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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Never personally had issues with the M4 or 5.56 performance, nor do I know many guys in combat arms (and none in the SOF unit I served in from 04-08) who had complaints.

That said, part of that may stem from realistic expectations of performance -- I don't expect my issue long gun to shoot through mud brick walls that soak up .50 cal, Dishka and even occasionally Russian 14.5mm hits. If the leadership/tactical ability wasn't there to put effective fire on those targets that's a training issue, not a tech issue.
 
Kraig -

I'm talking Infantry, not soldiers per se
Click to expand...

The current Army or at least the one I was a member of 3+ years ago has more service and support troops being engaged than infantry.

Terrorist see our supply trains as a weakness, so in the end non infantry, rangers end up seeing more IEDs and combat than line troops.

You have no say over when a IED is going to go off and you are forced by the situation to do a forced entry in order to take up a better more defensible position or simply because the urban terrain and the volume of fire dictates there are no other choices.

We always tried to use speed as a defense and it works pretty well but the situation is fluid. The second thing to keep in mind is the terrorist have learned at some great cost that fighting our line units is expensive so they as a generalized statement of my experience seem to avoid them unless there trying to ambush them with some fairly well thought out trap. The exception is there are always those that want a dirt nap a little sooner because they have whatever belief that drives them to a kind of suicide by troop.

Supply convoys on the other hand still have well trained and well armed troops but life happens, vehicles break, IEDs go off, animals and children get in the way.

Lastly in regards to (80%) of the troops are not complaining. Just because 80% of the troops didnt write a letter or whatever complaining doesnt mean they arent unhappy with 5.56mm. How much of the US population overall votes on anything? Its the same thing in the military, 20% is a pretty significant number when you realize how much it takes to get some people to even take a stance.

Further not all troops ever end up under enemy fire or are even allowed ammunition to respond to fire depending on the local command. The saying we had was its better you die then end up doing something on the news but thats for a different conversation.
 
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?
Click to expand...

A 5.56 will penetrate any soft body armor on the market...

If the bad guys have things like Level IIIa and Level IV with rifle trauma plates then it typically requires a round larger than 7.62x51 to penetrate.

So yes, 5.56 will take down a combatant wearing standard Level IIIa and lower body armor.
 
Lastly in regards to (80%) of the troops are not complaining. Just because 80% of the troops didnt write a letter or whatever complaining doesnt mean they arent unhappy with 5.56mm. How much of the US population overall votes on anything? Its the same thing in the military, 20% is a pretty significant number when you realize how much it takes to get some people to even take a stance.
Click to expand...

The above is just all wrong. It has nothing to do with people writing letters or whatever.

The figure is from the CNA weapons study. Methodology for the study was to randomly draw a sample population from recently deployed soldiers in several different unit (all army components were represented) and then administer the full survey to soldiers who had been in at least one firefight on their last deployment where they employed a standard individual weapon (M16, M4, M9, SAW). About 2600 soldiers were surveyed and 20% stated they wanted greater lethality from the M4 (and 11% were unsatisfied with it -- making it the most popular weapon of the four looked at in the survey).

Saying that the other 80% really felt the same way but did not say anything is disingenuous. Every effort was made to get honest information from the participants and prevent there being any chilling effect.

One thing the survey did not assess for is if there was a correlation between calls for greater lethality with the four weapons involved and level of proficiency with the weapon. What they did determine was that better shooters (as measured by qual course performance) and prior experience using the weapon in theater or a similar environment yielded greater levels of confidence in the weapon system involved (M4 or otherwise).
 
It has always been my belief that switching to 7.62x51 with a proper muzzle break would have made the rifle much more effective.
Click to expand...

Really??? You want to have guys to your left and right, and your rifle firing multiple .308 rounds with a MUZZLE BRAKE and no one is wearing hearing protection???

so in the end non infantry, rangers end up seeing more IEDs and combat than line troops.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they are not as well trained in combat ops, so they may have questions/concerns about 5.56 that someone who is more highly trained does not.
 
I know that I will get a lot of flak for mentioning this because of the love for the 6.8, but I really don't think that it deserves to be the military's next main cartridge. I personally believe that it is a great breach gun. It serves close quarter combat purposes perfectly. What it will not do (with fmj ammo) is meet the 2000 feet accuracy test. Because of the low BC FMJ bullets in the 6.8 it most likely wont reach out to 666 yards (2000 feet) before it goes subsonic. If by chance it does reach out that far it won't have much remaining energy. If our military only fought in Iraq, the 6.8 would be pretty close to perfect. However, because we have to fight in areas like Iraq as well as the long range engagements of Afganistan we need something that can do short range as well as long range. The 7.62 is an obvious choice because it can do both just fine. However, it is large, heavy, and may over penetrate indoors. It would be ideal but my opinion is that it is impractical. I personally have no problem with sticking with the .223 other than it really isn't a great long range caliber either. Though it can reach out there it doesn't really carry any energy with it because of its light bullets. I personally think that the 6.5 Grendel would meet close range, long range, and lethality requirements but I seriously doubt that the government will ever accept it as their choice so my guess is that the new platform will be stuck at .223 and it will be adopted for a few months and then abandoned because it isn't that much better to justify the cost of changing over. Oh wait, thats what happened to the SCAR. In other words, it ain't gonna happen.
 
I was not preparing a doctorial thesis, Im reading an article and relating it to my own experience.

If you believe whatever hay thats fine, if factually your correct on the basis of how the information was gather thats fine too.

However dont think for one minute that the military has ever done a review without some slant given to it to support the prevailing political winds and political correctness.

But for the sake of this conversation lets assume its unimpeachable written in stone verifiable fact.


The fact remains that not all those troops surveyed have 20+ years of experience, the fact remains that many of these troops may never have fired a round in anger or even have been allowed to have rounds due to political considerations.

If 5.56mm is the end all, be all for you great, enjoy. If your heading to Afganistan and you get some real world experience you may or may not end up agreeing with me but I tend to think the first couple of engagments and youll probably see things differently.

All I know is when I should have dropped the BG on two occasions I didn't and not because I failed but because the round failed and because of that I have no use for a round that cannot as a general rule penetrate a thin mud wall.
 
If 5.56mm is the end all, be all for you great, enjoy. If your heading to Afganistan and you get some real world experience you may or may not end up agreeing with me but I tend to think the first couple of engagments and youll probably see things differently.
Click to expand...

First, I do have real world experience with the 223/5.56. I used it in combat as and infantryman in SE Asia (2/502st Inf 101st Abn, '67-68).

I used it (in a bolt gun) as a LE Counter-Sniper, I've taught Sniper Schools using the 223 (for LE), instructed SWAT Teams (we called them CIRT), using the 223. I've shot competition with the 223/5.56 (High Powder including 1000 yard matches).

I feel the short comings (light bullets) have been addressed, as well as the sights on the M16 systems (better adjustable sights on the post M16A1).

In my 20 years in LE and 25 years in the military (RA & NG) I've had quite of bit of interaction with soldiers and police officers regarding the 223/5.56. The consensus is, its a good, reliable and effective weapon.

I'm presently in the process of being hired as a police mentor in Afghan (assuming I don't blow the medical) in which along with the M9 (Beretta) I will be carrying the M-4. Based on my 44 years using the 223/5/56 I do not feel I will be under-gunned.
 
Kraig -

First thank you for your service.

Second being a sniper means in general your set up in some area even if only very briefly and I know your not using the M4 for sniper duty and you didnt claim to either.

I can speak for guard or reserve or anyone but myself and a small collection of current AD and a few retirees and the people I have met in my duties.

I am relating my experience and my absolute disgust that I feel let down by this round in the theater of combat I was in. I want our guy to have the best and I am tired of people accepting 5.56 as some sort of death ray laser because it is shot out of a military AR. - its hogwash.

I am sure we can line people up on bith sides of the fence and have a nice disagreement and settle little.

The bottom line for me is two BGs should have been dropped and stopped and someone else might have to pay the price because of the actual performance of the round when I shot it at the time I shot it.

I wasnt in Vietnam so I have no leg to speak from but I would think that you probably had some people who wanted a M14 and not a M16 because of the larger round size.

I appologize for assuming you had no real world experience and offer you a virtual cup of coffee by way of appology.

When you get to Afganistan if you need anything look me up here and I will see what I can do to make it happen for you... I still have friends over there and I can do whatever I can do.

:)
 
The fact remains that not all those troops surveyed have 20+ years of experience, the fact remains that many of these troops may never have fired a round in anger or even have been allowed to have rounds due to political considerations.
Click to expand...

Only soldiers who had participated in at least one firefight with an M4, M16, M9 or SAW during their last deployment were eligible for the survey.

As far as time in service, most soldiers surveyed (61%) had between 1-5 years in uniform. Nineteen percent had 11-20+ years in service.

One issue with the methodology was that soldiers interviewed were only from Big Army -- quantified differences in perspective with SOF units would have been interesting.
 
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.
Click to expand...
The Army recently announced new trials to replace the M4.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/01/army-carbine-competition-details-released-021411w/

That's not to say the M4 won't win this latest competition, but it will face some stiff competition from the SCAR and ACR and even the Colt CM901.

The M4A1's evolution will continue while these trials are ongoing. After a winner is selected, then the brass will decide if the M4 will remain in service or if it will be replaced by the winner of the trials.

So there's no concrete commitment to the M4 and the Army is actively looking to replace it if they find a suitable replacement.
 
But kraigwy, That's not what the internet says!

First off, I get that you were a soilder, and then a sniper, and then a cop, and will soon be returning to training others, but you only have 4500ish posts... where are your internet credentials. :D

On a more serious note. I have found Mr Stuart's posts to be well thought out and often times very informative. Though the respect from some random poster on the internet means next to nothing, Mr Stuart has earned mine.

From the Military Times Article:
An Army-commissioned study released in 2006 by the Center for Naval Analyses said 20 percent of soldiers recommended a larger bullet to increase lethality.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the above quote indicate that 80% of soilders DIDN'T reccomend a larger caliber? And since when is 20% considered a majority? And I highly doubt that the study asked EVERY soilder, therefore the above should read: "20% of Solders POLLED".

From Post #22 (written by BGutzman)
Lastly in regards to (80%) of the troops are not complaining. Just because 80% of the troops didnt write a letter or whatever complaining doesnt mean they arent unhappy with 5.56mm. How much of the US population overall votes on anything? Its the same thing in the military, 20% is a pretty significant number when you realize how much it takes to get some people to even take a stance.
Click to expand...
Just as above, the numbers of soilders satisfied came from a study where soilders were polled. The 20% is not the percentage of the military that complained to congress critters, but rather 20% of the polled soilders.

I believe that the 20% cited comes from table 2 (page 16 of 50) from the Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat Study performed by the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA).
 
As noted by .22l, 80% don't think they need a change and that's a commanding majority. You'll never have 100% agreement on anything, and getting 80% to agree that the 5.56mm is adequate is impressive.

Now, if the survey showed that 80% thought the 5.56mm lacked in lethality that would be news worthy.

20%, not so much.
 
Last edited:
It's time for a change to a more potent round than the 223. The longer it takes to put someone down, the more time there is for that someone or someone else to put you down. When they transitioned us (USMC) from the M14 to the M16, I was honestly happy to have a lighter weapon, but I had serious doubts about the effectiveness of the round. Now that the same wimpy round is being shot out of shorter barrels, it's even less effective than it was before. My opinion would be to have something that at minimum could move a 100 to 120 grain bullet at least at 2800 fps. That sounds like a 260 Remington or a 6.5 Swede. Great range and ballistic coefficient and it wouldn't kick much, so the city boys and ladies would be able to handle it.
 
I'm sure there have been rare times when the 223 round failed and the 308 would have done better. But has anyone ever bothered to calculate how many lives would have been lost by staying with the 308 because soldiers ran out of ammo. Or because they could not shoot it as well.

I'd say the 223 round has saved more soldiers lives than it has cost. There are tradeoff's with everything. Let's just issue 50BMG rifles to all the troops.
 
Lets look at it another way:

Anyone who had done any hunting what so ever, knows that an animal hit, even in the heart-lung area are instantly put down. Normally when hit in that area, they hump up and then run 20+ to even 100 yards or further.

That's regardless of the caliber used.

Fairbairn address this regarding handguns in his book "Shooting To Live", based on his involvement in 600+ shootings.

Personally I would rather see the funds that would other wise be spent on choosing another weapon or ammo, deverted to better marksmanship training.
 
Anyone who had done any hunting what so ever, knows that an animal hit, even in the heart-lung area are instantly put down. Normally when hit in that area, they hump up and then run 20+ to even 100 yards or further.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it would be nice for the round to survive impacting a poorly put together mud brick wall.
 
I don't know about the 6.5 Swede in action (if it saw any) but I know both the Italians and the Japanese found their 6.5MM rounds wanting, especially for machine gun use. They developed larger rounds-7.35 Carcano, 7.7 Japanese, but the pressures of wartime kept them from fully implementing a changeover. I confess I haven't followed the development of the 6.8 at all, but it seems to me historically that 7MM-7MM Mauser, e.g, is as small as you can go in bore diameter and still have an effective all around cartridge. And having been a front line soldier I give great credence to others who are and listen to them carefully.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top