Your Military round is ??

6.5 Grendel - all the way

I like the idea of switching all 7.62 and 5.56 guns to 6.5 Grendels.

You would lose some carrying capacity on the 5.56 switch but you would gain some on the 7.62 switch. And you'd have interchangeable ammo, for everything.
 
I like the idea of switching all 7.62 and 5.56 guns to 6.5 Grendels.
Click to expand...
But if you are going with a new gun then you wouldn't go with the 6.5 Grendel, you would go with a longer, more slender cartridge that replicated 6.5 ballistics.
 
I would use depleted uranium frangible .30+ bullets that start fires inside the people they hit and deliver a virus that re-animates their corpses into undead soldiers in my ever expanding army.
 
I would use depleted uranium frangible .30+ bullets that start fires inside the people they hit and deliver a virus that re-animates their corpses into undead soldiers in my ever expanding army.
Click to expand...


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA:D

You win.... just like Charlie Sheen.
 
Dobe:

I was never in the infantry etc, and never really touched a gun in the AFRES/ANG (no rifles at all in the 80s), but with vast heaps of 5.56 ammo available, was this a serious factor in the decision of many countries to adopt the AR-style rifles (Sig-Sauer, Korean etc)?

Although this is not quite related to the overall subject, you might enjoy this:

Three guys who work for an overnight express company invested in about 750,000 rds. of 5.56 years ago, and had discussions with the Israeli Defense Forces.
Negotiations broke down after a while, reportedly (described to me by their coworker) because the Defense Forces were not able to understand or trust who the sellers really were etc.
 
Last edited:
223 ackley improved. basically 22-250 ballistics but without the weight, powder charge and muzzle blast.

full power cartridges are useless if you can't hit anything and markmanship at a range is one thing, but quite another when you're mixing it with running and ducking for cover and instructing troops and trying to achieve some other objective. The number of total shots fired determines the number of hits to a large extent

the 223 AI would provide greater range and power, without the weight and recoil of a full bore round.
 
IMO what I think would be best,
Service Pistol,357Sig(will never happen)
Infantry Rifle 6.8(piston upper M4,M16)
Long Range Rife 7.62Nato
 
>>The fmj 9mm is a very poor man stopper. I can't believe it is the military's sidearm caliber.

I'm not sure what caliber you would like to see the military use for side arms but in general small caliber high velocity bullets are more effective against body armor. Of course this topic has been beaten to death already on here but in close quarters combat, side arm range, rate of fire is generally the determining factor which is usually easier to obtain in a smaller caliber. 9mm, .40 (10mm), and .45 all create more than adequate wound channels that aren't really all that dissimilar.

BTW - Personally, I enjoy shooting .45. ;)
 
I was never in the infantry etc, and never really touched a gun in the AFRES/ANG (no rifles at all in the 80s), but with vast heaps of 5.56 ammo available, was this a serious factor in the decision of many countries to adopt the AR-style rifles (Sig-Sauer, Korean etc)?
Click to expand...
No, not really. China and Russa both have gone to smaller calibers. Also, the abundance of 5.56 ammo is due to the adoption of this round, not the other way around.

The 5.56 has proven itself in many theaters. The U.S. is augmenting this selection with 7.62 in the appropriate circumstances, but the 5.56 is here to stay.

SR420,
For a 7.62 selection, mine would be the SCAR 17.
For a handgun, the HK45, but I don't see the U.S. readopting the .45 ACP either.
 
Last edited:
Dobe


SR420,
For a 7.62 selection, mine would be the SCAR 17.
For a handgun, the HK45, but I don't see the U.S. readopting the .45 ACP either.
Click to expand...

The SCAR 17 is an interesting rifle, but I'll wait until it has been in use for a few more years before I consider owning one.

Readopting the .45 ACP would be a good move, but I agree that it probably won't happen.
 
The SCAR 17 is an interesting rifle, but I'll wait until it has been in use for a few more years before I consider owning one.
Click to expand...
The U.S. military isn't waiting. This seems to be a hot item for them. I picked up a SCAR 16S, and I'm looking for the 17 (at a reasonable price). The magazines for the 17 have been a little difficult to get at one time, but it seems FN is starting to manufacture more and meet the demand.

The SCARS are very nice rifles.
 
750,000 of 5.56 doesn't really sound like all that much. What do you suppose the basic load of an infantry battalion is? There has to be at least 200,000 rounds on the person (in magazines) in a battalion to begin with.
 
Last edited:
As a retired Ordnance Officer, I had the oppurtunity to talk to the decision makers concerning the decision to replace the 1911 in 45.

The 9mm was selected in order to keep the 5.56 as the standard NATO Rifle round.

It cost a lot less to replace the 45 than it would have to replace the 5.56.

The 5.56, thanks to the Marine Corps, has just about reached its limits. It does not have the capacity to handle the smart rounds which will be included in the next generation of Main Battle rifles.

I think the 5.56 will be replaced with a caseles smart round in the 6mm to 6.5 mm range.

Ballisticly I think it will be equiveleant to the 243 or 6mm Remington.

The rifle will include a grenade launcher in the 20 to 35 mm range. This round will be a smart dual purpose round. The dual purpose feature will incude a self forging fragment for penetrating armor and a crow type fragmentation for antipersonnel. Zirconium would be a good addition for defeating material but will probably be deleted over cost of production.
 
>>The 9mm was selected in order to keep the 5.56 as the standard NATO Rifle round.

The US Army starting looking to replace the .45ACP with the 9mm circa 1947 long before the 5.56 was even conceived.
 
The 9mm was selected in order to keep the 5.56 as the standard NATO Rifle round.
Click to expand...
No, it was adapted so that all of NATO countries would cripple their rifles with the AR magazine.

The Beretta was adopted to get political favors from Italy.

/Gotta keep the political moves straight.
 
Sig 550 chambered in 7MM-08

10MM for anybody who can handle it, 45 ACP for those who can't, 9MM for rear echelon types who can't handle a 45. If they can't handle a 45 they are rear echelon types.
 
Stick with the 5.56.

The issue is not the caliber is the bullet.

The seals and SF units use a brown tip 5.56 optimized. It uses the Barnes 70gr TSX. its an actually a .224, It is an expandable round so it works reliably down to 1800fps(the 200yrd mark out of a 10.5" barrel).

When it hits it goes in as a .224 but expands to a .50, it causes severe permanent tissue damage according to ballistic charts and gel tests by the great doc. Roberts

Im actually surprised at the lack of ballistic knowledge of the 5.56.

The standard issue M855 was designed as an MG round to punch trogh soviet helmets, we just use it still cause we have so much.

Theres a reason seals still use the 5.56
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top