Military Caliber
- Thread starter ArtP
- Start date
- Status
Volume of fire IS important because the average combatant is likely hit by undirected fire as much as someone targeting him specifically.
And that fire comes from machine guns mounted on vehicles, too. Add in overhead bursts of mortar and artillery fire, airstrikes, and direct fire from armored vehicles, I'm not too worried about small arms fire from ground troops until I can actually see them. At that point all the support lifts and it's back to being an "even" fight again.
Moot point what the "suite" of ability of the 6.5G is - the basis of explaining it rests on the flawed premise that somehow the 5.56 is too "weak" to do the job. AGAIN, BULLET IMPACT IS NOT DESIGNED TO GUARANTEE INSTANT DEATH. Not even .50 BMG can do that, the internet is filled with posts of battlefield survivors bravely and successfully defending their position even after being hit by them.
When you read complaints from Joe in the desert that "I shot him, and he kept on going." be advised that the enemy hasn't been real conscientious about sending sober opponents at us since the days of the Phillipines and invention of the .45ACP. Lots of enemy troops in third world countries are fighting to die honorably, to earn a place in their system of afterlife, and if being twigged on narcotics takes the edge off getting there, all the better. So haji gets hit - and like the Filipinos a hundred years ago, is actually unaware they are about 90 seconds away from complete blood loss.
The reality is that a soldier may very well interpret that as "ineffective," and shoot him again.
What good does a larger impact do when it's already a known problem .308 CAN'T guarantee knocking them down Dead Right There? Bringing the civilian expectation of the Instant Death Bullet onto the battlefield is what is out of touch with reality.
And that fire comes from machine guns mounted on vehicles, too. Add in overhead bursts of mortar and artillery fire, airstrikes, and direct fire from armored vehicles, I'm not too worried about small arms fire from ground troops until I can actually see them. At that point all the support lifts and it's back to being an "even" fight again.
Moot point what the "suite" of ability of the 6.5G is - the basis of explaining it rests on the flawed premise that somehow the 5.56 is too "weak" to do the job. AGAIN, BULLET IMPACT IS NOT DESIGNED TO GUARANTEE INSTANT DEATH. Not even .50 BMG can do that, the internet is filled with posts of battlefield survivors bravely and successfully defending their position even after being hit by them.
When you read complaints from Joe in the desert that "I shot him, and he kept on going." be advised that the enemy hasn't been real conscientious about sending sober opponents at us since the days of the Phillipines and invention of the .45ACP. Lots of enemy troops in third world countries are fighting to die honorably, to earn a place in their system of afterlife, and if being twigged on narcotics takes the edge off getting there, all the better. So haji gets hit - and like the Filipinos a hundred years ago, is actually unaware they are about 90 seconds away from complete blood loss.
The reality is that a soldier may very well interpret that as "ineffective," and shoot him again.
What good does a larger impact do when it's already a known problem .308 CAN'T guarantee knocking them down Dead Right There? Bringing the civilian expectation of the Instant Death Bullet onto the battlefield is what is out of touch with reality.
C-grunt
Member
+100
Ive said it before here and its worth repeating. A lot of Soldiers and Marines who claim ineffective hits are completely missing these bad guys. Our 300 meter zero has the round sailing a foot or more high at normal, closer, combat ranges. A lot of Soldiers, Im willing to bet less Marines as they are trained on their rifles better, dont know this. Thats why they have the IBZO.
Add in the fact that the bad guys are only exposed for a brief moment most of the time and are usually running. All those factors combined make getting good hits on the enemy hard with a rifle. Then you add into the equation that only good torso hits are very effective and your target gets smaller.
Ive known guys who would barely qualify with their rifle back at home that were claiming hits on a running bad guy from 200 meters downrange. They might have actually hit that guy but I doubt it.
Hey ArtP - Look at the criteria you listed. The 5.56 meets 6-1/2 out of the 8 categories you listed. The 5.56 does one other thing that you didn't list....it tends....yes I said tends to wound rather than kill particularly at distance. What happens when a soldier or insurgent falls down wounded and crying out? That's right a couple of his buddies come and pick him up and carry him off the battlefield. That little mousey caliber just effectively removed 3 enemy for only one being shot. How many soldiers or insurgents stop to pick up a dead buddy? NONE....they continue on with the mission of trying to kill you....happy in the knowledge that their friend Hakmed just became a martyr for the cause. I'm not going to say the 5.56 doesn't have some gaps...it does. As a generally dispersed caliber amongst NATO and our military it is the best choice. Why do you think the Russians went to the 5.45mm in the AK-74? Russians aren't stupid people they take what works and they make it work better typically. That should be just about as much endorsement anyone would need to answer their "why the 5.56mm questions". JMHO
Holgar Danske
Member
The .556/223 is a fine antipersonnel round, when fired within the engagement ranges it was designed for. (95% of all rifle engagements are well within 300 meters). The round is dependent on impact velocity and fragmentation to create its effective wounding potential.
(impact velocities over 2500 Fps cause severe wounds) With a 20" rifle barrel the effective severe wounding potential is 175-200 yds in a 14" M4 its about 75-100 yards. As originally introduced in Vietnam the M193 55 gr bullet was just about stabilized in the 1 in 12 twist barrels. When the round struck flesh (or anything else) it immediately upset and began to fragment. 556 rds in Vietnam frequently caused ghastly wounds under 100 yds. The Russians copied this feature in their 5.45 round by intentionally making the bullet heavy at the base so it would tumble rapidly.The modern 62 gr bullets are very stable when fired out of a 1 in 7 mil spec barrel. (so it has lost something) If you want to engage someone at 500 yards (like in Afghanistan) you are basically putting a .22 lr round on target and expecting a stop. At those ranges a 308 or 7.62x54R is the ticket.
The only cost effective way for the military to go to a heavier round is to go with the 300 AAC. It only requires a barrel change the bolt and mags are the same. The Mag capacity stays the same. In its supersonic loading it basically duplicates the 7.62x39 round but more accurate. (300 AAC =300/221= 300 whisper)
(impact velocities over 2500 Fps cause severe wounds) With a 20" rifle barrel the effective severe wounding potential is 175-200 yds in a 14" M4 its about 75-100 yards. As originally introduced in Vietnam the M193 55 gr bullet was just about stabilized in the 1 in 12 twist barrels. When the round struck flesh (or anything else) it immediately upset and began to fragment. 556 rds in Vietnam frequently caused ghastly wounds under 100 yds. The Russians copied this feature in their 5.45 round by intentionally making the bullet heavy at the base so it would tumble rapidly.The modern 62 gr bullets are very stable when fired out of a 1 in 7 mil spec barrel. (so it has lost something) If you want to engage someone at 500 yards (like in Afghanistan) you are basically putting a .22 lr round on target and expecting a stop. At those ranges a 308 or 7.62x54R is the ticket.
The only cost effective way for the military to go to a heavier round is to go with the 300 AAC. It only requires a barrel change the bolt and mags are the same. The Mag capacity stays the same. In its supersonic loading it basically duplicates the 7.62x39 round but more accurate. (300 AAC =300/221= 300 whisper)
Cost effective? Who are we talking about?
If you want to keep standard bolts and mags, I would consider something in a 6mm (or even the 6.5 or 6.8 pills) shoved in a piece of 5.56 brass to be a better option. Then again, I lack the affinity for the .30 caliber that so many yearn for.
Exactly. Also available are the .25-223 and 6.5 PCC, with the 6.8 PCC being developed and rumors that Taiwan is testing a .277 diameter bullet in a 5.56 case.
Change the mags and bolt too, you get 6.8 SPC, 6.5G, and some of the developing wildcats from them too. There are a few 6mm variants of the SPC case and the .30 HRT if you want.
So many choices, I am snowed under.
Last edited:
I don't know where it started, but the "wounds one takes out three" magic caliber doesn't. That fantasy involves the belief that the enemy will exercise the same regard for wounded that we do. It implies they are raised to care about and want to help their wounded as much as we do.
I don't think so. It's a narrow minded provincial perspective. The waves of "Red Chinese" swarming the Korean peninsula didn't react that way, despite the huge amount of MG fire directed at their unarmed ranks. If "Chin" went down, too bad for him. Other religions do not exercise the same perspective, and a genuine lack of concern about surviving is part of it.
This warped and unrealistic view seems to crop up more often when the enemy is definitely not part of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and it's a known and apparent characteristic to simply step over a wounded comrade and continue the assault. Again, a concept totally out of touch with the actual experiences of serving soldiers, once again, an uninformed civilian viewpoint.
While it may be indicated that an intermediate cartridge weapon would be more likely to wound, what did the original 5.56 fired from a 20" barrel get characterized as? An explosively powerful lethal round that left devastating wounds. You can't have it both ways. What you do have is a enemy soldier out of the fight, which is all you need.
"Study your enemy." means understand their ethics and system of beliefs. In many ways we don't experience or understand, they don't much care for life on this planet, they largely get the short end of the stick. Their lack of income, oppressive society, omnipotent government, and constant endangerment of their few liberties give them an attitude that it's really not worth hanging around.
Unless they come to America, and see just how much the opposite it is here.
"Wounding bullets?" Nope.
I don't think so. It's a narrow minded provincial perspective. The waves of "Red Chinese" swarming the Korean peninsula didn't react that way, despite the huge amount of MG fire directed at their unarmed ranks. If "Chin" went down, too bad for him. Other religions do not exercise the same perspective, and a genuine lack of concern about surviving is part of it.
This warped and unrealistic view seems to crop up more often when the enemy is definitely not part of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and it's a known and apparent characteristic to simply step over a wounded comrade and continue the assault. Again, a concept totally out of touch with the actual experiences of serving soldiers, once again, an uninformed civilian viewpoint.
While it may be indicated that an intermediate cartridge weapon would be more likely to wound, what did the original 5.56 fired from a 20" barrel get characterized as? An explosively powerful lethal round that left devastating wounds. You can't have it both ways. What you do have is a enemy soldier out of the fight, which is all you need.
"Study your enemy." means understand their ethics and system of beliefs. In many ways we don't experience or understand, they don't much care for life on this planet, they largely get the short end of the stick. Their lack of income, oppressive society, omnipotent government, and constant endangerment of their few liberties give them an attitude that it's really not worth hanging around.
Unless they come to America, and see just how much the opposite it is here.
"Wounding bullets?" Nope.
Holgar Danske
Member
I like the 6.5 MPC that was designed by SSK. (like the 300 whisper) The bolts and mags are the same and the ballistics are superior to the 6.8 SPC. (another fine round). If the politicians cared for the troops they could replace all the rifles in any chosen caliber for the cost of one F-35.Cost effective? Who are we talking about?
If you want to keep standard bolts and mags, I would consider something in a 6mm (or even the 6.5 or 6.8 pills) shoved in a piece of 5.56 brass to be a better option. Then again, I lack the affinity for the .30 caliber that so many yearn for.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
If the politicians were convinced that doing so would save soldiers' lives, and/or make them more effective, perhaps.
But first the military leadership would have to be convinced that changing calibers slightly would save soldiers' lives and/or make them more effective.
For that to happen, military strategy gurus and analysts -- or at least the troops on the ground -- would have to be convinced that it would save soldiers' lives and/or make them more effective.
And so far, NO ONE is convinced that changing to a slightly different caliber is going to have any measurable effect on troop effectiveness or safety -- or on mission success as a whole -- except possibly to take a lot of money off the table for other projects and tie up the already intensely utilized logistical chain.
No one, except for gun shop theorists and folks on the internet who boil the entire question down to a matter of exterior ballistics -- when that's really one hair on the tail trying to wag the whole dog.
Alec
Member
Don't you think that's being a bit presumptuous about the behavior of the enemy? What makes you so sure they behave so similarly to US troops when faced with fellow soldiers who are injured?
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,418
A lot of research went into the package of the 5.56 Nato, the M16 and the quick kill method. The training and cofiguration has changed but the key elements of the package of a light fast pointing rifle with low recoil that allows fast shooting at multiple targets remains. A slightly bigger round would not be likely to offer much if any advantage and a significant change would would increase recoil hurting rapid targeting. It's not perfect but it is still winning gunfights. It is not as good as the 7.62 at longer range but it better for what is designed for. Rapid response in a situation.
Logistically the 5.56 is very desireable. I would like to see a case that holds around 38 gr. of powder, shooting a 95-107 grain bullet in a caliber close to 243. This way you creep up in lethality into an acceptable zone without sacrificing much in terms of logistics (weight, # rounds per mag, # rounds carried)
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
However, change does happen. Usually when a compelling advantage is proved at a critical point in history where a door is open for such a change.
Flintlock to percussion? Muzzle-loader to breechloader/cartridge? Single-shot to repeaters? Black powder to smokeless? Bolt action to semi, and then to full-auto/burst? 1 round, to 5 rounds, to 8 rounds, to 20, to 30 in the gun, and individual loadouts of several hundred rounds?
Sure.
Adding forty-four hundredths of one millimeter to bullet diameter? <crickets>
Yup there are some (very) limited advantages. Ones significant to mission success? Not yet.
When the next sea change is ripe (may think that's the move to caseless ammo), we'll probably revisit the caliber and optimal external ballistics questions. A minuscule shift in cartridge performance (which will cost billions) isn't enough to float that sea change on its own.
In the end "We're not killing enough of 'them' with direct rifle fire," is just not the compelling problem of the day.
Our Armed Services personal arms
Do anyone think we should get out of the NATO regulations concerning rifle and pistols?
1.) Should we go back to the .45 ACP for our side arms?
2.) Should we develop or go back to the 6.5 or 6.8 calibers for our AR platforms?
I personally think that we should be using a double stack .45 ACP for our issued sidearms.
I have not been in combat ever. I am just sitting around thinking, and thought I'd try to get some opinions.
Do anyone think we should get out of the NATO regulations concerning rifle and pistols?
1.) Should we go back to the .45 ACP for our side arms?
2.) Should we develop or go back to the 6.5 or 6.8 calibers for our AR platforms?
I personally think that we should be using a double stack .45 ACP for our issued sidearms.
I have not been in combat ever. I am just sitting around thinking, and thought I'd try to get some opinions.
Last edited:
essayons21
Member
Considering NATO exists to defend against a threat that hasn't existed in the past 2 decades, I think its time to go with what works the best and abandon logistical compatibility with our so-called European "allies"
mljdeckard
Member
Your choices really kind of lump separate things together. Whether or not to change rifles and sidearms is really two questions, not one.
(It's not like we have never talked about this before.)
You have to weigh the cost with the benefit. The AR-series of rifles works very well. The reason I can train petite female soldiers on an M-4 quickly and easily, is that it doesn't beat them up to shoot them. If we upped it to a heavier cartridge, this would be diminished, at least somewhat. If I became the supreme benevolent dictator of the defense department tomorrow, I would give unit-level commanders discretion to allow or disallow their soldiers to carry personal sidearms, and give some combat units funds and discretion to use a variety of different rifles and sidearms depending on their mission requirements.
Remember, we have told NATO to go pound sand before. Just as we got almost all of them in line to accept the 7.62 as the standard rifle cartridge, we switched to 5.56, and it took decades for them to catch up with us.
I am not at all a M-9 fan, but I will say, if they would just stop pretending to follow the Hague Accords and just let us carry premium JHP ammo, most of my misgivings would go away. (It still wouldn't make it easier for my female soldiers with small hands to use it.)
(It's not like we have never talked about this before.)
You have to weigh the cost with the benefit. The AR-series of rifles works very well. The reason I can train petite female soldiers on an M-4 quickly and easily, is that it doesn't beat them up to shoot them. If we upped it to a heavier cartridge, this would be diminished, at least somewhat. If I became the supreme benevolent dictator of the defense department tomorrow, I would give unit-level commanders discretion to allow or disallow their soldiers to carry personal sidearms, and give some combat units funds and discretion to use a variety of different rifles and sidearms depending on their mission requirements.
Remember, we have told NATO to go pound sand before. Just as we got almost all of them in line to accept the 7.62 as the standard rifle cartridge, we switched to 5.56, and it took decades for them to catch up with us.
I am not at all a M-9 fan, but I will say, if they would just stop pretending to follow the Hague Accords and just let us carry premium JHP ammo, most of my misgivings would go away. (It still wouldn't make it easier for my female soldiers with small hands to use it.)
With weapon systems like the LSAT on the horizon I'd be more apt to waiting for a large technology leap. I think the problem here is there is no appreciable leap for the amount of funds required to make a switch.
Again, the .45 ACP and 9mm Nato are fine cartridges and perform adequately in combat. Which is to say - in combat you'd rather have your rifle.
The 5.56 is a man stopper with devastating wounding characteristics. I'm at the tail end of Medical school with the US Navy and most of my research has been in terminal wound ballistics.
The problem facing soldiers in Afghanistan is range. Engagements are usually at great ranges beyond the effectiveness of both the M-16A4/M4 and Ak-47. The range gap is filled by the 7.62 Nato which is quite effective at those distances. But not as effective at close ranges due to the power of the 7.62 + FMJ. At close ranges the 7.62 tends to punch through with minimum damage while at longer ranger the 7.62 Nato round has slowed enough so that tumbling and fragmentation can occur.
Ina nutshell. No. 5.56 is fine. Fills a needed role. Wait for caseless ammunition. 9mm Nato is effective. So is .45 ACP. Either way a FMJ pistol round isn't super effective. CNS, Liver, Major blood vessel shots are what count most with pistols.
Again, the .45 ACP and 9mm Nato are fine cartridges and perform adequately in combat. Which is to say - in combat you'd rather have your rifle.
The 5.56 is a man stopper with devastating wounding characteristics. I'm at the tail end of Medical school with the US Navy and most of my research has been in terminal wound ballistics.
The problem facing soldiers in Afghanistan is range. Engagements are usually at great ranges beyond the effectiveness of both the M-16A4/M4 and Ak-47. The range gap is filled by the 7.62 Nato which is quite effective at those distances. But not as effective at close ranges due to the power of the 7.62 + FMJ. At close ranges the 7.62 tends to punch through with minimum damage while at longer ranger the 7.62 Nato round has slowed enough so that tumbling and fragmentation can occur.
Ina nutshell. No. 5.56 is fine. Fills a needed role. Wait for caseless ammunition. 9mm Nato is effective. So is .45 ACP. Either way a FMJ pistol round isn't super effective. CNS, Liver, Major blood vessel shots are what count most with pistols.
Shadow 7D
Member
Even with the range issues of 5.56, it's more of a TRAINING issue
how many do you know that are taught to and how to engage targets out to max (450M) with their weapons, nevermind how to compensate for 150-175 to 225-250 meter dead zone were a 300M weapon is shooting high due to ballistic arc.
how many do you know that are taught to and how to engage targets out to max (450M) with their weapons, nevermind how to compensate for 150-175 to 225-250 meter dead zone were a 300M weapon is shooting high due to ballistic arc.
You're right.
The use of HP ammunition would definitely help with the use of 9mm, and I should have combined a few of the choices.
I am new to polls really, and just popped this one up as I am home from work ill, and just brain storming. It isn't a scientific post, and I know that it has been discussed before.
I am just bored, and trying to have a conversation.
I am actually trying to get the energy to get up and drive 1 mile to the indoor range to shoot the VZ.. I apologize if the poll is incomplete and redundant.
Also I am a huge fan of the 5.56 as I have experienced the terminal affects of a 20" Colt HBAR with 55 grain ammunition on medium sized game. After shooting them with the 55 grain .223 Soft Points at ranges under 100 yards. I went back to shooting a .30 caliber lever gun, and now shoot a .25-06 because of its terminal affects, but I have yet to see the damage from the .25-06 that is equal to the 55 grain .223. Sounds strange doesn't it, but I have pics to prove it. Don't get me wrong. I am sure that the guts were way more damaged from the .25-06, but the meat damage has been less. This might have been from better shot placements, but man I have lost a lot of meat on deer from the .223 55 grain Black Hills soft points.
The use of HP ammunition would definitely help with the use of 9mm, and I should have combined a few of the choices.
I am new to polls really, and just popped this one up as I am home from work ill, and just brain storming. It isn't a scientific post, and I know that it has been discussed before.
I am just bored, and trying to have a conversation.
I am actually trying to get the energy to get up and drive 1 mile to the indoor range to shoot the VZ.. I apologize if the poll is incomplete and redundant.
Also I am a huge fan of the 5.56 as I have experienced the terminal affects of a 20" Colt HBAR with 55 grain ammunition on medium sized game. After shooting them with the 55 grain .223 Soft Points at ranges under 100 yards. I went back to shooting a .30 caliber lever gun, and now shoot a .25-06 because of its terminal affects, but I have yet to see the damage from the .25-06 that is equal to the 55 grain .223. Sounds strange doesn't it, but I have pics to prove it. Don't get me wrong. I am sure that the guts were way more damaged from the .25-06, but the meat damage has been less. This might have been from better shot placements, but man I have lost a lot of meat on deer from the .223 55 grain Black Hills soft points.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Who is "we"?
You and I would go to prison for a long time if we get caught with the current version of the national service rifle. That being said, THE GOVERNMENT should adopt a more potent caliber for both rifle and handgun. My personal civilian legal AR-15 is in 6.8 and it is a big step up in power that will still fit in the standard M-16/AR-15 frame. It would also be relitivly inexpensive to convert current rifles as all they need is a new bolt head, barrel and magazine. The entire lower half would not need any modification at all.
You and I would go to prison for a long time if we get caught with the current version of the national service rifle. That being said, THE GOVERNMENT should adopt a more potent caliber for both rifle and handgun. My personal civilian legal AR-15 is in 6.8 and it is a big step up in power that will still fit in the standard M-16/AR-15 frame. It would also be relitivly inexpensive to convert current rifles as all they need is a new bolt head, barrel and magazine. The entire lower half would not need any modification at all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
