US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war
- Thread starter funnybone
- Start date
- Status
Regolith
Member
Not really. The 7.62x39 ballistics, quite frankly, suck. It doesn't have the range that the 5.56x45 does.
The 6.8 SPC (or even the 6.5 Grendal) would be much better suited for this than the 7.62x39. They both have ballistics more similar to the 7.62x51 than the 7.52x39, but are the same overall size as the 5.56x45mm.
Silvanus
Member
More than 4/5th like the 5.56x45 nato. That should end the discussion in my opinion...
plexreticle
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,240
I hate it when ignorant people try to write articles. This is why is have disdain for most news media.
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
xjchief
Member
This debate seems so much like the 9 vs. 45 debate for all the same reasons.
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
Go back to 30-06. Plenty of stopping power, and good range.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
It's not just a new designation, the M4 is a different weapon. Based off the M16 yes. But not the same weapon.
Nolo
Member
Please, please, please go back to M193.
And use polygonal rifling.
Easy fix.
And use polygonal rifling.
Easy fix.
The 5.56 is quite adequate for most purposes the military uses it for.
It is not perfect, and like a lot of things is a compromise between the available features and flaws.
It does not have quite the range or oomph of a 308, but most of the time the lighter weight and ability to carry more ammo is more important.
In some respects its like saying every soldier should have a flamethrower because it turns out to be useful sometimes. The fact is that soldiers can only carry a limited amount of stuff, and there are substantial advantages in most cases to the M4 platform over an M14 platform.
It is not perfect, and like a lot of things is a compromise between the available features and flaws.
It does not have quite the range or oomph of a 308, but most of the time the lighter weight and ability to carry more ammo is more important.
In some respects its like saying every soldier should have a flamethrower because it turns out to be useful sometimes. The fact is that soldiers can only carry a limited amount of stuff, and there are substantial advantages in most cases to the M4 platform over an M14 platform.
Funderb
Member
Whatever you guys say, I still think the .223 should be replaced by something, not the x51nato but maybe 6.5 or 6.8.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Even easier...Go back to M193 and rifling with a 1:14 twist rate.
Soviet steel pots at 600 yards is a pretty fanciful distance for the M16 or the 5.56 round anyway. Can anybody even see a human head at 600 yards clearly enough to determine what hat is on it...and then hit it reliably with issue sights? No me.
Nolo
Member
Yeah, but I'm hot on PR right now.
That kind of rifling would make a 14.5 inch barrel probably get 3K or more FPS with M193.
That kind of rifling would make a 14.5 inch barrel probably get 3K or more FPS with M193.
Whatever,:banghead: I don't know of a bullet I want to be hit by and the 556 has been with us since Viet Nam. How many enemies has it wounded or killed for us? How many victories has it given us? How many countries use it?
Do they want to go back to large calibur and semi auto fire, the M14 is uncontrolable in full auto. That is why they got rid of it as a standard infantry weapon. There are trade off in everything, the 556 is working so why change??
jj
Do they want to go back to large calibur and semi auto fire, the M14 is uncontrolable in full auto. That is why they got rid of it as a standard infantry weapon. There are trade off in everything, the 556 is working so why change??
jj
don't prepare for the previous war.
the next war is zombies. you'll want lots of ammo. accurate enough for head shots, but not many reports of zombies wearing steel pots on their heads. i mean, you'd think they would protect that area, since that's the only place you can kill them. but hey, they're zombies, not rocket scientists. although some of them used to be rocket scientists.
the next war is zombies. you'll want lots of ammo. accurate enough for head shots, but not many reports of zombies wearing steel pots on their heads. i mean, you'd think they would protect that area, since that's the only place you can kill them. but hey, they're zombies, not rocket scientists. although some of them used to be rocket scientists.
snowtigger
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 91
.30 Whisper??
Larger bullet, low recoil, simple barrel change on M4.
Larger bullet, low recoil, simple barrel change on M4.
leadcounsel
member
The best solution is to use hollow points. We have no obligation to use fmj.
But even the 5.56 fmj is adequate for what we do and switching is a fiscal and physical impossibility. That goes for the 9mm. Personally I would prefer something larger for each weapon, but the real world problem is the investment in billions of dollars in equipment and ammunition and training time and resources - and the cost of switching midstream to another weapon and caliber.
The money to switch would be better spent elsewhere; just like the investment in a lot of pet projects is overboard and would be better spent on financial incentives for the people.
We continue to fund the war, but not the warrior.
But even the 5.56 fmj is adequate for what we do and switching is a fiscal and physical impossibility. That goes for the 9mm. Personally I would prefer something larger for each weapon, but the real world problem is the investment in billions of dollars in equipment and ammunition and training time and resources - and the cost of switching midstream to another weapon and caliber.
The money to switch would be better spent elsewhere; just like the investment in a lot of pet projects is overboard and would be better spent on financial incentives for the people.
We continue to fund the war, but not the warrior.
WayneConrad
Member
Y'all ain't looking at this from a Pentagon point of view.
The problem to be solved is, how to you retire fat, rich and happy? You don't do it on a Pentagon salary. You do it on a defense contractor consulting salary. And those you get by buddying up with a defense contractor who's got a new platform that's maybe better, maybe not, getting it adopted, retiring from the pentagon, and getting hired by that contractor into a nice, cushy defense contractor consulting job.
For those guys, it's got nothing to do with whether or not the caliber is better or not. Although if they can convince themselves that the new platform has advantages, they can use that to veneer their soul they don't have to look at their own lack of moral fiber.
Now, add to that that 223 needs a particular twist rate and velocity to do well, and it becomes a really interesting discussion, doesn't it?
The problem to be solved is, how to you retire fat, rich and happy? You don't do it on a Pentagon salary. You do it on a defense contractor consulting salary. And those you get by buddying up with a defense contractor who's got a new platform that's maybe better, maybe not, getting it adopted, retiring from the pentagon, and getting hired by that contractor into a nice, cushy defense contractor consulting job.
For those guys, it's got nothing to do with whether or not the caliber is better or not. Although if they can convince themselves that the new platform has advantages, they can use that to veneer their soul they don't have to look at their own lack of moral fiber.
Now, add to that that 223 needs a particular twist rate and velocity to do well, and it becomes a really interesting discussion, doesn't it?
SMLE
Member
My Father fought in WWII with the US Marines. He told me that there were times that even the mighty 30-06 wouldn't drop a jap with a single hit. If '06 won't do it, neither with 7.62x51. Now .50 BMG would do the job every time, but until Johnny Rico's powered marauder suit is available, that's not an option for an infantry rifle.
alsaqr
Member
+1
Make that an anti-war, military hating, frothing at the mouth anti-gun liberal.
Eightball
Member
So, they bemoan a round's ability for one-shot stops. Out of a CQB weapon. At long range.
Simple solution--use the next round. Problem solved.
Simple solution--use the next round. Problem solved.
Doggy Daddy
Member
"The amount of light"????
What am I missing here?
DougDubya
Member
Fackler totally calls shenanegans on the title and opening premise of this article by stating CONCLUSIVELY that it's the itty bitty damb short barrel that makes the 5.56 weak, not the round itself.
'Course, no one's even MENTIONING that bit.
'Course, no one's even MENTIONING that bit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
