Caliber/cartridge for .223 successor

D

Dagny

New member
FIRST, let's not get into pros and cons of specific weapons and actions (the M16 vs AK47 vs Galil vs whatever debate).
SECOND, let's not to fall into the pattern of many other threads (handgun and rifle) where any suggestion of a smaller caliber is met with "what you really need is a .44 or .45 - preferably magnum" or "what you really need is a 220 grain 30-06 or, better yet, a 20mm or tactical nuke)
THIRD, let's assume, for the purpose of this thread, that the following are "givens"

GIVEN - The .223 is "a step to far" toward lighter weight and lower recoil - especially against adrenalin charged large-bodied, heavily clothed enemy where you need to drop them pronto. Of especial consideration was recoil on full auto and the burden of humping hundreds of rounds - significant considerations for small SE Asian allies and, more recently, American women GI's. Though the US Military wanted something "lighter and less filling" than any of the 7.62 variants (308, 30-06, etc.) they may have swung the pendulum too far.

GIVEN - Any of present 7.62 variants pack too much recoil for small statured allies or female troops. (yes, we know that lots of troops can handle .308's or heavier, but obviously these are no longer issue weapons because of the above considerations (among others).

GIVEN - an "ideal" caliber and cartridge would deliver between 80 and 100 grains at about the same velocity as the .223 and with about half again as much recoil (given similar weight of weapon). Assume 2200 ft lbs of muzzle energy to be the upper limit and 1800 ft lbs the lower limit. For examples, consider what has been often recommended on this forum for beginning deer rifles for teens, women or other small statured people. (yes, I know training can graduate people to heavier stuff, but let's also consider that exhaustion and too long without food wears down even the toughest)

GIVEN - A strategic need for a cartridge not presently available in mass quantities worldwide to any potential adversary. The .223 in Vietnam effectively prevented the enemy from using American ammo or weapons in any great numbers. American industrial capacity and especially our logistic support enabled our troops and allies to rely on what otherwise would have been a wildcat cartridge. Thus, to negate an adversary's access to what is now increasingly common worldwide ammunition - .223, a new "wildcat" cartridge must be developed or a present, but more rarely used cartridge must be adopted for use in full-auto capable battle rifles. Yes, I know that 3-round bursts are now a training standard, but why?. See this thread for discussion of THAT issue.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=51840

THUS THE QUESTION

What caliber or cartridge would be the best tactically effective successor to the .223?
 
I'm going to disagree with your givens.

1: The .223 is not a step too far. The SS109 round is an excellent design and gives sufficient terminal performance for a general issue weapon.

2: The majority of soldiers can be trained to effectively fire the 7.62x51 in semi-auto fassion. Those who cannot have no place in any combat unit. We call them wimps.

3: There are so many opinions about what ideal is. I tend to agree with you. I think the 250-3000 in the 87 grain fare is optimum myself. But then again, I am 6'3" and 250 lbs.

The successor to the .223 might never come. The .223 is of adequate design and its proliferation precludes replacement for the forseeable future. A quantum leap in technology would be required. Something like caseless, rail-guns, plastic cased, etc.
 
I think we should leave the .223 alone!

It is a really good cartridge! The majority of battle casualties are not caused by rifle fire, anyway. Most of the battlefield casualties are caused by arties, land mines, mortars, and machine gun fires.

About the terminal effectiveness of the .223, I don't know why some people still have doubt about it. It yaws and disintegrate under the cannelure out to 250 meters (20") barrel with M-193. It causes massive permanent wound cavity. IF you want to drop an enemy soldier pronto, .223 is the only way to go (fmj bullets).

1800 ft/lb to 2200 ft/lb energy? There were such cartridges: 6.5mm Japanese and 6.5mm Carcano. Both countries decided to change to 7.7mm bullet: the Japanese found out that their 6.5mm bullet is innefective in the Chinese campaigns and the Italians found the same thing during their campaigns in Abbysinia.

Johannes
 
A nudge back to the "givens"

Badger, I agree that "The majority of soldiers can be trained to effectively fire the 7.62x51 in semi-auto", but they are not. (see the other threads on that topic).

Johan762, you argue that 6.5mm was ineffective and thus 7.x was better, yet you also argue that 5.56 is fine.

Back to the constraints of the initial premise...

Patrick, thanks for the suggestion of the 250 Savage. It meets the necessary rarity and has half again the energy of the .223

Though I didn't want to seed the discussion with specific suggestions, other factory available candidates are:
6.5x55 Swedish
6mm Remington
.257 Roberts
.243 Winchester

Just over the high side
25-06

Others that meet some of the constraints
30-30 (but too heavy and poor long range ballistics)
22-250 (too light - at 55 grains)
7mm Mauser (too heavy)

Any other suggestions and critiques of the above?
Any wildcat cartridges with the requisite potential?

Again, the quest is for something between the .223 and .308. which is NOT available by the truckload today to a potential adversary - a serious consideration given that small enemy units can also raid or scavenge for .223 ammo to supply their present arms. A new cartridge prevents that - for a while.



[Edited by Dagny on 01-04-2001 at 01:58 AM]
 
Yes, .223 (5.56) is better than 6.5 mm....

With muzzle velocity around 2700 fps, 5.56mm projectiles will yaw AND disintegrate under the cannelure. This disintegrating part would perforate the tissue surrounding the wound channel. As a projectile pass through this wound channel, temporary cavity would be formed. Because the tissue was perforated by the fragments, it was severely weakened and being stretched by the temporary cavity, the massive permanent cavity will be formed.

And yes, due to the reasons outlined above, a 5.56mm fmjprojectile will create larger permanent wound cavity than a 7.62 mm fmj projectile (except for those of the West Germans).

The 6.5mm projectiles used by the Japanese and the Italians did not yaw nor disintegrate and they made less than sufficient wound cavity. That is why they needed to switch to the 7.7mm projectiles to punch bigger holes on their enemies. By the way, I was not the one who argued that 6.5mm projectiles are innefective, but it was the Japanese and Italian high command who found out the hard way from their troops that their 6.5 mm were innefective in China and Abyssinia,

Check out these links:

http://rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html

Read about the fallacy of kinetic energy as a reliable indication of wounding effect. Also read about the abysmall failure of the older style military rifle projectile. Also look at the wound profiles of various modern military projectiles, I must say that most of them are not very impressive when compared to that of the 5.56mm projectile.


Johannes
 
Wow my favorite subject!

The cartridge you are looking for is the .240Nic ;)
I take the 6.5x54 mannlicher-Schoenauer, cut the case to 45mm length, neck it down to 6mm and fire it out of an AR15.
The idea was to have a case as fat as the 7.62x39
(.445 inches) and as long as the 5.56x45nato.
I chose 6mm because I wanted a heavier bullet and higher ballistic coeficient than a 5.56nato.
The early testing results showed high velocity with with light bullets 3500fps w/55gr but presure problems (violent extraction)with the bullets I wanted to shoot. I got 2800fps with 32.5 grains of varget and 87grain Hornady BTHP. I think the pressure problems can be solved with an adjustable gas block on the AR15. I am also going to buy the neco quickload ballistic program to try to take some of the trial and error out of load development. The end result is something much like the .250 savage but it can fit in any firearm that is currently chambered in BOTH the 5.56 and 7.62x39 That includes the AR15 and AK47.
 
No offense intended, but wouldn't you hate to be under heavy fire and suddenly realize the rifle your holding was designed to the specifications of "The majority of battle casualties are not caused by rifle fire anyway".

Regards, Blue Duck
 
I like the duplex loadings for 5.56mm that are being considered. Up the velocity a bit and that would satisfy me.

You said 22-250 was too light. I sure would love a select-fire rifle in 22-250...Good way for DOD to deal with improving enemy body armor.
 
Caseless

Caseless is not a 'quantum leap' in technology, neither are these tungsten flechette rounds or anything of the sort. You're still firing a projectile out of a weapon at the enemy with either of those choices. Sure, they're higher velocity, but they're also very small bore. The HK G11 caseless round was 4.73x33mm. That's a very small cartridge, if we're thiking that a bigger bullet would have better terminal effects on a target.

The only thing I could see would be energy weapons, but lasers have disadvantages too. They can be reflected by a simple mirror, they need a power supply, and they don't work so hot in smoke or fog. Not to mention the difficulties in keeping a manportable laser focused enough to do any significant damage at ranges that typically an assault rifle would be used for.
 
Just an opinion from an Army Loggie

I don't think the military will switch from the 5.56 in the next twenty years at least, unless a something comes out that is VASTLY superior. The military is well into the testing phase of the M16/M4 replacement, which is more conducive to the addition of electronic gadets for the poor joe to tote, along with a 20mm or so grenade launcher. The varient (I don't remember the nomenclature) weighs around 16 pounds so far. It is chambered for the good old 5.56mm M855 Ball.

I would guess that the 5.56 replacement, when it comes, will be some sort of caseless with a sub-5mm tungsten (or some other heavy, hard, non-toxic alloy) flechette-looking projectile at 5000+ fps
 
Blue Duck357:

Your remark would have carried weights if 5.56mm are really insufficient against enemy's personnels, however, the afore mentioned projectiles are more than sufficient to drop enemy soldiers. Fact is fact: 5.56mm projectile's effectiveness belies its unimpressive size!

Bottom line: 5.56mm projectiles due to its tendency to disintegrate and to yaw, WILL cause large permanent cavity that WILL neutralize you enemy.

Look at those wound profiles, man, you are telling me that 5.56mm projectiles are inferior compared to other projectiles? Other military spitzer bullets cause very minor tissue disruption up to at least 18" before it finally yaws and create the large permanent cavity. On the other hand, 5.56 projectile create the major wounding profile 4" to 5" upon entry.

Now if you engineered those 6mm or 6.5 mm projectiles to yaw and fragment just like the 5.56 or the West German 7.62mm projectiles, I think that would be different story. But why do that and spend all of those money when you already have a good cartridge (i.e. 5.56 x 45mm) for most riflemaen to start with?

Oh by the way, do you know what US units do when facing an overwhelming enemy fire? Call the canon cocker or the flyboys to rid off the pest! C'mon man, we are talking about US Military, here, not some third world countries' armed forces!

Johannes
 
Johan

You're missing an important reason for switching - that described in the last paragraph of my initial post. There is a lot to be said for having a cartridge that ONLY you can have in quantity and the enemy can not. For instance, if an opposing squad is running low on .223, they need only raid one of our caches or strip our troops of their supplies. Instead, make the enemy hump their ammo in from scores of miles away or make them use up their stockpiles. Though this tactic only works until they "acquire" sufficient weapons from our stockpiles or troops.

As to wounding effects, the tumbling you espouse can be duplicated in another caliber.

The ideas about tungsten core bullets is intriguing. They'd be heavy and dense enough to resist wind drift and would penetrate soft armor. The 55 grain lead bullet, if of tungsten, would then be 100 grains.

Some other threads (where, it seems, 6mm or 6.5mm is the most common "ideal" military caliber to succeed the .223.

Optimum Military Rifle Caliber -- 250 Savage?
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=15271

Optimum Military Rifle Calibur -- Part Deux
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=15361

.223 and 7.62x39mm on the issue penetration (here we go again?)
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=12461

Why the .223 Rem for the Military?
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=14429

What do you think that extra energy is going to do?
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=49734

5.56mm vs 7.62mm
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=21248

[Edited by Dagny on 01-04-2001 at 02:30 PM]
 
Why is it that folks rush to defend the 5.56 NATO as a very effective man killer out to 800 meters but in it's .223 guise is is marginal on deer past 100 meters and most often used to kill groundhogs?

See the below long link for a Marine major's thoughts on the rifle and cartridge:

http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html

ou're missing an important reason for switching - that described in the last paragraph of my initial
post. There is a lot to be said for having a cartridge that ONLY you can have in quantity and the
enemy can not. For instance, if an opposing squad is running low on .223, they need only raid one
of our caches or strip our troops of their supplies. Instead, make the enemy hump their ammo in
from scores of miles away or make them use up their stockpiles. Though this tactic only works
until they "acquire" sufficient weapons from our stockpiles or troops.


The first thing a guerrilla force does is arm itself from your weapons, bought, stolen or taken off the dead. A standing army will have their own weapons and thus not need ours or our ammo. Besides, most everyone we would be fighting would have been armed by us or the Communists with the 7.62 X 39, which there is probably more of than any other ammo.
 
Johan, never shot anybody with a 5.56 (or anything else for that matter) so I can't say whether the .223 is effective or not. It does seem to be that we have occasionally gotten into situtions where cannon fire and flyboys were not immediatly available to call for help.

With the current trend of having a lot of troops spread out in nurmerous areas it seems to indicate this may be more the rule than the exception. So this isn't just a "third world nation problem".

I'll stand by point that if under fire I don't want a rifle or round designed and maintained under the concept of it's not very important anyway, when thats all I have. If my lifes on the line for 10 minutes or ten days before help can arrive I want a well thought out, and proven rifle and cartridge. If the 5.56 works fine, let's use it. I've heard enough talk from the people who have used it to at least indicate the topic is open for discussion regardless of jello test.

Regards, Blue Duck
 
.308 is still a good round that remains worthy.
A rifle, battle or assault would do well in .308.
Packing the "More SMALL" or "Fewer Bigger" arguements all into one - the key is GETTING THE HITS.
Now you can do that by the Spray and Pray method... shoot a ton of ammo and hope to hit something OR you can fire a couple of well placed and effective shots.
To do this, you take a weapon that is very reliable, and make it MOA accurate, then add an optical gunsite that aids in the hitting of your target... A sight that easy to use.
The Peep sight was an improvement over the Older blade iron sights...

Red Dots, Aim Points - Should be General Issue. They let you shoot Fast and Accurate.
 
Johan is correct. 5.56 NATO does considerable damage to flesh. It will reliably fragment above 2700fps and mostly above 2500fps. The bullet breaks apart on impact. It will penetrate body armor and yet once it goes through it will fragment.
this is why many PDs are turning in their pistol caliber entry guns and opting for the M4 and varients. Pistol calibers continue to penetrate where the 5.56 comes apart after contact with drywall etc.
I really had a hard time believing this after first reading it myself. Sooo, I took out some self sealing plastic targets things I shoot at and spaced them about 6inches behind each other three deep. I then shot at several of these set ups I had lined up. the result was the the first was penetrated and some small pieces went through the second but most of the bullet "pieces" were embedded in the second target and some in the third.
I was truely surprised espesially after shooting through 1/2 inch plate a few minutes before with the same ammo.
Scratch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top