5.56mm Round

[Sayeret]

I've heard a lot of bad stuff about this round. i've also heard a lot of good advantages to this round but can anyone tell me why almost every country uses this caliber or 5.45mm?

[HELEX]

I've heard a lot of bad stuff about this round. i've also heard a lot of good advantages to this round but can anyone tell me why almost every country uses this caliber or 5.45mm?

Because 5.56 is NATO Standard.

[Sayeret]

I know but even China and Russia uses it. Well Russia uses 5.45mm.

[Webley]

I read somewhere that the US will go to a 6.8mm rifle soon.

[Brozozo]

I read somewhere that the US will go to a 6.8mm rifle soon.

Link?

[Backis]

Approximate examples;

11kg is one G3 plus 60 rounds OR one M16A2 plus 180 rounds.

5.56mmN has a much flatter trajectory than the 7.62mmN it replaced/supplanted and is therefore easier to hit with.

I think its time to scrap/alter the 19th century Hague treaty and allow deformable bullets for military use. We are already using a round that shatters often, this perhaps was a "design mishap" 40 years ago, but come on... now its intentional... We should just fess up at what we are doing and design the round so it reliably deforms/shatters at greater ranges instead of chasing do-it-all "magic bullets" of whatever calibre.

The only truely significant advantage I see of a higher-powered round such as the 6.8mm may be increased body-armor penetration in the future.

Believe it or not, during the Boer War the Boers often complained about their bolt-action Mauser rifle rounds, to little stopping power they said. The old breach loaded Martini-Henry rifles were much better... :P

[AFG]

I read somewhere that the US will go to a 6.8mm rifle soon.

Link?

i dont think so, they are soon gonna use the XM8 which is a 5.56 weapon.

[HELEX]

The XM8 ist available in 6.8 or 5.56 but when they go with 6.8 it will either end the NATO standard System or change it to this caliber.

[Chris1]

I've heard a lot of bad stuff about this round. i've also heard a lot of good advantages to this round but can anyone tell me why almost every country uses this caliber or 5.45mm?
bad stuff, said by people who loved their .303's and .30-06's
There is a lot of information on the subject and a lot to learn about it
It boils down to, even if your last name is RAMBO when bullets are flying past your head, you duck.
If you are popping off 1,2,3 rounds of 7.62 at someone and he is putting back 3,6,9 5.56 back at you, he will either hit you or cause you to get down until he is in a position to either get a better shot, or if he's done things right throw a grenade into the trench you call home.
Suppression and HE kills and breaks the bad guys will to fight far more than individual marksmanship and a lot of guts.

[crazyman]

right now, the XM8 is being developed chambered for the 5.56 round. an offshoot of the XM8 program is looking at the ups and downs of 6.8 vs 5.56. If the caliber change does happen, it will most likely be the 2nd or 3rd run of the rifle, a few years from now. the first several hundred production rifles will be 5.56

[sethen]

I read somewhere that the US will go to a 6.8mm rifle soon.

The xm-8 is the weapon that will have the 6.8 cartridge!!!!!! woot

[Maine Finn]

7.62 mm is used in the Armalite, correct?

[Chris1]

7.62 mm is used in the Armalite, correct?
On the AR10 yes, on the AR15, M16 and the rest, no.

[Maine Finn]

7.62 mm is used in the Armalite, correct?
On the AR10 yes, on the AR15, M16 and the rest, no.

Okay. I get it. I was told that it was the round used in all. p-) Thanks, I'm going to smack that guy around for being stupid.

[sethen]

I've heard a lot of bad stuff about this round. i've also heard a lot of good advantages to this round but can anyone tell me why almost every country uses this caliber or 5.45mm?

The 5.56 and the weapon that shot it (the M-16) was hurried into production because the military thought that the AK-47 was more effective at CQB. In the dense Vietnamese jungle it was felt that the M-14 (the weapom before the m-16) was ineffective because the 7.62X51 (.308) was over powered and it was also difficult to fire the m-14 on full automatic because of the oversized round. To the m-16 also had a muzzle/flash protector that eliminated muzzle climb when it was full auto. This is what sold it the military!!!!! But on later models (M-16A2) auto was elimenated in favor of three round bursts, because it was considered wasteful for ammo!!!! Losing the exact reason that it was picked (5.56 & m-16.) over M-14 :bash: Oh, what fools dreamed up such a crappy weapon!!!!! Its only competitor for UN-reliability is the British SA-80!!!!!! David Hackworth wrote, " The M-16 killed more soldiers that the enemy did!" It is the WORST rep and we have ketp it for 40 Years!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash: The XM-8 will be the best replacement ever!!!!!! Made by HK and almost a G-36!!!!!!!!!! HK is Staffed by Germans but owned by the British, they recently built a plant right out Fort Benning/Columbus, Georgia! Excellent weapon that never jammed after 15,000 round! mWith NO cleaning either!!!!!!

Death to varmit rifles!!!!!!! p-) (And thier calibers!) p-) p-)

[Webley]

7.62 mm is used in the Armalite, correct?
On the AR10 yes, on the AR15, M16 and the rest, no.

Okay. I get it. I was told that it was the round used in all. p-) Thanks, I'm going to smack that guy around for being stupid.

The AR10 and the AR15 are both made by ArmaLite.

http://www.armalite.com/

[MK133]

I can't think of anything bad about it! There are many different types of 5.56 that do different things, use the right one for the proper application.

BTW, I just read that a shortened M4 is replacing the MP5 for Navy SEAL CQB.

[mrfloppy]

sethen wrote:
HK is Staffed by Germans but owned by the British, ...

Well, actually it is being owned by a group of investors - 2 Germans and one British. It doesn't belong to Royal Ordnance any longer. But of course it doesn't matter who owns it - as long as they build good rifles...

[ibstolidude]

Years!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash: The XM-8 will be the best replacement ever!!!!!! Made by HK and almost a G-36!!!!!!!!!! HK is Staffed by Germans but owned by the British, they recently built a plant right out Fort Benning/Columbus, Georgia! Excellent weapon that never jammed after 15,000 round! mWith NO cleaning either!!!!!!

Death to varmit rifles!!!!!!! p-) (And thier calibers!) p-) p-) YEAh ....... oh wait the G36 and Xm8 are "varmit" caliber.

[ibstolidude]

@ Sethen

I always though it was because the military contract was for a shoulder fired weapon weighing no more than 7 pounds, capable of firing semi and full auto. It was adopted to replace the m14 due to weapon weight, ammuntion weight and ease of fire (to inlcude auto-matic) - why not mention the other reasons?

The jamming problems that stemmed from the early years in vietnam were more so a product of a weapon designed for ammo type A and then being used with ammot type B.

[AFG]

I've heard a lot of bad stuff about this round. i've also heard a lot of good advantages to this round but can anyone tell me why almost every country uses this caliber or 5.45mm?

The 5.56 and the weapon that shot it (the M-16) was hurried into production because the military thought that the AK-47 was more effective at CQB. In the dense Vietnamese jungle it was felt that the M-14 (the weapom before the m-16) was ineffective because the 7.62X51 (.308) was over powered and it was also difficult to fire the m-14 on full automatic because of the oversized round. To the m-16 also had a muzzle/flash protector that eliminated muzzle climb when it was full auto. This is what sold it the military!!!!! But on later models (M-16A2) auto was elimenated in favor of three round bursts, because it was considered wasteful for ammo!!!! Losing the exact reason that it was picked (5.56 & m-16.) over M-14 :bash: Oh, what fools dreamed up such a crappy weapon!!!!! Its only competitor for UN-reliability is the British SA-80!!!!!! David Hackworth wrote, " The M-16 killed more soldiers that the enemy did!" It is the WORST rep and we have ketp it for 40 Years!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash: The XM-8 will be the best replacement ever!!!!!! Made by HK and almost a G-36!!!!!!!!!! HK is Staffed by Germans but owned by the British, they recently built a plant right out Fort Benning/Columbus, Georgia! Excellent weapon that never jammed after 15,000 round! mWith NO cleaning either!!!!!!

Death to varmit rifles!!!!!!! p-) (And thier calibers!) p-) p-)


eh??

[Webley]

I will take the 7.62mm L1A1 SLR over those other weapons. :)


http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/lodge/616/l1a1.jpg

[Aussie E]

I saw and held the XM-8 at the HK both at the SHOT show in Vegas, interestingly enough HK had a whole bunch of M-16 and M-4 rifles at the show as well (hedging their bets if the US stick with the M-16?). Their gas system was a little different (short-strock piston) and they didn't have the ejection port cover, a rep said that they were confident their design didn't need it. The rifles also had the HK style rear sight that clamped onto the rail (hopefully some-one will make this for us civvies).
A great sight on the 5.56mm (.223) is www.ammo-oracle.com

[Webley]

This is the weapon we should be using.

L1A1 SLR (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/lodge/616/l1a1.html)

[Sir Zach of R.]

I've heard a lot of bad stuff about this round. i've also heard a lot of good advantages to this round but can anyone tell me why almost every country uses this caliber or 5.45mm?

The 5.56 and the weapon that shot it (the M-16) was hurried into production because the military thought that the AK-47 was more effective at CQB. In the dense Vietnamese jungle it was felt that the M-14 (the weapom before the m-16) was ineffective because the 7.62X51 (.308) was over powered and it was also difficult to fire the m-14 on full automatic because of the oversized round. To the m-16 also had a muzzle/flash protector that eliminated muzzle climb when it was full auto. This is what sold it the military!!!!! But on later models (M-16A2) auto was elimenated in favor of three round bursts, because it was considered wasteful for ammo!!!! Losing the exact reason that it was picked (5.56 & m-16.) over M-14 :bash: Oh, what fools dreamed up such a crappy weapon!!!!! Its only competitor for UN-reliability is the British SA-80!!!!!! David Hackworth wrote, " The M-16 killed more soldiers that the enemy did!" It is the WORST rep and we have ketp it for 40 Years!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash: The XM-8 will be the best replacement ever!!!!!! Made by HK and almost a G-36!!!!!!!!!! HK is Staffed by Germans but owned by the British, they recently built a plant right out Fort Benning/Columbus, Georgia! Excellent weapon that never jammed after 15,000 round! mWith NO cleaning either!!!!!!

Death to varmit rifles!!!!!!! p-) (And thier calibers!) p-) p-)

Whoa, calm down there Captain Insane'o. Let me get this straight: M16 has worst reputation; kept it for 40 years; SA80 is better (you gotta be kidding me); XM8 is best replacement; no cleaning either (destroys responsibility). I have three words for you: You're an ass. If you really think that the M16 series is bad, why is it the standard issue weapon to all US SOF (M4)? I don't think they use it because they have nothing else. :bash: :fork:

[SABER 2-3]

I've heard a lot of bad stuff about this round. i've also heard a lot of good advantages to this round but can anyone tell me why almost every country uses this caliber or 5.45mm?

The 5.56 and the weapon that shot it (the M-16) was hurried into production because the military thought that the AK-47 was more effective at CQB. In the dense Vietnamese jungle it was felt that the M-14 (the weapom before the m-16) was ineffective because the 7.62X51 (.308) was over powered and it was also difficult to fire the m-14 on full automatic because of the oversized round. To the m-16 also had a muzzle/flash protector that eliminated muzzle climb when it was full auto. This is what sold it the military!!!!! But on later models (M-16A2) auto was elimenated in favor of three round bursts, because it was considered wasteful for ammo!!!! Losing the exact reason that it was picked (5.56 & m-16.) over M-14 :bash: Oh, what fools dreamed up such a crappy weapon!!!!! Its only competitor for UN-reliability is the British SA-80!!!!!! David Hackworth wrote, " The M-16 killed more soldiers that the enemy did!" It is the WORST rep and we have ketp it for 40 Years!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash: The XM-8 will be the best replacement ever!!!!!! Made by HK and almost a G-36!!!!!!!!!! HK is Staffed by Germans but owned by the British, they recently built a plant right out Fort Benning/Columbus, Georgia! Excellent weapon that never jammed after 15,000 round! mWith NO cleaning either!!!!!!

Death to varmit rifles!!!!!!! p-) (And thier calibers!) p-) p-)


WTF OVER?
Did you dream up this intell. or did you read it in "GUTS" magazine? The War in South-East Asia was not a on-going Close Quarter Battle. Rifles that could effect damage at 300m were still the name of the game. The M-16 did not have a special flash suppressor that could prevent muzzle rise when it was fired on fully automatic. That F-ing Hackworth states" The M-16 killed more soldiers(U.S.) than the enemy" ?!? That is a bold faced lie! Soldiers who failed to maintain their weapons learned very quickly that their rifle would be ****e to malfunction; the M-16 is a weapon made to very tight tolerances (like most quality weapons, too include HKs) and must be maintained. This is part of being a professional soldier. The 3 round burst was a ill-conceived idea and has been replaced w/ full-auto. The concept of using a smaller round was that it was less expensive, much lighter, easier to carry and that if an enemy soldier was hit he would NOT die immediately but rather he would be wounded which would result in him being carried (by 1, 2, 3 or more) taking more enemy soldiers out of action.

[Webley]

The 3 round burst was a ill-conceived idea and has been replaced w/ full-auto.

Fully automatic fire should be only be used on belt fed weapons.

Rifles should be semi-auto and there should be a strong emphasis on marksmanship in training.

[SABER 2-3]

I agree that semi-auto fire is the way to go. I said that burst fire was a bad idea. And Yes, full-auto fire for battle rifles has very limited application.

[MaDuce]

LoL I love it when people are like "The M-16 series is unrealible" becuase most of them have never seen a M-16 let alone fired one. Thease myths come from vietnam where they used ammo with cheap ass powder. The XM-8 looks good but is a better then nothing rifle becuase HK couldn't deliver on the OICW.

[sethen]

Ibstolidude
YEAh ....... oh wait the G36 and Xm8 are "varmit" caliber.


Sethen: The caliber of the xm-8 is 6.8, is that a varmit caliber?

[UkrainianAmerican]

OK, all you people bqashing the 5.56 round, lets look at things rationally.
It is this round tht got the attention of Soviet advisors in 'Nam, which led the Soviets to develop the 5.45 round (very similar to 5.56) as a response. They were impressed with the amount of tissue damage inflicted by the round.

[sethen]

WTF OVER?
Did you dream up this intell. or did you read it in "GUTS" magazine? The War in South-East Asia was not a on-going Close Quarter Battle. Rifles that could effect damage at 300m were still the name of the game. The M-16 did not have a special flash suppressor that could prevent muzzle rise when it was fired on fully automatic. That F-ing Hackworth states" The M-16 killed more soldiers(U.S.) than the enemy" ?!? That is a bold faced lie! Soldiers who failed to maintain their weapons learned very quickly that their rifle would be ****e to malfunction; the M-16 is a weapon made to very tight tolerances (like most quality weapons, too include HKs) and must be maintained. This is part of being a professional soldier. The 3 round burst was a ill-conceived idea and has been replaced w/ full-auto. The concept of using a smaller round was that it was less expensive, much lighter, easier to carry and that if an enemy soldier was hit he would NOT die immediately but rather he would be wounded which would result in him being carried (by 1, 2, 3 or more) taking more enemy soldiers out of action.

Sethen:
First I heard all this information on "Tales of the Gun:AK-47 Kalashnikov!"
I trust Hackworths opinion over yours so don't feel miffed if I dismiss your thoughts on the subject first! He was a professional soldier, are you? Retiree? And anyone knows you can't hand m-16 style weapons over to raw recruits, you are begging for trouble from there lack of skill! As far as caliber I want to be able to kill with one round. Usually it take more than one for 5.56! I think the 6.8 is going to be a far greater round!

[sethen]

Whoa, calm down there Captain Insane'o. Let me get this straight: M16 has worst reputation; kept it for 40 years; SA80 is better (you gotta be kidding me); XM8 is best replacement; no cleaning either (destroys responsibility). I have three words for you: You're an ass. If you really think that the M16 series is bad, why is it the standard issue weapon to all US SOF (M4)? I don't think they use it because they have nothing else. :bash: :fork:

Sethen: I was comparing the m-16's reliabilty with its unreliable cousin sa-80. Both are junk weapons! As for the name calling watch it yourself, you a$$! Clear? p-) The SF is moving to the 6.8 xm-8, bye bye M-16/4 :D !!!!!

[Aussie E]

Take a look at http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt When 30 out of 35 survive from being shot by 7.62x39 (most being young children), you can't say that a larger caliber has more terminal ballisctics than a smaller caliber. SHOT PLACEMENT, SHOT PLACEMENT, SHOT PLACEMET!!! or 12 GUAGE

[UkrainianAmerican]

Take a look at http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt When 30 out of 35 survive from being shot by 7.62x39 (most being young children), you can't say that a larger caliber has more terminal ballisctics than a smaller caliber. SHOT PLACEMENT, SHOT PLACEMENT, SHOT PLACEMET!!! or 12 GUAGE
Yeah the AK47 bullet just passes thrrough your body, which most likelye results in you dieing "eventually" or just getting wounded, as opposed to get neutralised immediately, as is required when deal with Islamist fanatics. (chences are they will be able to detonate the bomb, before they die of bloodloss :) )

[GrimmyRX]

Whoa, calm down there Captain Insane'o. Let me get this straight: M16 has worst reputation; kept it for 40 years; SA80 is better (you gotta be kidding me); XM8 is best replacement; no cleaning either (destroys responsibility). I have three words for you: You're an ass. If you really think that the M16 series is bad, why is it the standard issue weapon to all US SOF (M4)? I don't think they use it because they have nothing else. :bash: :fork:

Sethen: I was comparing the m-16's reliabilty with its unreliable cousin sa-80. Both are junk weapons! As for the name calling watch it yourself, you a$$! Clear? p-) The SF is moving to the 6.8 xm-8, bye bye M-16/4 :D !!!!!

Get it through your head man. The xm-8 is a 5.56 weapons currently. Maybe (MAYBE) it may change in the future, but as of right now, it is a 5.56.

[GrimmyRX]

I agree that semi-auto fire is the way to go. I said that burst fire was a bad idea. And Yes, full-auto fire for battle rifles has very limited application.

I dunno man, I've never heard any complaints about the C-7's full auto... woot

[Aussie E]

Q. I'm concerned about roving packs of zombies driving automobiles after the end of the world as we know it. Since, as everyone knows, you have to make headshots to kill zombies, what ammo should I be using to defeat zombies in automobiles?

Without commenting on the wisdom of engaging roving packs of zombies without adult supervision, the best performing rounds, in terms of penetration, in 6mm laminated front windscreen auto glass and other automobile structures are probably the Federal Tactical 55 and 62 grain bonded JSP (LE223T1 and LE223T3).

Be aware, however, that these rounds, topped with the Trophy Bonded Bear Claw bullet, are designed for penetration and generally do NOT fragment in CQB circumstances.

[ibstolidude]

Ibstolidude
YEAh ....... oh wait the G36 and Xm8 are "varmit" caliber.


Sethen: The caliber of the xm-8 is 6.8, is that a varmit caliber?

Sethen: I fail to know what I am talking about -
http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html
the XM8

Lightweight Modular Carbine System represents the state-of-the-art in 5.56x45mm NATO assault rifles.

6.8 is only an after the fact caveat that could be odified post production.

[Haiw]

Take a look at http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt When 30 out of 35 survive from being shot by 7.62x39 (most being young children), you can't say that a larger caliber has more terminal ballisctics than a smaller caliber. SHOT PLACEMENT, SHOT PLACEMENT, SHOT PLACEMET!!! or 12 GUAGE
Same thing at that Hollywood shootout a few years back with those looneys with kevlar and AK-47s. Lot's of wounded but no fatalities (apart from those maniacs).

[Sir Zach of R.]

Whoa, calm down there Captain Insane'o. Let me get this straight: M16 has worst reputation; kept it for 40 years; SA80 is better (you gotta be kidding me); XM8 is best replacement; no cleaning either (destroys responsibility). I have three words for you: You're an ass. If you really think that the M16 series is bad, why is it the standard issue weapon to all US SOF (M4)? I don't think they use it because they have nothing else. :bash: :fork:

Sethen: I was comparing the m-16's reliabilty with its unreliable cousin sa-80. Both are junk weapons! As for the name calling watch it yourself, you a$$! Clear? p-) The SF is moving to the 6.8 xm-8, bye bye M-16/4 :D !!!!!

I've spoken with several former SOF soldiers (mostly SEALs and Rangers) and they've commented that it looks like a piece of crap. Plus you also have to bring in the variable of cost and ease of ammunition availability. If SOF is really going to transition to the 6.8mm round there would have to be a large amount of ammo on hand considering how much time CT forces spend on the range. Explain how the M4 is a junk weapon please. Give me evidence, give me operator comentations, give me articles, I want the whole thing. Spare no information from my eyes.

edit: Your ignorance and arogance is extremely annoying.

[Haiw]

I love girl fights. :D

[UkrainianAmerican]

I love girl fights. :D
Referred to as cat-fights in the US of A :D

[sethen]

[quote=sethen]Whoa, calm down there Captain Insane'o. Let me get this straight: M16 has worst reputation; kept it for 40 years; SA80 is better (you gotta be kidding me); XM8 is best replacement; no cleaning either (destroys responsibility). I have three words for you: You're an ass. If you really think that the M16 series is bad, why is it the standard issue weapon to all US SOF (M4)? I don't think they use it because they have nothing else. :bash: :fork:

Sethen: I was comparing the m-16's reliabilty with its unreliable cousin sa-80. Both are junk weapons! As for the name calling watch it yourself, you a$$! Clear? p-) The SF is moving to the 6.8 xm-8, bye bye M-16/4 :D !!!!!

I've spoken with several former SOF soldiers (mostly SEALs and Rangers) and they've commented that it looks like a piece of crap. Plus you also have to bring in the variable of cost and ease of ammunition availability. If SOF is really going to transition to the 6.8mm round there would have to be a large amount of ammo on hand considering how much time CT forces spend on the range. Explain how the M4 is a junk weapon please. Give me evidence, give me operator comentations, give me articles, I want the whole thing. Spare no information from my eyes.

edit: Your ignorance and arogance is extremely annoying.

:fork: F.U.!!!!! woot :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :-*$ :-*$ :-*$ :fork: :-*$ :fork: :-*$

[Truthsayer]

A 9 year-old that cannot quote properly. "Woow".

[Maine Finn]

edit: Your ignorance and arogance is extremely annoying.

:fork: F.U.!!!!! woot :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :-*$ :-*$ :-*$ :fork: :-*$ :fork: :-*$

As is yours. Maybe you didn't read the Forum rules very well. If you had, you would have seen this:


1. Don't use tons of :bash: :fork: :slap: in your posts.

It's the first bloody rule listed. Go back and read the rules before you post again, please.

I'll even be nice and post the link for you, so you can't complain about not knowing where to look.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2772


~Emily

[GazB]

David Hackworth wrote, " The M-16 killed more soldiers that the enemy did!"

Sorry, but that is BS.

The M16 didn't kill any american soldiers directly... its failure to work reliably let the enemy kill more american soldiers than they otherwise would have... but as those killed because of teh failure of the M16 were also killed by the enemy and the enemy managed to kill a few US soldiers with properly cleaned and maintained M16s then that statement above is crap.
BTW the more professional soldiers ignored claims you didn't need to clean the M16s and cleaned them anyway. The only problems they had was premature breakage of parts due to the higher than specced rate of fire due to the change in propellent.

[rob]

Ibstolidude
YEAh ....... oh wait the G36 and Xm8 are "varmit" caliber.


Sethen: The caliber of the xm-8 is 6.8, is that a varmit caliber?

and you pulled this out of who's ass.

the xm8 is currently a 5.56 weapon. and it will primerally remain a 5.56 weapon.

now remember that the 6.8 was designed speficially to work from an m16. that was one of the most important things in the development of the round. it is true that most weapon is 5.56 can be rechambered very easily.
but the 6.8 ar15 is the only rifle in 6.8 currently in production and being sold. so there is your varmite caliber rifle.

and the military is currently testing the xm8, a weapon it never really asked for just something hk pulled out of the their ass to show for all the money they had been given for the oicw.

for referance here is al ist of all the weapon that the military has tested(off the top of my head)

ar18
ar10
fn fal
hk g11
styer acr
stoner 63a
sig p226
hk p7
hk hk23e
hk msg1
rob arm rav 02
colt double eagle
s&w
walter p88

that is just off the top of my head. they where weapons that where tested and not adopted in any significant numbers. proof that the xm8 may not be adopted.

here is a interesting article http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=447

"It's been called the most ambitious military effort since the Manhattan Project, and the centerpiece of Donald Rumsfeld's plans to overhaul America's armed forces: a $92 billion push to change almost everything about the Army by 2010, from the guns GIs carry, to the officers they salute, to the tanks they drive.

Now, a new congressional report is alleging that the "Future Combat Systems" program is poised for major delays and a financial train wreck. Worst of all, the report claims, the Army knew this was going to happen all along. "

so the money may not be there to buy the xm8 even if the military wishes. not to mention socom has their own seperate weapons program called the "scar", and the marines just signed a contract to buy a whole lot of new m16a4s going up through 2009, it looks as if the us army is the only branch with a shread of interest in the xm8.

funny, there a number of people that just come here post something along the lines that "the m16 sucks..." yet they never present any evidence to back it up and then when asked to present something to back their claims they show their inmaturity and ignorance with a statment like "F.U.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" :cantbeli: [/b]

[gilgoul]

I've heard a lot of bad stuff about this round. i've also heard a lot of good advantages to this round but can anyone tell me why almost every country uses this caliber or 5.45mm?

the m193 is a piece of ****, what we use here for general purpose, but the ss109, that is used in the negev or should be used on the flattop (m4), is not, good trajectory, and standart effect on impact.

[SABER 2-3]

WTF OVER?
Did you dream up this intell. or did you read it in "GUTS" magazine? The War in South-East Asia was not a on-going Close Quarter Battle. Rifles that could effect damage at 300m were still the name of the game. The M-16 did not have a special flash suppressor that could prevent muzzle rise when it was fired on fully automatic. That F-ing Hackworth states" The M-16 killed more soldiers(U.S.) than the enemy" ?!? That is a bold faced lie! Soldiers who failed to maintain their weapons learned very quickly that their rifle would be ****e to malfunction; the M-16 is a weapon made to very tight tolerances (like most quality weapons, too include HKs) and must be maintained. This is part of being a professional soldier. The 3 round burst was a ill-conceived idea and has been replaced w/ full-auto. The concept of using a smaller round was that it was less expensive, much lighter, easier to carry and that if an enemy soldier was hit he would NOT die immediately but rather he would be wounded which would result in him being carried (by 1, 2, 3 or more) taking more enemy soldiers out of action.

Sethen:
First I heard all this information on "Tales of the Gun:AK-47 Kalashnikov!"
I trust Hackworths opinion over yours so don't feel miffed if I dismiss your thoughts on the subject first! He was a professional soldier, are you? Retiree? And anyone knows you can't hand m-16 style weapons over to raw recruits, you are begging for trouble from there lack of skill! As far as caliber I want to be able to kill with one round. Usually it take more than one for 5.56! I think the 6.8 is going to be a far greater round!


I'm glad that Hackworth has convinced yet another misinformed civilian that the U.S. military is one big Cluster-Fuc. Professional soldiers do not promote slander and lies about their service. And yes I am a professional warrior w/ the DoD. What is your definition of a raw recruit? How is the M-16 so complicated that a basic training recruit would be begging for trouble. And finally you kill targets w/ one round with good shot placement...not large bullets. If you don't belive me, go ask Hackworth what round has been used to assassinate more targets than any other.

[rob]

teh one hit wonder round does not exist. people have survived being hit with a .50bmg in the chest. its rare but happens and was documented. if you hit someone in the leg it wont make a difference if it was 7.62 or 5.56. good shot placement like what saber said, is what kills.

hackworth is pretty much dismissed by everyone that knows anything about what they are talking about. most use his articles as evidence of his insanity.

[martinexsquaddie]

600 rounds of 5.56
0r 120 of 7.62
I know which i'd take into battle. Soldiers in the falklands cleared trenches at Bayonet point because they'd run out of ammo.
Have talked to someone who's been around a bit most of what is talked about one hit kills is bollocks. If you hit someone they tend to be out of the game when somebodys shooting at you hitting them tends to be the more important thing and having lots of rounds is better than just a few really good rounds

[GazB]

If my memory serves me correctly the M16 and the AR-15 are the same gun. The AR-10 is a 30 cal version of the M16. The M16s were produced by Colt but the design of the weapons was Armalite.

Second they were taken to vietnam by the US Airforce for gate guards and ended up being issued to the local troops as the smaller lighter weapon was easier to handle for the smaller vietnamese troops. experience in the jungle showed that it was a useful weapon and more American units asked for it. It is interesting to note that Australian and New Zealand personel tended to use SLR (FN FAL) rifles converted to full auto as a weapon of choice in ambush situations and as a general weapon. Some fighting took place over considerable ranges.

I would also like to point out that the Soviets and the Germans examined small calibre rounds just before WWII but to make them effective they had to make them tumble on impact which violated the hague convention on bullet design. Once the US introduced the M193 .223 remmington round that disintegrated inside the target the Soviets were free to introduce their "poison" bullet too.

[Korth]

I wonder if something like the HK G-11 rifle that uses caseless ammunition is the way to go.

[dacanadianbomb]

Just reading an article from Special Weapons for military&police #27 about usmc lessons learnt in iraq.
I have no experience so I cannot comment on the truth of the statements in there, or on the credibility of teh mag. there are a few mixed reviews of the 5.56 round out of m16a2 and a4s when hitting targets out beyond 100 meters. The tendency was to comment that the first round hit to the chest would not immediately stop and drop the target.More kinda slow them down.
I remember also reading about the m4s being issued more, and some troops aying they preferred the full sized m16s because they packed more punch over the distance, then agani I guess it cqb vs 200m engagements.