US Army May Move to a New Round

[db_zero]

I a little surprised by this. I don't agree with all of the reasons stated in this article-I think the AR is far more reliable these days, but the other reasons seem to have some validity. If the Army moved to a new round I would guess the Marines and other services would have to consider doing so. Its still not a done deal and Congress will have the final say.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/why-army-thinks-needs-bigger-192100754.html

 

[HerrTom]

Interesting. I have my doubts that this will actually enter into effect after seeing the last attempts to replace the M16 platform.

But after reading this, another thing pops into mine: "But he proposed arming only the infantry with a replacement for the M4/M16." Maintaining 3 different common calibres for your logistical trains seems like a poor decision to me.

[c3k]

This debate pops up every 5 years or so. Yes, the 5.56 is not a great round. It is, however, pretty good. Now, if you need to penetrate body armor, bricks, etc., then your round is different than if you shoot an unarmored opponent. Lots of anecdotes about that.

The most often mentioned rounds to fill the "more oomph" niche are 6.8 SPC (a compromise between 5.56 and 7.62...just about perfectly in the middle), .300 Blackout (a 7.62 round crammed onto a 5.56 brass...great at short range, especially subsonic and suppressed), or a full up rifle round (7.62x51mm or thereabouts).

The problem? Well, there's no free lunch in engineering. The 5.56 was chosen for a reason. The particular round may change (55 grain up to 77: steel core, OTM, etc, etc.), but the ballistics and terminal effects are pretty balanced for the 300m firefight. In CQB, the .300 Blackout is better (if I had to choose). However, that round is horrible at longer ranges. The 6.8 SPC is good. A jack of all trades, between the 7.62x39 and the 5.56x45. 

The other problem? The incredible expense of changing out the existing 5.56 world. Ammo? That's easy. Think ballistics, sights, barrels, machinery, cleaning kits, etc., etc., across the entire military.

It would take a phenomenally strong argument (with a LOT of proof) to change the 5.56 to something else.

Every 5 years this lesson gets relearned. 

 

[c3k]

Hmm...just read a little blurb about this. They're positing the .260 and the 6.5 Creedmoor among others. If anything, I would've expected the 6.5 Grendel. (Take a 6.5mm bullet, cram it on a 5.56 case and you have the Grendel. Take the same bullet and stick it on a necked-down .308 case and you've got the Creedmoor. That's the rough idea.) The creedmoor is outstanding. 

I'll still be stunned if they move up to a .308 class of cartridge. (Hey, I'd make 'em all semi-auto creedmoors if I were in charge...)

[cool breeze]

My laymans 2cents is that its a great idea and I like how they are talking about upgrading just the infantry to supposedly keep the cost down to less than an f-35 fighter jet.  We picked the 5.56 for the Vietnam War, because it was good for jungle fighting against the Vietcong.  We didn't choose it because it's particularly well suited to the urban or even semi urban landscape, or because it was good against soldiers with armour.  I think our army should be more geared towards being the best in a near peer, can afford body armour kind of contest than being the best at beating jungle insurgency sorts of struggles. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by cool breeze

[c3k]

Creedmoor is great. Very fast, very flat, very accurate. It brings some "oomph", too.

The current US 5.56 round, the M855A1 (62 grain) is touted for how "environmentally friendly" it is. Yeah. "We're here to kill you. It's better that your blood seep into the ground than lead bullets." I'll stop there.

Some basic stats (which are hard to find and, what I have found are "suspect" in that they are commercial loads fired from test barrels). What follows is roughly apples-to-apples:

62 grain 5.56

muzzle: 3,060 fps/1,289 ft-lbs   300 yards: 2,095 fps/ 604 ft-lbs    500 yards: 1,571fps/ 340 ft-lbs

Compared to the 143 grain 6.5mm Creedmoor...

muzzle: 2,700 fps/2,314 ft-lbs   300 yards: 2,285 fps/ 1,685 ft-lbs    500 yards: 2,031fps/ 1,309 ft-lbs

 

The above is from Hornady.com and as such is NOT mil-spec ammo numbers. The power of the Creedmoor is far higher than the 5.56. However, the rifles and ammo weigh a lot more...so there's that. FWIW.

[cool breeze]

That creedmore seems like just the thing. Seems a great compromise between a full rifle round and a carbine.  Twice as powerful at the muzzle seems not bad, maybe better for short range urban combat due to increased penetration of cover.  But at 500 meters the creedmore seems fantastically better.  4 times the power, or about the same at 500m as the 5.56 is at point plank, depending on how you re counting. 

[MikeyD]

Swap out the photo in the article and the story could've been written 15 years ago, or 7 years ago. The Army transitioned from full rifles to carbines because of the demands of the sorts of wars they were fighting. It makes you wonder what sorts of wars they think they're going to be fighting in the future. If CMBS is a guide, the bigger bullet is meant to be a counter to the rise of body armor among potential opponents.

[c3k]

The bigger/more energetic round also does better in built-up areas. Or shooting up/down at distances far in excess of 500m.

I'm sure the bigger cartridge seems like a no-brainer...from my leather swivel chair in my air-conditioned office.

[HerrTom]

Also means lower ammo capacity per magazine and overall, less controllable rapid fire, and heavier weapons. Not that the 556 is the best combo, but the army seems to have thought so in the past.

Also your chair is leather? I get cheap, uncomfortable fabric and a cubicle, all in the name of "ergonomics!"

[c3k]

Err, "leatherette"? 

[Michael Emrys]

11 minutes ago, c3k said:

"leatherette"

Would that be a female Marine?

Michael

[c3k]

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

Would that be a female Marine?

Michael

I'll hold your beer while you ask one.

[db_zero]

I think the chances both the Army and Marines will get a new rifle and round are quite good. The political climate is right. There could also be domestic politics that will come into play. The current administration is 2nd Amendment friendly as is the overall make up of congress and the senate. As a result many of the domestic gun manufacturers have an oversupply of AR type platforms and other guns. Sales are flat line to falling as the fear of a crackdown on guns has diminished for the time being. The recent election made that a fact.

A new weapon system with the associated potential for lucrative government contracts in congressional districts may sweeten the deal. Save jobs and keep manufacturing in America as the new slogan goes and anyone with any clue to how the convoluted defense industry works knows this isn't a far fetched scenario. 

In addition there are many civilians out there who would jump at the chance to own whatever weapon the military has. As crazy as that sounds this is America and America is a gun culture.

The Army and Marines are quite clever in bringing this up now and they should move forward and ask. The worst that can happen is they get told no, but there will probably never be a better climate to get what you ask for than now.

[akd]

Pointless to change unless they move to technology that allows improved ballistics without increasing soldier load or decreasing ammo carried.

[Thewood1]

" The current US 5.56 round, the M855A1 (62 grain) is touted for how "environmentally friendly" it is. Yeah. "We're here to kill you. It's better that your blood seep into the ground than lead bullets." I'll stop there. "

I am no environmental nutjob.  In fact, I work in an industry that some would consider "non-sustainable".  But I live near a former army base that is now a National Guard training facility.  It has been in operation as a live fire training facility for over 100 years.  Now they do range quals 3-4 times a year, but up until the late 60's, a  lot of range shooting happened.  After it was converted to an NG operation, they started selling houses around it.  About 6-7 years ago, it was noticed that levels of lead in local water was increasing.  It was the result of millions of lead rounds from the shooting range eventually leeching into the water table.  Its getting worse and no one knows what the best way to resolve it is.  I bet more of those rounds get fired here on US soil than any place else.

I don't believe that the primary consideration for a bullet should be environmental, it should be to get the job done.  But any round developed has to take the above issue into consideration.

[Jotte]

3 hours ago, akd said:

Pointless to change unless they move to technology that allows improved ballistics without increasing soldier load or decreasing ammo carried.

 

[cool breeze]

That was the funny video that guy is from?  Anybody think that someday we will use higher caliber barrels and sabot dart rounds for small arms?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Discovery Channel's 'Ancient Aliens' IIRC.....Bollocks of the first order, if I may be so British about it.   

[cool breeze]

lol, huh, thanks.  Woulda guessed it was shark talk lol.

[cool breeze]

The only sensible reason I can see to put I guy looking like that in your documentary, is to suggest that HE might be an alien.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

[cool breeze]

oooh yeah that's! where Ive seen it.

[Sgt Joch]

This has been discussed often, not only in RL, but in the forum.

There were some good reasons why NATO switched from a 7.62 mm to a 5.56 mm round.

Studies in WW2 showed that:

1-most firefights take place within 200 meters;

2-most infantry casualties are caused by mortars/artillery;

3-the principal role of small arms is to suppress enemy infantry to increase the effectiveness of point #2.

The reason why 5.56 mm was adopted:

1. 5.56 mm weighs roughly 1/2 as much as 7.62 mm, so you can carry a lot more. That allows infantrymen to keep up a higher ROF to suppress enemy soldiers;

2. within 200 meters, 5.56 mm round can kill/incapacitate as well as 7.62 mm round;

3. with 5.56, you can use lighter, smaller weapons like the M4, which are easier to carry and more maneuverable in confined spaces, i.e. urban, room clearing.

Certainly, you can find situations where the longer range/extra penetration of a heavier round might be more useful, but infantry is supposed to be working in cooperation with supporting arms, HMGs, AFVs, artillery, etc. to deal with those situations.

Add to that the fact that everyone else, including the Russians (5.45 mm) and the Chinese (5.8 mm) have switched to a lighter round for the same reasons.

So yes, these discussions come up very few years, but I don't see a switch away from 5.56 in NATO forces anytime soon.

[db_zero]

WW2 was a long time ago. The average front line soldier was not so nearly well trained. Most were draftees. While I don't dispute the validity of WW2 studies the world and warfare has changed and perhaps it time to re-evaluate and change.

Most Armies are volunteer-that applies the the US. Training is much higher. Effective and low cost optics is also available that makes fire from infantry weapons far more effective. In WW2 99% of the infantry used open sights. Today lightweight optics that turn every infantryman into a potential sniper is in widespread use. Optics issued to everyone can vary from simple red-dot, reflex to 2-6X+ variable. The revolution in optics is something that has gone largely un-reported but has greatly enhanced the effectiveness of small arms and now makes effective longer range shooting by juts about any trained infantryman possible. A round that is less affected by variables like wind, distance and humidity is desirable.

In the future expect more of the same type of warfare where discriminant use of firepower is required. It may be too counterproductive to use artillery, mortars or other heavy firepower and more discriminant use of firepower is required.