Why is 5.56mm NATO the standard round?

[Sergeant Boot]

I understand that the US waved away concerns about recoil etc of the 7.62mm round, but then the round was found to be not effective enough in combat (too heavy etc). So this lead to the 5.56mm round. My question is; why did they standardize this round when even at the time of initial testing it proved to be unreliable at fragmenting upon penetration?
Seems a little odd to me that they would choose an unreliable round..
Even today in Afghanistan, and in the Gulf Wars, concerns have been raised about exactly this - that the round often didn't perform properly, and this isn't exactly a recent complaint.
Thanks in advance for any info.

[Zoomie]

Because the 40mm HE just wasn't readily available at the time.

[The Dane]

It isn't as bad as many make it..

[Arnie100]

Oh, Lord...

[SniperLane]

lol. epic fail on you son....
try harder next time.

[Sergeant Boot]

lol. epic fail on you son....
try harder next time.

What have I done wrong? If I don't know then I don't know - which is why I have asked you lot, who clearly know more than me....obviously...

[SniperLane]

and here we go...


the NATO in the rounds description should well... how do i put this, give away something ?!

[HK in AK]

I understand that the US waved away concerns about recoil etc of the 7.62mm round, but then the round was found to be not effective enough in combat (too heavy etc). So this lead to the 5.56mm round. My question is; why did they standardize this round when even at the time of initial testing it proved to be unreliable at fragmenting upon penetration?
Seems a little odd to me that they would choose an unreliable round..
Even today in Afghanistan, and in the Gulf Wars, concerns have been raised about exactly this - that the round often didn't perform properly, and this isn't exactly a recent complaint.
Thanks in advance for any info.

With a screen name of Sergeant Boot, I would think you would know the answer! Also, I think there are enough people that have been buried after being shot with a 5.56 that would beg to differ.

P.S. Do a google search about the development of the 5.56 x 45 round and you will learn about the history and evolution of the 5.56 round. Remember it has gone from 55 gr to 82 gr.

[junglejim]

Great Success...

[Sergeant Boot]

and here we go...


the NATO in the rounds description should well... how do i put this, give away something ?!

Honestly what have I done lol? I'm new to this forum, is this a re-post or something?...Tell me lol

[The Dane]

There's tons of thread in here about 5.56mm short falls.. but maybe you should read about the new 5.56mm that USMC is about too field in Afghanistan. Seems promising..

[Arnie100]

Google is your friend...

[SineJustitia]

Honestly what have I done lol? I'm new to this forum, is this a re-post or something?...Tell me lol

Don't worry kid. Welcome to your hazing.

[SniperLane]

and you should stay in the Airsoft section for lets see a couple of months atleast.

[Sergeant Boot]

Just wanted to know a general opinion from MP... why is that such a problem, and why do all the new guys a get a grilling when they post??

[The Dane]

AND.. 7.62mm is still around, all the way down to squad level in some countries. Fired by machinegunners and marksmen.

[clean]

Hell, at least he didn't ask to ID some pants Leo wore in a movie.

[SineJustitia]

and here we go...


the NATO in the rounds description should well... how do i put this, give away something ?!

Oh no... SGT Boots... You made SniperLane waste his 1000th post on this...

Be afraid... be very afraid...

[Sergeant Boot]

Google is your friend...


You really think I didn't search for it.......urgh

[Sergeant Boot]

AND.. 7.62mm is still around, all the way down to squad level in some countries. Fired by machinegunners and marksmen.

Yeah used in British GMPGs right?

[Olf]

the 5.56 is a good round but as every time the circumstances matters the most. as for fragmentation an penetration , the barrel length is crucial the more barrel length you have the more velocity the round have down range, if you have an 10,3 inch barrel the M855 fragmentats at 15 meters and left a clean penetration wound every thing beyond that, with an 16 inch it´s 95 meters and with an 20inch it´s 150 meters but with an 5.56x 45 Mk 262 it is an other thing this round fragmentates even at a low velocity.

[SniperLane]

Oh no... SGT Boots... You made SniperLane waste his 1000th post on this...

Be afraid... be very afraid...

HOLLY SH!!!!T WAS THAT TODAYY?!!

ooh man... now im furious.

[clean]

You really think I didn't search for it.......urgh

I got bored for about 13 seconds and found this on google. Google is a search engine. You type in certain things pertaining to the info you want to find, and it gives you information on it.


5.56X45mm has a reputation of being an extremely effective round against soft targets AS LONG AS IT YAWS/FRAGMENTS IN THE TARGET. This is where the 5.56mm round shines; high velocity plus a small bullet means high tumbling/fragmenting capabilities and devastating wound cavities. The 5.56mm round is considered EXTREMELY effective within the 100M-150M range, much more so than 7.62X39mm which is slow moving and does little more than put a .3 inch hole in your target. However, the 5.56mm bullet is SEVERELY hindered when it is not moving fast enough. At slower velocities (1500 fps), being shot with a 5.56mm round is almost the same as being shot with a .22 rimfire. This is where a lot of these “5.56 is not powerful enough” rumors come from.

[SineJustitia]

HOLLY SH!!!!T WAS THAT TODAYY?!!

ooh man... now im furious.

As a sniper, maybe you can show him the benefits of .338 Lapua over 7.62?

[SniperLane]

I usually use my K-Bar to resolve such disputes.

[Arnie100]

http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html

http://www.thegunzone.com/556faq.html

[HK in AK]

Sgt Boots,

Did you even look? 5 seconds and here is a link!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO

There is a white paper link that talks about the failures of the different classes of 5.56 mm ammo....The problem was with the SS109 since it has a steel penetrator. It needs to hit something hard to develop the kinetic energy to fragment.

[Sergeant Boot]

I got bored for about 13 seconds and found this on google. Google is a search engine. You type in certain things pertaining to the info you want to find, and it gives you information on it.

That's interesting; thanks. Didn't know that it was because of muzzle veloctities. Odd then that I have heard complaints about the round when used in rifles like the L85A2, which had a velocity way, way above 1500fps. Thanks anyway.

[SniperLane]

Did you even look? 5 seconds and here is a link!

Magic! :roll:

[Sergeant Boot]

Sgt Boots,

Did you even look? 5 seconds and here is a link!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO

There is a white paper link that talks about the failures of the different classes of 5.56 mm ammo....The problem was with the SS109 since it has a steel penetrator. It needs to hit something hard to develop the kinetic energy to fragment.

I actually had that page open when posting...which is partly why I asked WHY the round is used, not what its problems are!

[HK in AK]

I actually had that page open when posting...which is partly why I asked WHY the round is used, not what its problems are!

I don't who you are, how old you are, what your experience level is. Doing a simple search would point you to this wonderful presentation about the WHY!

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

[LineDoggie]

Yeah used in British GMPGs right? and US M240 series, Mk. 48 series, M14's, M110's, M24's, M40's, L96's, MG-3's, G-3's, HK 417's FN SCAR-H's,etc.

[big_les]

That's interesting; thanks. Didn't know that it was because of muzzle veloctities. Odd then that I have heard complaints about the round when used in rifles like the L85A2, which had a velocity way, way above 1500fps. Thanks anyway.

Not really (assuming the stories you've heard are accurate) since the SS109-based L2A2 (and similar rounds from different providers/powder suppliers under other L-numbers) was redesigned to have a thicker jacket specifically to prevent fragmentation.

Mind you, personally I've seen/heard few complaints about failures to stop with the SA80. Probably because standard practice is not to stop shooting until the threat is eliminated, and because we aren't a gun culture (for better or worse) and so squaddies don't scrutinise the technical performance of their rounds in the same way as some American soldiers do. That said, there have of course been issues with 5.56 that go beyond just selective observation of incidents (e.g. one story like 'I shot him ten times and he kept coming' tells you nothing about the overall performance of the round). These have been/are being addressed. Like the weapons it's fired from, 5.56 is a compromise. A pretty good one, on balance, for military use. But 7.62 and other calibres are increasingly needed to reach out (and penetrate barriers) to longer ranges. These are bigger issues with 5.56 than FTS from my limited experience.

[Sergeant Boot]

I don't who you are, how old you are, what your experience level is. Doing a simple search would point you to this wonderful presentation about the WHY!

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

What does it matter how old I am? If you must know I am 19, British, and a civvie. Which is why I came here to find:
A) A general opinion from MP.com
B) Some helpful links to articles whilst I searched around myself.
Give me a break?

[SniperLane]

I actually had that page open when posting...which is partly why I asked WHY the round is used, not what its problems are!

well then, ill repeat myself for your benefit...


NATO NATO NATO NATO


that should do it..

[SniperLane]

What does it matter how old I am? If you must know I am 19, British, and a civvie. Which is why I came here to find:
A) A general opinion from MP.com
B) Some helpful links to articles whilst I searched around myself.
Give me a break?

oooh now you ARE going down...

[Sergeant Boot]

Thanks Big les, for the info.

[LineDoggie]

SImple answer? the US wasnt going to go back to 7.62NATO as the main caliber of its individual Infantry small arms. For it's vices a Soldier armed with a 5.56 can carry twice the ammo and the recoil impulse transmitted to the shoulder from a 5.56NATO is much less than with 7.62NATO, that helps with accuracy and reacquiring your sight picture on the battlefield. And rightly or wrongly the US Leads NATO as the Biggest gun in the alliance.

[The Dane]

I don't who you are, how old you are, what your experience level is. Doing a simple search would point you to this wonderful presentation about the WHY!

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

Very interesting! Thanks mate. :)

[junglejim]

Snap! He did not go there.

But to answer your question: NATO sat down and told the Americans that their capri pants wearing kind can not handle a .30-06 in full auto, as what a proper assault rifle should be. So they made a pistol round.

[clean]

That's interesting; thanks. Didn't know that it was because of muzzle veloctities. Odd then that I have heard complaints about the round when used in rifles like the L85A2, which had a velocity way, way above 1500fps. Thanks anyway.

I love picking on new guys as much as the next guy, but yeah, I didn't know that either. So you got me to google something ('cause you're too damn lazy to do it yourself) and we all won. Welcome aboard Sgt Boot. Expect alot more sh*t until you get out Junior Member status.

You'll be better for it.

[clean]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

Nice read.

[Sergeant Boot]

oooh now you ARE going down...
Why? Stop berating me, ffs.

[clean]

The United States military deploys a wide variety of 5.56 ammunition depending on what kind of weapons system is being used. M193 and M855 are the two most common rounds being issued to troops across the globe right now. M193 is a 55 grain FMJ (full metal jacket) lead-core projectile, usually issued to troops with older A1 style M-16s with the slower, 1:12 twist rate barrels. M193 is a good, cheap defensive round for use within the 150-200M range and it is reported that the bullet possesses good fragmenting qualities (due to the thin jacket and high velocity yawing habits). After 200 yards M193 is just not heavy enough nor is it moving fast enough to drop targets with anything less than a head shot. Most troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are issued M855, a 62 grain projectile with a steel insert in the tip that provides both greater penetration and fragmentation 100 yards beyond M193's effective range. However, there are a few reports trickling back from Iraq on the tendency of M855 to over penetrate targets in close quarters combat, passing right through the body without tumbling/fragmenting, requiring several more shots to eliminate a threat.


It didn’t take long for top military brass to recognize the need for a heavier grain projectile to put down targets more effectively. The military wanted a heftier (75+ grain) bullet with an OTM point to deploy with their special forces units in Afghanistan and Iraq. Three bidders came to the table but ultimately it was the 77 grain Black Hills cartridge that won the contract (kinda by default). This developmental cartridge was named Mk 262 Mod 0 (now Mod 1) and it is one bad ass bullet. Black Hills started off with a cannelured 77 grain Sierra HPBT (hollow point boat tail) bullet and put beneath it Winchester brass loaded up with a custom, factory blended powder (unduplicable and extremely potent, contains flash retardants which greatly reduce muzzle flash, a plus for night fire) and topped it off (or should I say bottomed) with a mil-spec crimped and sealed primer. The result; an extremely accurate and devastating round that has logged one hit kills beyond 700 meters (pretty impressive for 5.56mm). There is one report from Afghanistan of two Special Forces snipers killing 75 Taliban using 77 rounds of Mk 262. Plainly put, this is the most sought after 5.56 ammo you can get (besides tungsten cored M995 armor piercing which if someone has, they ain't selling/telling). Mk 262 can be hard to find and will cost you over $1 a round (although it is sometimes stocked at Cabela’s for around $42/50, comes in a white box, factory seconds because the firsts go to troops, look for "5.56" on the side of the box because it is NATO ammo and NATO doesn't load .223).

http://therevolutionscript.blogspot.com/2008/09/556x45mm223-ammunition-review-for-self.html

[Zoomie]

Why? Stop berating me, ffs.

You're the newb ffs. HTFU.

[clean]

Why? Stop berating me, ffs.

Stop fighting back, boot. You're property of the mpnet now.

[Sergeant Boot]

I love picking on new guys as much as the next guy, but yeah, I didn't know that either. So you got me to google something ('cause you're too damn lazy to do it yourself) and we all won. Welcome aboard Sgt Boot. Expect alot more sh*t until you get out Junior Member status.

You'll be better for it.
That makes me smile :) How many posts do I need to make to get myself out of Junior Status lol? It's like being a 16 year old newly enlisted Private ;)

[Arnie100]

What does it matter how old I am? If you must know I am 19, British, and a civvie.

So, you didn't earn the rank that's in your user name?

[warrior1974]

Hey Sarge

Look how easy it is

Type WIKIPEDIA

then suddenly appers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO

No it´s a joke don´t get angry

[Sergeant Boot]

Hmm okay I'm just gonna take all this, and hope it stops once I get out of Junior Member status. Sigh.

[whiskey]

I actually had that page open when posting...which is partly why I asked WHY the round is used, not what its problems are!

a liutenant colonel once told me they introduced it because the vietnamese soldiers couldnt handle the recoil of a 7.62 and were more afraid of the recoil than of the enemy rounds flying around,



^ still sounds like bull**** to me but you dont tell a lieutenant colonel that he is talking **** :D

[Sergeant Boot]

Hey Sarge

Look how easy it is

Type WIKIPEDIA

then suddenly appers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO

No it´s a joke don´t get angry



Lol :) I did say I had that open, but I thought you guys might be able to lend a hand with some more info.

[SniperLane]

Why? Stop berating me, ffs.


this is why i do it and why you will get a really smart custom title very soon:



A) A general opinion from MP.com

[Sergeant Boot]

a liutenant colonel once told me they introduced it because the vietnamese soldiers couldnt handle the recoil of a 7.62 and were more afraid of the recoil than of the enemy rounds flying around,



^ still sounds like bull**** to me but you dont tell a lieutenant colonel that he is talking **** :D

Haha no you don't!

[clean]

Nice catch Sniper.

[LineDoggie]

a liutenant colonel once told me they introduced it because the vietnamese soldiers couldnt handle the recoil of a 7.62 and were more afraid of the recoil than of the enemy rounds flying around,



^ still sounds like bull**** to me but you dont tell a lieutenant colonel that he is talking **** :DThe odd thing about that is the ARVN used the M1 & BAR for most of the war.Only ARVN Airborne, SF(LLDB) units had the M16 early. Most regualr South Vietnamese units used .30-06 weapons unitl 1968 or so.

[SniperLane]

and they did damn well using them.

[clean]

They were big fans of the M1 carbine as well. Or is that what you meant. I hear M1, I think Garand.

[Valkyries]

But to answer your question: NATO sat down and told the Americans that their capri pants wearing kind can not handle a .30-06 in full auto, as what a proper assault rifle should be. So they made a pistol round.

them be fightin words!

[SniperLane]

They were big fans of the M1 carbine as well. Or is that what you meant. I hear M1, I think Garand.

i think the he talks about the carbine, i dont remember any garands in 'Nam. I might be wrong tough.

[Sneeker]

Im really supprised Cali Jo hasnt popped in yet telling Sargent Boot to harded the **** up p-)

[Hollis]

i think the he talks about the carbine, i dont remember any garands in 'Nam. I might be wrong tough.


hint, google "ARVN + M1 Garand" ,

[Zoomie]

Im really supprised Cali Jo hasnt popped in yet telling Sargent Boot to harded the **** up p-)

I had that covered pages ago.

[clean]

The M2 carbine was more prevalent. I think. Semantics, though.

[SniperLane]

probably why i didnt pay much atention to it in the books i read.

the Garand that is.

[Hollis]

The M2 carbine was more prevalent. I think. Semantics, though.


I would think the carbine would have been more desirable. The only time that I heard that the carbine was ineffective was Winter in Korea. The round did not penetrate the Chinese winter uniform. Garand is a pretty big rifle for the normal Viet-Namese. I think I would have preferred the carbine over the Garand. We did with the M16 over the M14.

[clean]

I would think the carbine would have been more desirable. The only time that I heard that the carbine was ineffective was Winter in Korea. The round did not penetrate the Chinese winter uniform. Garand is a pretty big rifle for the normal Viet-Namese. I think I would have preferred the carbine over the Garand. We did with the M16 over the M14.

Did you guys still use the M-14 when you were over there? I know it was getting phased out, and you Marines were the last to get the new stuff. The M14 was heavy, though, so was it's ammo. Hard to slog about with all that weight.

[Hollis]

Did you guys still use the M-14 when you were over there? I know it was getting phased out, and you Marines were the last to get the new stuff. The M14 was heavy, though, so was it's ammo. Hard to slog about with all that weight.


In '69, standard issue was the M16. Only ones who where given were, what we called company snipers. They were like the DM to day. Not a MOS sniper, just a good shot and the CO felt then needed something more like a sniper but was not able to get a Division sniper assigned to the unit. Max range was probably 700M.

We liked the M16 because of the weight. Less weight, meant more ammo carried.

[Sneeker]

I had that covered pages ago.

Oh well you get a star now then dont you. A gold one :) A+

[Policía Loco]

Were other NATO countries looking for a smaller round around the same time, or was it after that, that NATO changed for standardization as a whole?

[kinney_bmx]

Were other NATO countries looking for a smaller round around the same time, or was it after that, that NATO changed for standardization as a whole?
The Brits were working on the 280 round, and actually had the EM-2 developed and adopted but never actually issued due to the 7.62 being forced. IIRC the FN Fal was originally developed for the 280 round also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British

I don;t know if there were any other calibers developed at that time.

[gaijinsamurai]

Didn't the South Korean units in Vietnam use the M1 Garand?

[clean]

They did. To great effect.

[kinney_bmx]

Meant to post this before but this video shows the EM2 assault rifle which was the British rifle designed for the .280 round, it also shows the machine gun that was developed too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtjVf724G7w

Kind of makes you wonder how farther firearm developement would have been if the British had fully adopted the EM2 (bullpup design, optical sight) instead of the FAL

[deagle]

i think they either drew out of a hat or did a hand count

just wikipedia 5.56 nato or something, lol

[gaijinsamurai]

Meant to post this before but this video shows the EM2 assault rifle which was the British rifle designed for the .280 round, it also shows the machine gun that was developed too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtjVf724G7w

Kind of makes you wonder how farther firearm developement would have been if the British had fully adopted the EM2 (bullpup design, optical sight) instead of the FAL

I believe it would have still been a FAL, but in the .280 round. Would have been an interesting weapon.
I've got better info on the .280 prototype FAL in my copy of Blake Steven's classic "The FAL Rifle", but unfortunately, I'm at work right now, while the book is at home.

[wildcat]

Snap! He did not go there.

But to answer your question: NATO sat down and told the Americans that their capri pants wearing kind can not handle a .30-06 in full auto, as what a proper assault rifle should be. So they made a pistol round.

one problem 30-06 and 7.62x51 are not assault rifle rounds, they are battle rifle rounds, and do not meet the definition of assault rifle.


The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle

[kinney_bmx]

I believe it would have still been a FAL, but in the .280 round. Would have been an interesting weapon.
I've got better info on the .280 prototype FAL in my copy of Blake Steven's classic "The FAL Rifle", but unfortunately, I'm at work right now, while the book is at home.
I'd love to see some of that information if you get a chance Gaijin.

Also I guess the British did actually adopt the rifle in 1951 for a brief while until the tests were performed at Aberdeen. And the EM2 was unable to be adapted to the 7.62 cartridge so they went with the FAL which had been adapted. Thats atleast what I've read from various online sources. I guess the Canadians were pretty fond of the .280 round also but said they would only adopt it if the US did.

[LineDoggie]

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/ARVN20Ranger201961.jpg
ARVN Rangers

South Vietnam recieved 220,300 M1 Garands between 1955-1975


http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/ROKwhiteHorseDiv.jpg
ROK White Horse Division 1968


http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/ARVNWIA.jpg
ARVN Ranger, WIA 1965

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/ARVNM1.jpg
ARVN Soldier 1969

[wildcat]

ARVN Rangers

some tough SOB's.

[kinney_bmx]

Nice picture Linedoggie

I have a book about Vietnam called NAM: A Photographic History and theres a good number of photos showing the Garand in use.

[James]

Honestly what have I done lol? I'm new to this forum, is this a re-post or something?...Tell me lol

Have you ever seen the video of mud marines?

It's hilarious.

In all seriousness, 5.56mm vs every other round has been done to death, something you'd know if you'd spent about 5 seconds using the search function.

[gaijinsamurai]

Great pics, Linedoggie.

[MoFo]

This thread delivers.

[martinexsquaddie]

because after ww2 most gunfights happen under 300m so lugging a rifle around that can shoot over 1000m is a complete waste of time and the asshats in the pentagon did'nt bother to read there own research
the brits used the m16 in borneo and hoad no problems with it

[junglejim]

one problem 30-06 and 7.62x51 are not assault rifle rounds, they are battle rifle rounds, and do not meet the definition of assault rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle


Ok didnt get the joke... my bad I should have placed an eye patch smiley.

[oldsoak]

I wonder what would have happened if we had stuck to the .280 experimental.
I wonder if it would have been possible for Eugene Stoner etc to have designed weapons with it in mind ? Would it have been possible that the US might have even adopted it in the AR-15 etc family ? In which case it could have been the US/NATO equivalent of the 7.62x39 in Vietnam ? It might then have become the de-facto NATO standard after 7.62x51.
That MG looked interesting. Half the weight of a Gimpy almost a fore runner of the Minimi.

[Hollis]

I wonder what would have happened if we had stuck to the .280 experimental.
I wonder if it would have been possible for Eugene Stoner etc to have designed weapons with it in mind ? Would it have been possible that the US might have even adopted it in the AR-15 etc family ? In which case it could have been the US/NATO equivalent of the 7.62x39 in Vietnam ? It might then have become the de-facto NATO standard after 7.62x51.
That MG looked interesting. Half the weight of a Gimpy almost a fore runner of the Minimi.


There would still be complaints. Every round has it sets of pros and cons. Depending on use, one would could be better suited than another. As the battle scape changes, that would change too. 5.56 is a good "all around" light infantry round. That is not saying there are no other comparable rounds out there. Even the 7.62 X 39 was dropped in favor of the 5.45 X 39. IMHO, these discussion is like people saying which food is better, Pancakes or latkes, steak or lobster, etc. It probably has more to do with personal opinion shaped by bias and inexperience. In the hands of a competent soldier, they are all lethal. Also for hunting calibers, the same sort of discussions takes place. There are a lot of really calibers to choose from, but a hunter has to choose one. Soldiers on the other hand, use what they are issued.

[kawaiku]

Have you ever seen the video of mud marines?

It's hilarious.

In all seriousness, 5.56mm vs every other round has been done to death, something you'd know if you'd spent about 5 seconds using the search function.BDP and RMM seem pretty synonymous with MP.net. General lurking before posting and knowing the internet is also a major bonus to saving one's skin around here no? p-)

Btw great pics Linedoggie!

And even though I don't quite understand most of the jargon about the 5.56 the links are a real help :)

[the_13th_redneck]

Didn't the South Korean units in Vietnam use the M1 Garand?

Later switched to M-16A1s. Exactly what year that conversion started, I don't know.

[Laworkerbee]

Pancakes or latkes

Pancakes all the way HOLLiS; the latka is not multi role.

[gaijinsamurai]

steak or lobster.

steak!!!
..........

[clean]

Massages from large gay Germans!!!!



Wait, wrong thread.

[Hollis]

Massages from large gay Germans!!!!



More sausage?

[LineDoggie]

Buckwheat Pancakes FTW

[TrOX]

It´s getting mean

[SniperLane]

Its getting homely actually, its a real MP.net thread now, lol.

[domokun]

I wonder what would have happened if we had stuck to the .280 experimental.
I wonder if it would have been possible for Eugene Stoner etc to have designed weapons with it in mind ? Would it have been possible that the US might have even adopted it in the AR-15 etc family ? In which case it could have been the US/NATO equivalent of the 7.62x39 in Vietnam ? It might then have become the de-facto NATO standard after 7.62x51.
That MG looked interesting. Half the weight of a Gimpy almost a fore runner of the Minimi.

If USA haven't pushed 7.62x51 as NATO standard in 50's and .280 would have been selected. Brits would have selected either EM-2 or FN-FAL in .280 as infantry service rifle. Americans would have made selection between AR-10 in .280, Garand derivative in same caliber and FAL as service rifle. Germans probably would have adapted G3 to .280 and made selection between that and FAL. Rest of NATO countries would have made their selection for service rifles between all those that were previously mentioned. GPMG's would probably have been chambered in .30-06.

How it would affect our miserable lives?

First of all there would be no AR-15 vs. AK-47 threads, those would be replaced with AR-10 vs AK-47 threads. There is huge difference, number. We would also have ton of threads suggesting that 5.56x45 or some other caliber would be better alternative to .280. That is about it.


There would still be complaints. Soldiers on the other hand, use what they are issued.

Cause and effect, only in not so usual order. Complaints exist in military, about equipment, about food, about leaves... pretty much about anything. It kinda force of nature. Guys in trenches just complain about different things than guys in cubicles.

@Sergeant Boot

You should search forum for our forums foremost gun expert, Tom of Finland, he has all the HARD facts about subject.

[LineDoggie]

Germans were quite Happy with the G-2 (FN FAL) it was when FN made some extremely dispargaing remarks about Germans that they satrted looking around for another Rifle.
By the way G-1 was the Garand, weird eh?

[LineDoggie]

There would still be complaints. Every round has it sets of pros and cons. Depending on use, one would could be better suited than another. As the battle scape changes, that would change too. 5.56 is a good "all around" light infantry round. That is not saying there are no other comparable rounds out there. Even the 7.62 X 39 was dropped in favor of the 5.45 X 39. IMHO, these discussion is like people saying which food is better, Pancakes or latkes, steak or lobster, etc. It probably has more to do with personal opinion shaped by bias and inexperience. In the hands of a competent soldier, they are all lethal. Also for hunting calibers, the same sort of discussions takes place. There are a lot of really calibers to choose from, but a hunter has to choose one. Soldiers on the other hand, use what they are issued.

BINGO!

Joe can be sitting on a Pile of Gold Bars and Joe will complain his ass hurts. Its when Joe aint Bitchin you have to worry.

[domokun]

Germans were quite Happy with the G-2 (FN FAL) it was when FN made some extremely dispargaing remarks about Germans that they satrted looking around for another Rifle.
By the way G-1 was the Garand, weird eh?

I knew that Bundeswehr used FN-FAL's after initial equipping with WWII surplus equipment. I have never heard about reason to abandon it that makes sense. I somehow don't believe that FN would have made massive issue about licensing as FAL was licensed to plenty of other manufacturers.

[Sergeant Boot]

Have you ever seen the video of mud marines?

It's hilarious.

In all seriousness, 5.56mm vs every other round has been done to death, something you'd know if you'd spent about 5 seconds using the search function.

Ok mate will do a proper search before posting next time :)

[Snapdad]

Round selection is always a compromise but Afghanistan really requires a weapon with a longer effective range than 200m (M4). 6.5mm Grendel has the ability to remain supersonic and accurate well past 600m and this would be a huge benefit to the troops, with every soldier able to engage past 200m, not just the 7.62mm designated marksman and possibly GPMG if they have one. The squad could also all carry the same ammo. It does not weigh much more than 5.56mm and can use the M4 lowers.

The secret to the Grendel is it's long low BC bullet that maintains its velocity better than other assault rifle rounds and with lower windage. It is also a much bigger round with potentially much better wounding characteristics with equivalent bullet construction and inherently better penetration and digging capability. The issue is more cost with adopting a new round and the 5.56 has performed relatively well in places where long-range capability was not so important. The troops certainly wouldn't argue with 6.5mm piston uppers for the cost of one stealth fighter but good luck convincing the lobbyists/government.

An intermediate round like 6.5 Grendel or equivalent would never completely replace full-powered rounds like 7.62 but it could certainly replace the 5.56 round as a more appropriate round for well-trained professional soldiers able to take advantage of its increased long-range accuracy in particular. Engagement ranges over 300m are common in Afghanistan from what I have heard and that leaves the vast majority of the squad or platoon completely ineffective with their m4's. They may as well fire blanks for as much good as they are doing and we can do a lot better than that.

[gaijinsamurai]

I knew that Bundeswehr used FN-FAL's after initial equipping with WWII surplus equipment. I have never heard about reason to abandon it that makes sense. I somehow don't believe that FN would have made massive issue about licensing as FAL was licensed to plenty of other manufacturers.

FN made the G1 FAL for the Bundeswehr, as well as the Stg.58 for the Austrian Army, until they granted Steyr licensing rights to make the rifle in their own country. The G1 (nearly identical to the Stg.58) was never produced in Germany, although Heckler & Koch did make FAL components for a while.
After the Austrian Army adopted the AUG, Steyr sold the Stg58 tooling and spare parts to DSA, in Chicago.

[gaijinsamurai]

I knew that Bundeswehr used FN-FAL's after initial equipping with WWII surplus equipment. I have never heard about reason to abandon it that makes sense. I somehow don't believe that FN would have made massive issue about licensing as FAL was licensed to plenty of other manufacturers.

Oh, and by the way, Linedoggie is correct (except that the German FAL was referred to as the G1). One of the stupidest blunders of all time was the Belgian Government's snubbing of the German Bundeswehr over the FAL. The Germans, as we know, adopted their version of the Spanish CETME, which became the G3 and Fabrique Nationale's biggest competitor in the non-Combloc arms market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:West_German_FN_FAL.jpg

[brainplay]

Round selection is always a compromise but Afghanistan really requires a weapon with a longer effective range than 200m (M4). 6.5mm Grendel has the ability to remain supersonic and accurate well past 600m and this would be a huge benefit to the troops, with every soldier able to engage past 200m, not just the 7.62mm designated marksman and possibly GPMG if they have one. The squad could also all carry the same ammo. It does not weigh much more than 5.56mm and can use the M4 lowers.

The secret to the Grendel is it's long low BC bullet that maintains its velocity better than other assault rifle rounds and with lower windage. It is also a much bigger round with potentially much better wounding characteristics with equivalent bullet construction and inherently better penetration and digging capability. The issue is more cost with adopting a new round and the 5.56 has performed relatively well in places where long-range capability was not so important. The troops certainly wouldn't argue with 6.5mm piston uppers for the cost of one stealth fighter but good luck convincing the lobbyists/government.

An intermediate round like 6.5 Grendel or equivalent would never completely replace full-powered rounds like 7.62 but it could certainly replace the 5.56 round as a more appropriate round for well-trained professional soldiers able to take advantage of its increased long-range accuracy in particular. Engagement ranges over 300m are common in Afghanistan from what I have heard and that leaves the vast majority of the squad or platoon completely ineffective with their m4's. They may as well fire blanks for as much good as they are doing and we can do a lot better than that.


A 5.56mm in an M4 can reach out MUCH further than 200m. If the troops using the current platform aren't engaging over that distance now, what makes you think they'll do so with a 6.5 or 6.8? Neither one are more accurate. Neither one teach a Soldier or Marine how to properly determine range or use mildots let alone how to use an ACOG/RCO. Neither one is without its problems or quarks. Neither one is really performing up to the initial hype either. /shock

Several whitepapers have detailed about the "over 300m engagement range" and it's almost always RPG and PKM initiated.

[Snapdad]

A 5.56mm in an M4 can reach out MUCH further than 200m. If the troops using the current platform aren't engaging over that distance now, what makes you think they'll do so with a 6.5 or 6.8? Neither one are more accurate. Neither one teach a Soldier or Marine how to properly determine range or use mildots let alone how to use an ACOG/RCO. Neither one is without its problems or quarks. Neither one is really performing up to the initial hype either. /shock

Several whitepapers have detailed about the "over 300m engagement range" and it's almost always RPG and PKM initiated.

Um, they are trying to engage past that distance but the platform isn't capable of doing it effectively. The M4 isn't effective much past 200m range from what I have heard and a lot of that has to do with the desultory lethality of the ammo at lower velocities as typical of the 14.5" barrel, especially at that range. It also blows A LOT in the wind and the shorter barrel exacerbates this problem considerably due to the lower velocity.

The Grendel does indeed have considerably lower windage and thus improved accuracy at range on the battlefield. This is a fact due to physics and not an opinion. It is also potentially much more lethal due to its bigger bullet/more fragments/larger wound with equivalent bullet construction. Even under ideal conditions I haven't heard anyone saying the M4 is effective over 300m if we are to be generous. The Grendel is easily accurate and lethal past 600m primarily due to its heavier, more aerodynamic and lower drag bullet retaining its velocity and resisting the wind.

5.56 is better with the 20" barrel but other rounds are better still and out to a much longer range. With a long barrel the Grendel equals or even surpasses the long-range performance of the 7.62, to give you an idea of just how much of a difference we are talking about here. 65Grendel.com has much more information if you are interested in learning more. RPG and PKM initiated attacks should be able to be repelled with more than a few members of the platoon, as was the case during the era of battle rifles. We can do that now but in a M4-class weight so there is really no excuse not to.

[wildcat]

Round selection is always a compromise but Afghanistan really requires a weapon with a longer effective range than 200m (M4). 6.5mm Grendel has the ability to remain supersonic and accurate well past 600m and this would be a huge benefit to the troops, with every soldier able to engage past 200m, not just the 7.62mm designated marksman and possibly GPMG if they have one. The squad could also all carry the same ammo. It does not weigh much more than 5.56mm and can use the M4 lowers.

The secret to the Grendel is it's long low BC bullet that maintains its velocity better than other assault rifle rounds and with lower windage. It is also a much bigger round with potentially much better wounding characteristics with equivalent bullet construction and inherently better penetration and digging capability. The issue is more cost with adopting a new round and the 5.56 has performed relatively well in places where long-range capability was not so important. The troops certainly wouldn't argue with 6.5mm piston uppers for the cost of one stealth fighter but good luck convincing the lobbyists/government.

An intermediate round like 6.5 Grendel or equivalent would never completely replace full-powered rounds like 7.62 but it could certainly replace the 5.56 round as a more appropriate round for well-trained professional soldiers able to take advantage of its increased long-range accuracy in particular. Engagement ranges over 300m are common in Afghanistan from what I have heard and that leaves the vast majority of the squad or platoon completely ineffective with their m4's. They may as well fire blanks for as much good as they are doing and we can do a lot better than that.

sorry to burst your bubble, it is pointless, seeing that M16 shoots out to 550m. M16 is already approved for us the 6.5 grendel is an unknown, and has not been though the testing program of the DOD, which is a long and costly program. Also the effective range of the M4 is 500m not 200m and the M16A2 is effective 550m and 800 for area.

[Snapdad]

sorry to burst your bubble, it is pointless, seeing that M16 shoots out to 550m. M16 is already approved for us the 6.5 grendel is an unknown, and has not been though the testing program of the DOD, which is a long and costly program. Also the effective range of the M4 is 500m not 200m and the M16A2 is effective 550m and 800 for area.

I am not going to argue it pointlessly forever against the uninformed but the actual effective range in practice for the M4 is not 500m. Even if you miraculously managed to hit something at that range with the 14.5" short barrel and the round blowing all around the tiny pill is not going to do much damage at the pathetic velocity it will be traveling by then. How about some of our veterans chime in on how effective they think the M4 is at the longer ranges commonly encountered in Afghanistan. Is this not why the M14 is being re-introduced, cumbersome weight and all? If the 7.62 is being used more then there is a reason and this reason has been commonly reported. Nothing else reaches as far and ends fights. Now imagine an assault rifle with assault rifle weight (including ammo weight) with the long-range capability of a 7.62 battle rifle and comparable lethality at that range. Is that something you would be interested in?

[Hollis]

I am not going to argue it pointlessly forever against the uninformed but the actual effective range in practice for the M4 is not 500m.

Before this gets real out of hand, How about PMing me your qualifications. Things like CAR or CIB, military service, expertise in Ballistics.

[Snapdad]

Before this gets real out of hand, How about PMing me your qualifications. Things like CAR or CIB, military service, expertise in Ballistics.

Not sure why anything needs to get out of hand but people do seem to be extremely sensitive here now that you mention it.

No impressive high-speed experience, that's why I said, "How about some of our veterans chime in on how effective they think the M4 is at the longer ranges commonly encountered in Afghanistan."

The commonly available information and reports that it is inadequate is the reason usually given for the markedly increased use of 7.62, including $3000 rebuilds of M14's, SR-25's, etc. If you folks have information that the actual effective combat range in practice for the M4 is in fact 500m, and not just what is claimed under ideal conditions or in the manual or whatever, and it will reliably kill a man at this range, then I would gladly read all about it since this contradicts the information I am reading from ballistics experts and veterans on such sites as 65Grendel.com along with various other defense related sites and sources. Yes 65Grendel is a fan site but there are some extremely authoritative ballistics experts there who design cartridges and whatnot and they seem to know exactly what they are talking about when it comes to ballistics and all. Anyway, does one really need to be a ballistics expert to point to ballistics charts and say round X is clearly better at long-range than round Y due to lower drop, windage, etc? I would like to think we can all read a simple chart. It's all there already on that site. If people want to think these authoritative figures in the field are lying than that is their problem.

[wildcat]

I am not going to argue it pointlessly forever against the uninformed but the actual effective range in practice for the M4 is not 500m. Even if you miraculously managed to hit something at that range with the 14.5" short barrel and the round blowing all around the tiny pill is not going to do much damage at the pathetic velocity it will be traveling by then. How about some of our veterans chime in on how effective they think the M4 is at the longer ranges commonly encountered in Afghanistan. Is this not why the M14 is being re-introduced, cumbersome weight and all? If the 7.62 is being used more then there is a reason and this reason has been commonly reported. Nothing else reaches as far and ends fights. Now imagine an assault rifle with assault rifle weight (including ammo weight) with the long-range capability of a 7.62 battle rifle and comparable lethality at that range. Is that something you would be interested in?

oh boy, who made you an expert. If the 6.5 Grendal is so awesome, how come it is not being talked about, by the DOD for a replacement. The 6.5 grendal, is an ok round, but it does not offer too much more over the 5.56 for combat, and seeing most combat is seen at closer quarters, then the 6.5 grendal is pointless. The point for troops hitting targets at great distance has nothing to do with the 5.56/M4, it has more to do with the troop and their skill and training, current doctrine trains every soldier at 300m, and the USMC trains to I believe 500 with the M16AX. 5.56 has been killing people for a long time now, and really there is nothing revolutionary out there to replace the AR design or the 5.56 on the market, that will meet the demand and us of the current US forces. The cost is pointless to replace. If the M4 is so pointless, the dod can just swap back to the 20" barrel and the problem is solved, much cheaper and it is tested. To go though a long process of testing the 6.5 grendal and the 6.8 SPC, is long, after the test are complete, then the choice, to scape current doctrine, weapons and refit the military for a new round/rifle make the task pointless for the small improvement.

as for the fielding of the more powerful 7.62, like the M14, well the 6.5 grendal could not replace this. The purpose of the fielding the M-14 to units to add the ability of designated marksmen to the squad (don't need a sniper). This allows an extra tool for situation that that require long marksman type shots.

but the current 5.56 is staying, and the talk from armchairs around the internet is just that, talk, and it comes from the armchairs.

PS I am a vet.

[Hollis]

Not sure why anything needs to get out of hand but people do seem to be extremely sensitive here now that you mention it.


Extremely sensitive? This is your words


I am not going to argue it pointlessly forever against the uninformed

Seems to me your the one who is "sensitive" and also you do it in a insulting way. Quoting someone does not make you a expert. Especially when you come off in a very arrogant manner.

[digrar]

How about some of our veterans chime in on how effective they think the M4 is at the longer ranges commonly encountered in Afghanistan.

Find out who is who in the zoo, the bloke you quoted is a veteran.

[Arnie100]

One of the reasons why the Military won't be adopting the 6.8mm or 6.5mm is the simple fact that there are TONS of 5.56mm ammo still in the inventory.

[HK in AK]

Before this gets real out of hand, How about PMing me your qualifications. Things like CAR or CIB, military service, expertise in Ballistics.


+1 Thanks Hollis for clearing this up.

[Polyshot]

Meant to post this before but this video shows the EM2 assault rifle which was the British rifle designed for the .280 round, it also shows the machine gun that was developed too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtjVf724G7w

Kind of makes you wonder how farther firearm developement would have been if the British had fully adopted the EM2 (bullpup design, optical sight) instead of the FAL

After seeing that, I really want to piss on the grave of whoever decided to force the 7.62mm NATO down the pipeline :cantbeli: :bash: :fork:!!

[Snapdad]

Extremely sensitive? This is your words



Seems to me your the one who is "sensitive" and also you do it in a insulting way. Quoting someone does not make you a expert. Especially when you come off in a very arrogant manner.


My apologies if I came off in "a very arrogant manner". Not my intention. I may have been a little overly sensitive in retrospect so sorry about that. I definitely do not consider myself an expert but I have read a good bit on the subject and find it interesting. I also own and have fired various firearms for what that is worth. No hard feelings all. :)

[Snapdad]

One of the reasons why the Military won't be adopting the 6.8mm or 6.5mm is the simple fact that there are TONS of 5.56mm ammo still in the inventory.

This. Logistics and money. A new rifle round has no *** appeal (does to me) and can't help any one's career either. Still the adoption of Multicam was astonishing and there does seem to be a new focus on the humble infantryman. There has been some renewed talk of a new rifle and that would be a perfect time to explore alternate calibers. The main problem with testing the 6.5 is there is no belt feed available because no one has spent the money to develop it. It isn't a slam dunk to convert it either as the round is shaped differently than current rounds. It may not even be possible. No one knows until someone tries it. A round with less taper such as one derived from the 6.8mm case may be more appropriate for belt feed as an intermediate round if anyone wanted to develop one.

[Snapdad]

After seeing that, I really want to piss on the grave of whoever decided to force the 7.62mm NATO down the pipeline :cantbeli: :bash: :fork:!!

A prime opportunity for an intermediate round was missed but 7.62 is good as a full power rifle and machine gun round. Shorter and lighter than the .30-06 but with the same power. I personally dont think any round could replace both 7.62 and 5.56 and a 2-caliber system of some sort is here to stay.

If you think the .280 British is a sad story then you must hate McNamara forcing the 5.56 on the Army even as they protested they needed a bigger round. They had tested intermediate rounds going back to the interwar period but stuck with the 30-06 for the Garand because that's the ammo they had.

[Snapdad]

oh boy, who made you an expert. If the 6.5 Grendal is so awesome, how come it is not being talked about, by the DOD for a replacement. The 6.5 grendal, is an ok round, but it does not offer too much more over the 5.56 for combat, and seeing most combat is seen at closer quarters, then the 6.5 grendal is pointless. The point for troops hitting targets at great distance has nothing to do with the 5.56/M4, it has more to do with the troop and their skill and training, current doctrine trains every soldier at 300m, and the USMC trains to I believe 500 with the M16AX. 5.56 has been killing people for a long time now, and really there is nothing revolutionary out there to replace the AR design or the 5.56 on the market, that will meet the demand and us of the current US forces. The cost is pointless to replace. If the M4 is so pointless, the dod can just swap back to the 20" barrel and the problem is solved, much cheaper and it is tested. To go though a long process of testing the 6.5 grendal and the 6.8 SPC, is long, after the test are complete, then the choice, to scape current doctrine, weapons and refit the military for a new round/rifle make the task pointless for the small improvement.

as for the fielding of the more powerful 7.62, like the M14, well the 6.5 grendal could not replace this. The purpose of the fielding the M-14 to units to add the ability of designated marksmen to the squad (don't need a sniper). This allows an extra tool for situation that that require long marksman type shots.

but the current 5.56 is staying, and the talk from armchairs around the internet is just that, talk, and it comes from the armchairs.

PS I am a vet.

The DOD and SOC is trying yet another improved 5.56 round so something seems to be needing improvement. They are also issuing a variety of 7.62 weapons to infantry squads reversing past practice. I do not think the 2-caliber system will ever go away. The 7.62 is very good at what it does. The 5.56 does most of what it does well and may be improved with the latest ammo. M855 FMJ is a problem but Mk 262 is a big improvement in lethality if one overlooks penetration. There is another 5.56 round being tested now. Of course money and inertia has a lot to do with things staying the same and better calibers are certainly out there if one is objective about comparing performance. Whether or not it is a priority to the DOD is another matter. Neither was Muticam until shamed into it because the ACU was an embarrassment. If soldiers are not even trained to hit targets beyond 300m I can see that most may not realize they need that capability and won't ask for it. They certainly have complained about the lethality problems of the M855 round. It fragments out to the stunning distance of 45m(!) when using an M4 or all the way out to 140m with the 20" barrel according to wiki (Dr. Roberts). If it doesn't fragment it just goes through making a .22 hole in the skinny guy you shot who is now really mad at you. This is still the standard round of the US Army although there are several programs to replace it with something better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO#cite_note-woundinginfo-9

There is something to be said for the designated marksman and machine gunners being able to share ammo with the rest of the squad if necessary and have all members be able to contribute at longer range if needed. Yes it is not doctrine now but the doctrine reflects the capability (gap) and it is heavily dependent on fire support and air power which causes collateral damage. Now there is a new grenade launcher firing a new round attempting to extend that range out too. A good old rifle would seem to be a big improvement to me or at least something with that capability if it was needed. What are you supposed to do during a relatively long-range firefight (say 300m or more)? Make noise, waste ammo and attempt to draw fire away from the couple soldiers who can influence the battle while praying command releases some airpower and isn't too afraid of civilian casualties? Or maybe you can be that lucky guy to carry around that massive aluminum frame M-14 EBR and can at least contribute after lugging that heavy bastard all around until your 7.62 is gone and there is no more to be borrowed. The M4 as standard rifle just doesn't make any sense to me if the terrain is not all urban or jungle with short engagement ranges.

[Beowulf]

Penetration (M855/SS109): The bullet of the sample cartridges shall demonstrate complete penetration of 3.429 mm thickness AISI 1010 to 1020 steel plate target with hardness between min. RB55 and max. RB70 positioned at 0° ± 5° obliquity and located 600 meters from the weapon.

http://www.igman.co.ba/ammunition.htm

I got that link from Wiki.

It can still penetrate steel plate at 600m. At 600m man sized targets are hard to hit, you'd need an ACOG to even see the guy, and even then he's probably not standing still. But if you hit him, you will do damage.

Another point to consider: What does the enemy see when engaging out past 500m, they are using area suppression as well. It's not like they're taking well aimed shots and we are left defenseless with only one or two DMs to save us...

I don't see any reason that justifies the expense to replace what we have.

[brainplay]

Um, they are trying to engage past that distance but the platform isn't capable of doing it effectively. The M4 isn't effective much past 200m range from what I have heard and a lot of that has to do with the desultory lethality of the ammo at lower velocities as typical of the 14.5" barrel, especially at that range.

Even under ideal conditions I haven't heard anyone saying the M4 is effective over 300m if we are to be generous.

Some things to point out. One, you're doing a lot of "from what I heard". This doesn't mean much. Opinions and actual data are two different things. Reading actual after-action-reports will clear a lot of things up in this area. But opinions are infectious and will spread even to soldiers reducing confidence in their rifles and causing these kinds of rumors to spread despite not having an ounce of understanding about ballistics...or marksmanship.


I am not going to argue it pointlessly forever against the uninformed but the actual effective range in practice for the M4 is not 500m.We're waiting for you to inform us on the why. So far you've made some generalizations and statements. As it stands, the Marines train raw recruits out to 500m with a stock 16 inch barrel while the Army trains out to 300m and on pop up targets. This is with IRON SIGHTS. This addresses your "engagement distance" statement. But then this level of long range training isn't sustained after recruit training even during wartime.


Even if you miraculously managed to hit something at that range with the 14.5" short barrel and the round blowing all around the tiny pill is not going to do much damage at the pathetic velocity it will be traveling by then.Next mistake. You're talking velocity. I'm willing to be you'll mention STOPPING POWAH at some point and "kinetic transfer". Neither one is proven. On the other hand, maybe you mean penetration. Ok lets go with what we know. The M855 leaves the barrel of 16in rifle at a whopping 3100fps. At 500m it in perfect conditions it will slow down to roughly 1800-1880fps and generate 489ft/lbs of energy. Comparatively, a 9mm Gold dot 124gr P+ round generates 473ft/lbs and has a smaller cross section even when expanded than a yawing 5.56mm. This pretty much addresses your "it runs out of juice" statements.

But the big thing here is the over expectation that ANY bullet fired at someone is expected to drop them right away. This goes back to the early days of our nation. Soldiers complained that the .30-40 Krag was too weak compared to the 8mm used by the Mexicans during the Spanish/American war. Marines in the Pacific said the Japanese would keep coming even after being shot by a .30-06 multiple times. Carlos Hathcock originally didn't want to switch to the new fancy .308 round and retained his model 70 rifle in .30-06 throughout his entire service history in Vietnam. You seeing a trend here? We've still got guys that call the 5.56mm a "poodle shooter" or that "darn military .22" despite it causing wounds like this:

121584
Source:http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=17111.0
10m range, XM193 55gr round


since this contradicts the information I am reading from ballistics experts and veterans on such sites as 65Grendel.com Next mistake. You're reading about ballistic experts and such off of a forum that is promoting that particular round. They say the same on 6.8FORUMS as well as nasty stuff about that useless 6.5 Grendel.


The commonly available information and reports that it is inadequate is the reason usually given for the markedly increased use of 7.62, including $3000 rebuilds of M14's, SR-25's,Unfortunately, this is thanks to the rumor mill that bigger is better. They aren't doing $3000 builds on the M14's. They're dropping them in a Sage stock, slapping a $300 Leopold scope on it, de-linking some M80, and thinking that it's going to out perform an M4 in accuracy. This is akin to painting an MRAP red and thinking it's going to go faster. Our Designated Marksman program is still in its infancy unlike other east bloc nations who've hammered out their doctrine over a long period.

There was one guy who used to post here called Accuracy International or National or something like that. He posted the dialogue of his silver star which describes him and his engaging insurgents out to 600m with an early Mk12 mod0 which is chambered in 5.56mm. Him and others that post these kind of shots seem to get ignored frequently as "exceptions" rather than was showcases of superior marksmanship and the capabilities of a decent 5.56mm round (77gr Mk262).


The DOD and SOC is trying yet another improved 5.56 round so something seems to be needing improvement.Yes. The old M855 was developed in response to the Cold War and east bloc body armor. Even by today's standards the M855 is a tough round to defeat at short ranges even with ceramic plates that can stop 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 easily. But the complicated nature of it's design to incorporate the steel penetrator gimps it's fragmentation ability at close range, it's ability to yaw in shallow tissue, and accuracy. Neither the 6.5 nor 6.8 were built with that in mind and current ballistic shown are for non-armored personnel only. Even a 3/8 steel plate over soft armor redneck rig will defeat both of these rounds while the M855 will blow through it.

The current round being developed for the Marine Corps is the Mk318 SOST 62gr round. This improves upon barrier penetration and better terminal performance on unarmored personnel. This round also narrows down the already shrinking gap of what the 6mm rounds in question can bring to the table while still not requiring a rifle, magazine (just because a 6.8 or 6.5 can be loaded into a STANAG while in an air conditioned rifle range doesn't mean that doing so in combat conditions won't cause issues), or parts change.


What are you supposed to do during a relatively long-range firefight (say 300m or more)? Make noise, waste ammo and attempt to draw fire away from the couple soldiers who can influence the battle while praying command releases some airpower and isn't too afraid of civilian casualties? Or maybe you can be that lucky guy to carry around that massive aluminum frame M-14 EBR and can at least contribute after lugging that heavy bastard all around until your 7.62 is gone and there is no more to be borrowed. What is this..I don't even.... :cantbeli:


The M4 as standard rifle just doesn't make any sense to me if the terrain is not all urban or jungle with short engagement ranges.Dear god. We're still in Iraq (urban). We've fought in Panama (jungle/urban), Serbia/Croatia (woodland/urban), Mogadishu (urban), and other nice locations that aren't mountainous as have our allies (who we may someday assist in those environments).

[Laconian]

Um, they are trying to engage past that distance but the platform isn't capable of doing it effectively. The M4 isn't effective much past 200m range from what I have heard and a lot of that has to do with the desultory lethality of the ammo at lower velocities as typical of the 14.5" barrel, especially at that range. It also blows A LOT in the wind and the shorter barrel exacerbates this problem considerably due to the lower velocity.

[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]

Point #1: Stop posting in a different font. Use the font default one.

Point #2: Hop on a bus, come to south Georgia and we can meet up. You can go out to the 200m line and I'll shoot at you with my 14.5" barreled M4, you can then come back in and we can talk about the lethality of the round at 200m. That way you can stop with the "from what I've heard" and "from what I've read" stuff. We'll just go do a little scientific study. Because if you're not willing to get shot with this inferior round, the point is pretty moot.

When we were having the .38 spl vs. 9mm, the 9mm vs .45ACP and later the 9mm vs. .40 S&W arguments back in the day, all the naysayers of whatever round (complaining about the wimpiness of said round) would never actually want to get hit by it either.

[Beowulf]

someone shot at me with 5.56 from 503 meters out. I just flexed and the round didn't even penetrate.

[Hollis]

My apologies if I came off in "a very arrogant manner". Not my intention. I may have been a little overly sensitive in retrospect so sorry about that. I definitely do not consider myself an expert but I have read a good bit on the subject and find it interesting. I also own and have fired various firearms for what that is worth. No hard feelings all. :)


NO, no hard feelings. There are a lot of great rounds out there. Sometimes, too many choices. I have been wondering why in the last few years this topic has become a heated issue. Maybe in the future, the military will be like small teams with the resources and ability to select battle rifles for the job, instead of a battle rifle that is more all purpose. The other aspect that Wildcat brought up, a military unit has various parts to it, that can carry different weapons.

6.5 Grendal is a impressive round. Seems more of a challenge to the M14 than the M4/16. Also in round development there are more short/fat cases today, such as; 7mmWSSM, 270WSSM. (The short mags.) Ballistic tables are fine, but there is a lot more to a firearm and it's round than what the ballistic table can cover. I think for a lot people, the real important factor is the shooter. Training and more training is key to all of this. You can not buy skill.

[Beowulf]

He's like Yoda." Skill, bought cannot be."

[Laconian]

someone shot at me with 5.56 from 503 meters out. I just flexed and the round didn't even penetrate.

Yeah, but us mortals are just screwed

[Arnie100]

someone shot at me with 5.56 from 503 meters out. I just flexed and the round didn't even penetrate.

Were you wearing BDPs at the time? p-)

[gaijinsamurai]

He was shot at by the Chinese brokeback snailhunters, but GreekRiotDog pushed him out of the way of the bullet's path, just in time.

[SniperLane]

He was shot at by the Chinese brokeback snailhunters, but GreekRiotDog pushed him out of the way of the bullet's path, just in time.

sounds about right.

[loganinkosovo]

OK...

The best military small arms calibers in order are....

.50 cal, 45-70, 30.06, 303, 7.62, 5.56

Best Military Pistol Round hands down....

.45 Automatic Colt Pistol


The 30.06 was cut down in the late 50's to the 7.62 to make it cheaper to produce among other things. Some crap was put out about "over-penetration". Like most red blooded Americans this word does not exist in my dictionary.

My uncle was on the NATO board to come up with standard NATO Rounds.

The U.S. could not go to 9mm since they had too many pistols and way too many rounds already made and paid for in stock from WWII to get rid of the .45. Thank God we kept it. No double tapping with a 45. :)

The 7.62 was tossed over board in the early 60's as the main battle rifle round because the 5.56 was cheaper to produce and you could carry more rounds. Admittedly it was a bit of a failure in jungle, heavy brush and distance.

My favorites are the .50, the 45-70 and the 30.06..... and the .45 of course!

:)

[Wahnsinn]

I hear 18 inch naval shells have excellent stopping power, even exceeding that of the 7.62 NATO round. Why doesn't NATO adopt them?

p-)

[SMGLee]

6.5 can't be linked to work in a machine gun, so it will be a stand alone round and have to be support as such.,,,,

You are right, the new 70gr browntip utilized by the spec ops group are making any talks of the 6.8 or the 6.5 useless.

[Beowulf]

You know what I like?

I like that scene in Ronin when Sean Bean's character is going on about what his favorite guns are, and Deniro just sort of sticks his chin out and says " Well, you know. lt's a toolbox. You put the tools in for the job."

[digrar]

6.5 can't be linked to work in a machine gun, so it will be a stand alone round and have to be support as such.,,,,



What's the go with that mate, I would have thought you could link just about any round?

[Bacon]

What's the go with that mate, I would have thought you could link just about any round?

I think it has to do with the degree of the shoulder on the case.

[California Joe]

I know **** about ballistics.

[Hollis]

I know **** about ballistics.


When people first get into reloading, ballistic coefficient m(BC) is the end to all things. 30-30 is a POS because the bullet has very low BC while the 7mm is hog heaven with the highest BC. The practical aspect disappears, such as most deer is killed round 70 yards, 30-30 probably killed more deer than any other calibers combined. Probably, the only group that BC is actually important in a practical level are 1000M Bench rest shooters. Usually the jerk on the trigger has more of a effect on trajectory than BC. BC is techy weenie thingy, gives them something to talk about and it is all black and white.

[brainplay]

What's the go with that mate, I would have thought you could link just about any round?

Using current receivers chambered for the 5.56mm or the 7.62NATO. The big push from the 6mm crowd is how easy it will be to adopt these things with little change to the inventories and to the chamber architecture itself. Sort of like how they can stuff their rounds in a standard STANAG mag and think it's going to work just fine in any environment. In reality, its bogus. The entire receiver will have to be rebuilt if it ever intends to be deployed outside of a one way shooting range.

[budgie]

and you should stay in the Airsoft section for lets see a couple of months atleast.

How do you suppose the 5.56mm fares in airsoft? I hear it packs more punch than the 6mm BB, even the old 55 grain...

[Riflewizard]

^ I dunno... one time a bb gave me a blood blister... that was NASTY stuff man. Never seen so much blood at an airsoft game

[SniperLane]

How do you suppose the 5.56mm fares in airsoft? I hear it packs more punch than the 6mm BB, even the old 55 grain...

personally, i dont care :)

[andrewpotts]

The U.S. could not go to 9mm since they had too many pistols and way too many rounds already made and paid for in stock from WWII to get rid of the .45. Thank God we kept it. No double tapping with a 45

I don't know how much truth there is to this story I read in some military journal years ago but it stated the M1911 was developed for the Marines to fight the Moro Indians in the Philippines. Evidently the 38's issued at the time were almost useless against attacking Moro's. Anyone esle here of this before...? In closing I love the .45, .308, 7.62 and most of all the person behind the gun firing said round at a bad guy. Andrew

[Arnie100]

I don't know how much truth there is to this story I read in some military journal year ago but it stated the M1911 was developed for the Marines to fight the Moro Indians in the Philippines. Evidently the 38's issued at the time were almost useless against attacking Moro's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP



The U.S. Cavalry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cavalry) had been buying and testing various handguns in the late 1890s and early 1900s. The .45 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_Colt) Colt Single Action Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Single_Action_Army) had largely been replaced, even by some double action versions of the same. The Cavalry had fielded some double action revolvers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver#Double_action) in .38 Long Colt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Long_Colt). They determined that the .38-caliber round was significantly less effective against determined opponents, such as the warriors encountered in the Moro Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Rebellion) of the Philippine–American War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War), than the .45 Colt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_Colt). The current issue rifle at the time, the .30-40 Krag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-40_Krag), had also failed to stop Moro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_people) warriors effectively;[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP#cite_note-3) the British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) had similar issues switching to the .303 British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British), which resulted in the development of the Dum-dum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet) bullet. This experience, and the Thompson-LaGarde Tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson-LaGarde_Tests) of 1904 led the Army and the Cavalry to decide that a minimum of .45-caliber was required in the new handgun.

[andrewpotts]

Darn almost correct. Andrew

[wild_wild_wes]

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/infantrycombatrangesgraph.jpg

1234567890

[clean]

I heard the MARSOC guys have specifically requested the M200 rounds, as opposed to the M199, which, at optimum velocity, causes higher fragmentation.

[theholeinthedonut]

I heard the MARSOC guys have specifically requested the M200 rounds, as opposed to the M199, which, at optimum velocity, causes higher fragmentation.

SBS now have the M350X, beats the M200 everytime when it comes to fragmentation!

[COBRA1]

or youn can carry an XM110 with p90 in your bag ;-)

[mcantu]

this is the new round the USMC is starting to field...

http://i48.tinypic.com/f5bmft.png

its supposed to have better barrier performance while still having good fragmentation

[Aibeethoven]

If you add all the numbers in 5.56 you get 16 (i.e. 5+5+6=16).
There were 16 countries in NATO when a new round was introduced.
Hench they chose the 5.56x45mm round.



Or maybe for another reason. I'll let you be the judge of that.

Cheerio mate!

[Hollis]

If you add all the numbers in 5.56 you get 16 (i.e. 5+5+6=16).
There were 16 countries in NATO when a new round was introduced.
Hench they chose the 5.56x45mm round.



Or maybe for another reason. I'll let you be the judge of that.

Cheerio mate!

That is probably the best reason that I have read so far.

[flanker7]

So, when the 7,62 was introdused there where 15 countries in NATO?!

[tercio67]

So, when the 7,62 was introdused there where 15 countries in NATO?!

No mate, 7.62 was around before NATO. Thats why we needed a new round p-)