5.56 replacement

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't realize that the 5.56 is controversial.

Don't look for it to be replaced any time soon. It's just one of several good cartridges in the inventory. I know, I know, it's a poodleshooter, but on the other hand, it's shot a lot of poodles.
 
6.8 SPC close quarters out to 400 yards, 6.5 Grendel anywhere out to 1300 yards... :eek:

As for availibility and price, as long as the U.S. Military is using 5.56, nothing will be replacing it. :eek:
 
Any replacement will have to ditch the AR magazine. It needlessly limits cartridge OAL. Longer cartridges must be allowed.
 
5.56x45 isn't controversial anywhere except with people that haven't seen what it can do or don't know what is required in modern combat. I think having a designated marksmen with a longer range weapon with enhanced accuracy is a great option for certain missions, but equipping every rifleman with a new weapon with a lower capacity and higher weight would be a step backwards.

You can't change the magazine dimensions without changing the M16 and SAW design.

If anyone wants to look at improving terminal ballistics and wounding capabilities, the way the 5.56 is loaded can be tweaked with better bullets.
 
I didn't realize that the 5.56 is controversial.
Click to expand...

Same here.

If I'm correct, the 5.56x45 has been the standard infantry round for longer than any other cartridge in U.S. military history. I would say then that it must have been wildly successful in its intended role.

The introduction of the new M855A1 round and the development of the Individual Carbine competition around the 5.56x45 are further proof that the round isn't going to be replaced any time in the foreseeable future.
 
Last edited:
Yep, what chak said. No point in me retyping it, other than to say the M855A1, (the new enhanced round) is pretty slick. I doubt they come up with a better round for some time.
 
I've got nothing against 6.5 Grendel...

But it seems to me that 5.56 should be replaced with 6.8 SPC and for anything of needs 308, 338 lapua, and 50 cal fit the bill(s).
 
Wow, I just read an article on the M855A1, and if it was true, that's a cool bullet. I think getting rid of the lead for environmental reasons was stupid, but the performance enhancements are impressive. It makes me wonder if it will be available to civilians.
 
I think getting rid of the lead for environmental reasons was stupid, but the performance enhancements are impressive.
Click to expand...

Why would you say that? If the new bullet material performs better than lead, without the negative effects, well, then, I think the proof is in the pudding.

You have to remember that the enemies of today will hopefully be the friends of tomorrow. If you can win today's battles without poisoning the land/water/wildlife of future allies, why wouldn't you?
 
I am going to go with the 9mm. But only when a rifle is unavailable. Unlike the 5.56 the 9mm is not controversial.
 
All of NATO is going to switch to a new round like the Grendel? Ditch billions of Euros and billions of Dollars worth of equipment to redesign around some bullet that has marginally better ballistics? Is that what we're talking about?

Now that is controversial :eek:
 
If the performance enhancements are made possible by the new materials, fine, but if performance would be better with lead, it was the wrong choice.

I think the impact of and amount of lead projectiles on the environment are negligible. Remember that the whole copper-only bullet thing started in California, because they wanted to make sure no Condors died from eating lead. Note that there was no evidence that any creature died from eating a bullet or that they ever would.

The damage to the environment during war is from something other than small arms. It's a non-issue that alarmists have managed to blow out of proportion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top