR Congressman to stop pushing for huge contract awards for platforms we don't need just to get lots of jobs back home paying $25 an hour? Not likely.
 
Yeah, what he said

consider that todays "average" infantry man is BETTER trained than WWII Special Forces
that the average truck a soldier is moving around the battle field in is better armed than a WWII APC/IFV. There have been many advantages, but unfortunately the ability to go further with fewer means they have to carry more, it's so bad that if you claim a back injury it's pretty much a shoe in at the VA, cause walking around with the equivalent of a fat kid on your back has been found not conductive to good health.

So, if vets say YOU DON'T GET IT
they just, probably, are right.
 
Yeah, I agree, it is a good read, and is, in a way, nothing new
I agree that training DEFIANTLY needs to be revamped, but also from personal experience, my last unit, in part of the train up for Iraq, did BOTH carbine CQB and "extended marksmanship", the latter was run by the sniper element and probably was the most difficult shooting I did in the army. But, part of this, something I REALLY want pointed out, is this. TRAINING. At every chapter and with ever piece of equipment he points to TRAINING.

And lastly I really would love for them to field something like the 'arms room concept'
Imagine 5.7 FN for clear buildings, with 5.56 for external security, 6.8 for overwatch with 6.5 for the SDM's. BUT here in lies a problem. If you buddy is down, which round is he carrying?
 
I'm just an armchair guy but I think that a lot of the limitations of the 5.56 show when you look at it in isolation. As part of a system including light and heavy machine guns, mortars, grenade launchers, etc all the way up to air it probably does the job it is supposed to.
 
, and now, the 5.56 was cheated out of 5 1/2" of barrel velocity at 50fps per inch. It lost speed and range.

I think this is a very key component of the current controversy surrounding the 5.56. Not only is the round moving slower it also now much more stable which may aid in accuracy but does not help in wounding potential. However, the shorter overall lenght of an M4 has distinct advantages such as in building clearing and deployment from vehicles.

An arguement could certainly be made that if we are going to use 14.5" barrels the weight saved could be spent on a slightly more potent round. On paper i think the 6.5 grendel is ideal, ecspecially at current engagement distances. Another possible way to offset weight of a heavier cartridge is to change back to pencil barrels like the original M16. The only downside would be being when troops try to use their M4s as SAWs.

The best option however may be conversion to a larger projectile from a 5.56 case such as the 6x45 as the only change needed is a different barrel as the same bolt and magazines can be used.

opinions of non vets don't count for much

That's interesting given the number of developments adopted by the military from competition and other civilian shooting avenues.
 
Yes, and I have to admit, in isolation, we pick on the 5.56 as less than adequate - because our perspective is largely based, and biased, by hunting American game with ethical standards. We don't want to wound it, lose it, or make it suffer. Just fall down dead.

It's a nice goal, but a ridiculous fantasy in war. Honestly, do we really need to have the other soldier fall down Dead Right There? All you really need is for the soldier to not shoot back. It gets accomplished just as much if it's an injury sufficient to overcome his will to fight on. Engage his mind with the seriousness of pain compliance and further resistance is reduced.

If you could accomplish that with debilitating Taser rounds, and knock them down for 30 minutes at a time, the exact same goal is accomplished. In that vein, consider the employment of bio-chemical munitions. We cleared the trenches with mustard gas in WWI, and it worked and worked well until countermeasures were employed.

That's where the American shooter misses the point. He likely intends to eat his target, literally. Soldiers just want the enemy to give up and not resist the employment of their nations policies. Policy enforcement, not food.

As for the use of open tip match ammo, it's been legal since the late '80's. SOLDIERS know that, CIVILIANS are out of the loop quoting a treaty nearly 100 years old that WE NEVER SIGNED. As long as the bullet was engineered for aerodynamics, not expansion, open tip bullets are legal. That means the Sierra OTM boattail hollowpoints are good to go, and they are issued to long distance precision marksmen. Conversely, a 95gr TTSX hunting bullet would not.

ONLY precision marksmen get them, tho, because the Infantryman often needs penetration, not DRT. He has to shoot through stacked AK47 mags in chest carriers, light framed building construction, expedient barriers in front of enemy shooting positions, etc. SOLDIERS know that, and use the issue penetrator rounds, CIVILIANS never have to shoot thru cover to hit a deer. They aren't known to pack a truck with explosives and attempt to ram a roadblock.

Again, goes to the average civilian not having any reference source these days to correct their misinformation. And when veterans do take the time to explain - do they even bother to listen? I'm beginning to think they don't.

As for the Grendel being ideal, not so much, as the energy savings from the high BC projectile is largely realized beyond the average engagement distances most soldiers are shooting at - 25-350m. AGAIN, the job isn't understood by armchair commandos.
 
The following article speaks to concerns regarding 5.56 effectiveness and the use of open tip bullets. A key distinction is that open tip ammo, which the military has approved, is not the same as hollow points bullets designed to expand on impact.

While many criticize the prohibition of hollow point ammo it must be remembered that the maiming effects happen to both sides.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/

As for the Grendel being ideal, not so much, as the energy savings from the high BC projectile is largely realized beyond the average engagement distances most soldiers are shooting at - 25-350m. AGAIN, the job isn't understood by armchair commandos.

Excpet the grendel has a higher wounding potential over the 5.56 at all ranges albeit lower than the 6.8 at shorter distances. A major advantage of the 6.5 over the 6.8 is that it can better suite multiple roles.
 
While many criticize the prohibition of hollow point ammo...

Guys,

The Hague Convention (to which we are not a signatory, yet follow), does NOT prohibit hollowpoint bullets. It is worded as prohibiting the use in international warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body. Since the Sierra MatchKing HP bullet as is used in USGI M118 LR sniper ammo is not designed to expand (and normally doesn't, hence it is not recommend for use in commercial hunting ammo), it has been deemed legal for military issue in warfare. This 175gr HP bullet has been in use by our armed forces since 1998.

Don
 
Yeah I forgot, this is just the internet, not real life. Before I forget, the idea is shoot as many of them before they shoot you. Volume of fire is important. The whole package is important and if you change something you pay for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top