Is the 5.56 Nato dead?

your welcome man.

by the way, the title (Is the 5.56 Nato dead?) was just for eye catching effects.

it worked. :p.

im still wondering about personal opinions though. That link that i posted made some valid points about the m4 not getting enough muzzle velocity to drop a man and about how less ammo is need with higher caliber (he also went on to suggest ways to fix the AR system to make it more combat functional), so im also curious, do any of you think his ideas are valid?
 
The 5.56 won't penetrate... The 7.62x39 will bust up the mud brick and go through.
Click to expand...
What data are you basing this statement on? I don't really mean that in an argumentative manner, I'm just curious to see the comparison.
 
What data are you basing this statement on? I don't really mean that in an argumentative manner, I'm just curious to see the comparison.
Click to expand...

Probably this:

http://www.gofish.com/player.gfp?gfid=30-1051549

Or from personal experience. I know I've shot cinder blocks, concrete, and pine logs with 5.56, 7.62x39, and 7.62x51, and the heavier bullets clearly win, although I well admit that this is more of a advantage for civilians than for military because civilians lack the support of M240Bs, M2HBs, 40mm HEDP, AT-4, SMAW, air support, ect...

And no, the 5.56 is alive and well and will be for a while, both as a civilian cartridge and as a military round. I don't like it. I'd rather we opted for a "happy medium" such as the 6.8 SPC, but it isn't going to happen. I'd also like to see the SCAR-L adopted service wide, but again, ain't gonna happen. Military brass don't care about grunts. They care about sexy fighters and guided bombs.

Personally, I opt for battle rifles because the recoil doesn't bother me, I like the power and would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. And I acknowledge that in any scenario where I may be called upon to actually use them, I probably am going to be relatively stationary and dug in, so ammo weight is less of a concern. The M1A and the FAL both seem more solid to me than the AR ever did, and they simply inspire more confidence in me. But as a military cartridge, I doubt if we'll ever see the 7.62 employed in any role besides sniper and LMG ever again.
 
Personally, I opt for battle rifles because the recoil doesn't bother me, I like the power and would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. And I acknowledge that in any scenario where I may be called upon to actually use them, I probably am going to be relatively stationary and dug in, so ammo weight is less of a concern.
Click to expand...

ya, we won two big big wars with a big kickin rifle, WW2 and Korea. According to that website i showed you guys: 8 30-06/7.62 Natos are equivalent to 32 5.56 Natos... So technically by those standards a standard rifleman without armor/support/etc. from WW2 would out muscle one from Iraq right now.
 
STLRN 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.

Time to bust out the recoilless-rifles again.:D We should have never gotten rid of them. Get a Hummer with a single or dual M40 106mm RR setup with a modern Fire control system and you would have a powerful, yet lightweight and mobile system. Mount it on a M113 if you need more armor.

106mm > 5.56mm.:p
 
Time to bust out the recoilless-rifles again. We should have never gotten rid of them. Get a Hummer with a single or dual M40 106mm RR setup with a modern Fire control system and you would have a powerful, yet lightweight and mobile system. Mount it on a M113 if you need more armor.

106mm > 5.56mm.
Click to expand...

The thermobaric rounds they have for the SMAW ain't no picnic either.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Actually cased ammunition was a huge improvement over the original caseless ammo. :)

At any rate, not only was reequipping to use caseless ammo going to cost a fortune, the technology itself is problematic. Shell casings take a pretty large amount of heat with them when they are ejected which slows chamber heating significantly in self-loading weapons. Cased ammunition is far more durable than any caseless ammo as well. Dropping a handful of caseless rounds on the floor would render them useless if the propellant grains cracked. It also has to be made water-resistant in a fashion that doesn't leave cruddy deposits in the chamber or barrel after firing. I imagine that all of the various ways infantrymen rough up their ammo in combat would show the shortcomings of caseless really quickly.

Assuming that HK solved all of those problems satisfactorily, there was the fact that the G-11 fired a 4 or 5 mm bullet. Granted it was in a 3 rd burst fired so rapidly that the recoil wasn't felt until after the 3rd rd had left the barrel, but I think the 5.56 mm was as small as the generals wanted to go.
 
What will kill the 5.56 NATO? I think our JCS is too busy in replenishing the bombs we used to take over Iraq and Afghanistan. Also all the next generation fighter planes will be costing us a bundle. Maybe we'll see our F22s take out F14s sold to some country thinking their missiles will phase us. We just don't have the money to kill the 5.56 now or in the near future. josh
 
Either way, until the tranformation is complete, we're probably not going to mess with small arms. Money is a little tight right now. We've added troops to our total end strength as well.
 
Maybe we'll see our F22s take out F14s sold to some country thinking their missiles will phase us.
Click to expand...

All F-14's, which were recently retired, are slated to be completely destroyed. Reportedly, no airframes or any parts will be sold to foreign countries. The ones that were sold (many, many years ago) are more than probably OOC for lack of maintenance and available parts. The F-14 is a notoriously fragile and high maintenance aircraft requiring many hours of service for every hour of flight.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-23-militarysurplus_N.htm

But I get the idea of what you meant.
 
Last edited:
What do you think of my post, Horse Soldier? Was I more/less in the right area?
Click to expand...

No criticism of your post or some others was intended Army GI. It was just more an observation about how places like this board and The High Road see about weekly posts about 6.8 Rem SPC based on the breaking news . . . from 2004.

Seems like you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a half dozen threads about how the military is wanting to replace 5.56mm with 6.8SPC/6.5 Grendel, or how tons of troops are using one or both downrange at this very moment, etc.

Also, are you from the "1st Cav"?
Click to expand...

No, back in the day I was a real (read: ACR) cavalry guy ;). Did some time in a BRT also, but was never in 1st Cav.

Time to bust out the recoilless-rifles again.
Click to expand...

Where USASOC goes, Big Army seems to at least think about following, so maybe we'll see the increased basis of issue for the Carl Gustav get really increased before its all said and done.

ya, we won two big big wars with a big kickin rifle, WW2 and Korea. According to that website i showed you guys: 8 30-06/7.62 Natos are equivalent to 32 5.56 Natos... So technically by those standards a standard rifleman without armor/support/etc. from WW2 would out muscle one from Iraq right now.
Click to expand...

I'd be amused to see one try. The Garand was a poor infantry weapon for how and what combat really is -- its justifiable claim to fame was that, while it was poor, it was quite superior to the contemporary bolt guns used by allies and enemies in WW2, which were even less well suited for real world infantry combat. Claims that it can compete with more recent designs (AK, M14, FAL, M16 or whatever else) have been pretty rare since then.

With or without armor, fire support, and whatever else, the reality is that engagements still occur inside 300 meters, because the guy holding the rifle can rarely, if ever acquire and identify a target beyond that range. Even when engaged, they usually can't hit -- actual successful rifle engagements mostly occur inside 100 meters. That's human physiology under life and death stress, not any deficit in training or any of this "McNamara ruined us riflemen" silliness.

At 100 meters, a guy with an M4 and EOTech (even ACOG) starting from the low ready can get multiple rounds into a guy trying to bring up his M1 and get on those sights.
 
IMO, we'd be better off switching to MK262 ammo, than changing calibers at this point. Much as I'd rather see guys with a good piston gun and 6.8 ammo, it just isn't going to happen. What would also be nice is to up the infantry squad's firepower with something like an RPG-7, especially with the thermobaric rounds (which make the heavy walled buildings MORE dangerous to be in). I know the SMAW has such warheads, but there aren't that many ofhtem and they're a bit heavy. Whereas an RPG gunner and each squadmember carrying an extra rocket, would be a big increase in firepower.
 
MTMilitiaman said, "Military brass don't care about grunts. They care about sexy fighters and guided bombs."

This is as irresponsible a statement as I've seen in a long time. Army and Marine Corps General Officers "do not" care about the replenishment of bombs and fighter aircraft at the expense of the foot soldier. These guys constantly go to war with their Air Force and Navy counterparts on carving out as much budget as possible to keep the ground pounders equiped. Another example of the concept that every private knows more than their senior leadership.
 
Support_Six wrote:
MTMilitiaman said, "Military brass don't care about grunts. They care about sexy fighters and guided bombs."

This is as irresponsible a statement as I've seen in a long time. Army and Marine Corps General Officers "do not" care about the replenishment of bombs and fighter aircraft at the expense of the foot soldier. These guys constantly go to war with their Air Force and Navy counterparts on carving out as much budget as possible to keep the ground pounders equiped. Another example of the concept that every private knows more than their senior leadership.
Click to expand...

Agree completely.
 
With or without armor, fire support, and whatever else, the reality is that engagements still occur inside 300 meters, because the guy holding the rifle can rarely, if ever acquire and identify a target beyond that range. Even when engaged, they usually can't hit -- actual successful rifle engagements mostly occur inside 100 meters. That's human physiology under life and death stress, not any deficit in training or any of this "McNamara ruined us riflemen" silliness.
Click to expand...

true true.
 
With all due respect to everyone here, we must realize that the battlefield of the future will change dramatically, but the ground pounder will always be needed to go in and mop up. You see it everyday where the predator is up and providing surveillance for the troops. CAS is just a moment away if needed, I never saw a moment of downtime where a fast mover wasn't available for immediate CAS. The battlefield of the future is a joint environment, all elements working in unison will minimize casualties on our side. We have the means to take the fight to the enemy when we decide the time is right. It doesn't get any better than that. When a groundpounder is complaining that his 5.56 won't penetrate a mud hut to kill the enemies that are inside then we have a serious thinking problem. josh
 
When a groundpounder is complaining that his 5.56 won't penetrate a mud hut to kill the enemies that are inside then we have a serious thinking problem.
Click to expand...

The argument goes both ways Josh... All cartridges are a compromise of some sort.

What if the "groundpounder" was complaining that he couldn't carry enough ammo to accomplish the mission?

My understanding is that the military uses suppressive fire to flank the enemy. This requires lots of ammo... If someone is hiding in a mud hut, he'll likely die soon enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top