XM8 VS. M16/M4 and 5.56 VS. 6.8SPC what's next...?

If one follows the link to Fackler from the AR-15.com Ammo Oracle, one will read that both the temporary and permanent wounds from the West German 7.62NATO Ball are 60% larger than those from the 5.56M193 Ball.

If you put the numbers through a calculator, you will see that a 7.62 ball round can exit a target at 100 yards at nearly 2000 FPS after depositing as much energy in the target as the 5.56 ball has at that range.

I like the AR and I like the .223 but I have serious doubts that it causes more grievous wounds than a .308. If the .223 is as effective as some would have us believe, why are we issuing the M262 77gr ammo? Why are we experimenting with the 6.8? Why has SOCOM specified the 7.62 option for the SCAR? Why is the M14 being redeployed?

Drue
 
Okay, first off, there is nothing in the rules of war that would restict the United States military from using any sort of ammunition it deemed necessary. If the military wanted to give Hornady a contract to make the 110 gr TAP the standard infantry ammunition, then the extent of US involvement in the Hague Accords would allow this.
Secondly, from similar barrel lengths the 110 grain 7.62mm and the 62 gr 5.56mm have similar velocities. A thin jacket can cause the 7.62mm to break in half around the cannelure much like the M193 and if this be the case then the 7.62's advantage in penetration is still a good thing.
Thirdly, yes, we shoot deer and elk and sheep and bear. And we do it with guns bigger than .22 caliber because you eventually come to realize that even with expanding ammunition, the smaller calibers can't match the ballistics of the bigger calibers. Opening up an animal's chest cavity and seeing the extent of the difference is sobering. If you want to knock something's dick in the dirt and keep it there for good, it is a good idea to have enough gun for the job. Does that mean I advocate giving soldiers bolt action 7 Mags like I take into the field? No. They won't be expected to drop a 600 pound bull elk. But the respective rounds are used in their respective commercial fields for a reason. The .223 is a coyote cartridge, the .308 is an excellent deer cartridge. You can get the job done on deer with the .223 but it requires far more things to go absolutely right for you. Hunters use the .308 over the .223 on deer sized game because it is their responsiblity to assure as quick and humane of a kill as is possible. In combat, a quick kill simply means that much less time the enemy is combat effective. People can accuse me of being overly optimistic towards bigger calibers and expecting enemies to go down in a single round. But if you ask me, erroring on the side of caution is a good thing, and going into the field with a cartridge designed to drop the enemy with a single shot sounds alot better to me than relying on having 200 more rounds behind the first. So once again, if given a choice between 120 or 150 .30 caliber rounds or twice as many .22 caliber rounds, I am going to pick the .30 caliber rounds because I have been studying the effect of bullets on living tissue my entire life. If having less ammunition means I actually have to aim my rifle, well, God-forbid, that's a sacrifice I am willing to take.
 
Slow aimed fire, heavy calibers and not wasting ammunition. Three concepts that the US has been slogging on with since the beginning. They didn't work during the Civil War, they didn't work in WWI and yet they are still hanging with us because too many people believe that war is more like elk hunting.


But in the real world icky concepts like "suppressive fire" and "fully automatic fire" actually are the norm, and effective. Over and over, soldiers have demonstrated that they are more effective if they don't have to always line up a semiauto shot. Shooting around a corners or over walls end up being more effective than waiting for someone to bravely stick their rifle and head out into the open.

Soldiers carry lots of ammunition because alot of it gets wasted doing things that don't immediately kill, but do win wars.
 
So the creed that every Marine is a rifleman is only true until the Marine is in combat and then those protrusions from the top of the rifle become irrelevent to the more useful tactic of just spraying rounds in the general direction of the enemy? Gotcha.
 
Hey, Jailbird!

Yeah, I've shot the M-1, (Garand and carbine) M-14 and M-16. I've also shot the M-60 and the M-2! I was issued an M-1 carbine for 4 years. (Probably before you were born!)

Don't assume someone has no experience just because he doesn't agree with the gun magazine crap you accept as gospel.

Mtmilitiaman,

You're probably about the age of my grandson if you're at MSU. You're gonna be amazed at how much smarter your parents, and other "old people get as you mature.
 
So the creed that every Marine is a rifleman is only true until the Marine is in combat and then those protrusions from the top of the rifle become irrelevent to the more useful tactic of just spraying rounds in the general direction of the enemy? Gotcha.
Click to expand...
Hooray for pointless sarcasm.

How many rounds from a machine gun do you think actually hit?

The things are used as much/more for suppressive fire as for actually killing things.

You can do it like the old days, where the squad is mainly bolt-action or semiautomatic rifles, maybe one or two submachine guns, and a machine gun. Or you can do it the modern way with assault rifles for everyone.

They can lay down their own suppressive fire as they go, and when they have a shot of opportunity, they can zero in and take someone out with a few well-placed rounds.

So yeah, in combat, every Marine is a rifleman when he has a shot. The rest of the time, every Marine is trying to keep himself and his fire team alive.
 
okay, first off cheygriz, i was asking an honest question. the reason i asked is cause every post you've made on this thread has lacked substance and true factual information. I've yet to take a cheap shot at you, and would ask that you not hijack this thread with anymore crap like that....

that being said. i'm only 26, and have fired both rounds. So has my dad. My dad trained with a m1a while in bct ages ago, was issued the m1a, m14, and m16 throughout his career. he has also had a chance to fire captured ak47s. care to take a guess he thought was the most effective weapon / ammunition fired?

and i tend to agree with him....

that was my last personal shot....
 
MT,

I thought the Marines issued machineguns, assault rifles, grenade launchers and shotguns.

Please explain how a "rifleman" properly utilizes a shotgun.
 
To everyone who thinks that the assault rifle in .223 is the best all around weapon for everything.

"When your only tool is a Hammer, every problem looks like a Nail"

A surgon has a microscalpel for small blood vessles and nerves. He also has a bone saw, a multitude of drills and bits, (many bigger than you want to know about :eek: ) and clamps. Heck, they even have a hammer to get the rib cage open in a hurry.

Most of the time you use the scalpel, you only use the hammer when you REALLY need it. The problem I see is that we are using a microscalpel (5.56) when what would get the job done best is a plain scalpel (6.8SPC). The large scalpel (7.62x51) has its place and can get a job done quite effectively. However there are times when the large scalpel is too large and unwieldly to be effectivly used. Thus the surgon has a variety of tools at his disposal to deal with problems as they arise.

When you try to build a tool to do everything well, you get a tool that does nothing well.
 
Come on guys read a little history. The M-16 was never meant to be a Main Battle Rifle. It is an assualt weapon. After WW II and Korea the armed forces looked at what took place in actual combat. They found most battle took place within 300 meters. Most less than 100 meters. It was decided that for the ranges of actual combat the heavy Main Battle Rifle and it's large round was not needed. The requirements for the M-16 as far as terinal effects were that it be more effective than the M-1 carbine out to these ranges. A light gun, that was effective out to 300 meters, that could be contolled in full auto fire. This is avery brief description of the history of the M-16. The original models after teething problems were worked out performed to the specs designated for this assualt weapon. The concept was evidently valid because every nation in the world including Russia who once used the 7.62X39 roud that some think is so great went to their own version of a small bore high velocity round. No major armed forces still use the 7.62x51 as standard issue. The problem as others have stated came when they took a weapon that was originally designed to replace pistols for artillerymen, helicopter cewmwmbers, tankers and so on and n the army anyways are trying to make it standard issue. Then they
bought into the NATO standard round round that had to penetrate a steel helmet beyond the range the .223 was supposed to be effective. It's a cluster, well you know the rest. Now just like the Soviets we find ourselves in Afghanistan and Iraq where engagement distance are beyond what a full sized M-16 was designed for. The Soviets soon learned to augment their AK-74's with lots of designated marksmen with Druganov's when long range shots were called for. Guess what? We are following their example by augmenting our troops with lots of designated marksmen with scoped M-14's because these weapons were designed to be effective out to 600 yards and beyond. A good mix of .308 and .223. With a good bullet the (like the 77 gr. OTM) even the M-4 with good shot placement does the job. Their are numerous reports of SCAR armed (in .223 with the OTM rounds) Special Forces sending lots of the Jihadists on there way to wherever they are going. In fact in one instances recetly reported two S.F.'s types with SCARS covered their brothers in arms retreat against 100 Jihadists. When the shooting was done 93 of these bad guys were dead. SO don't say the .223 doesn't work. The caveat is that it orks well out to 300 meters (although farther kills have been reported). I think you will see we wll continue to have a mix of .308 and .223 for some time to come. With good shot placement the .223 works within its design parameters. It is a better general issue weapon. But when needed have plenty of .308's also for those long shots that Main Battle Rifles were made for. No matter how hard the armed forces may try one size does not fit all.
 
Okay, I realize that having not been in combat I can't imagine what it is really like. But I just have a hard time imaging that I have to a) hump this ammo over that mountain, b) this ammo and its ability to function in my rifle is the only thing keeping me alive, and c) I am going to spray it needlessly into the wind instead of ultilizing it as efficiently as possible.
My grandpa was in Korea. He humped the Garand and the BAR on patrols. These weapons weigh over 10 and 20 pounds respectively and you can't carry near as much ammo as you can in the 5.56mm, but my grandpa and those he served with remember these weapons fondly and never ran out of ammo. Why? They aimed most of their shots and when the larger round connected, it tended to kill the enemy and do it fast. Reliable and rugged rifles that save the asses of the people who carry them tend to earn a place in their hearts, regardless of their weight or the weight of their ammo.
Surpressive fire is and probably always will be a necessary evil of modern warfare. I realize you can't aim every shot. But when you have more surpressive fire than aimed rifle fire...that just strikes me as somehow...inefficent. Even if it is effective.
And all this is beside my main point. Even if the 5.56mm gets the job done, I am sure there is relatively few people who think it is the best option available. If anyone can provide a good reason why the 6.8 isn't better, I'd like to hear it. Yes, it may not be quite as controllable as the 5.56 and you can't carry quite as much ammo, but Jesus Christ people, if these things matter that much, then we should be looking into .17 caliber rimfires. Hell, they fragment and tumble...
Anyways, I am done here. I realize I don't have experience in the matter where it matters most. If you people really like your M16s and .223s, you can have them. Me, I can't imagine ever volunatirely trusting my life to such instruments and though I plan on military service in the near future, I also plan on doing everything in my power to end up with something "mo-bigga" than the .223 and more reliable than the M16.
 
Yes, it may not be quite as controllable as the 5.56 and you can't carry quite as much ammo, but Jesus Christ people, if these things matter that much, then we should be looking into .17 caliber rimfires.
Click to expand...
That's about the 4.7mm caliber the G11 fired. West Germany was a hair's breath from adopting this rifle - the cost of reunification stopped it. We also did extensive testing of the same - and didn't adopt because it didn't increase hits by the 100% goal. Had that been demonstrated - that's likely what our troops would be carrying.

Why didn't it demonstrate 100% improvement? Because the M16A2 is so good. Had it been matched against the M14 it would have. (The Germans were going to go directly from the .308 G3 to the G11.)
 
i probably should have thrown this one out there earlier. if the military wants to have a weapon that is only effective, let's say out to 100m, then why not go with a carbine? like the berretta storm, or the walther g3. hell then they could carry all the ammo they would want.....
 
I've read account after account of US soldier's in the middle east using captured ak47s while on patrol, and some of the special forces guys using them strictly all together.

Personally i think that they (and some law enforcement personell are) should look at a .308 variant. like armalite's ar10 series. Hell even the .300 featured in this month's special weapons for military and law enforcement would be a good canadate.

5.56 just doesn't have the ballistics that they are looking for out of a 14-16 inch barrel.
Click to expand...

Why would they drop the m16 and pick up an AK? What is wrong with their rifle?


EDIT: just read the distance thing. Is the M14 the best we have for longer range main battle rifle??? Wow, that is old technology.
 
there wasn't "anything wrong" with thier issued weapons, it's just that the ak47 is that much better of a weapon. the 7.62 will punch through just about anything hajie has built over there, and can be fired under any conditions.
 
there wasn't "anything wrong" with thier issued weapons, it's just that the ak47 is that much better of a weapon.
Click to expand...

If they are dropping their weapons then there is something wrong. Tell me what a AK47 can do that makes the soldiers want to drop their m16.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top