I am a squid (Navy) and I clearly remember the day the trees (Marines) returned to the ship after their first of many forays into the Afghan hills. I remember them almost begging us to trade our ship's M-14's for their M-16A2's. They were regularly engaged by and engaging the enemy at distances of 500yrds and beyond. They werent getting very good results even with aimed shots using the 5.56. The 6.8mm will be a better round when in that kind of an enviornment definitely. But in my opinion, the 5.56 still has a definite role in the arsenal when we are talking about urban/city enviornments like those that are being encountered in the streets of Iraqi cities.
Is the 5.56 Nato dead?
- Thread starter heckledpie
- Start date
support_six
New member
1. First of all, the Small Arms Branch, Directorate of Combat Developments, U.S. Army Infantry School (the proponent for small arms development for the Army, and by DOD directive, for all the services) never stops evaluating technology for individual weapons. It is ongoing as we speak. Sometimes they are handed a "need", or a piece of technology presents itself for them to initiate a "project". We've heard about a few on these on this forum and elsewhere. Sometimes it's just an undercurrent of smaller evaluations to keep abreast of the technology. They don't just go from project to project.
2. I thought the 6.5mm Grendel was not favorably considered because it's case dimensions did not allow it to be linked for belt fed weapons?
3. Although there is never "enough" range time, even combat support and service support troops get a whole lot more of it now than when I was in (1976–1999).
2. I thought the 6.5mm Grendel was not favorably considered because it's case dimensions did not allow it to be linked for belt fed weapons?
3. Although there is never "enough" range time, even combat support and service support troops get a whole lot more of it now than when I was in (1976–1999).
In an ideal world, yes.
But picture this scenario:
Our guys run into a house. They clear it. Then, insurgents start firing from the house next door.
Our guys have the M-4s, 5.56. The bad guys have AK's, 7.62x39. Both houses are mud brick.
Who has better cover to fire out the windows and duck behind the wall? The 5.56 won't penetrate if a guy is firing and ducking out of view. The 7.62x39 will bust up the mud brick and go through. Advantage AK.
That's my point.
Evil Monkey
New member
No one cares about penetrative abilities of ammo. The military has rocket launchers, grenade launchers, IFV's with auto 25mm cannons and such. Bullets from a riflemans infantry rifle was never meant to penetrate barriers like "mud brick walls".
That comes from a civilian mindset because we can't have explosive ordnance so we make due with bullets. The civilian mindset is clearly flawed.
RockyMtnTactical
New member
Why do you keep bringing that up? It doesn't matter.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
If by "dead", you mean "at the peak of its popularity, and getting more popular each day", then yes, it's dead. 
Jermtheory
New member
yeah,try shopping for ammo and see how dead it is.
Not really, I have shot both against walls in Iraq and neither does all that great, sure you might have a slight edge with a 7.62 but its not even a 2 to 1 advantage.
The construction in both Iraq and Afganistan is such that is designed for both insulation and defensibility. So you find exterior walled compounds that have walls several feet thick of either adobe or reinforced concrete, followed by a similar construction for the buildings. During 04 during the battles to retake Al Karma and the clearing of Ar Ramadi, Marines found that the 50 cals, 40mm HEDP and 25MM HEI were inadequate to penetrate the cover offered by Iraqi construction. So I don't think your statement is too accurate for the current theater we are operating in, it might be applicable if we were fighting in US manufactured houses.
Zombie Steve
New member
Not dead by a longshot.
As far as Somalia was concerned, that was more of a bullet construction issue - shooting malnourished, unarmored bad guys with M855 / steel penetrator tips. You got the icepick effect. M193 would likely have had better results.
Tons of good info on the history of the cartridge here:
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm
Edit: wow, looks like a tornado hit that website. Still good info, if you can read it.
As far as Somalia was concerned, that was more of a bullet construction issue - shooting malnourished, unarmored bad guys with M855 / steel penetrator tips. You got the icepick effect. M193 would likely have had better results.
Tons of good info on the history of the cartridge here:
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm
Edit: wow, looks like a tornado hit that website. Still good info, if you can read it.
RockyMtnTactical
New member
I don't think it was a twist rate or ammo issue. It was more of a shot placement issue.
If there were fragmentation (or lack of) issues, part of it may have been due to the extra short barrels the Delta guys were using... But shot placement is a much bigger factor than fragmentation.
You must realize, we still killed and wounded hundreds of attackers in Mogadishu.
If there were fragmentation (or lack of) issues, part of it may have been due to the extra short barrels the Delta guys were using... But shot placement is a much bigger factor than fragmentation.
You must realize, we still killed and wounded hundreds of attackers in Mogadishu.
heckledpie
New member
i know alot of you think this is a bogus thread, but this is what got me thinking:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/replacing_5-56mm.htm
while its nothing official, it is still intriguing.
And the Military/army/whatever is always considering changing their standard round, because they want to make sure they always have the best. They just haven't found something yet to completely beat the logic of what Army GI said right in the beginning of this thread.
They probably will adopt the 6.5 mm Grendel as a special purpose round... i hear it gets sub MOA at 500 yards or so.
Check out that link.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/replacing_5-56mm.htm
while its nothing official, it is still intriguing.
And the Military/army/whatever is always considering changing their standard round, because they want to make sure they always have the best. They just haven't found something yet to completely beat the logic of what Army GI said right in the beginning of this thread.
They probably will adopt the 6.5 mm Grendel as a special purpose round... i hear it gets sub MOA at 500 yards or so.
Check out that link.
