Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Army Thinks It Needs a Bigger Bullet

After owning a 6x45, I always wondered why the military went with .224 in the same case.

Anyone remember the .270 British and .280 British that were shelved when NATO went to 7.62x51??

Time to go around again. Will they start with an existing cartridge and modify, or define performance requirements and design a new cartridge ground-up. Anyone taking bets?

(By the way - the way the acquisition process is supposed to work is to start with a performance requirement)

The solution to this problem is extremely simple, and won't involve any new weapons systems per se.

All that is needed to increase the effectiveness of the 5.56 is a heavier bullet which fits inside the confines of issued magazines. This will be achieved via TUNGSTEN CORE bullets with the same form factor but heavier weight. The max weight will be determined by what a 7 twist will throw accurately.

This will keep the recoil at an acceptable level while shooting as flat as infantry needs with much increased penetration and terminal wounding. Win-Win-Win.

I don't think General Scales knows very much about rifles.

His troops who had reliability problems with M16s in Viet Nam were probably using M16A1s. The M16A2 design, plus using the correct powder that Eugene Stoner originally specified, fixed this problem about 1970.

Curious nobody has mentioned 7.62x39 so far.

This. And a mid length 16" barrel for 1.5 more inches of velocity. The M-4 would be great for room clearing but beyond that with a 6mm bullet the extra velocity cold only help. Especially with the distances they are shooting in Afghanistan.

kwg

But from my personal experience if you are carrying a 5.56 you are going to need ALOT more rounds. I luv the AR platform. I carried a M16A1 during my first schit in my pants session. Reliable and accurate to no end.
But It is and always been saddled with an anemic round when facing 150 lb bi-pedals.

The Army tried tungsten core 5.56 ammo 10-15 yrs ago. Dropped the program in 2008.
And... China controls about 80% of the world supply of tungsten.

Better marksmen. Tho maybeso a heavier bullet for beyond 300 yards. For close range, jungle, room clearing etc, spray and pray is fine, but seems like aimed shots at longer ranges, from roof tops, etc would be more effective. 'Course, you have to poke your head up to actually aim....

I get a kick out of these Middle-East videos of whoever (not our boys) sticking guns over walls, around corners and spraying. For the camera, no doubt. Or running up beside the last guy and cutting loose just feet from the dood's ear.. Daaaym - that hurts just thinking about it.

I hope they pick the creed or I fear there will be EVEN MORE RIOTS!!!!!!! haha

The 6.5 Campfire militia is ready..... , but since I only have a .260, I guess I'll have to be a REMF, and cook.

Carlos Hathcock put it pretty bluntly when he stated "There aren't enough men in the military today that understand marksmanship requirements to make up a baseball team!"

I'm pretty certain that pertains to the numbnuts that will have the final say so over a cartridge selection!!

Schitteree! What happens when that friggin glass gets phugged up or the batteries run out! Iron sights are simple.....you just have to have the right people teaching how to use them! Had a buddy from the AMU during the first Iraq war who went to Ft. Hood along with several of our other former shooting buds to teach 800 soldiers MARKSMANSHIP! He told me.....don't even mention minute of angle to them....you're speaking a foreign language! Tell them to take 2 MOA up and they twist the windage knob and vice versa if you tell them to take windage!! Didn't have a clue! At one time AMU were throughout the US Army Regions but the 'brains' saw fit to do away with them. Ike started them because he saw first hand the absolute poor marksmanship of the WWII soldier! Missiles and bombs don't hold ground.....groundpounders do and they need to know how to kill their enemy with their basic weapon...the rifle!

How about looking into the cases themselves? Military ammo is disposable by their terms. Not reloadable. I bet they could make reliable quality cases from brass or probably some new alloy that would be way lighter, yet rigid enough to strand 1 firing. Not caseless, but a ultra tough disposable one shoot case. That could greatly reduce weight. And yes upgun. A .257? (Just threw that in there to irk the creed more dudes.)

Something like the 6mm Hagar (6.8 necked to 6mm) or maybe 6.35 Hagar would come close to .250 Savage performance and run in the M16/m4 with the appropriate bolt-barrel-magazine. This would be a real step up in power with a minimum cost, and with less weight per unit than 7.62. Going too big would reduce the amount of ammo which could be carried.

Maybe the 6.5mm CT is coming? Cased Telescoping ammo

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ased-ammo-armys-next-small-arms-program/

great ideas, a better and lighter metal thats can be used for casing will make the job more efficient, instead of looking for heavier or bigger ammo.

Whatever the new round looks like, it should be named the 6.5 MAGA.

In the end, a heavy bullet will be the only workable solution. So they will get back to it soon enough. The developments will probably come via the private sector first, and are.

" outmatched by enemy combatants in many instances" Really , and who might that be?????

Our military spends more than the budgets of the next 6 highest spending countries in the world put together and that doesn't include the costs of maintaining our nukes which is buried in the dept. of energy budget.

Here we are discussing the fact that ar rifles prices have fallen in the basement yet they are estimating the cost at $1000 per unit in a high volume buy. same story with the pistol replacement thread a month or so ago. Costs of $1000 or more. yet I can go buy a new Beretta 92 for $500 retail. Maybe Shortactionsmoker needs to send them an advertising flyer and business card.