U.S. /NATO need better cartridges (and we HAVE them!)

[Eric B.]

The U.S. military, being the 800 lb. gorilla in NATO, got the .308 (7.63 x51) round adopted by NATO in the '50s for battle rifles and medium machine guns and then the .223 (5.56) cartridge in the '70s for assault rifles and LMGs.

As recent combat experience has shown the 5.56, ESPECIALLY in short barreled carbines, does not cut it for lethality or good range. 600 meters is its practical lethal range from a 20" barrel.

Even the 7.62 round is inadequate for Afghanistan's longer ranges against Russian 7.62 x 54 medium machine guns.

SOOO... Why not adopt the 6.5 mm Grendel (better range and terminal velocity than a 6.8 Rem.)) for assault rifles and the SAW?

AND... adopt General Dynamics new medium machine gun in .338 Norma Mag? A FAR superior round to the 7.62 x 51) and the weapon is only 1 lb. heavier than the LIGHTEST version of our medium machine gun. General Dynamics has developed a very reliable recoil-taming system to make this weapon very controllable with this big round.

Yeah, we are still fighting in Afghanistan and can't change now due to logistical problems. But perhaps, as per usual practice, we give special operations units weapons with these newer rounds to see how they work. A SAW in 6.5 Grendel would really extend its range and lethality.
And the General Dynammics medium machine gun gives us 33% more range than our current 7.62 weapon and a good "overmatch" to enemy weapons. We often ask our combat troops to fight against superior odds so why give them weapons with lethality that is inferior to their enemies weapons???

The Big Army is nortoriusly slow at these matters as we all know but maybe SOCOM could speed up matters as far as field testing goes.

Jus' sayin'...

 

[GunKnowledge]

Another caliber complaint. There's only what, 1000 other threads online saying the same silliness?

1 - It would cost a boatload, for a military that is under sequestration. Yah, 13% budget reduction, so let's buy all new M4 uppers. RIGht.

2 - We do NOT "often ask our combat troops to fight against superior odds". Dunno what 3rd world country's military you served in, but that's the most ridiculous thing claimed on the internet today. It's not a conventional fight, there are no large organized groups of enemies anywhere that are outnumbering or outmatching us. We're still teaching 3-1 attack ratios, so neither doctrine nor theater has us fighting superior odds.

3 - Do you really think that the caliber of our rifles is the weakest link in our fighting force, or even anywhere in the top 100? It's not.

 

[Eric B.]

So, then you feel the M4 is a good choice with a good cartridge?
The SAW is a great LMG in 5.56?
The M240 is just fine and a .338 Norma mag MMG would not help for standoff ?

I DID say we cannot do it now.

 

[ArmaHeavy]

The 5.56 still kills people. Any bullet does if properly aimed.

That's usually the last word in a caliber debating topic.

At least on here it is.

 

[George Az]

The M 4/AR platform is now the longest running rifle in our history for the US Miltary, I guess that could be argued as we still fielded the M 14 and there are still a few around, but for general issue - the M16 has been around since like 1964. The 1911 in .45acp is still being used and is now over 100 years old, the 50 BMG is well over a half century old.

Sure there are better calibers. There may be even better guns. In another 40 years who knows what the modern battlefield will look like. It may very well be that nothing we have in our current inventory will work. I still see the 1911 and ma duece "fixing" things, so who knows.

 

[fdkay]

The 6.5 grendel is NOT well suited to full auto fire.
It also will not work in a belted LMG.

The 6.8, on the other hand will.

All a moot point.
Big green will not move from the M4/M16 until a "significant" technological advance is made to warrant a switch. (I'm paraphrasing what they said).

Meanwhile, the MK318 and MK262 offer significantly improved performance, I could see them providing better ammo.

And really, the 7.62x51 is inadequate compared to the 7.62x54?
There is very little difference in external ballistics and no practical difference in terminal ballistics.

 

[rcnpthfndr]

i had never been in a situation where i thought the SAW or M240B were poor performers or i couldn't reach out and handle business. nor have i heard that from the thousands of soldiers and marines i had worked with in the 3 years i was in Afghanistan. Ok maybe a couple times while they had a gun rag of some kind in their hands with an article about how crappy the 5.56 is.

so, Mr. Econ at Fort lewis who was running a pre deployment marksmanship program with SFC Mack(RIP Brother) was having hundreds of kids do the impossible by shooting to 600m on a KD range with their M4's?

i am not sure if a new cartridge is the answer, most of the issues i have experienced and observed were soldiers/marines not knowing the weapon systems and the amount of range time they had behind them before coming into theater. the M855A1 round seems to be doing a good job in theater.

 

[Eric B.]

Hells bells, I've killed many groundhogs with my Ruger .22 mag lever gun, sometimes a bit beyond 100 yards. That doesn't mean my 5.56 AUG would not do it at longer distances and more reliably.

As for the 6.5 Grendel not working well in full auto or on belts I've yet to see any test that show such lack of performance.
Pray tell where are those results?? Better tell the Russians because it's based on a Russian cartridge. But hey, if that's truly the case then by all means let's use the 6.8 and get on with a needed cartridge change.

And yes, the AR design has serves us well but direct impingement has had its day - and then some. It ain't called dirty impingement for nothing.

The 7.62 NATO is no longer the Army's preferred round for their sniper rifle. The XM2010 (old M24 action) is now barreled for .300 win mag., which in itself is a transition cartridge to the .338 LM in the newly approved Remington PSR.

A .338 Norma mag med. machine gun would be nice for Afghanistan type distances. Newly developed backpack belt feed canisters can more easily carry that admittedly heavier ammo.

Gotta be able to think ahead. Inflexibility is deadly in warfare. (Remember the Maginot Line?)

 

[sharac]

Don't talk about cost when it your army uses 100k projectiles to erase couple of "goatwrongdoers" i wonder who has better resource/price ratio and who will run out of what faster...

I think the major point is that there is not enough difference to warrant complete replacement, training and all the bureaucratic BS which comes with all the changes. As long as weapons are quality made they will do its job if employed properly, you wage guerrilla/asymmetrical warfare there will be cases where things will not compute but in general i really don't see the problem with 5.56. You want to kill everyone from 1 mile? Why bother invading simply use B2 or missile and be done with it. You want to bring peace and civilization to backward dustlovers prepare to pay the price from upclose "discussion" with those who don't appreciate those gifts. And no caliber will change that relation for the better.

 

[pawprint2]

The U.S. military, being the 800 lb. gorilla in NATO, got the .308 (7.63 x51) round adopted by NATO in the '50s for battle rifles and medium machine guns and then the .223 (5.56) cartridge in the '70s for assault rifles and LMGs.

As recent combat experience has shown the 5.56, ESPECIALLY in short barreled carbines, does not cut it for lethality or good range. 600 meters is its practical lethal range from a 20" barrel.

Even the 7.62 round is inadequate for Afghanistan's longer ranges against Russian 7.62 x 54 medium machine guns.

SOOO... Why not adopt the 6.5 mm Grendel (better range and terminal velocity than a 6.8 Rem.)) for assault rifles and the SAW?

AND... adopt General Dynamics new medium machine gun in .338 Norma Mag? A FAR superior round to the 7.62 x 51) and the weapon is only 1 lb. heavier than the LIGHTEST version of our medium machine gun. General Dynamics has developed a very reliable recoil-taming system to make this weapon very controllable with this big round.

Yeah, we are still fighting in Afghanistan and can't change now due to logistical problems. But perhaps, as per usual practice, we give special operations units weapons with these newer rounds to see how they work. A SAW in 6.5 Grendel would really extend its range and lethality.
And the General Dynammics medium machine gun gives us 33% more range than our current 7.62 weapon and a good "overmatch" to enemy weapons. We often ask our combat troops to fight against superior odds so why give them weapons with lethality that is inferior to their enemies weapons???

The Big Army is nortoriusly slow at these matters as we all know but maybe SOCOM could speed up matters as far as field testing goes.

Jus' sayin'...

The 7.62 is inadequate against the 7.62x54R machinegun? Could you please elaborate, at what range does this take place? The old 7.62x54R machineguns have known tested accuracy parameters, could you please compare these, not a theoretical string. Maybe I'm confused, I am Extremely familiar with the old M60's, have our new guns gotten really bad?
Instead of the 338Lapua, what is wrong with that old fashion M2? Isn't it working anymore, has the 50bmg run it course, and just doesn't have the juice it once had? I find it hard to believe that the 50BMG can't or doesn't cut it-I'd have to have some real proof-it's a Hammer. Of course in my day the M2 came with a headspace gauge on a chain, now it's automatic! Maybe this is what is causing the problem, ya think?

 

[rcnpthfndr]

dirty impingement that's funny, never heard that until today. I do find it funny.

the M110s are sticking around they are 7.62, MK13's have been 300wm for quite some time now so I wouldn't consider it a transitional round. As for the Remington MSR its supposed to be able to switch from 7.62 to 300wm to 338LM if I remember correctly.

i guess it would depend on what type of unit you were in on what sniper rifles you got. the ones i work with now, all run M110s or 110c, M2010 and Barretts. haven't seen a M24 in quite sometime, maybe when a guard unit or Air Force security unit shows up. the last oda i was working with had a couple M2010, MK13 Mod 5 and an old 5.56 SPR.

i just don't see the 7.62 platforms going anywhere, as other platforms get newer cartridges.

 

[Redmanss]

Just what we need, more weight and fewer rounds...

 

[wilecoyote]

oh yeah, and one day,after the deepest and costly studies, someone will discover that the 30.06 can outperform the 7,62x51 range,and by the way can be well suited to machineguns, in the same way some newborn einsteins have discovered,after the same deepest and costly studies, the better helmet's shape, identical to ol'style German steel_ the keyword is "costly" and the next is "profit", as ever_

 

[The Gump]

.223, .308 and 9mm have been taking human lives for quite a while now. Lets not reinvent the wheel.

 

[kraigWY]

So the Army needs a better round........based on the opinions of thousands of shooting enthusiasts all of which have a different idea which is the better round.

We base this on the fact that bullet X wont stop the target in its tracks.................guess what, there is no such thing as a guaranteed DRT bullet.

I did a bit of CSI in my LE career, in fact I'm a certified LE CSI instructor. Seen a lot of GSW's and I've been to a lot of autopsies, the only guarantee of any bullet I came to learn is NO TWO BULLETS WILL DO THE SAME THING, regardless if its the same bullet coming out of the same gun, hitting the same target.

Last hunting season I shot an antelope with a 270 Win using 150 gr Hornady IB's. Turned its lungs into a mass that looked like coffee grounds. He ran about 50 yards before he went down.

If you hunt, you'll know this, if you don't hunt, watch some hunting shows on the outdoor channel. People shoot critters, good hits in the heart lung area and very seldom do the go down, most run 50, 100 or more yards.

Even shooting African plains game. Many of those critters run off after being hit good with a 375 H&H.

Snipers don't win wars, individual rifleman don't win wars.............combined arms wins wars.....mass suppressive fire wins firefights. You send a fire team out armed with 458 Win Mags and 44 Mag pistols against another fire team armed with M16s on full auto....guess what?

Nothing wrong with the M16, even the light M16a1's we used in Vietnam. I love a M14 and 308s, got my distinguished badge with one, but that's a rifle range, not jungles, I didn't hump nor would I want to hump an M14 and the 308 ammo. I want a light rifle and lots of ammo. The M16 series and its ammo fits that bill, and that is why we'll have it with us a long time to come.

The expense of choosing another weapon system and ammo for it would be much better spent on training the soldier to use existing systems.

 

[Phil1]

So the Army needs a better round........based on the opinions of thousands of shooting enthusiasts all of which have a different idea which is the better round.

We base this on the fact that bullet X wont stop the target in its tracks.................guess what, there is no such thing as a guaranteed DRT bullet.

... NO TWO BULLETS WILL DO THE SAME THING, regardless if its the same bullet coming out of the same gun, hitting the same target.
...

Snipers don't win wars, individual rifleman don't win wars.............combined arms wins wars.....
Nothing wrong with the M16, even the light M16a1's we used in Vietnam. I love a M14 and 308s, got my distinguished badge with one, but that's a rifle range, not jungles, I didn't hump nor would I want to hump an M14 and the 308 ammo. I want a light rifle and lots of ammo. The M16 series and its ammo fits that bill, and that is why we'll have it with us a long time to come.

The expense of choosing another weapon system and ammo for it would be much better spent on training the soldier to use existing systems.

^^YES^^

You don't introduce new weapons across the entire armed forces because " 5.56, ESPECIALLY in short barreled carbines, does not cut it for lethality ". some troops have mission requirements for short barreled weapons.

 

[Eric B.]

1. I dispute that the 6.5 Grendel is "not significantly better" than the current 5.56 round especially beyond 300 meters.

2, When the ballistics, including lethal range, of the .339 Norma mag is 33% better on average than the current 7.62 NATO round I'd give that a "significantly better" rating.

We're not talking the .308/30-06 differences here, which are negligible, yet the 30-06 was dropped.

Given a choice of which rounds to go into a certain firefight with which would you choose, current rounds or 6.5 and .338 NM??

 

[armorpl8chikn]

We're not talking the .308/30-06 differences here, which are negligible, yet the 30-06 was dropped.

And you said earlier: "Even the 7.62 round is inadequate for Afghanistan's longer ranges against Russian 7.62 x 54 medium machine guns."
Do you have any clue how these statements contradict each other.

If you aren't careful you will skin your ignorance here....I mean if you haven't already. This looks like a troll to me.
By the way the only way the 308/30-06 debate is negligible, is if someone rigs the test, or doesn't take all factors into account.
30-06 is far superior to the 7.62x54R as well. Has been for quite some time.

 

[wilecoyote]

please, forgive my ignorance: what's a "certain firefight" ?

 

[fdkay]

As for the 6.5 Grendel not working well in full auto or on belts I've yet to see any test that show such lack of performance.
Pray tell where are those results?? Better tell the Russians because it's based on a Russian cartridge. But hey, if that's truly the case then by all means let's use the 6.8 and get on with a needed cartridge change.

Better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Yes, the 6.5 Grendel's parent case is, ultimately, the 7.62x39.
Have you EVER seen the two side by side?
Have you never noticed that the 7.62x39 is a VERY tapered case?

The grendel, on the other hand, has had the taper removed from the case, to the point that it is nearly a straightwall case, with the exception of the bottleneck itself.

So you have a very short, stubby case with no taper and a long, skinny bullet sticking out the front.
NOT conducive to feeding in a full auto weapon.

I should have been more specific in regards to belt fed, it has been WELL established that the grendel can NOT be made to work in the current, US issue belt fed machineguns without significant modification. The case is too damn short.

 

[Eric B.]

I note the relatively straight case wall of the 6.5 Grendel. That said the CURRENT SAW could be REDESIGNED to belt feed the round. Yes, more time and money to convert but there is the advantage of much better ballistics.

1. A SAW converted to 6.5 Grendel could replace the M240 while retaining lethality at the same maximum range.

2. THEN the adoption of the General Dynamics MMG chambered for .338 Norma Mag would extend the "beaten area" of the M240 by 33% with greatly increased energy at all ranges in between.

Better SAW LMG
Better .338 NM MMG

 

[ArmaHeavy]

Machine guns were designed to kill in mass, or provide multiple debilitating casualties, to the enemy.

Not act as a fully automatic, belt fed, sniper rifles. That's the job of the guys who carry the carbines, and the full sized rifles.

Point targets, and area targets.

 

[TenZero]

I think maybe op has never humped a basic combat load over a mountain in a hostile AO. If he had, he probably wouldn't be wishing it was heavier, or contained fewer rounds.

 

[RanchhandTCR]

Now the ballistics of a 6.5mm may be superb to the 7.62, but the 7.62 has more terminal damage than the 6.5, and you be ammazed what the 5.56 70 grain bullet can do. Each cartridge does what it was ment to do. Its like the guns we choose for precision shooting. We know the 6.5 can get us out to maybe 1500 yards, but yet the .300 win mag can get us to 2000 yards, and even yet the .338 lapua of 50BMG can get us out to 2500 yards! But for the last umpteen years nato has used the 5.56 and the 7.62 for sake of effectiveness and versatality among Nato armies.

 

[Unknown]

Much of this discussion reminds me of something that was discovered after the German's use of huge railroad artillery pieces. Eventually they realized that the resources required for these weapons was greater than their benefit. They found that it was more effective to have more guns that were easier to move around and required less resources.

It is all a kind of balancing between distance you can shoot, weight of weapon and ammo, and effectiveness when you arrive on station. Sort of like the old saying about workmanship, cheap, fast, or quality: pick any two because you can't have all three at the same time.

With firearms, the simple fact is that if you want more distance or power on target, your weapon and ammo will weigh more. Even comparing the 5.56 with the Grendel this is the case. A round of Grendel ammo weighs more than a round of 5.56.

I suppose you could change 7.62x51 machine guns to 260 Remington, but then you have to ask if the logistics of making such a change are justified by being able to shoot another 500-800 yards. Is the 500-800 yards really important enough to justify the logistics of such a change?

 

[Flyingbullseye]

Just to entertain the OP, why not just rebarrel the 7.62 rifles/MG's to 7-08 and call it a day? Less recoil, more energy down range and longer range while not changing out too much. I agree with everyone's replies to the thread but just for kicks.

 

[wilecoyote]

because,aside the related costs, if you MUST carry some mg rounds boxes, you will SUFFER the same load weight, but the enemy won't tell any difference about having the chest perforated from a 7 or a 7,62, IF you can find it_

 

[Unknown]

I don't think the gain of changing to 7mm-08, or 260 Rem would justify the huge logistics of making the change, and not being in sync with all other NATO countries. The logistics of a Nato change would be even worse.

Having a machine gun with a range if 1500 yards (260 REM) is of questionable value because I think squad weapons for that distance start getting into where a mortar might serve the purpose better. But that is taking this thread in a new direction and would be better done in another discussion that this board is not set up for (rifle/sniper shooting)

 

[splean]

I propose pyrotomic desintigrators!

 

[sentry1]

Redacted.

OP, you've got to consider the massive logistics effort required to switch major issue calibers. Even for small SOCOM units. Uncle Sam does not field new equipment on a whim, even short fuse requirements get some testing.

Annnnd... that brings me to another point: If SOCOM really wanted these new calibers, they'd get them. So, maybe leave that decision to the Beards, eh?

 

[Unknown]

There have long been bad, better, good, and excellent cartridges. If the military had unlimited money and time, they would likely be pleased to develop and field all new rifles and cartridges. But the fact remains that time and money are limited, so they do the best they can within the parameters of current reality and budgets.

Fantasizing about new weapon systems and cartridges is fine. But reality says there is an immense gap between what we think would be ideal, and what can realistically be fielded. Given enough time and money, I'm sure that someone could design a belt fed weapon and cartridge with ballistics like the 6.5 Grendel..but I don't think the interest to invest in such a project exists. If such interest DID exist, someone would already be trying to sell it to the military.

 

[pawprint2]

I don't mean this comment to be "political" but rather strictly based on the ballistics of our ammo vs any potential threat, where ever it may come from. I'm more concerned about the 5.8 x 42 round than any other "bad guys" round. Complete change over of the U.S. military to a new round is at the very least problematic. If I were consulted (not likely), based on the costs, tax dollars involved, state of the economy etc., and being sure that was kept in the foremost front of my thoughts, and a change was in the works, I'd go with the 6x45. All magazines still work, most of the heavy loading equipment/mfg equipment still works without retooling. If there was ever a caliber of bullet with more testing, on shape size, accuracy etc. it would only be the .30 cal, not to mention, the 6mm has proven itself to be a fairly accurate bore size (understating for fun). Barrel swap/new caliber bullet-you're in business. I built a 6 x45, 4 years ago, shoots great. I don't shoot it as much as my 223s, just because..., however; it is a great little round, accurate, and easy to load. Other than that, our weapons and ammo are not suffering a big lack power or accuracy etc.. We are not as we were as when the US had bought off on the 30/40Kraig (which with hindsight was a good thing, as we may not have ended up with the 30/06 otherwise). As Norinco exports the 5.8 x42 guns, our military may find itself running into fully modern weapons utilizing ammo with first class performance. Just Saying........

 

[Anvil_X]

Another caliber complaint. There's only what, 1000 other threads online saying the same silliness?

1 - It would cost a boatload, for a military that is under sequestration. Yah, 13% budget reduction, so let's buy all new M4 uppers. RIGht.

2 - We do NOT "often ask our combat troops to fight against superior odds". Dunno what 3rd world country's military you served in, but that's the most ridiculous thing claimed on the internet today. It's not a conventional fight, there are no large organized groups of enemies anywhere that are outnumbering or outmatching us. We're still teaching 3-1 attack ratios, so neither doctrine nor theater has us fighting superior odds.

3 - Do you really think that the caliber of our rifles is the weakest link in our fighting force, or even anywhere in the top 100? It's not.

For your Point #2-
Not trying to be "That Guy", but check out The Battle of Saret Koleh-27 July 2007 Battle of Wanat-Aug 2008, The Battle of Malekshay (I dunno if anybody even published anything on the Malekshay TIC, but it happened.) Late June 2008 (I can get an exact date later if need be, but I don't have my journals on me ATM).

Those are all examples, just from the 173rd ABCT, of incidents in which soldiers on the ground have been significantly outnumbered, and in the case of Saret, badly outmaneuvered by the ACM. big things don't often happen in AfghanLand, but when they do, they're usually associated with 300+ enemy fighters and chechen commanders.

They certainly don't change a thing in regards to your point (having better rounds does not a victory win), and actually reinforces your Point #3 (The need for better intel, among many things), but they're worth noting. But back to the Question, your Point #3 hit it on the head. Dreaming of 'that new shiny something' that's going to single-handedly win the war is silly as all get-up. The biggest war-winner is the human brain, and all it requires to avoid such situations like the aforementioned is USAGE. In a lot of those cases, we got solid intel days before the battle, and pretty much ignored it. Then everybody flipped the hell out of their skulls when that intel turned out to be true.

Instead of getting new shiny crap, focus needs to be made on fighting smart, and outmaneuvering those Chechen freaks. Or just dropping an ass-ton of ordinance on them from every air platform in the R-C, which worked pretty good as a suppliment to the three cases above.

I still Laugh when I remember the A-10 driver coming across the net: "Uh yeah, White One, Hog-Five-Three, There looks to be about thirty-five guys in the Prone... or dead position on your HLZ. want me to do another Gun-Run to be sure?"

 

[redneckbmxer24]

And yes, the AR design has serves us well but direct impingement has had its day - and then some. It ain't called dirty impingement for nothing.

Whenever I hear somebody say something like this I immediately know they're an inexperienced nut swinger going off the latest craze. I have to ask, how much have you REALLY shot your AR's, or have you ever even owned one? I'm sure you have since this is the internet, you're probably also a 35 year old entrepreneur that's 6'5" with an 18" cock.

I've had a crap ton of quality AR's that are gas impingement, I still have one I've had for 10 years that has well over 40K rounds through it. NEVER A PROBLEM. Not one, not even a hiccup. I have to wonder where people like you get the idea that DGI is somehow unreliable? One of my new KAC AR's already has 3K rounds through it, all standard ball ammo, and all suppressed fire which makes the rifle run dirtier. When I got it new I lubed and oiled it with EWL and militec grease and haven't done an ounce of maintenance since. It also has never malfunctioned.

The LWRC M6A2 I had was an utter piece of shit. It constantly short stroked constantly, failed to eject, was front heavy, and carrier tilt was eating away the buffer tube after only 500 rounds. I've experienced other problems with numerous other piston driven platforms.

So please tell me, what in your vast knowledge explains why my DGI rifles are unreliable when proven fact says otherwise?

 

[armorpl8chikn]

MMM....mmm....I smell popcorn!

 

[Sharpsman]

It's quite possible that change (if needed) will only take place when a JCOS retires, starts a company making XY and Z with the political clout required to initiate change!

In the meantime.....give the 'gound-pounders' more time on the ranges!!