As I recall, Allied forces boots on the ground mortality came to a screeching halt with a little Nagasaki and Hiroshima door knocking. We now posses weapons of war that politicians won't allow to be deployed. Two decades in the middle east, occassionally the MOAB was set free and garnered the enemies attention, but not in sufficient numbers. And there never will be a weapon to defeat religious-based zealots, next martyr up!
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
5.56 becoming obsolete
- Thread starter aslrookie
- Start date
The Army doesn't have a hardware problem -- we have gadgets that exploit the capability of M855A1 rifles and carbines right now, today, in the dark, to 500 yards. Laser aimers and illuminators, thermals, plus match and tungsten-core armor-piercing ammunition.
Where the Army sucks outright is not teaching and training the individual rifleman to kill enemy humans using all the equipment he has available to him. Some regular army infantry posts today do not have ranges cleared for a Soldier to do scored fire-and-maneuver run-downs using organic squad M4A1s with M855A1, 7.62mm M110A1s (with M118 LR that was never STRAC scheduled for the new rifle) supported by his SAW and a platoon M2010.
If a Regular Army platoon leader (i.e., my son) can't do it on a regular army infantry division post, how does a National Guard infantryman do it when his company or platoon may be two or more hours away from a Guard training area -- and does IT have adequate and safe ranges?
Add 6.8+ and you have a whole new bag of worms.
Where the Army sucks outright is not teaching and training the individual rifleman to kill enemy humans using all the equipment he has available to him. Some regular army infantry posts today do not have ranges cleared for a Soldier to do scored fire-and-maneuver run-downs using organic squad M4A1s with M855A1, 7.62mm M110A1s (with M118 LR that was never STRAC scheduled for the new rifle) supported by his SAW and a platoon M2010.
If a Regular Army platoon leader (i.e., my son) can't do it on a regular army infantry division post, how does a National Guard infantryman do it when his company or platoon may be two or more hours away from a Guard training area -- and does IT have adequate and safe ranges?
Add 6.8+ and you have a whole new bag of worms.
Last edited:
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,881
- 20,915
H
How so you think those planes got close enough to drop those bombs? Sure didn’t fly a sortie from the mainland with a midair refuel. Probably took off from a small island that was won with troops on the ground spilling blood
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,881
- 20,915
Wasn’t there just a thread talking about soldiers failing sniper school because they couldn’t even zero an m4 at 25m? Horse is being dragged by the cart at this point I believe
If the military is involved, and the bullet diameter is equivalent to what is available today, e.g., 6mm, 6.5mm, 6.8mm, I'm pretty sure the cartridge case will NOT be what currentl exists, e.g., Grendel, Creedmoot, SPC, ARC, etc. Also, the changes, amendments, revisions, and changes each branch will demand will extend the introduction for a decade. They all will be using M4-C7
I've seen deer lost to 300RUM, and I've killed plenty with the 22-250. Downed 2 this year with a 243ai and 105's.
Bullet construction and placement. If you don't get those 2 things correct, the size of the bullet doesn't matter anymore.
The Marines are gearing up for old school island hopping like used in the Pacific during WW2. They're even talking about dropping the M1A's from the armor bullpen and developing a whole new doctrine to counter the Chinese PLA.
Focused on speed and mobility with heavy use of anti shipping missle systems. The benefits of NGSW against PLA body armor works in this new shift in the Marines battle plans.
I know this hasn't been said out loud , but IMO If the new NGSW has legs - the Marines will be the one's using it on a large scale.
Again - my opinion.
Focused on speed and mobility with heavy use of anti shipping missle systems. The benefits of NGSW against PLA body armor works in this new shift in the Marines battle plans.
I know this hasn't been said out loud , but IMO If the new NGSW has legs - the Marines will be the one's using it on a large scale.
Again - my opinion.
Last edited:
Think size and weight per round is a factor too, 5.56 just flat out works, even if the all knowing and all wise gov doesn’t use it, tons of thinking people who will keep using it.
Looking at gov to see where markets is going seems up there with asking a dog for financial advice.
Looking at gov to see where markets is going seems up there with asking a dog for financial advice.
no because no other round in consideration is materially better. 5.56 does just fine and while body armor advancements have negated some effective in instances, overall, its still highly effective
5.56 works wonders out of a 20" barrel.
By all accounts, the M855A1 is a pretty good load, while the standard M855 sucks ass from the shorter barrels that everyone is going to these days, and there-in lies the problem.
The 5.56 requires velocity, it is not a very efficient cartridge design, once you shorten the barrel below 16", you have really cut the legs out from under it.
The 6.8 SPC was and is a far superior cartridge, bean counters always win.
If not for McArthur, we would have had M1's chambered in .276 Pederson and would likely still be using it today.
Bean counters always win.
By all accounts, the M855A1 is a pretty good load, while the standard M855 sucks ass from the shorter barrels that everyone is going to these days, and there-in lies the problem.
The 5.56 requires velocity, it is not a very efficient cartridge design, once you shorten the barrel below 16", you have really cut the legs out from under it.
The 6.8 SPC was and is a far superior cartridge, bean counters always win.
If not for McArthur, we would have had M1's chambered in .276 Pederson and would likely still be using it today.
Bean counters always win.
How is 6.8 SPC superior? By being much slower or by being much heavier? Low BC bullets going slow from a heavy intermediate cartridge likely mean worse hit percentage and less ammunition on the soldier. Sounds like a lose-lose.
Feel free to shoot deer with the .270 Remington Short, but I don't see why our military would use it.
Feel free to shoot deer with the .270 Remington Short, but I don't see why our military would use it.
Energy is important. Intermediate barrier penetration is important. Killing shit is important.
The 6.8 does it better.
It has been well known for a long time.
6.8 was designed around a 16" barrel, not a 20. So, when you shorten it, it isn't as adversely affected. If you lengthen it, it gets even better.
It will do every bit as well at range compared to the 5.56.
Here is a video (admittedly low quality) of 800 yard shots with an 18" 6.8.
6.8x51 isn’t a intermediate cartridge, its a full power cartridge. Its draw backs and its positives are way different than 5.56 Unlike 300blk or 6.8 spc.
The biggest problem, (this is just my opinion) that I see is that they are stuck on either an AR15 envelope or an AR10 envelope.
Motherfuckers, how about shoot for something in between the two?
For fucks sake, in this age of CNC, there is no fucking reason you can't design something between 45 and 51 mm, say, 48mm.
Base it on the .30 remington cartridge, shoot a 130 grain 7mm bullet at 2600-2700 FPS. Kill shit and save weight from a full size cartridge.
Motherfuckers, how about shoot for something in between the two?
For fucks sake, in this age of CNC, there is no fucking reason you can't design something between 45 and 51 mm, say, 48mm.
Base it on the .30 remington cartridge, shoot a 130 grain 7mm bullet at 2600-2700 FPS. Kill shit and save weight from a full size cartridge.
All about profit margin and return on investment.
Standard and 308-length receiver forgings are available right now -- all a good shop has to do is plug in the CNC code.
If you start from a raw billet you have to have a whole lot more code and machine time. Do-able, but ties up your machine(s).
When it comes to manufacturing you have Good - Fast - Cheap. Pick two. The closer you come to a balance of all three is your sweet spot.
Standard and 308-length receiver forgings are available right now -- all a good shop has to do is plug in the CNC code.
If you start from a raw billet you have to have a whole lot more code and machine time. Do-able, but ties up your machine(s).
When it comes to manufacturing you have Good - Fast - Cheap. Pick two. The closer you come to a balance of all three is your sweet spot.
But we're talking a contract that would be worth tens of millions of dollars.
I'm sure someone can code it.
Of course they can. Look at a schematic of the SIG or the bullpup NGSW submissions. Unlike anything else in production.
Like many WWII tanks and aircraft. Once the factories got their techniques down they delivered faster and at a quarter of initial government contract cost. It took over a year-and-a-half before Ford delivered the first B-24 bomber from nothing -- and that's from them investing their own money in lean-ahead planning and capital investment.
Colt tooled up to produce the M16 on old-fashioned analog machinery. How many outfits can crank out CNC AR/M16 lowers today?
Like many WWII tanks and aircraft. Once the factories got their techniques down they delivered faster and at a quarter of initial government contract cost. It took over a year-and-a-half before Ford delivered the first B-24 bomber from nothing -- and that's from them investing their own money in lean-ahead planning and capital investment.
Colt tooled up to produce the M16 on old-fashioned analog machinery. How many outfits can crank out CNC AR/M16 lowers today?
Last edited:
A realization that has really set-in as I’ve reflected more on the Army in particular is that Infantry isn’t anywhere near the priority we like to think it is, especially those of us who served in Airborne/Airmobile/Light Infantry units. From the civilian perspective, especially for gun guys, there are only a few weapons-based frames of reference that don’t even cover the "most casualty-producing weapons” in an Infantry Rifle Squad, let alone the full suite of weapons in a Platoon or Company. The most emphasized weapon is of course the Infantry Rifle, which we really haven’t had since the M16A2 and A4 were replaced by M4s.
If you zoom way out to the DoD budget level, then look at US Army, US Marines, and the various combat arms branches in those organizations, you start to see where the priorities actually are, and how rifles and man-portable small arms meant to be carried by dismounts are almost inconsequential.
DoD 2020 Budget:
US Navy $205.6 Billion
USAF $204.8 Billion
US Army $191.4 Billion
DoD-wide efforts $116.6 Billion
Let’s zoom down a bit at US Army highlighting key weapons systems by firepower, cost, and branch assignment priorities...
Aviation: AH-64E, CH-47F Block II, UH-60M/V, UH-72A, MQ-1C, ARL, RQ-7Bv2, EMARSS, SEMA, PSS-T, JPADS, GRCS, ADA TGTs, RQ-11B, FVL Family of Systems, JAGM, MPU-5
C4I Systems: HMS, Pseudolites, A-PNT(D), A-PNT Mounted/AJAS, TMC, UCS, JBC-P, Nett Warrior, SMART-T, CSS Comms, DEWSS
Armor: AMPV, BFVS M2/M3, Abrams Tank Upgrade, Excalibur, Stryker Family of Vehicles
Long Range Fires & Artillery: CTAR, HIMARS, PRSM, DPICM, MLRS, Paladin Family of Vehicles, AFATDS, LW-155
Air Defense: FAAD C2, IAMD, IFPC, Sentinel
Mobility: ISV, S-MET, JLTV, FMTV, HMMWV modernization, GMV, LOCB, CBT
Direct Fire Systems/Small Arms: CROWS, TOW, NGSW, M855A1, MCA
NBC: NGCD, CBPS M8E1, JBTDS, JSGPM M-50/M-51 Promask, NBC CRV Stryker Sets
Medical: MCS/CDP, MCS/JVAP, MCS Diagnostics, MSTC, NPH
Army Watercraft Systems: LSC, LCU-2000, LCM-8, LT-800, ST-900, BD 115 Ton, MCS SLEP
I could spend the next hour listing more of these types of systems, but you get the idea. I didn’t cover most of the Combat Support, Combat Service Support, training, logistics, robots, generators, tents, ENVGs, and many other programs of record.
Small Arms development is a rounding error in that budget, and they don’t put the best and brightest people as PEOs over Infantry-centric programs. Most of the “best and brightest” are only in a Program Officer position for about 2 years, then they move on, so we have multiple generations of programs that have developed amazing capabilities that were then left to die, many of which have never seen the light of day.
Think about the Pentagon Army-specific department head decisions that have to be made managing this monstrous beast of an organization and the endless list of developmental programs. Infantry-specific weapons are so far down the pecking order of priorities, that most of the senior leaders couldn’t care less or be bothered with much thought about them.
And that makes a lot of sense when you see a 155 or Hellfire impact a target, vs anything we carried in dismounted Infantry units. Same with armor. The kinetic energy that a Bradley IFV can deliver on-target and its mobility make an Infantry Company look like mostly a joke, with the Javelin and mortars being the exceptions.
Whether Infantry soldiers who dismount from the backs of APCs are carrying 5.56mm M4s and SAWs or NGSW rifles and LMGs, it doesn’t make a huge difference, though I could see the need for defeating armor for some last minute hold-outs in a highly-restrictive ROE environment (which doesn’t make a lot of sense if armor has already rolled-in). Once you’re at that level of employing armored assets with aviation attack, integrated indirect fires, with an augmented SA environment provided by ISTAR drones, whoever is left in an area will be subject to considerable large caliber direct fire assets, including MGLs firing high velocity 40mm HE, .50 BMG API, 25mm main gun, SMAW, etc.
For the asymmetric fight taking proliferation of body armor into account, there might be a better argument for NGSW capabilities there, specifically to DMs and Snipers, followed by LMGs.
Now try applying any of that to the civilian market, and the hunting rifle sector is one of the more likely to be affected since you can have .270 Weatherby performance from a 16” barrel, lightweight rifle.
If you zoom way out to the DoD budget level, then look at US Army, US Marines, and the various combat arms branches in those organizations, you start to see where the priorities actually are, and how rifles and man-portable small arms meant to be carried by dismounts are almost inconsequential.
DoD 2020 Budget:
US Navy $205.6 Billion
USAF $204.8 Billion
US Army $191.4 Billion
DoD-wide efforts $116.6 Billion
Let’s zoom down a bit at US Army highlighting key weapons systems by firepower, cost, and branch assignment priorities...
Aviation: AH-64E, CH-47F Block II, UH-60M/V, UH-72A, MQ-1C, ARL, RQ-7Bv2, EMARSS, SEMA, PSS-T, JPADS, GRCS, ADA TGTs, RQ-11B, FVL Family of Systems, JAGM, MPU-5
C4I Systems: HMS, Pseudolites, A-PNT(D), A-PNT Mounted/AJAS, TMC, UCS, JBC-P, Nett Warrior, SMART-T, CSS Comms, DEWSS
Armor: AMPV, BFVS M2/M3, Abrams Tank Upgrade, Excalibur, Stryker Family of Vehicles
Long Range Fires & Artillery: CTAR, HIMARS, PRSM, DPICM, MLRS, Paladin Family of Vehicles, AFATDS, LW-155
Air Defense: FAAD C2, IAMD, IFPC, Sentinel
Mobility: ISV, S-MET, JLTV, FMTV, HMMWV modernization, GMV, LOCB, CBT
Direct Fire Systems/Small Arms: CROWS, TOW, NGSW, M855A1, MCA
NBC: NGCD, CBPS M8E1, JBTDS, JSGPM M-50/M-51 Promask, NBC CRV Stryker Sets
Medical: MCS/CDP, MCS/JVAP, MCS Diagnostics, MSTC, NPH
Army Watercraft Systems: LSC, LCU-2000, LCM-8, LT-800, ST-900, BD 115 Ton, MCS SLEP
I could spend the next hour listing more of these types of systems, but you get the idea. I didn’t cover most of the Combat Support, Combat Service Support, training, logistics, robots, generators, tents, ENVGs, and many other programs of record.
Small Arms development is a rounding error in that budget, and they don’t put the best and brightest people as PEOs over Infantry-centric programs. Most of the “best and brightest” are only in a Program Officer position for about 2 years, then they move on, so we have multiple generations of programs that have developed amazing capabilities that were then left to die, many of which have never seen the light of day.
Think about the Pentagon Army-specific department head decisions that have to be made managing this monstrous beast of an organization and the endless list of developmental programs. Infantry-specific weapons are so far down the pecking order of priorities, that most of the senior leaders couldn’t care less or be bothered with much thought about them.
And that makes a lot of sense when you see a 155 or Hellfire impact a target, vs anything we carried in dismounted Infantry units. Same with armor. The kinetic energy that a Bradley IFV can deliver on-target and its mobility make an Infantry Company look like mostly a joke, with the Javelin and mortars being the exceptions.
Whether Infantry soldiers who dismount from the backs of APCs are carrying 5.56mm M4s and SAWs or NGSW rifles and LMGs, it doesn’t make a huge difference, though I could see the need for defeating armor for some last minute hold-outs in a highly-restrictive ROE environment (which doesn’t make a lot of sense if armor has already rolled-in). Once you’re at that level of employing armored assets with aviation attack, integrated indirect fires, with an augmented SA environment provided by ISTAR drones, whoever is left in an area will be subject to considerable large caliber direct fire assets, including MGLs firing high velocity 40mm HE, .50 BMG API, 25mm main gun, SMAW, etc.
For the asymmetric fight taking proliferation of body armor into account, there might be a better argument for NGSW capabilities there, specifically to DMs and Snipers, followed by LMGs.
Now try applying any of that to the civilian market, and the hunting rifle sector is one of the more likely to be affected since you can have .270 Weatherby performance from a 16” barrel, lightweight rifle.
Last edited:
yeah and jerry hits balloons with 22lr at 300yds lol. I get it I do but I hunt with 6.8spc and have been using this caliber since 2008ish and it's not longer range round and it's BC limitations are well known. Now there have been better bullets that hit the market to punch that range for better accuracy the where it really shines is 300 and under that imho, makes the AR what the AR should be. I'm all for the spc being our base round to be honest
Mattis as Secretary of Defense established a Defense Close Combat Lethality Task Force. It was supposed to focus efforts on the infantryman.
A metric they cite is 90-4-1. 90% of the military's casualties are taken by 4% of the force (infantry, armor, and sappers/combat engineers) getting 1% of the defense budget and investment.
A metric they cite is 90-4-1. 90% of the military's casualties are taken by 4% of the force (infantry, armor, and sappers/combat engineers) getting 1% of the defense budget and investment.
From 14.5” M4 barrel, M855 does an average of 2920fps. How much velocity do you want?
I have zero reservations about standard M855. It’s a great round. It won’t smoke most hard armor, but it fillets meat from bone, canoes heads, blasts through chests, breaks arms and femurs, Swiss-cheeses vehicles, and defeats a lot of construction material.
I do think had the .276 Pedersen (7mm really/.284”), been adopted, we might have seen an effort to make an intermediate cartridge in it in the 1950s after the War, due to the developments experienced and gathered from WWII.
One thing in the US/NATO that was a big focus was getting the cartridge OAL down into something that you could carry more of, which was the main driver behind what became 7.62 NATO.
If they applied some of the developmental technology for small arms cartridges from NGSW to smaller cartridges, that’s what’s exciting. Think PDWs with 5.56 or better performance from tiny packages. KAC came close with the 6x35 PDW, but it isn’t handgrip size-friendly.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,881
- 20,915
To piggyback off @sinister
Look back at WW2 production contracts for the M1 carbine. Look to see how many got axed before they met their quota. Hell some companies got shitcanned without a single carbine being accepted into service. It’s always doable, but at what cost is the elephant in the room. There is always a way to do something, but it aint always gonna be right. The military has enough issues with equipment in the hands of knuckle draggers without some company saying they can do it, only to half ass it and let some faulty equipment go out. The recurrent and correct theme in this thread is money. I’m the end, that will dictate everything.
Look at the scar contract when it was pitched in the early 00s. Hell, FN even thought they had it wrapped up. A few “hard” tests later and FN was sitting on a pile of scar platforms they then unloaded to the civy world to recoup some money. If you remember when the Scar16 first came out, they were selling for 5-6k, now they are all day 25-2800.
We’re living in an era of massive technological change, yet our small arms are still driven by 1800s and early 1900s metallic cartridge technology.
There was a huge leap when brass high pressure gaskets were developed to contain the primer and charge for repeating weapons.
There was a huge leap when nitrocellulose-based propellants using nitrated wood pulp were developed to increase performance.
There was a huge leap when metallurgy of steel was improved to be able to contain pressures higher than 20,000psi, then 40,000psi, then 55,000psi, and 65,000psi as far as working pressures go (with FoS).
Now they have demonstrated 80,000psi (after originally wanting 90,000-100,000psi) that can reliably be contained in a lightweight shoulder-fired weapon.
Beretta/True Velocity decided to use a long barrel and 65,000psi to reach the speeds required from a bullpup.
There was a huge leap when brass high pressure gaskets were developed to contain the primer and charge for repeating weapons.
There was a huge leap when nitrocellulose-based propellants using nitrated wood pulp were developed to increase performance.
There was a huge leap when metallurgy of steel was improved to be able to contain pressures higher than 20,000psi, then 40,000psi, then 55,000psi, and 65,000psi as far as working pressures go (with FoS).
Now they have demonstrated 80,000psi (after originally wanting 90,000-100,000psi) that can reliably be contained in a lightweight shoulder-fired weapon.
Beretta/True Velocity decided to use a long barrel and 65,000psi to reach the speeds required from a bullpup.
Well, since the M855 bullet required 2700 FPS to reliably upset and yaw, I'd want more.
You're talking about a 100 yard weapon with a muzzle velocity of 2900 fps.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,881
- 20,915
Old school metallurgy is baffling to me. The concept has been out there for decades. In 1969, Daisy, yes Daisy the BB gun company manufactured the Daisy Heddon VL. This little rifle fired caseless ammunition ignited by a jet of hot compressed air created by a small bearing being thrust forward. You can still buy caseless ammo made in the 70s today that fires like new. The argument about it not withstanding non climate controlled conditions is BS IMO.
I venture to guess it is like the electric cars Chevy made in the late 70s early 80s that all got destroyed. Seems more like someone has a vested interest in not allowing some tech grow and become more realist available. Maybe they think the fortune they have massed will go away?
Another problem we’ve faced for decades in DoD is the concept of political détente.
There are so many cutting edge systems we have developed that were handicapped, then cancelled after being drawn-out over time, some of which the Soviets took and made standard in their military.
Pons inside of our system working for the Soviets justified it as, “We don’t want to have things that are so overwhelming, that it isn’t fair, or a hot-headed White House is tempted to kick things off and use them."
The Russians and Chinese have had access to the USPTO longer than pretty much any of us have been alive (for the Russians), and since at least the 1970s for the ChiComs.
There are so many cutting edge systems we have developed that were handicapped, then cancelled after being drawn-out over time, some of which the Soviets took and made standard in their military.
Pons inside of our system working for the Soviets justified it as, “We don’t want to have things that are so overwhelming, that it isn’t fair, or a hot-headed White House is tempted to kick things off and use them."
The Russians and Chinese have had access to the USPTO longer than pretty much any of us have been alive (for the Russians), and since at least the 1970s for the ChiComs.
I have not seen a great deal of hajis scooting around in body armor so.... I bet 556 will be laying down bad guys for quite some time. Even with all the new cartridges, 556 lays em down night night termite.
Time will tell.
PB
Time will tell.
PB
As far as military applications go, I can see that happening. A harder hitting cartridge that can reach out long distance is preferable. The 6.5 Grendel comes to mind as the best round for the AR platform in my opinion. On the civilian market .223-.556 is relatively cheap factory ammo, low recoil, and cheap to reload. It will make bad guys trying to hurt your family dead no problem. I dont see this round ever going obsolete.
The problem with the Grendel is that it can't be belt fed.
It would be unlikely to introduce an AR15 envelope cartridge that can't be belt fed unless they all go with the M27 concept, which won't happen.
The 6.8 can be belt fed, but it doesn't matter, they aren't going to replace anything in the next 20 years.
Just like when they buried the fact that piston systems were more reliable.
Nothing but a new barrel for the RPD.
A 6.5 or .257 cal LMG using an intermediate cartridge would be flippin’ sweet.
I would like to see that in the LSAT LMG form factor though with the super lightweight CT ammo where the projectile is buried inside the propellant column.
Just because some retired generals talked their academy buddies into switching weapons systems for massive profit doesn’t mean the system their ditching is obsolete. That’s civilian talk. Funny how the ol AK47 or now 74 with its shitbag range countered by stamped weapon durability seems to keep plugging along. Body armor is just something to study and adjust critical shot placement on the body. Wait till the jungle rears it’s ugly ass humid death hot head again and the open terrain love everyone has for body armor will become a nuisance overnight. That 5.56 system can produce 500 meter head shots all day in the right hands and it’s light. Sure better shit comes out but I guess 3006 is garbage now too as is 7.62 which snipers killed more people then cholera with for 70 years. All “obsolete“. Not being antagonistic but follow the money before you get excited about the next “hot chick” in weapons systems. In Force Recon we took what you handed us mastered it learned it’s failings and advantages and stepped outta the patrol base. Terrain, enemy, and weather and atmospheric conditions all giving or taking away capabilities. No system is without weakness no system is perfect. It’s the Indian not the arrow that ends firefights.
Have a blessed night gents and may your families be safe and happy.
S/F
Duffer
I've heard second hand about some things so don't quote me, but I feel like a branch of the military was looking into the 6.5 grendel for machine gun usage and 6.5 creed for marines. Could be wrong. But as far as becoming obsolete, go try and find factory ammo for the 5.56. it's starting to come back a little but, just because the military shifts away from something doesn't mean it loses its value. The 5.55 is a fine round, and it'll be here for a long time...I think.
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.
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.
If anything, the new ammo will be caseless.
They've been working on it since forever, someone is bound to figure it out.
www.armytimes.com
They've been working on it since forever, someone is bound to figure it out.
The Army’s next machine gun could fire caseless ammo — and one of these companies might build it
Textron Systems has been working on cased telescoped ammunition designs for 14 years.
www.armytimes.com
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?
5 56 is good as any other caliber. It has it's own uses. Inside 300 yards it is quite effective and pretty good in penetrating softer armours, decent ballistic coefficient, low recoil, ammo are cheap and light to carry, rifles and carbines chambered in 223 can be really lightweight, the caliber is widespread. Of course a 308 is better in some applications, worse in other.
I've got a video of me shooting a mover (66% IPSC) at 500y with a 6.5 grendel. (123 gr ELD-M at 2530 fps) I think I gauged the speed at about 2 or 3 mph, so not fast. But, from the trunk of a junk car, off a tripod and a rear bag, I went 7 of 10 (2 min par time). Was the first time I had ever shot at a moving target. I didn't think it was that bad. Dial wind, and ambush. I think it took me 3 passes to complete my rounds. The vid isn't very exciting as you can't see the target, but you can hear the spotter calling hits. That said, I fall squarely in the "5.56 fills a niche, does it well, and isn't going anywhere" camp.
Of course every infantryman since rifles were issued demands a weapon heavier, longer, bulkier, and harder recoiling than he has.
Similar threads
