Proposed New US Service Rifle Cartridges

These debates are just another example of amateurs wanting to squabble about their pet tactics, when the professionals are thinking logistics for sustaining operations.
Click to expand...
Like BlueTrain, `another amateur here -- only 34 years before I got out, and a lot of that in that fire-and-maneuver stuff starting in the late 60s. Another half-dozen for YoungSon and his time has been constant in the mountainous sandbox. As for me, I also spent a later 10 years in the conventional munitions arena after the fun stuff,...

So there are some here who have played the game before (and even then, us 'Old Guys' don't always agree with each other.) :rolleyes: :o

ps: I'm not into XBox. :p





pps: :D :D :D
 
Last edited:
lol. Mr. BlueTrain, you're offering examples & we still train on moving targets (plus the gun-bunnies now "own" terrain, which is revolutionary for Artillery units), yet your point is?

By the way, would you call the enemy amateurs?
Click to expand...

Even though it's not at all relevant to our service rifle discussion nor my comment on discussing tactics vs. logistics, it depends who you're fighting.

Iraq: Depends what year you're talking about. '03-'04- Darwinism at work, with rank amateurs getting killed off rather quickly, using weaponry from Saddam lying around. After that the enemy developed good TTPs and learned from us. Plus you start adding in foreign fighters trained in Iran (ask your son about EFPs and he'll prob shudder, as I still do) and AQI, who I wouldn't qualify as amateurs.

Afghanistan: A people who've been fighting for centuries and know the land, hardly amateurs. I haven't had the joy of The 'Stan, but I'd imagine they know what they're doing.

The cartridge question on a strategic level is still one of getting lots of bullets to lots of people who use ammo very quickly and the 5.56 does a marvelous job of that. Sure Special Forces will use wiz-bang cartridges, but for the masses of troops, 5.56 works just fine.
 
Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking me and I also don't understand all the abbreviations. My age is showing. And what do you mean by "own terrain?"

But let's talk about rifle cartridges again. It might be a given, maybe not, that improvements in small arms cartridge technology is incremental. Not since the introduction of metallic cartridges has there been anything as revolutionary, but speaking only of the cartridges. However, there have been changes, twice in living memory. There were earlier ones, too, of course. The Krag, as in civilize them with, the first general issue repeating rifle came with a new cartridge. A (relatively) small bore was the latest thing. Of course I'm not counting Civil War carbines like the Spencer. That was replaced with the 1903 Springfield in yet another cartridge, that one being rimless. Yet in only a few years, a new cartridge (the .30-06) was introduced for the same rifle. Surely the new cartridge could only have been a slight improvement on the .30-03. Apparently some modification to the rifles was necessary. Are we sometimes talking about something like this? A case where only a slight improvement is going to happen? Or did that already happen and it's time to make a bigger change?
 
Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking me and I also don't understand all the abbreviations. My age is showing. And what do you mean by "own terrain?"

But let's talk about rifle cartridges again. It might be a given, maybe not, that improvements in small arms cartridge technology is incremental. Not since the introduction of metallic cartridges has there been anything as revolutionary, but speaking only of the cartridges. However, there have been changes, twice in living memory. There were earlier ones, too, of course. The Krag, as in civilize them with, the first general issue repeating rifle came with a new cartridge. A (relatively) small bore was the latest thing. Of course I'm not counting Civil War carbines like the Spencer. That was replaced with the 1903 Springfield in yet another cartridge, that one being rimless. Yet in only a few years, a new cartridge (the .30-06) was introduced for the same rifle. Surely the new cartridge could only have been a slight improvement on the .30-03. Apparently some modification to the rifles was necessary. Are we sometimes talking about something like this? A case where only a slight improvement is going to happen? Or did that already happen and it's time to make a bigger change?
Click to expand...

lol :rolleyes:. My point about amateurs wanting to blabber on about their pet tactics (cartridges), against professionals who have to actually figure out how to sustain operations proves itself again.

Like I've said, you old-timers who sincerely did amazing feats of arms back in the day can key-board jockey this topic to death (and get as emotional as you want), about 5.56 vs. 6.8 vs. 6.5 vs. 7.62 NATO vs. 7.62x39 vs. Dr. Spock's stun-gun or whatever.

At end of the day, as someone who personally will be firing those rounds, I can care less what they are. As long as the bad-guy's head is down so my maneuver element can flank them. However to keep his head down I need lots and lots of ammo to do that. And I can carry a lot of 5.56 as opposed to other cartridges such as 7.62 NATO. Upsetting an entire logistical scheme which supports me for your pet cartridge makes no sense whatsoever (except of course on the internet). But what do I know?
 
I want to clarify my earlier posting. I said...
With all due respect to our soldiers and marines, the rifle we use is an insignificant factor in our ability to project force and win wars.
Click to expand...

What I really meant was that the type of rifle/cartridge we use is insignificant as long as it is a good rifle and a good cartridge.

M-16/M-4 in 5.56 is a good rifle/cartridge combination. It may not be the best, but it is not necessary that it be the best.... for all the reasons I discussed earlier. And as Beretta686 says, it may very well be the best available on an "effectiveness per pound" basis. We can argue about the effectiveness of one cartridge versus another, but one thing we can all agree on is this... Whoever runs out of ammo first usually looses the engagement.
 
VN

I don't care what you carry, as long as it's 400 rounds for Matty, half in magazines, and two belts for the section gun. Oh, and something to drink, like 5 canteens. And grenades for the 203, yeah, you'll probably want a belt or two. Now, let's look at your secondary armament... Now the kids carry damn near as much load in body armor! Until Uncle issues battle exo-skeletons,
we really ought to rethink the weight issues. Fatigue kills.
 
It kind of makes you wonder if more is better.

I never claimed to have performed any feats of arms. I've often said I wasn't a good shot. I'm still not. Likewise, I've never claimed to be a professional. When I was in the army, we didn't have a professional army. We had draftees. I don't watch television and I don't have an X-box, what ever that is.
 
My point about amateurs wanting to blabber on about their pet tactics (cartridges), against professionals who have to actually figure out how to sustain operations proves itself again.
...
At end of the day, as someone who personally will be firing those rounds, I can care less what they are.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that pretty much ends the discussion.
 
Well, guess the military should swap to .22LR. You can pack a whole bunch of them. Since well aimed shots and ballistic performance are a non issue with real professionals. :cool:

I bet they could start ordering .22LR conversions real cheap.
 
I was gonna stay out of this one.....

Like I said before, the army is good at changing what needs to be changed, sometimes due to political and social pressures. Armored vehicles is a good example of that.

Many changes have been made in made in the last ten years alone. This modern war began when the Iraqi soldiers threw down their uniforms in 1991. We trained for low intensity conflicts in the years following the Gulf War.

So, why do you think that with all these changes since Vietnam and the Gulf Wars, billions upon billions have been spent, and the 5.56 remains constant?

Yes, the cartridge is light and economical, but cost of rifles is a drop in the barrel compared to other costs.

That tells me it works, no conspiracy here, it still works and if it ain't broke don't fix it.


Same goes with the 50bmg. I am sure you could make a .573 SOCOMEXL BS. but why?
 
In the last 30 days, the Air Force has lost one airplane and the Navy lost another one. What do you suppose they will cost to replace?

Yes the world has changed in the last ten years but the book on "small wars" was written before WWII.
 
I probably shouldn't bring this up, but I will anyway.

What are the rounds of the United States most probable opponents in the next World Conflagration?

Russia 5.45 X 39 (.215 caliber) ( 53gr & 57gr FMJ)

China 5.8 X 42 (.228 caliber) (64gr & 77gr FMJ)

US 5.56 X 45 (.219 caliber) (62gr & 77gr FMJ)

Why haven't both of these countries invested in a new "leap ahead" or "improved" Intermediate round? Why didn't China Go with a 6.5 round? Or a 7mm?

Why did they both choose a "varmit" round? I mean those rounds wouldn't even be legal to hunt deer in a lot of places in the US.:rolleyes:

Both have extensive experience with 7.62X39 and it wouldn't suprise me that China and maybe even Russia did some REAL controlled testing on living humans when developing their new round instead of gel or cadaver testing. (Where DID all those political prisoners really go....)

So are they just following the US because that is what we did?

Or did they figure out that maybe the US DOD was on to something back in the late 50's/early 60's?
 
Wrong

What are the rounds of the United States most probable opponents in the next World Conflagration?
Click to expand...

There won't be a "world conflagration". No nuclear armed nation ever goes to war with another. It is that simple. So, the most common round that the US faces, and has faced since Korea is the 7.62x39.

It is amazing how effective insurgencies armed with little more than AK47's and RPG's are against modern armies. They always win, every time, when facing a modern army.
 
The military has been trying to replace the 5.56 AND M16 since the 80's. Their requirements have always insane. Right now they're converting DI systems to gas piston as a stop-gap until they can find a replacement since the latest xm series got canceled.

If the army is so good at upgrading what needs to be upgraded, why are they tieing water jugs to the sides of vehicles for armor and using vehicles that are so top heavy they roll on 15% grade? Why, instead of upgrading the body armor do they just keep adding armor to it; until they have you so over loaded that you have guys unable to manouver during firefights? Then a knee-jerk reaction to issue plate carriers? Dragon Skin was good enough for generals and their security guards to wear even after it was banned by the army, but not good enough for joe?

You know if SF is using it, there's a reason. They're not just buying stuff and taking it into combat for poops and giggles. They are an extremely results based community. If big army can't handle the logistical support for ammo and rifles, how do they manage for POL, different tire sizes for the umteen zillion different wheeled vehicles, and the 15 different RFI and uniform swaps they do?

Enough of that rant...

I think a 6.8 would be a step in the right direction. Maybe a 7mm out of a shortened case. Or even a 6mm. Replace the birdcage with a decent comp/flash suppressor and you could up the cartridge size some without upping the felt recoil. Some of the new comps don't have so bad of percussion towards the sides. Not that it'd matter; if you've ever shot more than a blank inside a building or sat by joe and tried to teach him marksmenship it sucks either way.
 
Actually crow hunter, the 5.4x39 was brought out in '72. After Russian advisors saw during nam that the 5.56 (then really a varmint round, out of a 1:14 twist barrel) was doing to the NVA. So yeah, it was a knee jerk reaction trying to follow what America was doing.
 
Actually crow hunter, the 5.4x39 was brought out in '72. After Russian advisors saw during nam that the 5.56 (then really a varmint round, out of a 1:14 twist barrel) was doing to the NVA. So yeah, it was a knee jerk reaction trying to follow what America was doing.
Click to expand...

So you know for a fact, they just grabbed a 7.62 case and crammed .22 'ish caliber bullet in and that was it? (1974 by the way, not '72)

No investigation about VLD bullets?

No testing whatsoever, just threw it in there because America was doing it?

So why did they choose a completely different bullet design than we did?

What does a 1:14 barrel have to do with anything?

I hope you aren't going to start talking about "bullet stability". Human flesh is WAY more dense than air, even doubling the rotational speed of a round won't affect a rounds stability in flesh. Human flesh is way more than 2X more dense than air.

There won't be a "world conflagration". No nuclear armed nation ever goes to war with another. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

I hope you have turned that crystal ball towards the stock market as well as future world events. Didn't they same the same thing about several other inventions over the last few centuries?

Hopefully China will keep that idea in mind in the future.
 
With the 1:14 twist, they weren't using the steel penetrator rounds we are now. The tissue damage was due to fragmentation of the bullets, not tumbling or any other magic....just an fyi. And 72 was when the bullet was born, check your dates, mate. You can throw in whatever you want, but the fact is, a few years after seeing the effect of fragmenting varmint rounds the ruski's had a new round; from 7.62 to 5.4... Veeerrrrrrry interesting.
 
The army added armor as an interim fix until new vehicles could be developed. I installed armor on a majority of humvees in western Iraq.

Body armor was non existent in the previous wars, wheeled vehicles too. except for the hummers that had armor for fragments and small arms. If you wanted protection, you sat on sand bags and piled them on the truck.

Optics on every rifle is new also.

Whether or not you choose to believe, we now have the best equipped army in history.

Pretty simple physics, a larger bullet needs more power to get it moving or you will end up with a slower bullet. So at impact, force = mass * velocity. So to improve on the 5.56, you need a larger case and a larger bullet which in turn means diminished capacity for the number of rounds carried. By all means, I think all will agree that there are better performing cartridges. But, a slightly larger bullet with slightly more powder, kinda ends up the same. Just put 7.62 NATO back out and be done with it.
 
With the 1:14 twist, they weren't using the steel penetrator rounds we are now. The tissue damage was due to fragmentation of the bullets, not tumbling or any other magic....just an fyi. And 72 was when the bullet was born, check your dates, mate. You can throw in whatever you want, but the fact is, a few years after seeing the effect of fragmenting varmint rounds the ruski's had a new round; from 7.62 to 5.4... Veeerrrrrrry interesting.
Click to expand...

It was designed in 1972 but it wasn't introduced to the Russian Military until 1974 with the release of the AK-74.

The damage caused by 5.56 is/was due to fragmentation but that was caused by the bullet tumbling in flesh and the subsequent load on the round causing it to fragment at the cannelure.

Undoubtedly the success of the 5.56 influenced the Russians. But they did some interesting research on their own with Very Low Drag bullets and working to move the Center of Gravity of the round even further back to promote tumbling.

My point was that 2 other very large countries with the means to design their own rounds that also had more experience than the US with heavier intermediate rounds chose to go with a lighter "22" caliber varmint round as opposed to going with a larger diameter, heavier round. Say a 6.5mm or 6.8mm....

Why do you suppose that is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top