5.56 becoming obsolete

#101
sinister said:
Of course every infantryman since rifles were issued demands a weapon heavier, longer, bulkier, and harder recoiling than he has.

359f02a646b4beeea56c64168bc98508.jpg
18398820256_f030486d4e_o%20%281%29%20%281%29.jpg
Textron-promo-vid-rifle-1-660x393.png
screen-shot-2020-10-29-at-41744-pm.png
Click to expand...
As an infantryman's combat load out gets heavier and heavier, the weapon becomes an increasingly smaller portion of that weight. That means that the added weight of a heavier weapon is less significant, right? "You're carrying 100 lbs of stuff? Why are you complaining about a 1lb heavier rifle, and 2 more lbs of ammo?" :unsure:








(The above is satire)
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Twinsen, bfoosh006 and sinister
#105
Aftermath said:
You are hitting all around the nail.
There is most definitely going to be a change of caliber, and it will most definitely cost the US taxpayer even more billions of dollars.
If the US taxpayer is not on the hook for ever more billions of dollars, how can any good, self-serving politician ever make themselves, family and friends wealthy in just one short term in office?
Click to expand...
Defense industry isn’t even in the top 20 of the highest revenue industries in the US, so most politicians don’t get into office from it, and scrutiny is extremely biased against defense in D.C..

Retirement and pension plans, Pharmaceuticals, energy, auto, insurance, finance, etc. are what put puppets into office in Congress, with defense taking a place mainly when partnered with the airline industry (Current House Armed Services Committee Chairman, Adam Smith of Seattle/Boeing). The latest General to get mired in that type of scandal was General Mattis with his board membership on Theranos, which was the scam diagnostics company run by that chic who thought she was Steve Jobs. Theranos was seeking to revolutionize blood diagnostics with simple finger pricks, and Mattis was on the board to advocate for military adoption.

Officers and enlisted are expressly prohibited by law from serving in capacities related to their field of work/Career management field within several years of ETS or retirement, where the company or products could be used in their former jobs.

No such laws seem to exist for pharmaceuticals and CDC, where CEOs and Directors pass between both top positions as a rule, with no coverage of this in any of the presstitute media (who are owned by parent companies populated by Chief Executives from Pharmaceuticals, Insurance, Banking, Pensions, etc.).

Defense gets taken to the whipping post in the media, while being the most scrutinized sector with oversight from Congress, while all these other massive industries skate by without much of a mention.

Small arms are one of the tiniest segments of the DoD budget, lost in the accounting analysis if you care to look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bfoosh006 and RUTGERS95
#106
roostercogburn98 said:
Lest not we leave out this winner
View attachment 7794818
Click to expand...
One of our Sister Scout Platoons in 1st Brigade of 25th at Lewis tested those out. The grapevine info that I heard was that one of them experienced a detonation inside the weapon, resulting in injury or death. Those of us who were in Corps LRSC got dished out to the 3 Recon Platoons in 1st Brigade, so we compared notes when we ran into each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roostercogburn98
#107
LRRPF52 said:
One of our Sister Scout Platoons in 1st Brigade of 25th at Lewis tested those out. The grapevine info that I heard was that one of them experienced a detonation inside the weapon, resulting in injury or death. Those of us who were in Corps LRSC got dished out to the 3 Recon Platoons in 1st Brigade, so we compared notes when we ran into each other.
Click to expand...
Played with the OG prototype when I was stationed at Benning. Didn’t get to shoot it, but had a buddy who was on the small arms development team there. Thing was stupid heavy and awkward
 
#108
LRRPF52 said:
The grapevine info that I heard was that one of them experienced a detonation inside the weapon, resulting in injury or death. Those of us who were in Corps LRSC got dished out to the 3 Recon Platoons in 1st Brigade, so we compared notes when we ran into each other.
Click to expand...
I believe it was a Picatinny contractor. In-bore detonation pretty much shredded his left arm -- not sure if it killed him, though.
 
#112
Obsolete is a funny word. Small arms like this account for such a small percentage of the battlefield casualties that it doesn't really matter what 99% of the troops are carrying. HE is what kills on the Battlefield. Whats desperately needed is better observation/targeting to make the application of HE Faster/cheaper/easier while having the side benefit of making the base service rifle more lethal.

The cost in money, manpower and time to switch out the weapons, ammo depot support infrastructure, training, ect is just not worth it when are more urgent threats like in the cyber space, drones and electronic warefare. We have been here before many times, and are still using the M16/M4. This one will go the same. People don't understand how logistics works.

The service rifle for convential forces is really just a personal defense arm to hold off until bigger shit can be brought to bear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: richiecotite, r.tenorio671 and RUTGERS95
#114
DeathBeforeDismount said:
Obsolete is a funny word. Small arms like this account for such a small percentage of the battlefield casualties that it doesn't really matter what 99% of the troops are carrying. HE is what kills on the Battlefield. Whats desperately needed is better observation/targeting to make the application of HE Faster/cheaper/easier while having the side benefit of making the base service rifle more lethal.

The cost in money, manpower and time to switch out the weapons, ammo depot support infrastructure, training, ect is just not worth it when are more urgent threats like in the cyber space, drones and electronic warefare. We have been here before many times, and are still using the M16/M4. This one will go the same. People don't understand how logistics works.

The service rifle for convential forces is really just a personal defense arm to hold off until bigger shit can be brought to bear.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think it's the cost but the effort and time to switch that is the biggest prohibitor. Truth be told, I'd rather at least 1 more f22 than a new caliber
 
#115
We've about beat this dead horse enough but it's cold outside and talking about ammo and shit is fun.

556/223 isn't going away anytime soon for civilians and PROBABLY not for the US military or NATO. As a gun guy I do enjoy discussion around the small arms stuff.

What will be really interesting will be if the US adopts a 6.8mm or similar weather the other NATO countries will follow suit. We live in different times globally and we already dicked them over by choosing 30-06 and then 308 when they wanted to go with the FAL in 6.5 or 6.8 back in the 60's (which would have been a better choice overall, logistics aside.)

Alas, we have no highly accurate 6.8mm battle rifles because of the US War department's idiocy (which is a tradition going back to at least the time of Lincoln and the Civil War when Union Generals overrode his wishes for breach-loading rifles because "the men would shoot their ammo up too fast.")
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jdfd556
#116
Kind of an aside, but… In an era when; acceptable forms of punishment for soldiers included lashing, the army routinely didn’t have sufficient ammunition for marksmanship training, and unit discipline hovered somewhere between herding cats and teaching kindergarten, slowing the fire of a panicked and poorly trained soldier was a real concern. And, it was a world-wide concern up through WWi…
 
#120
Twinsen said:
Guys that like 6.5 grendel should try engaging moving targets with it and 5.56 and report back. 2600fps is noticeably slower than 3200. After you do that, compare them on a scale and remember an infantryman carries ammo around far more than shoots it.

I am a big fan of the 6mm grendels as their velocity is acceptable and think they'd be cool for special forces. But I'd still have big army running out 5.56 for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
I’ve never been an advocate for replacing 5.56 with 6.5 Grendel, but for making something like 6.5 Grendel a DMR, Light Sniper, and LMG cartridge to replace 7.62 NATO.

If you run the numbers for Time of Flight with the same barrel lengths between a 5.56 shooting 77gr Mk.262 and a 123gr 6.5 Grendel going 100fps slower at the muzzle, the ToF based on a doppler radar model looks like this:

77gr SMK 5.56 2650fps
50yds .06 seconds 1089ft-lbs energy
75yds .09 sec 1037ft-lbs
100yds .12 sec 987ft-lbs
125yds .15 sec 939ft-lbs
150yds .18 sec 892ft-lbs
175yds .22 sec 848ft-lbs
200yds .25 sec 806ft-lbs
225yds .29 sec 765ft-lbs
250yds .32 sec 726ft-lbs

123gr SMK 6.5 Grendel 2550fps
50yds .06 sec 1645ft-lbs
75yds .09 sec 1583ft-lbs
100yds .12 sec 1522ft-lbs
125yds .15 sec 1463ft-lbs
150yds .19 sec 1405ft-lbs
175yds .22 sec 1349ft-lbs
200yds .25 sec 1294ft-lbs
225yds .29 sec 1242ft-lbs (this is 42ft-lbs more than the 77gr SMK in 5.56 has at the muzzle)
250yds .32 sec 1190ft-lbs

I’m not sure what cartridge and barrel length we’re talking about for a 3200fps mv, as that hasn’t been a thing since we stopped shooting M193 from the M16A1 and M16A2. I remember getting M4s in 1997, when our unit transitioned from M16A2s to M4s, and never saw M16A2s in any of the units I was in after that. M4 with M855 averaged 2920fps per large sample sizes and lengthy Army studies. M855 62gr averaged a little over 3000fps from M16A2s.

With a really poor BC projectile going really fast from the muzzle, it will bleed energy rapidly even within the first 100yds. G1 BC on M855 averages .304, while 55gr FMJ (long obsolete from a US military standpoint) has a .243 G1 BC.

When talking about Time of Flight (one of the major considerations for shooting movers), BC does matter. The 6mm Grendel/6mm AR/6mm ARC will beat both the 6.5 Grendel and 5.56 77gr for ToF, while having less recoil energy of course than 6.5mm when comparing 105-108gr to 123gr.

The nice thing about Grendel-sized ammo compared with 7.62 NATO is that you can carry more for less weight, and have better practical performance in certain duty positions. Someone within DoD has already gone that route with the 6mm ARC, so they don’t have to lug SR-25s around as much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnCarter17 and verdugo60
#122
hlee said:
Kind of an aside, but… In an era when; acceptable forms of punishment for soldiers included lashing, the army routinely didn’t have sufficient ammunition for marksmanship training, and unit discipline hovered somewhere between herding cats and teaching kindergarten, slowing the fire of a panicked and poorly trained soldier was a real concern. And, it was a world-wide concern up through WWi…
Click to expand...
It is an aside. I think you’re referring directly to the Civil War comment. I see your point on the low level of training, especially at the beginning of the war. Many argue the war could have been ended 2 years earlier with those rifles and that extra firepower. We’re probably can’t know for sure.

Imagine the amount of lives, treasure and grief that could have been spared on both sides, not to mention financial costs though if the war had ended sooner.

I think multiples units from the North used breach loaders and even some Henry’s rifles to great effect right at the end of the war, but to your point they were likely better disciplined and seasoned than early on.
 
#123
I think it might already be obsolescent in a military context when talking peer/near-peer sharp end threats, and I can certainly see a push to equipping SF and possibly frontline units with whichever 6.8 stuff makes the cut.

I don't think it is truly obsolete though, and won't be for some time, hell not even .30-06 really is truly obsolete since you can probably equip a marine platoon with garands and still get the job done, though it is likely the oldest rifle capable of doing so.

What I see as most likely is the guys on the sharpest end of the stick getting stuff with higher punch, while crews and support elements retain the current 5.56 carbines, or possibly even something closer to a mk18 that is even shorter and more PDW-like. I also think if the 6.8 get adopted it is likely that we will see GPMGs (240s, etc) transition over to that caliber, as both SIG and True Velocity have proven that they can make relatively simple refit kits for the 6.8 ammunition to current in-use GPMGs

That would still make the military a primarily 2-caliber logistics system like it is currently, so not much would have to change in the pipeline there
 
  • Like
Reactions: ktm131rob and RUTGERS95
#124
WindstormSCR said:
I think it might already be obsolescent in a military context when talking peer/near-peer sharp end threats, and I can certainly see a push to equipping SF and possibly frontline units with whichever 6.8 stuff makes the cut.

I don't think it is truly obsolete though, and won't be for some time, hell not even .30-06 really is truly obsolete since you can probably equip a marine platoon with garands and still get the job done, though it is likely the oldest rifle capable of doing so.

What I see as most likely is the guys on the sharpest end of the stick getting stuff with higher punch, while crews and support elements retain the current 5.56 carbines, or possibly even something closer to a mk18 that is even shorter and more PDW-like. I also think if the 6.8 get adopted it is likely that we will see GPMGs (240s, etc) transition over to that caliber, as both SIG and True Velocity have proven that they can make relatively simple refit kits for the 6.8 ammunition to current in-use GPMGs

That would still make the military a primarily 2-caliber logistics system like it is currently, so not much would have to change in the pipeline there
Click to expand...
disagree, look at near peer calibers and tell me it's obsolete. Body armor advancements will continue to evolve to the degree that small arms calibers are behind. I don't see Russian or Chinese calibers kicking it to the curb anytime soon. That said, big fan of what I read in the new 6.8 and thought the older 6.8spc was very good, especially when you consider barrel length and proximity of engagements. I don't view the stan as the norm. The real issue is strategy and how we utilize and deploy assets. Then again, I'd of carpet bombed China with A bombs in the 50s, hit the Dams in Vietnam and shelled entire areas when a sniper activity pops up. Combat isn't pretty, you fight to win and kill as many of them and their support network as possible, with my only goal of saving Americans first. 5.56 is perfectly fine for foreseeable future
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mk16.5
#125
RUTGERS95 said:
disagree, look at near peer calibers and tell me it's obsolete. Body armor advancements will continue to evolve to the degree that small arms calibers are behind. I don't see Russian or Chinese calibers kicking it to the curb anytime soon. That said, big fan of what I read in the new 6.8 and thought the older 6.8spc was very good, especially when you consider barrel length and proximity of engagements. I don't view the stan as the norm
Click to expand...
it has been reported both china and russia are doing similar work to our NGSW program, though in the case of russia they have doctrinal differences where they're more focused on the squad machinegun, and china also has doctrinal differences that see them more likely to emphasize other options. Largely related to the fact that both are still majority conscript forces and outnumber US forces.
 
#126
WindstormSCR said:
it has been reported both china and russia are doing similar work to our NGSW program, though in the case of russia they have doctrinal differences where they're more focused on the squad machinegun, and china also has doctrinal differences that see them more likely to emphasize other options. Largely related to the fact that both are still majority conscript forces and outnumber US forces.
Click to expand...
Launch multiple, interlaced yet conflicting R&D efforts to invent/replace weapons with the ultimate goal of mind-fucking the adversary in to spending their substantially more limited resources on keeping pace? Where have I heard that before?...
 
#129
vvayvvard said:
This is just unfair. We're living in the past; the OICW was destined for SPACE WARFARE where weight means nothing!
Click to expand...
Not truly on topic with 556 NEVER going away, but to be even more fairer. They have had some shit designs that never really considered the end user in the past. We field tested these hunks of trash in Afghanistan circa 2003/04. The infamous LSS
9E4E9E63-9485-4A1C-99FD-C333F8C055EE.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: sinister and LRRPF52
#130
The new Army Program Manager for NGSW says they really mean it this time. 6.8 NGSW will be adopted. Selection was supposed to transpire last year, but he says they probably might announce towards the end of 2022, after selection happens mid-2022.

Here are most of the attempts to field a new service rifle since the 1960s, after the AR-15 was adopted. Whadduya mean no actual end-users were consulted? These look great! (rotate your selector lever from SAFE, to SARCASM and WATCH....YOUR LANE!)

iu



iu



iu


iu


iu


iu


iu


iu


iu




iu



iu


iu


iu
 
  • Haha
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: rpoL98, DeathBeforeDismount and roostercogburn98
#131
roostercogburn98 said:
Not truly on topic with 556 NEVER going away, but to be even more fairer. They have had some shit designs that never really considered the end user in the past. We field tested these hunks of trash in Afghanistan circa 2003/04. The infamous LSS View attachment 7795765
Click to expand...

Made by the same fuckers that made that red dot :p
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: roostercogburn98 and LRRPF52
#132
One thing I have noticed with all of the funded efforts is that even though the weapons systems didn’t get adopted, a part of each of the major programs was type-classified and put into the inventory.

From the SPIW abortion came the XM148 and M203 40mm underslung Grenade Launchers for the M16 family.

From ACR came the Elcan (MGO) and ACOG optics, which became issued inventory items in the Light Combat Divisions in the 1990s-2000s. The stock from the Colt ACR submission evolved into the LMT SOPMOD, which became standard with the SOPMOD program. The ACR inadvertently change Infantry Rifles and Machine-guns in the US fundamentally, though this is rarely connected in the gun community.

From XM8 came the M320 to replace M203s, which was a backwards move I think. Those things look and feel terrible under a carbine, but programs have to show some kind of justification after millions in RDT&E are spent.

The common subcomponents across all of the NGSW submissions are suppressors and the integrated electro-optic aiming system. That has already been announced to Vortex as a contract winner if I’m reading the latest news correctly. That doesn’t seem like a David Crane "sure-shot winner” news hype like we’ve seen from that source in the past. I think at a minimum, something will change with ammunition, while more of the ancillary systems will be fielded in Infantry Combat Arms units. Given the significant departure from legacy systems with the ancillary subsystems, I think there might be enough momentum to actually adopt one of the NGSW firearms systems.

There’s a high likelihood this will happen with the SAW replacement, and maybe they will usher in the NGSW rifle as a DMR at first. Funding could kill it, but they seem hell-bent on pushing NGSW over the finish line.

Just as .30-40 Krag, 6mm Lee-Navy, .45 ACP, and Cartridge, Ball, Caliber .30 M2 were all superseded, it’s probably about time for the same process to move forward with 5.56 NATO. I’m a huge fan of 5.56 NATO, but that doesn’t change that we’re in the 3rd decade of the 21st Century now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TxWelder35, JohnCarter17, RUTGERS95 and 1 other person
#133
Oh I am a true believer that some good comes from the trillions spent in wasted efforts. The fact the military even recognized a stand-alone system was better in reference to the 203 and LSS. Even though to be fair, the LSS was a wannabe masterkey. The 320 as backward a move it may seem, opened the door for improved munitions since it was a side open breech and could use longer rounds.

As far as a new battle rifle, I have zero doubt something will come about. Will it be soon, that’s between .mil, contractors, and the money men. Will it be non 556? At some point, body armor will outperform bullets. Has happened in the past, but sadly, bullet performance is way faster and easier to develop and beat armor. That is, until the day we have real exoskeleton suits and weight is null and void.

Look back on history and see how fast firearms progressed in prohibition. Gangsters were adding getting into armor and the cops had no real power to stop. Out comes guns like the 38 super, and 351 winchesters so they can blast through lightweight wearable armor. The bullet and armor race began long before .mil gave a shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUTGERS95
#139
RUTGERS95 said:
I honestly don't think it's the cost but the effort and time to switch that is the biggest prohibitor. Truth be told, I'd rather at least 1 more f22 than a new caliber
Click to expand...

Don't get me started on how terrible the decision to shut down the production line was, essentially eliminating any possibility of ever seeing a new F-22 as the cost to re-tool would be insanely high. Gates hated the F-22.

The worst part about it was how they lied through their teeth justifying the shutdown by suggesting there won't be any near peer conflicts in the future and the requirement for hundreds of air superiority fighters is gone. All while China and Russia are building advanced SAM platforms and their own 5th generation fighters. Gates even fired top AF Generals as they pleaded with him to not cancel production as it would leave the AF incredibly thin in that area.

Prime example of a clueless bureaucrat pounding his chest because he got what he wanted.

As for the 5.56, while it isn't necessarily the best round for every scenario, I doubt there is anything now or in the near future that can do what it does over the broad spectrum of requirements. I don't know, maybe a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUTGERS95
#140
I have the contract for the disposal of all obsolete calibers in the USA.

I have a deal with the USPS where if you fill the appropriate bulk rate box with your obsolete .308, 5.56, .45 ACP, 30-06, .38 Special, address it to me, send it, and than I reimburse you for postage when received.

It's a great opportunity to clean off your gun bench.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: SBRSarge, Stevo86, WindstormSCR and 1 other person
#142
never happen when ammo is abundant for the cost per round 223/556 will always be used by someone just like 22lr , 30-06 , 308 and every other cartridge people think are no longer any good . While I love new ammo , there ain't a thing wrong with old goodness .
 
#145
dms416 said:
Re-listening to a podcast where Pressburg talks about that incident...
loses arm but lives IIRC...
Click to expand...

I think that happened at aberdeen a few years before I got there. The XM25 was an offshoot of that program that they really never were able to get to function right. Cool concept, not their yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Milf Dots
New Sig Sauer MCX SPEAR LT in 5.56 nato
Replies
79
Views
24K
LilGucci
LilGucci
N
SOLD Revic pmr428 mil
Replies
26
Views
3K
newguy2k3v2
N
padom
SOLD SOLD: Wilson Combat 300Ham'R Barrel, Brass, Dies, Gauge
Replies
6
Views
1K
BERTMAN77MK2
BERTMAN77MK2
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
Introducing the BUSHWHACKER® 36! Griffin's Newest UNIVERSAL Suppressor
Replies
5
Views
3K
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
gr8fuldoug
New Products Intel from Camera Land
Replies
3
Views
1K
Brettdec
B
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts