heckledpie
New member
The army is considering changing their standard round... Do you think that the 5.56 is needing a replacing? If so, with what?
Is the 5.56 Nato dead?
- Thread starter heckledpie
- Start date
It is in need of replacement, but they don't have the will to commit the kind of money needed to do it properly. It also could be a little tough getting the rest of NATO on board, since most of them just finished switching to 5.56mm.
The biggest problem is that the military is married to the M-16. They dont do any major changes besides swapping upper recievers. Thats what led to the 6.8mm misadventure. They swapped uppers without thoughening up the buffer system. We're going to be taking coyote rifles into combat for a long time.
The biggest problem is that the military is married to the M-16. They dont do any major changes besides swapping upper recievers. Thats what led to the 6.8mm misadventure. They swapped uppers without thoughening up the buffer system. We're going to be taking coyote rifles into combat for a long time.
RockyMtnTactical
New member
What's your source?
The US military is always looking... that doesn't mean they are changing. The 5.56 is alive and well. I don't know of many of our troops who are complaining about it. Most of them are quite happy with it, for what it is.
The US military is always looking... that doesn't mean they are changing. The 5.56 is alive and well. I don't know of many of our troops who are complaining about it. Most of them are quite happy with it, for what it is.
What would be nice is a round that offered better take down power than the M-855 at close range. We're getting way too much over penetration. The 6.8mm was good, and may still end up as standard. A necked down 7.62x39mm would probably work. Something in 25 or 26 caliber perhaps. I'd like to see my next service rifle to be based on something like the G-36. I probably will be retired by the time they're fielded. It took almost 5 years to completely field the M16A2, and I seen an airman at the dinning facility at Camp Victory with an A1 in 2003.
chris in va
New member
What, you mean the 5.45x39?
OpticsPlus
Inactive
Even if they were looking they would have a hard time convincing the rest of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in changing it. Plus they would spend years developing and testing. Eventually yes they will change it but I do not foresee it anytime soon.
A few points here before this thread flies off into la-la land:
1) The 7.62x39, in any configuration, will NEVER be considered. The fundemental shape of the cartridge will not allow it to be utilized correctly in an AR type magazine. The magazine well of a standard AR is too straight to accept the curved 7.62 mags.
2) This whole thread is based on the premise that failure to stop with 5.56 is a problem so big that is has become a threat to infantry tactics and Army strategy. While there has been a few documented instances, for the most part I remain unconvinced that failures to stop happen enough that it is imperative to switch to a bigger cartridge.
3) The US Army will continue to use 5.56 for the very same reason the M1 Garand was chambered for 30-06; we have assloads of it. The M1 was originally designed for a cartridges called the .276 Pedersen. It had ballistics similar to the 6.8mm SPC and would have been closer to a true intermediate/assault rifle cartridge. But a decision was made by the Brass with the Ass to take advantage of the huge piles of 30-06 laying around in warehouses and the M1 was subsequently chambered for that round. The 276 might have been a better cartridges for the purpose, but logistics over machismo.
4) For decades, the doctorine of infantry tactics has been to overwhelm the enemy with superior firepower. That means those that can get the most bullets in the air usually wins. The 5.56 mm was designed to meet logistical, strategic, and practical needs. It doubled the infantryman's payload of ammo; so while there are failures to stop, 99% of the time it kills folks just fine; it is easier to train soldiers to shoot it effectively; you can make that much more because it requires less lead than a 115gr bullet or a 150gr bullet. The size of the bullet is much less important than how much fire you can lay on the enemy. While a bigger bullet may very well have more barrier penetration or knockdown power per shot, you get more shots with 5.56 and most kill with one center mass shot.
All of this doesn't mean there isn't a place for 6.8 SPC or 45 ACP. For the average joe, the 5.56 and 9mm are good enough and it gives him the highest probability of hitting something per combat load. But it seems that professionals who have for the most part better firearms training seem to lean towards bigger more powerful cartridges. So while smaller bullets have a better strategic advantage, the bigger ones have a more immediate tactical advantage. Though that advantage is not so great to warrant the need for Big Army to switch as supply and logistics is any army's greatest asset.
The M16 is the quintessential "McNamara" rifle and the 5.56 the consummate "bean counter" cartridge.
1) The 7.62x39, in any configuration, will NEVER be considered. The fundemental shape of the cartridge will not allow it to be utilized correctly in an AR type magazine. The magazine well of a standard AR is too straight to accept the curved 7.62 mags.
2) This whole thread is based on the premise that failure to stop with 5.56 is a problem so big that is has become a threat to infantry tactics and Army strategy. While there has been a few documented instances, for the most part I remain unconvinced that failures to stop happen enough that it is imperative to switch to a bigger cartridge.
3) The US Army will continue to use 5.56 for the very same reason the M1 Garand was chambered for 30-06; we have assloads of it. The M1 was originally designed for a cartridges called the .276 Pedersen. It had ballistics similar to the 6.8mm SPC and would have been closer to a true intermediate/assault rifle cartridge. But a decision was made by the Brass with the Ass to take advantage of the huge piles of 30-06 laying around in warehouses and the M1 was subsequently chambered for that round. The 276 might have been a better cartridges for the purpose, but logistics over machismo.
4) For decades, the doctorine of infantry tactics has been to overwhelm the enemy with superior firepower. That means those that can get the most bullets in the air usually wins. The 5.56 mm was designed to meet logistical, strategic, and practical needs. It doubled the infantryman's payload of ammo; so while there are failures to stop, 99% of the time it kills folks just fine; it is easier to train soldiers to shoot it effectively; you can make that much more because it requires less lead than a 115gr bullet or a 150gr bullet. The size of the bullet is much less important than how much fire you can lay on the enemy. While a bigger bullet may very well have more barrier penetration or knockdown power per shot, you get more shots with 5.56 and most kill with one center mass shot.
All of this doesn't mean there isn't a place for 6.8 SPC or 45 ACP. For the average joe, the 5.56 and 9mm are good enough and it gives him the highest probability of hitting something per combat load. But it seems that professionals who have for the most part better firearms training seem to lean towards bigger more powerful cartridges. So while smaller bullets have a better strategic advantage, the bigger ones have a more immediate tactical advantage. Though that advantage is not so great to warrant the need for Big Army to switch as supply and logistics is any army's greatest asset.
The M16 is the quintessential "McNamara" rifle and the 5.56 the consummate "bean counter" cartridge.
Last edited:
You're very correct in about everything you said. Unfortunately these days about 60-70% of those coming in have never fired a weapon before and the only time they fire a weapon is during annual qualification. Most seem to be afraid of their weapon. At a range in Iraq I had a female 2LT complain about her M4's "kick". Not sure how she felt it through her IBA. Lack of exposure I guess. I think we need to put more into training. One very cheap improvement we could make is retrofitting the telescoping stocks (M4stocks) to the M16A2s. We have a lot of females in my MOS and the M16s stock dosen't fit them right. Once they put on IBA it's even worse. It would be nice to be able to adjust the LOP to the individual. The army's never gonna do it. But I still think it's a good idea.
6.5 Grendel
The 6.5 Grendel is basically a necked down 7.62x39 with the shoulder blown forward and the case walls blown out closer to straight. Round was designed to be used in an AR-15. You were saying something in .264 maybe, well that's 6.5mm right there. It would be cool to see the military adopt that round, but it is unlikely we'll see it in our lifetime.
The 6.5 Grendel is basically a necked down 7.62x39 with the shoulder blown forward and the case walls blown out closer to straight. Round was designed to be used in an AR-15. You were saying something in .264 maybe, well that's 6.5mm right there. It would be cool to see the military adopt that round, but it is unlikely we'll see it in our lifetime.
HorseSoldier
New member
No, they're not.
SOCOM, and only SOCOM, was considering switching to 6.8 Rem SPC. They conducted combat tests with 6.8mm weapons downrange, and the data that came back did not support the switch.
6.8 Rem SPC or any other larger caliber was never in the works for Big Army. Quite the contrary, they're currently developing caseless and cased-telescoping ammo for the SAW replacement and the caliber they're working with? 5.56mm. It appears we may still be shooting 5.56mm bullets even if we dump brass cased ammunition . . .
Never happen at all. Grendel is a target shooting round that sacrifices a number of things to get great performance past 500 meter or so -- where combat doesn't occur. We'd be much better off with 6.8 Rem SPC if we were going to switch.
This particular topic seems worse than most on the internet for misinformation, for whatever reason. Basically, there was some consideration of a new round several years ago for SOF units, but that was as close as a 5.56mm replacement ever got to service. The USMC has done some research since then, but I don't see them changing calibers unless the entire DoD goes with them (unlike SOCOM, who could have gone it alone).
Since it seems like we're going to be involved in a region with blowing talcum powder called sand for the foreseeable future, how about doing away with the direct impingement design entirely and going for a gas piston that's far more reliable, with sand grooves?
Just a thought.
The reason for the M-16 platform was weight, and that's been negated with all the junk that operators hang off their M-4's. So why not just go for a simpler, easy to clean gas piston that's more resistant to malfunctions due to blowing sand and other crud?
Jihadists crouched inside typical middle-east buildings made of thicker sorts of brick will be very happy to hear that, being that 7.62x39 has far superior barrier penetration. Watch video of an AK vs. an AR against concrete blocks. Bit of a "Well, which would you want if you and the other guy were both behind walls of that?"
HorseSoldier
New member
Because we're going to be hanging all the same stuff off any other rifle we might adopt as well?
Oh please. That's bull excrement. You have been reading too much 6.8 fanboy stuff. The rounds are basically tied at close range. "Sacrifices a number of things?!" They are nearly the same diameter, weight, and velocity. You could shoot a hundred bad guys at 50 yards with either one of them and never be able to tell the difference. Either in combat or during an autopsy. But once you move beyond 200 yards or so, the Grendel is going to start to pull ahead.
I don't personally own either one but I would pick the Grendel in just about any case over the 6.8 SPC. I wouldn't throw a gift 6.8 away but I wouldn't spend my own money on it!
Gregg
The military is always considering changing its service-rifle round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen
I recently attended a panel discussion with the Rangers and AF 160 guys who took part on the doomed mission made famous in Black Hawk Down. I had read somewhere that Somalia was the big catalyst for changing the 5.56 round; "Skinny's" with Ak's hopped up on cot charging wildly. They would die from a 5.56 wound, but not before they emptied their mag.
So I asked the panel, and all of them agreed that it wasn't a factor. One of the Rangers reminded me that you keep shooting until the enemy drops.
I love the idea of the 6.8 round, but I would rather see the Army use the money elsewhere. On this site in particular, spending a huge amount of time and money to bring a shot group from .5moa to .4moa is encouraged and applauded.
For the military to spend enormous resources to make the standard issue rifle a little better seems wrong.
However, it bugs me that a US soldier with a 5.56 against a teenager with an AK has a smaller bullet. Maybe it is a pen-s thing. However, the soldier has a radio and can call in an airstrike.
So I asked the panel, and all of them agreed that it wasn't a factor. One of the Rangers reminded me that you keep shooting until the enemy drops.
I love the idea of the 6.8 round, but I would rather see the Army use the money elsewhere. On this site in particular, spending a huge amount of time and money to bring a shot group from .5moa to .4moa is encouraged and applauded.
For the military to spend enormous resources to make the standard issue rifle a little better seems wrong.
However, it bugs me that a US soldier with a 5.56 against a teenager with an AK has a smaller bullet. Maybe it is a pen-s thing. However, the soldier has a radio and can call in an airstrike.
Unregistered
Moderator
I don't see the need for them to waste tax payer money on a new rifle caliber.
Nah, they aint' gonna replace nothing. Once a contractor gets the military a "little pregnant” stuff stays in inventory forever.
Take for example, how long the Mosin Nagant and the 7.62*54R were in service. Heck the 7.62 *54R round might still be in service. Rimmed rounds were obsolete when the first rimless round came out, like 1890? The Mosin was painfully obsolescent by WWI. Unfortunately, it worked. And the Russians had millions of them. So, the round and the rifle were just too expensive to replace. The Finns were making M39’s in the 70’s by God!
All cased military ammunition was obsolescent when caseless ammunition became practical. My recollection was that H&K developed caseless ammunition to the point that it was ready to put in service in the 1980’s. But it cost too much to replace all the old rifles and ammunition in service.
We are keeping this sub optimum round until plasma guns, or death rays replace it. Might be a couple of hundred more years, but there are just too many guns and rounds in inventory to justify just a small improvement. To get rid of this stuff, we need something as big a technological leap as going from the flint to the cap, round ball to the Minie, or blackpowder to smokeless. Maybe as big a leap as going from spear to the firearm.
Take for example, how long the Mosin Nagant and the 7.62*54R were in service. Heck the 7.62 *54R round might still be in service. Rimmed rounds were obsolete when the first rimless round came out, like 1890? The Mosin was painfully obsolescent by WWI. Unfortunately, it worked. And the Russians had millions of them. So, the round and the rifle were just too expensive to replace. The Finns were making M39’s in the 70’s by God!
All cased military ammunition was obsolescent when caseless ammunition became practical. My recollection was that H&K developed caseless ammunition to the point that it was ready to put in service in the 1980’s. But it cost too much to replace all the old rifles and ammunition in service.
We are keeping this sub optimum round until plasma guns, or death rays replace it. Might be a couple of hundred more years, but there are just too many guns and rounds in inventory to justify just a small improvement. To get rid of this stuff, we need something as big a technological leap as going from the flint to the cap, round ball to the Minie, or blackpowder to smokeless. Maybe as big a leap as going from spear to the firearm.
