Vaunted M4 & the 5.56mm need new Weapon & larger rounds 20% of Troops say.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BGutzman

New member
I know I have said that 5.56 is a poor battlefield round and I tried to tell about some of my experiences in combat without going into graphic detail.

Now the Army itself says its looking for something better and bigger.

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-looking-for-weapon-to-replace-m4.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

What do you think in light of this new Army provided insight to the battlefield performance of the M4 and the 5.56mm round?

Please Im not trying to hurt anyones feelings because they bought a 5.56 AR and spent a lot of time and money on it. I am trying to share what I feel could be a life saving point so lets not get too worked up about it.

(In the end if your happy with your weapons performance what else matters?)


Duplicate link deleted.
 
Last edited:
This same "news" article and topic pops up every few months. Nothing new and I strongly doubt anything will change any time soon.
 
IF(<--That's a BIG if) the military decided to change calibers, wouldn't it be easier to just go with a .308 WIN/7.62 mm AR?

The weapons training would all be the same that way.
 
I agree.. But given the uhhh concerns that all troops must be able to shoot it maybe a 6.8mm would be better. Im sure 99% of all troops could handle the 308. but then you get politics involved and you you end up with 5.56mm
 
The logistics really don't support a shift. The DoD has billions invested in the 5.56. Most troops do OK with it, and they do issue larger caliber arms to Designated Marksmen, snipers, and many machine-gunners.

Would something like 6.8mm be better? Probably...however, the DoD isn't about to spend billions upon billions to gain ballistic performance on the margins of most troops capabilities.
 
The military may have billions invested in widgets, it doesnt matter if the troops on the ground say it sucks, that message eventually gets home to there familys and friends who may well also be voters.

If money was the only concern we would still be out there in the dirt with no body armor, no up armored Hummers etc, etc.

Some generals do actually care and will put the welfare of troops over promotion.

I once remember a 4 star general who stopped a whole bunch (at least 20) of contractors and made them wait so he could spend 15 minutes being wth "his guys". I will never forget the man.

His guys were my troops and he talked with us as if he knew us his whole life.
 
Sure, the dollar isn't the only factor. What I am saying is the costs would be great and the benefits would be low to moderate. I don't think the military would go to such lengths to gain the advantages a 6.8 rifle would provide.
 
What I am saying is the costs would be great and the benefits would be low to moderate.
Click to expand...

The same could be said of body armor since it has little protective value against IED's and VBIED's and yet we have it.

Further I would say from a armchair it might not seem like a big difference but on the route from one place to another place or sweeping buildings it makes a big difference to morale when you get pinned down because your 5.56 bullets disappear into mud walls with little if any effect, even when you know the BG was directly behind the piece of mud wall you shot.

The value is in the morale boost and hopefully in the ability of the round to penetrate a trival obstacle and still have the desired effect.

If you loose confidence in your weapons ability to kill due to several real world battle experiences it makes you want to toss the crap in the dirt.

Yes, I didnt say that 5.56 cant kill, what I am saying it is far from the best and a new round of a larger cal would be welcome and a moral booster to many.
 
The U.S. military has been looking at alternate calibers for the M16/M4 platform for several years. Most of the action seems to have been in the 6.5mm to 6.8mm range.

One of these days they'll make a decision.

:popcorn:
 
1. Both of your links are the exact same article, written by the same person.

2. No new news in the article. The M4 replacement trials have been planned since 2009. The M4 upgrade started a bit earlier. M855A1 is also old news as is Mk317 SOST (which wasn't mentioned)

3. 5.56 is the STANAG caliber. That isn't going to change short of a major advantage. No traditional brass cased ammo is offering that kind of advantage. LSAT is probably the only real chance to change caliber and it isn't ready for the main stage yet.
 
First, the latest Army and Marine studies show that a large majority of combat riflemen have no problem with the M16/M4 rifles as currently issued.
This from the people actually doing the shooting and getting shot at.

Second, the military is ALWAYS testing a new rifle or pistol to see if it offers anything of major value. So far nothing is remarkably better then what we have.

Third, the military has made the decision to stay with the 5.56 M16/M4 series until a break through in weapons development happens. Simply put, no new rifle offers enough benefit to justify spending the billions to develop what is essentially the same thing we have with a few tweaks.

Every month or so, you'll continue to see these breathless reports that the military is "looking at" a new rifle or pistol, and that the troops absolutely hate what we are using.
 
I understand that our troops are running into more and more bad guys with body armor.

So, is the .223 out of a M4 barrel good against body armor?
 
Never got to try it on any from a M4... I dont know but I would suspect poor performance, absolutely would not penetrate the ceramic plates.
 
Last edited:
long time

The M16 and derivatives have been the nations rifle for some time, like 40 years, longer than any other service rifle. It makes sense that we begin searching for an upgrade. I would think the process would be ongoing at this point.

The 5.56/.223 round has been shrouded in controversy since its adoption, and faster twist rates, shorter barrel lengths and heavier bullets have not improved on its performance in terms of stopping power, if I follow things correctly. All those mods led to lower velocity and more stable bullets, not optimal.

I expect we will see a new weapon and ctg in the future, but not while still engaged in the middle east.
 
larger rounds 20% of Troops say
Click to expand...

and

the latest Army and Marine studies show that a large majority of combat riflemen have no problem with the M16/M4 rifles as currently issued.
Click to expand...

ref the second quote, the study I read, if I remember right somewhere near 80% of the end users (that being grunts) are satisfied with the M16/M4 system.

Do the Math.

But in reality it's MOX NIX, you don't change a system or round in the middle of two wars.

Added to that, this country is broke, you have every agency (including the DOD) fighting for every dollar they can get.

All this 308 vs 223 BS is based on Internet Gossip, not really from combatants, I'm talking Infantry, not soldiers per se. This reminds me of an interesting article I've read.

the Afghan commandos have M4s because they can appreciate marksmanship, having been practically born and bread with an AK in their hand. He also noted that the Iraqis, on the other hand, have little appreciation for marksmanship and often fought to keep their AKs
Click to expand...

Even the Afghans, (who are not know for their marksmanship abilities) are starting to understand the value of Marksmanship, and the M4/5.56 provides that Marksmanship Abilities.

Linky:

http://kitup.military.com/2010/04/the-myth-of-afghan-marksmanship.html

Internet gossip notwithstanding, I don't see the Military making any big changes in their rifles or cartridges any time soon.
 
I was never much of a supporter for the Mattel Toy. I did like the ease of opperation but I wasnt thrilled with the weak cartridge, the plastic, and the fact that they couldnt take much abuse (compared to garrand and M14).

It has always been my belief that switching to 7.62x51 with a proper muzzle break would have made the rifle much more effective.

BTW I did use both the M14 and M16 in combat and was able to see the difference between the two ctgs.
 
DoD is looking for a new style platform of rifle. Will they change the round? IDK. If they do I think it would be the 6.8 mm. If they did switch to that round I think it would be a nice choice.

Edit: Typo
 
Last edited:
I am sure that as soon as the military can come up with a larger caliber with more power and better terminal performance that weighs less and takes up less space, they will move to it quite happily.
 
Unless you want to go to 7.62x51mm and issue everyone a SCAR-H you'll be looking at marginal terminal performance (if any) increase over 5.56 and probably inferior external ballistics. Switching to 6.8 would not be much of an improvement if any and the idea that we should do it is, frankly, stupid. If someone had a problem putting a bad guy down with his 5.56 he'd have had the same problem with 6.8SPC - that he didn't shoot the guy in the right place or enough times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top