I've had this in my crawl for many years--the DOD and military really picked a sub-par round for the AR-15 / M16 rifles.I know there will be much debate on this subject which I am more than willing to address but to the point--Several factors were considered / small high velocity rounds will kill/ the small size of the cartridge means much more ammo can be carried into battle/light recoil meant more accurate shooting and the smaller round was cheaper to manufacture.I am a Vietnam veteran USAF weapons specialist so I am speaking from some experience.In the early days many Marines and Army troops would have given a months combat pay to have their M-14's back.I have always thought the designers were on drugs when they chose the 22 cal.No crystal balls around at that time to help them out of their stupidity I guess.I have always felt that choosing the 6mm/6.5 or at that time my choice 7mm bore would have been much better.As far as I'm concerned should one of these others been the choice there would be alot fewer names on "The Wall"

Well, there have been a lot of improvements to the M16 platform and ammunition since the 'Nam days, so if you are basing your opinion on that, you need to get a new download of information.

One only has to do three things to have an AR15 that will run very well. First is to use proper bullets/ammo. The second thing is to lube the bolt occasionally, instead of trying to run it dry. The third thing is to own a top tier brand to head off any potential problems from the very beginning.

Is it the greatest long range round? No, but it was intended for short range use, 300 yards and under. Any rifleman knows the .308 is a much better long range and barrier round. Also, I'm thinkin' you'd probably get a lot more discussion if posted in the AR15 forum.

I do keep up with all the new platforms but newer powders and bullets have been a blessing for it's upgrade since Vietnam,however the point of my post was there wouldn't have been so many problems if they would have picked a larger bore dia.to begin with.Just think the 260 rem was basically around then as several forms of wildcats which since based on the 7.62 would have been a no brainer!!! The 223 is still a 22 no matter how many ways you want to look at it-new or old and in my estimation doesn't cut it when you have to put your life on the line.Appreciate your input ----Flem

I know lots of veterans. The more action they saw, the more they tend to respect the 5.56mm. I asked one guy if the 8" Sig he used as a contractor worked well. "Dude, it rips peoples [bleep] faces off!" Same response from another contract WRT the 10.5.

Since 7.62mm in magazines is three times the weight of 5.56mm... easy choice.

I would have to agree if I had the ability to carry an infinite amount of ammo and weight wasnt a concern. But from what ive seen the round does its job. It might blow through the intended target and might take 2 or 3 shots depending on placement but, it puts them down.

When you have the ability to stay in the fight longer than your enemys, than as long as you have good cover and concealement, Id take more ammo any day.

40 year old argument.

Today's 5.56/.223 AR-15/M-16 isn't the Vietnam rifle & cartridge.

Guy

Guy I agree totally with the fact that the 223 isn't the same round as the Vietnam era but my whole point here is the military and DOD have put all their eggs in one basket!!We need a round that will fit any war senerio whether it be jungle/dessert or mountain terrain and I still don't see the 223 as the one to do the job!!The only advantage I can see is being able to put more rounds on target because of size and weight.I don't think I'm the only one out there with this point of view and it may take 10yrs or more but I think you will see a new standard come on line in the future the 6.5 mm in some form.Good visiting with u---------Flem

.308 is superior to the .223 and would be my pick every time.

Impressive......more or less.

The odds of dumping the 5.56 NATO cartridge is nil. It ain't gonna happen. The Army has been screwing this up since 1900 when it didn't adopt the 7x57mm Mauser cartridge. Then refused to adopt the .276 Pederson in the 1920's. Then refused to adopt the .280 British in the 1950's. Then went to the 5.56mm in the 1960's!

I thought the Army was on a better track to a successful individual infantry weapon with the XM29 with it's airburst 20mm grenades and an attached 5.56 NATO carbine. If it worked THAT would be an improvement over the M16/M4. But the Army cancelled that program in 2005.

The 5.56 nato round is and always will be out-gunned by the 30 cal Ak-47.You might be right my generation may not see it but somewhere in the future is a break-through cartridge around the 6.5 bore that will finally even the odds!!!Case in point the 7.62 was heavily tested prior to being adopted----short case similar ballistics to the 30 M1 but could be put on a much lighter piece....then guess which cartridge started winning 1000yd matches!!!Today take a good look at what most are shooting in competition 6.5's why because this is the first step in making the 5.56 obsolete--it will take a while but it's going to happen!!!!
Tnx much enjoyed your point of view.........Flem

The US Special Operations Command asked for the 6.8mm SPC cartridge. Which approximates the ballistics of the 7x57mm Mauser, the .276 Pederson, and the .280 British.

But I doubt that our regular military will ever convert as long as we're in NATO.

During WWII someone told the Army that only Infantryman needed M1 Garand rifles. The majority of troops carried M1 Carbines. The 30/06 Springfield cartridge recoil required training to use accurately. It was, in it's day, the most powerful military rifle cartridge in use. The 7.62mm NATO has the same recoil issue.

A 7.62mm NATO chambered rifle is what most Infantrymen should be using now. Let the rest of our troops use the milder M4 and M16.

That would solve most of the problem without adopting another cartridge.

1000 yards matches have nothing to do with fighting whatsoever. Nor does the 7.62 produce wounds more serious than the 5.56mm. In fact I have a friend who is thankful that his enemy shot him with a 7.62 rather than a 5.56mm.

Is 5.56mm the best? Probably not. I like the 7x46 idea. My brother is serving now and would issue the 6x35 PDW to nearly everyone, the 7x46 would be used in rifles by some infantrymen and in belt fed weapons by some others. Given a choice between 7.62mm and 5.56mm he would take 5.56mm.

As has already been noted by a few respected posters... it takes a lot of training to shoot an M14 or even M1 well especially at distances.

The M16 is much easier for troops to manage.

And having shot with a LOT of armed forces in competitions over the years, most every last one says the M14 is a specialized tool and nice to have for certain situations, but if you can't kill/stop the enemy with the M16, its certainly not the M16s fault, its the idiot driving it.

I tend to agree. I've done a lot of amazing stuff with a 223, and I would not want me shooting at me with one......at any range.

BTW if you want to talk service rifle, I've a hair of knowledge of that... and I'll just say the M14 does not hold the 1000 yard record of service rifles... the M16 does....doesn't really mean squat but I've won and placed in 1000 yard events walking away easily with the high scores over all the other M14s in state matches..... and local matches..... and doing some rather decent damage to the bolt gunners in the process.... 3rd place in a state Palma matche against all comers proves a bit... as does my outright wins of the 800 and 900 yard line against all calibers...

I never mentioned the choice of match rifles.....In my experience most where bolt action custom sniper type weapons/Winchesters and Remingtons.Congrats however on your accomplishments......you are saying that you beat the 7.62's with the 223 ??? ----and if so the conditions must have been ideal....no wind at the bench or down range.Not being a smart A$$ here at all but just very interested in your account!!!
TNX........FLEM

Dude if you think the conditions were perfect... this was shooting prone in a sling with iron sights against the bolt guns..... NO one shot a perfect string at ANY distance. The 7.62 M14s were and are easy to beat with the M16... you have all the advantages going for you other than sight radius. And mind you I"m talking shooting what is basically the issue M16 in 20 inch tube and irons.. a few mods like float tube hidden, better trigger but still 4.5 pounds plus, and a better barrel.

The M16 beats the M14 most times at 1000 due to better bullets and more accurate over all and easier to shoot well. Like I said Troy Lawtons bunch at AMU Ft Benning took all my leftover ammo.... I gave it to Kyle Ward and they pulled it down and used it to shoot a perfect score at 1000 in the M16s, something the M14s NEVER did to this day.

AND I've got a few years of driving an M1A out to 1000 also....

How did I do it to win.... just a better shooter that day. No more to say other than that really.... it was X count win at 800, by one point at 900 and lost the complete match due to elevation issues due to me not being able to see and hold elevation well at 1000 that day.... lost the 1000 yard match by 3 points.... which means I was 3rd place over all included in the bolt guns part of the match... by 2 points lower score.... and won the service rifle part by quite a few points.... Probably didn't hurt that I was on a roll and beat Tubb the next day at the 600 yard stage of the state matches... him with a 6.5 something IIRC, in a Tubb 2000.... probably his 6.5xc or whatever that is, me with my meager AR15 in 223....

But I shoot fairly heavy bullets for long range and mid range... IE 600 to 1000. Almost always shooting 90 jlks.

BTW putting an M16 thread in a long range hunting forum probably isn't the greatest choice of forums....

If I intended to shoot long range and had a choice.... I'd be starting with my 308 bolt... and run up to my 50 bolt....

But for 300 and under rapid fire... and even 600....

BTW do you recall what rattle battle matches are, NTIT? Did you know that you can get 45 hits and I"ve seen actually 46 as max by a marine shooter... on a human silhouette at 600 in a 50 second target exposure.... that includes (obviously) a mag change in taht 50 seconds...... Thats not remotely possible with an M14... I think I managed to to 30 wiht an M14 once or twice.... but topping 30 with an M16 is easy.

Apparently you are one accomplished rifleman ...my congrats to you again.We can talk accuracy till we're blue in the face but I don't care how you spin it down range this isn't a superb killing round.I have in my arsenal a Ruger 77 varmit 26" heavy barrel in 220 Swift when on any given day blows the doors off of the 5.56 but do I use it much for hunting deer..NO..not that it isn't potent enough for deer sized game but there are better choices in my gun cabinet!!!The way I look at it the DOD and military also had better choices in their gun cabinet but chose not to use them. Flem DUDE

77 bthp makes a ton of difference. From the folks that are currently out there in real time... if you are issued that and have issues, its you, not the gun or round.
I have no more to say about it. I believe it when I talk to the troops that are using them and know what they are doing.... and do it every day.

Mny Tnx for your point of view....I appreciate it !!! FLEM

One of my good buddies doinked a taliban plantining a mine at right around 550M with his 14.5 inch issue colt M4 and green tip. Dude was done gurglin by the time our Afghans got to him.

I've seen dudes take a bunch of hits from pretty much every small arm (east and west block) and live. One round or chunck of shrapnal from anything center mass makes things stop happening. A single lung hit from an ak is not a deal breaker. A 5.56 single lung hit isn't a dropper but it works at least as well as a 7.62x39.

A 6.5 in an AR platform would be fine. The reason the 6.8 stops so well is the match bullet it uses. Shoot blackhills match or tap and the 5.56 dumps em just as hard.

The AR platform is is more ergonomical than any battle rifle being fought with in theater today. Any caliber change hopefully will maintain the same platform. Try using a 7.62 nato ar10/m14 on multiple close range target. It can be done well but not by many.

The only mistake is not adopting the 224 Springfield cartridge; would have been better, although slight with the heavy bullets that have been adopted as of recently.

It was cheaper to change the cartridge rather than the action.

Funny, today the AR platform houses about anything.

556mm White Oak Armory anyone?

I think we ought to be using an 80gr bullet in the SAW BTW. Seated long, as the action can handle that.

Ryan;

You give up compatibility with the M16/M4 platforms then, one of the major design parameters for the SAW.

Flem;

What you're missing is the design parameter for the M16/M4 platform.

It is capable of doind dirty work at 500+ meters, but it wasn't designed for that initially.

The platform and especially the ammunition have evolved to be a very capable system, and I'd fathom that had this generation of the system been available during the Southeast Asian war games (where most of the system's "bad reputation" originated), it'd have a far different reputation.

I believe the US Military and the USMC are switching over to newer designs of 5.56mm projectiles for that very reason.



I've not used an M16 to any great degree, but would agree that they handle very well, almost instinctively.

That said, if I were serving in Afghanistan today, I think I would prefer an SLR (FN FAL)in 7.62mm Nato...The only thing that really let the SLR down was the way optics were mounted on the top cover, which was simiply too flimsy for the job. I am sure there are much better solutions available, and a good optic on an SLR would certainly make it more effective at 500m plus, than any comparable 5.56mm system..

The difference between the two rounds is more readily apparent in belt fed MG's. I've watched a 5.56mm Nato Minimi "tickle" the exterior of a concrete block bunker at about 300mm...Switching to a 7.62mm Nato GPMG on the same target, and it actually demolished the front wall of the bunker!

Pete E;

DSA picatinny rail dust cover. Trust me.

Oh, the Army is switching to a lead-less bullet for "green" reasons. The USMC adopted the open-tip SOCOM bullet, for lethality.

I have to disagree on the FN/SLR, though. I dote heavily on the FN, but she's a pig to carry, and the M4 engages targets much faster.

The M4s as standard issue, with the far better ammunition we have now, are the right choice.

Take a page from the USSR playbook (and we are beginning to do this), and use the 7.62NATO platform as a DMR weapon for the designated marksman/sharpshooter within every squad. The SAW uses the M4/5.56 ammo, and the 5.56s do the bulk of the engagement, with the DMR/LMG using 7.62NATO for heavier fire and more precise/longer range engagements.

The M4 is certainly easier to carry, but the SLR wasn't a pig by any means..If an infantry soldier is not up to carrying an SLR (or M14)you have to look at your selection and training..Its only since the 1960's that for some reason certain Americans felt their infantry couldn't cope with carrying a full size battle rifle or dealing with its associated recoil; most other Army's managed fine with their FN's, CETME's, G3's & AK47's.

In SEA, switching to the 5.56mm for the jungle operations made a lot of sense; remember the British SAS were using them in Malay before they were even issued to the USAF in Vietnam.

But by the same token, the 7.62mm Nato makes more sense in Afghanistan.



Although the British army and the American Army have gone down this route of late, the whole idea of a specialised DM in an infantry section is plain wrong.

Every infantry soldier should have the training and equipment to be a DM. In the American Revolution, your guys with Kentucky rifles were proved the point, the Boers proved the point, in WW1 and WW2, Malaya, Oman and right up to the Falklands, British soldiers proved the point.

Instead of spending millions on new and advanced high tec weapons systems, we should be spending just a fraction of that training infantry soldiers to a higher standard of markmanship and equipping them with a harder hitting rifle with the appropriate optics.

Personally I favour returning to 7.62mm Nato simply as its a known quantity and is available off the shelf. A purpose designed .260, .270 or .280 round would also work, but may not be deemed to be practical for wide spread adoption at this point...

has nothing to do with long range hunting..... but talking calibers available... I have a 50 beowulf upper... 275 barnes X flying ashtrays..... have yet to drop a deer or pig in its tracks, and FWIW, deer shot with 223 and the 50 tend to run about the same distance... the 50 shot deer MIGHT run maybe 20 yards less.

AND totally off topic I've shot one with my big 50.... dinked both lungs... 200 yards later we found her, NO blood trail at all... just a half inch hole through everything...

Lots of times none of it makes sense.

Another thing that I haven't seen mentioned is that that the potentially less lethal 556 round was also picked because an enemy combatant walks past a dead comrade but it takes 2-3 soldiers to evacuate a wounded one and removes 2-3 people from the fight for a short time in addition to the 1 KIA.

That seems to get repeated and repeated, especially on the 'Net, and often by soldiers themselves, but I've never seen it written down "officially", certainly not in any British Army training documents.

The truth is that wounded soldiers can still kill you; the Americans millitary learnt that the painful way in the Philipines when their .38 revolvers were found to be ineffective against the local Moro's (SP?) fighters way back in the 1900's.

Nope, the answers (from an engineering perspective) have been out there since the late 1940's, but nobody has yet successfully brought them together.

For me, it would be the latest version of the 6.8 SPC chambered in an Isreali Tavor rifle. I'd up the weight of the projectile in the 6.8 spc to 130 grn and increase the barrel in the Tavor an inch or to to 20.5"...

Because of the Bullpup configeration, you end up with a rifle the same size as an M4 but with a 6" longer barrel. That extra 6" results in significantly improved muzzle velocities over the M4.

The Tavor is fully battle tested by the Israelies and has been in service with certain elite formations since 2002.

Pete E,

You have a very well stated argument for a Tavor bullpup in 6.8mm. If only The US Army decison makers would listen...

The magazine well on an M249 is a weakness in the system and should be removed anyway. They function poorly with magazines and if you're out of belts I suspect there will be M4s with no living owner laying nearby. Since SAW ammo comes on a belt and M4 ammo comes on a box we shouldn't be using junk M855 for both anyway.

I would have to agree with the OP, here we are almost 50 years later and the M4/M16 5.56 debate still goes on.

Curtis Lemay ordered the first 50,000 M16's for AF security to guard AF bases.
Think about it....

IME it was and is superior to the M16 of today. It was lighter and more lethal with it's 55 grain bullet in a 1/14 twist.

Today's rifle is an evolution of our "target shooters" fraternity in the Ordnance Dept.
It has the Wimbledon cup more in mind than the battle field.
A heavy rifle with a fast twist that shoots bullets that are not as lethal. They have totally screwed up Stoners more
lethal design.

If the 5.56 has been so good for the past decades or so why is the Military constantly changing and improving the M16 5.56? When I worked for Winchester ammunition some Army SOF's came to one of our gel block shoots near Fort Lewis and asked us to test a new round that was made by Black Hills. They told us the current 5.56 was not consistently lethal in Afghanistan and Irag especially at longer ranges.

The Marine Corp very recently has ordered millions of these new bullets. Speer TBBC.

http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/02/16/marine-corps-using-new-rounds-in-afghanistan/

It's to be seen if this new bullet will have a real affect in the fighting in Afghanistan where most firefights occur past 300 meters. The BC on them is not that great.

I agree!!! I'm not an expert but rather favor a 6.5 on the M-4 platform instead of the AR-15.My nephew and son-in-law a Navy "Doc" and the other a Marine both have come back from tours of Iraq and Taliban country.Both seem to like the m-4 better exactly why I don't know???? ..Although they both thought a larger caliber would be better!!
One thing I have to say here and it's not a knock on anyones service to our country or you younger guys out there..but your experience with the 5.56 has been in a dessert conflict with open shots and no jungle flora between you and the enemy!!!I was a gunner on an AC-47 "Spooky" gunship in Vietnam [1969-70] and we were constantly on station providing air support to the Army and mainly Marines in night fire-fight engagements.The AK-47's in most cases were ripping our guys to shreds and their return fire did little damage.We poured thousands of rounds of 7.62 on the enemy through a triple canopy jungle at times with great success, Something a 5.56 could only dream of doing...our mini guns ripped THEM to shreds and I know saved many lives !!!! I applaude you guys for doing the best with what you were given and though I don't know each and everyone of you, I salute you for your courage and service to our country!!!! GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU !!!.....Flem

The 223/5.56 Nato round is and never will be as consistently as effective as a larger diameter round at good velocity

What ever happened to the german caseless ammo stuff?
H&K ever develop it any farther?
Any squareheads usuing it?
In my mind ammo without a brass cartrage would be lighter.

dave

SU35...I couldn't agree more!!!As you said this debate will go on... into what I hope is a short future.It's high time the DOD R+D people "Got Game"...stop dinkin around spending millions of dollars on trying new powders/projectiles etc.and give our infantry people a piece of cutting edge weaponry.I don't know anymore fixes out there for the 223!!! Maybe the next thing we'll see is 120 grainer perched on the top....they have pushed this envelope to the brink and as I've said in other posts no matter how you try to put the spin on this cartridge it is inferior for so many reasons.......FLEM

This is a great article on the subject.

Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer
A Monograph
By
Major Thomas P. Ehrhart
United States Army
School of Advanced Military Studies
United States Army Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf


The sacred cow M16/5.56 needs to be retired.

Thanks I'll check it out!!!

This is a GREAT read....I haven't finished yet because I want to take it all in when I have more time.The purpose of my OP was to convey much of the same data.EVERYONE that has responded to my OP should read this !!!!!
TNX again FLEM

Good article with tons of info-SU35
Would sure get a good look over in the AR15 crowd.

Another associated topic I wanted to touch on in regards to a military cartridge is the choice of bore dia.It's amazing that many moons ago the 6.5/55 and 7x57 were conceived.Seems the Swedes and Germans were on track even way back then!!!Of course the performance package of these rounds were somewhat limited because of available components of the day.You have to hand it to them for their invisionary capabilities to produce military cartridges of higher performance perameters!!!!!...FLEM

"Amateurs talk strategy, Professionals discuss logistics"

This is why the 5.56 NATO isn't going to be replaced in the "regular" military. Millions of rounds of 5.56 ammo produced and guns to shoot them.

The .223 and the M16 was intended as a "fix" for Viet Nam. A short barreled FN FAL with a modified gas system shooting a down loaded 7.62 round would have been a samarter choice.

Caseless telescopic is under development, but for belt fed weapons.

FlyboyFlem - couldn't agree with you more. Was also in the AF in 1966 and most folks forget the AF traded in .30M1 carbines for the "then new" Armalite AR15. Weapons used for security purposes have different performance requirements then for all out infantry combat. The Army test board then changed the propellent powder specifications, to save money I'm informed, that lead to the dirty chamber and jammed bolt problems. Not good when bean counters determine what a weapon can and can not do. Regards, Homesteader.

Exactly and that's why 45 years later we still have a flawed system for infantry combat.

All this blather . . . .

And then the guys who are using this system today say "It works fine" and it falls on deaf ears.

Odd it is.

BMT

The military is not going back to the 7.62 as a primary caliber for reasons already stated. 5.56 is much easier to shoot well, especially for women and 18 year old kids who may have never shot a rifle before. The 5.56 increases the probability of a hit, less recoil in a lighter easier to handle weapon. Its one of the reasons the military now use 9X19 instead of the .45 for our sidearms as do most police departments.

SU35 - IdahoGuy is correct about "professionals & logistics" i.e. more 5.56NATO can be transported then 7.62NATO - the flip side is you NEED more of the 5.56 to do the deadly job correctly. The Army monograph mentioned in the thread makes a good read and, with foresight amongst the proper individuals, the flawed system can be corrected once and for all. It's been overdue a looong time. Homesteader.

I always thought given the superior bullet selection that something based on the 6mm (.243) cal would have been ideal, for poking holes in people.

Everyone is somewhat a product of their environment...not all but most of the younger guys out there are content with the present weapons they were given because this is all they know!!!They have made the best of it and maybe that's the bottom line. FLEM

You must have your head up your butt.

It's the "guys" who use the 16 the most are the ones that are sounding off on it's deficiency's.

Why did an active Army SOF develop the 6.8?

My son, "one of the guys", who is in Helmand province now is telling me his m16 lacks reach He's rated expert 3 straight years now.

That's why I personally have a very special interest in this topic. What works best for him. What is going to keep him alive.

So, it's not exactly blather here.

Alot a PD's / Sherrif Depts / and State Patrols are ditching their 9 mils and moving up to 40's and 45's ......Now what would be the reason for that????......FLEM

It is easier to explain poor performance in a shooting by blaming the caliber and buying new guns, than by blaming the officer and adding trainers and training days.

No matter what caliber of autoloader is issued to line soldiers, they will complain when shooting over 300m that they aren't effective. Because, drumroll please... they can't hit at greater distances. A friend of mine kills people all the time out to 900 yards with 5.56mm. But he can shoot. He leaves his M24 and M107 in their cases. Told me he didn't use either of them the last time over, never needed to.

I don't want to hear the blather about Marines being expert marksman. I've outshot them at 300 yards at Gunsite, and I'm not that great. Give them a larger rifle and they will simply have fewer rounds to miss with at 600m. Leave the long shots to crew served weapons, DMs and MOS snipers. People who have equipment and training meant for that sort of thing.

First of all it's a cartridge.

And this cartridge is hitting people at distance and not killing them consistently. That's the problem.

The cartridge is not only not killing bad guys consistently at long range but short range as well and that is why the Marine Corp went to this bullet.
http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/02/16/marine-corps-using-new-rounds-in-afghanistan/

You obviously didn't bother to read this thread. It's 45 years later and they are still changing and modifying this cartridge.


Oh boy,,,,, another "I have a friend story". He's killing people at 900 meters and leaving his M24 at home.

They get expert by qualifying at 500 meters on targets using irons. They are not using pop ups like the army uses.




300 yds? that's really not saying much.




And its these same SOF Army snipers who created the 6.8 Rem. because the 5.56 was doing it for them.

Here's a quote from the article that you obviously did not read.



RyanScott, You are about the biggest load of blather I've read here in a long time.

Interestingly the spec op folks we shoot with and talk to still don't have an issue with the 223 and 77s issued..... of course, and no slam at your son, but qualifying expert, would not keep the spec ops folks on shooting teams... expert, after you have shot some, just is not hard to do. That being said I wouldn't want to have to be issued 55s for 500 yards... but given right ammo I've no issue at all with using 77s in their place... and 77s we shoot to 600 and I don't think anyone would be happy being hit with that...

No, it's not that hard to do, your right. But it's still far better than Army pop ups.

The Marines do a pretty good job of instruction for those entering the gun club.

There's no denying that controversy exist around the M16 and the 5.56 for the past 45 years.

How clean do the 77's feed from a magazine?

We run 77s all the time in NTIT rattle battle matches... I can dump 40 rounds give or take onto a target at 600 yards in the 50 second time exposure... and I"ve seen 46 hits on that target as a max IIRC or 48.... from a Marine team shooter.....

Almost everyone runs 75 or 77s... and we shoot 20 round mags so there is a delay at a mag change..

SMooth as butter IMHO.

As to the 6.8... to a man.. the folks that we shot with said that IF they felt the need for more power or range, it would be back to the 308 and not simply a jump to a 6.8 or 6.5. I have said before... I don't know if a version of the 308... IE the 7 or 260 might not prove better than the 308 in combat but there would be only one way to find out.... but the 308 is proven... and is still a nato round IIRC, at least the last ball I saw from LC was headstamped such.....that means a lot there... SDM should have an M14 IMHO and the military should get someone to make a run of select fire M14s again for stock and parts... but not full auto.. 2 or 3 shot burst... full auto on an M14 can be about worthless....

And again, no slam on your son, I suspect he actually shoots better than expert but thats the high qual IIRC. But most folks that have issues with the 5.56 and good ammo, just ain't shooting right....

BTW if the average engagement starts at 600-800 M.... 6.8 is not what I"d want either.... thats realm of the 308 plus....

I only mentioned my son as I've seen him send bullets out to 600 meters and he does a pretty good job. He doesn't lack.

This is now more of a "catfight" than a discussion...

That usually happens when Oregon Lawyers make disparaging comments.

If the 5.56mm Nato works so well at 600m plus, why are both the Americans and the Brits equipping designated marksmen with 7.62mm?

I can understand the Americans doing it given the M4 has such a short barrel, but we Brits were using the LSW for that role and even with its 24" barrel, we were still not getting adequate performance at longer ranges with the SS109.

Pete E,

What is the LSW? Is it the same as the M249 FN Minimi?

Sorry about that...Its was the Light Support Weapon. Basically it is a version of the SA80 with a longer barrel and a bipod. It was envisaged as a section light machine gun to replace the 7.62 GPMG (our version of the M240)on a scale of two per 8 man section. Being a fixed barrel weapon it was less than ideal for that role, but given the SA-80's excellent accuracy it was found to be useful in the designated marksman role instead.

The M249 was then introduced to fill the fire support role, again 2 per section. That has been well received by the troops, but many prefer the 7.62mm GPMG for that role.

So, in some Regiments over in Afghanistan, an 8 man infantry section will be armed as follows: 2 GPMG, 2 M249's, 2 LSW, 1 SA80 with grenade launcher, with only one guy armed with a plain SA80 and he may very well be carrying a light anti tank 'muntion or perhaps a 60mm mortor depending on the mission. That would be at the extreme end of things, but I have seen patrols of Para's shown on the TV and they were armed pretty much that way..

In fact its been said that an infantry section from the Para's now carrys more firepower than a platoon of Para's did in the Falklands War...

With the introduction of the new 7.62mm Sharpshooter rifle in place of the LSW, that probably even more true now...

I would think that this is definitely not a conventional war so to speak.... we are geared up for urban type combat, hence no need typically for heavy calibers... short ranges make that work itself out... SDM is basically allowing each force to more or less have its own sniper.

Now I"ll give you this as I"ve said before... if all engagments are mid range or further, 223 is not the answer...

But you mention SS109... thats not the 77bthp that the guys in the field swear did a lot to level the playing field.

Pete E,

Which do you think is a better choice in Afghanistan. The LSW or the 7.62 NATO BREN gun?

I have used the LMG ( the Bren), the GPMG and the LSW, and , I would much prefer the LMG to the LSW.

Even though the LMG fired from an open bolt, it was still remarkable accurate if you kept to 2 or 3 round bursts. The down side is that I don't ever recall seeing optics mounted on it and even the iron sights were offset to work around the top mounted mag.

The really argument comes where you talk about choosing between the LMG and the GPMG. The LPG was considerably lighter than the GPMG and in certain situations a box mag is easier to work with than a belt of ammo flapping about, although that is largely a matter of training.

Once a section fire base goes firm however, the GPMG is king.

Probably the best MG we never got was the TADEN. It was a belt fed development of the Bren and was meant to compliment the EM2...I think it was also chambered for the .280 British.

Anyway, it was essentially a belt fed Bren; the only pictures I have seen show it with spade handles rather than a proper butt stock, but thats quite a minor design change...

Take a look at the video from about 4:10 on...Its an old video, but quite interesting...

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/enfield_video_page.htm

Pete E,

See my previous entries on this thread. I mentioned the .280 British being amother missed opportunity of the US Army to adopt a better cartridge.

I did see that... all down to politics, sadly...

Well, yes... The choice of a lager cartridge than the 7mm Mauser was to be able to stop Cavalry charges. Decisions made by old men left over from the US civil War...

larger calibre than 7mm

They had this all figured out 65 years ago...

The older rounds were intended to give the Infantryman lethal capability to 1000 yds, to fit the model of Napoleonic war that was the common military strategy up through WWI. When WWII came along, the Germans developed the then new and effective concept of Blitzkrieg war.

When they discovered that the battlefield was no longer statically defined, and that engagements were now rapidly moving and mostly less than 300 yards, they found that the older and larger rounds were not ideal. So along came the new AW rounds optimized for encounters less than 300 yd and providing much greater firepower, at the expense of accuracy and range.

So... it should have come as no surprise then, that rounds that were designed with a maximum effective range of 400 yards might tend to fail at 500-800yds...eh... doesn't take a genius...

But anyway...a few years ago I received a few test boxes of experimental 77 gr HPBT bullets from a contractor that were similar in design to the 77SMK, but with a lighter jacket and a cannelure. I was told at that time they were being considered for a defense contract... (this was around the time of the legal decision regarding HP bullets earlier this decade.)

After some testing, these bullets seemed to perform well at all ranges on unarmored targets with excellent lethality, and with much better LR performance. Later, reports coming back from the field from SF claimed that they were very effective during actual live engagements at 700-800 yards. I don't remember the bbl length, they might have had REECE type weapons, but the consensus was that the 77gr round gave those squads a comfortable, extended buffer zone over what the (then) Iraqi troops had, by a factor of two. It is, of course, a combination of terminal effectiveness and accuracy, and the 77gr HP adequately provides both.

Later, I heard the manufacturer did not receive the contract, and I assumed that Sierra won out. Sierra uses a thicker jacket in their version, and the Sierra version might also work well, but I didn't test them.

I got the feeling this issue took a sidestep with the 6.8 which turned out to be a red herring, but considering that the solution was there for the taking at the time, I assumed that the 77gr solution had been adopted.

TC

Having shot some amount of 4 legged game with the 77 bthp from sierra and some with the 75 bthp from hornady...... neither one perform shabby at all

Cartridges have absolutely nothing to do with terminal effect, only bullets do.


I've not killed anyone, but I have lots of friends in that line of work (and a brother who is an AD Army Officer) and they tell me that at long range if you hit them well, they will die. Usually it takes some time. They specifically tell me that most people who think their rounds are ineffective, are actually missing.


Ah, yes the Bear Claw. Good bullet. A better case can be made for failures at short range being an issue than failures at long range, because of the danger involved.


What does that have to do with anything? 7.62N was developed more than sixty years ago and two new loads have been type classified this year. Does that mean it was always obsolete?


I do have a friend. I have several. I have more acquaintances. Some are overseas at the moment, although most are home for now.


Show me an unprepared battlefield that has a range flag, the targets and shooters at the same altitude, and targets three feet wide. Marines can do it on the flat range. Cool. So can my grandfather. This isn't a failing of Marines, they do what has been asked of them well.

Note that currently a lot more emphasis is being placed on teaching Marines to shoot at short range--traditionally a failing of Marine Corps instruction.




If I can outshoot them at 300 yards what is going to happen at six?



Chris Murray is an 18 series Sergeant from 5th Group, for what it is worth. He didn't create the 6.8 for sniping.


Wasn't all that impressed with that article. Some of his technical details even were lacking. I read it the first time it made the rounds of the military dads sewing circle over at AR15.com. Everyone there seemed ready to call their congressman and insist their son be issued an M14.



I have a long list of things I care about. I was looking at it, trying to find where your opinion of me fit in... and I couldn't find it.

That is not what I read on the internet!

FWIW:

I have seen the MK12 (Navy SEAL/SF sniper rig based upon the AR platform) with an 18" tube do extremely well to 500 meters (shooting the 77 grain BTHP)

Beyond that, not so great.

Also, it was a MK12 CLONE (same tube, action, optics as the MK12) made up for a civilian. Ballistics would be the same, tho'

Wiki LInk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Mark_12_Mod_X_Special_Purpose_Rifle

BMT

I have a hard time hitting beyond 800 yards with a 20" AR and 75gr BTHP...

I have a hard time hitting WITH ANYTHING beyond 800 . . . . .

I don't have a hard time hitting past 800... but its not going to be easy or even smart to try it with something like a 75bthp in 223....

Longer ranges as a norm, call for a bit different approach.

You wouldn't with a GPMG and tracer....in fact you could hits lots of things past 800m,; just a few that were additional to what you were aiming at!!

True . . . .

But beyond 600 things get much more dicey (even in 308).

As one sniper friend stated about the sandbox: "nobody is ever really zeroed at 600."

BMT

But sniper rifles don't have a "beaten zone"!

My brother believed that firepower could come from a box, then he joined the service and realized firepower comes on belts.

500 and 600 you really can more or less be zero'd in if its a fixed distance... its beyond that.. 800 is usually fairly easy... but beyond that it gets iffy for me.

Folks will say I have wind flags and they don't.... but if you use what you have,there are a TON of windicators out there to call the wind... and you can usually get that within 1 moa of being right out to 600... that usually leaves enough error room for a hit...

I don't think the 223 was designed with long range shooting in mind. I look at the larger calibers and 20 rounds for my 338/378 weight 2 pounds. Wonder how many .223 I could have for 2 pounds?

In magazines? 54.

Su35?

Maybe the Army liked M1 carbines but the Marines threw them away because they wouldn't work in sand. I got that from somebody who was there.

Patton said the Garand was the best battle weapon ever devised.

The .223 isn't cutting in Afghanistan. Good city weapon but no good for all around situations.

I don't think everyone here quite realizes how much firepower an infantry platoon of 30 some guys have.

An infantry platoon of has a minimum of Two javelins, two M240B's, six M249SAW's, six M203's and six M14's. Not to even mention they probibly have a FO calling fire for them. If they're in Helmand or Kandahar they most likely have been plussed up two M2 50 cals and two M19 grenade launchers. The PL, PSG, SL's, TL's, assistant gunners, medics, FO and the rto are the ones with M4's. They pretty much have other stuff to worry about than doinking bad guys at 700 meters.

And I promise you first hand a M4 kills shat as far out as you can hit with them. Which realisticly is over 500 meters with issue optics.

Spec ops use pretty much anything they want. Which if you are there you'll see many, many, MANY chose the M4.

Some REMF Major writing a BS paper for his CASQ course means nothing to me.

Ummmm . . . .

Doooooddd . . . ..

This is the Internet.

Reality based opinions need not apply.



BMT

I don't necessarily disagree. But it is almost impossible to zero for conditions that change constantly. My friend was referring to being Deployed from lower elevation to Highlands, to flat desert (mirage), to valleys, etc.

He and his unit eventually decided that a 100 yard zero with a good dope book was more useful.

If I Understand his assignment, he spent 14 months in 18 places, doing Scout/Security/Countersniper work for engineers who were repairing roads, etc. They would finish a repair and move 100 yards to 100 miles.

If a guy is stationed at a base and shoots (practice) to known registration points regularly, the opinion will be different.

Good Shooting,

BMT

I've not had the pleasure of speaking to a lot of War Two vets about the technical details of their service, but a friend grew up with their kids and told me that the Garand had a lot of detractors at the time. There was even a Time magazine article about teething problems. The M1 Carbine was a favorite and didn't get it's poor rep until the Korean War.

That is freaking funny!

BMT: ref: .223 "This is the Internet.
Reality based opinions need not apply"...now is as good a time to
start to get real and not be "politically correct". Homesteader.

From what I've read over the years, a lot of the cartridge/arms choices are based on politics, connections, ones history with other government contracts, and a little good/bad luck on demonstration day.

But the 308 produces those wounds at much longer range and will go through things the .223 only dreams about. The .223 was made to be a wounding weapon.

A good palm pilot program takes a lot of the variables out.... Its all really math, there is nothing vodoo like in shooting. Especially for elevation issues.

Feel free to stand in front of a 223 and pray to recieve only a wound.... generally good folks don't shoot that poorly.

At close range using military ammunition 5.56 is more dramatic than 7.62.

My brother had a sniper in his OCS class. He asked about caliber and was told that it was essentially unheard of to shoot through anything with an individual weapon at any range. Their targets were either in the open or behind hard cover.

But hey, it makes a great argument on the internet.

Ryan. Exactly. Mud walls will catch A lot of rounds, including 50 cal in some situations.

Mike,

thanks for your service!

And what is even more funny is that the Army and Marines followed the Air Force lead in buying the M16. A rifle designated to defend Air Force bases. That is totally hilarious.

This is funny too! LOL! Those stupid Air Force people don't know what they are doing!

"Air Force Revives .45-cal Handgun"

http://defensetech.org/2007/04/18/exclusive-air-force-revives-45-cal-handgun/#comment-207332




bs



Why do you think the Marines are switching bullets, again?
Why is there a push to change the gas system from the M16 to a H&K 416 type system?
Why was the 6.8 developed?
Why do we consistently read of M16/ammo failures to function at crucial times?
Why was I testing 5.56 ammo in gel blocks for
SOF who were looking for a "better" bullet?

1Minute, an accurate appraisal on this subject. Sooner or later, the needs of the actual users in the field will coincide with the day's "political" concerns (with all its baggage)to produce a useful military round. Until then - set your phasers on 'stun'. Regards, Homesteader.

I understand. My reference to a "dope book" was more to having good data.

BMT

Yes Sir. Thank you!

Interesting to know that the well trained forces have zero complaints with whats available to them...

We do need better bullets in 5.56. 6x45 would make sense, as a caliber swap. A better caliber makes more sense in belt fed applications vice individual weapons.

In CQB I'll take the 7.62 every time, not to mention it shoots through walls a lot better than a
5.56.




That's not what they told me. They told me the 5.56 was inconsistent in killing bad guys . Black Hills believed them and developed a new round for them which I believe they eventually went to.



Those "some" were enough for a major manufacture, Remington, to spend 10s of thousands of dollars to develop the 6.8 cartridge.

It's time for a new cartridge and a new rifle.

Why carry all that brass around.
http://remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/g11/caseless.htm

dave

http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23:the-g11-caseless-military-rifle&catid=11:rare-prototypes&Itemid=5

Just shows what can be done.


dave

Woo hoo! an 18 caliber rifle!

I recall what Clint Smith has said: "There is no technology good enough to overcome the operator."

BMT

Yep,a select fire BB gun.
Wouldn't want to get hit with it.

dave

No doubt.

Thinking out loud . . . . "can that caseless ammo get wet?"

BMT

An acquaintance of mine spent 28 years in SF, mostly in first and seventh groups, and told me he prefers 5.56mm because he can shoot people twice as much in the same amount of time. He doesn't like the new 5.56mm ammunition and likes the old M193, which is better than M855 in almost every way. He also tells me that he hasn't seen a caliber that will drop someone every time.

The origin of MK 262: AMU had a pallet of 5.56 pressure ammunition in 77 and 69 grain. There were more 77s so they sent them over to be used by SF guys with MK12s. SF guys started using the ammunition in their M4s because it is more effective than M855. Black Hills later developed the Mod 1 variant with an eye towards terminal effect.

The BH load developed specifically for terminal effect and SF is the 70gr TSX. I forget the name for it, but it's characterized by a brown tip. A friend gave me some, and some MK262, but I haven't tried it yet.

Remington, or specifically one or two people at Remington, have done nearly everything in their power to kill 6.8 in its cradle. And if it wasn't for Hornady and SSA, they would have succeeded.

If we were to select new rifles, 7x46 for LMGs and riflemen, and 6x35 for RTOs, officers, SNCOs, medics, fire and maneuver units. Tilting bolt, like an FAL, would be preferable. Or a three lug AK style bolt.

Funny thing is a lot of guys will accept that fact the even huge hunting rounds (338 Win, 375 H&H, etc) will not absolutely positively knock down a deer. Even with solid COM hits. They accept that the deer might run off and die 20 or more steps down the trail.

But when this fact of Mammalian Physiology occurs in combat situations, its somehow surprising.

BMT

Remarkable isn't it?

How about COM ribcage hit on a large doe, appx 200 yards or a bit more IIRC... About as lung centered as you can get... 50 bmg, 600 whatever grain fmj... NEVER showed a sign of a hit at all, have it on video tape somewhere... flag up, ran like hell about 100 yards and ducked into the brush like she was never touched. Except for the fact that I made a good shot and knew it... we trailed her tracks in the dirt... and never found one drop of blood at all, and she made about 200 yards total, where she was piled up with a saucer size pool of blood on either side of her... you could almost envision seeing through that hole if the vitals were lined up right... Lungs were basically jelly inside... and the carcass looked like you used a half inch hole saw and cut a section out.....

I have shot and will shoot more deer with 223.... some flop, some run.. same results I've gotten with every last weapon I've ever used on deer, from MZ, to bows, to pistols to rifles to shotguns...

Advantages of UCC Ammo over Conventional Ammunition:

1 Weighs less than half a typical cartridge.
2 Occupies about 40% less volume.
3 Approximately half the cost to manufacture.
4 Less expensive logistics (transportation, storage and handling).
5 Propellant is more stable and safer.
6 Electrical primer- and propellant burn with no residue.
7 More reliable, consistent solid propellant.
8 No cartridge case to eject or jam. Environmentally friendly
9 Higher cook-off temperature (higher ignition temp = safer).
10 Semi-conductor type primer ignited electronically no �lock-time�
11 Excellent performance at all ranges.
12 Waterproof and gun oil resistant.
13 Versatility - adaptable to "Rocket and Missile Propulsion".

Detailed Advantages over Conventional Ammunition

�Weighs less than half that of conventional 5.56mm ammunition.

More than twice the amount of �U.C.C. Caseless ammunition� can be transported versus the same weight of conventional ammunition.
�Occupies about 40% less volume than conventional ammunition.

Many more rounds, with less weight, can be carried or stored in the same volume of space.
�Is less costly to manufacture than conventional ammunition.

This is due to the lack of casings, smaller packaging and simplified tooling-setup and maintenance.
�Less expensive logistics.

Due to the Caseless Cartridge�s reduced size, transportation costs can likely be reduced by more than 50% and storage and handling costs reduced by about 45%. In addition, because fewer rounds are required to hit targets, less ammunition may need to be transported to the field.
�More Stable and Safer Propellant.

It is not possible to detonate the UCC propellant or the UCC electrical primer by impaction, static electricity, stray-current, fire, friction, shock or �EMP� (Electro Magnetic Pulses). The above characteristics were verified during major cartridge stability tests carried out at the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany. Conventional ammunition, if ignited by fire, will explode and possibly ignite other conventional ammunition nearby. Friction can also detonate a conventional round. However, when incinerated, the UCC propellant and electrical primer will not explode, but instead will burn, much like the head of a match burns. U.C.C. ammunition can ignite (185 C) but will not detonate by friction.
�No residue, Smokeless.

Propellant, electrical primer and booster burn off fully, leaving no residue in either the chamber or barrel, giving it the highest muzzle-velocities possible. 20,000 rounds can be fired before cleaning is necessary. The propellant is solid and, through a special process, UCC ammunition burns completely from the inside outwards, resulting in the most complete burning characteristics attainable. This also results in lower peak pressures in the chamber.
�More reliable, consistent and powerful. No Muzzle Flash

The �semi-conductor-like� electrical primer is ignited electronically, but will not detonate accidentally because the current that causes the detonation must be of a specific voltage and amperage. The electrical ignition system is particularly suitable for the development of weapons with Fingerprint or Voice Recognition technology. The primer ignites a booster, which is seated directly behind the bullet in every cartridge, which in turn initiates the projectile�s movement down the bore. The booster ignites the rest of the propellant, which burns completely from the inside outwards. Since the �UCC Weapons System�s�� propellant ignites and detonates in the chamber and not in the barrel, as is the case with conventional guns, weapons equipped with the �UCC System� do not produce a detectable flash and thus will not draw enemy counter-fire.
�No Cartridge Case.

No personal or storage space is needed for spent casings. Because there are no casings to eject, the weapons system can be fired ambidextrously. There is no danger to nearby shooters or equipment; no problems with jamming; no ejection-port that allow dirt to enter weapon; and less consumption of expensive metals (more environmentally friendly). Military aircraft frequently are required to retain spent ammunition casings inside the aircraft decreasing the time in the air by reason of increased fuel consumption.
�Higher cook-off temperature.

With the use of better and more sophisticated propellant technology combined with RDX and HMX, the cook-off temperature is increased to between 190�C and 240�C. This compares very favorably to the 135�C cook-off temperature experienced with conventional ammunition. Much of the chamber temperatures developed in conventional fully-automatic weapons result from the friction created during ejection of the expanded (and expended) casings as well as from heat-transfer from the barrel to the chamber. Automatic weapons using �UCC�s� ammunition take much longer to reach the �cook-off temperature�.

Verification tests were carried out at the STEYR plant in Austria. Even at extreme temperatures, conducted at both plus 120�C (muzzle- velocity 1020m/sec) and minus 78�C (muzzle-velocity 910m/sec with ice build up on propellant), the ammunition always fired.
�Greater Accuracy, Electrical Ignition no �lock-time�

UCC Primer is ignited by an electrical current. There are no moving parts like a hammer and firing-pin to create �lock time�. Total stabilization during firing is the result of extreme accuracy. In test results shot groups from 100m, impacted hole in hole. Because of the electrical ignition, UCC ammunition detonates less than 1 milliseconds after the trigger is pulled, virtually eliminating muzzle climb. In addition, the lack of the ejection portion of the firing cycle and the resulting fewer moving parts gives �UCC�s Caseless Cartridge Weapons System� a much higher potential rate of fire. Three round bursts are possible before any muzzle-climb occurs. This alone is found to increase hit probability and result in the use of less ammunition to hit the target. Conversely, the time it takes for a hammer and a firing pin to ignite a conventional round makes the absence of muzzle climb during firing impossible.
�Excellent Performance with Higher Muzzle Velocities

The very high muzzle velocities achieved allow for a flatter trajectory, increasing hit probability and accuracy with very high impact energy. Only possible through (progressive burning characteristics).At any practical combat range, target can be hit without any prior calculations and regardless of target movement. Changing the sight on the weapon for ranges up to 300 Meters is usually not necessary.
�UCC ammunition is not water-soluble;

thus the ballistics performance characteristics will not change in wet conditions. Weapon oil will not affect the ballistics characteristics of UCC ammunition either, whereas if weapon oil penetrates a conventional cartridge, the round becomes useless.
�Versatility, Less and/or No Recoil.

Compensating device based on tapping the gas at chamber level. Planes, helicopters and lightweight vehicles can now fire larger caliber ammunition with no impediment, making them more universal. Electrical primer and propellant is very versatile and is fully adaptable for rocket and missile propulsion systems.


Just hope the battery dont go dead.
Be intersting to see just what kind of MVs they get with someting like this.
Ackley ran hot 17s on all kinds of animals to great effect.
My dad said the squareheads always had the best stuff.
Although the development program was shut down.Ill bet you get to see this again.


dave


dave

Interesting technology.

Etonix ignition.

BMT

If it takes batteries to pull to the trigger, don't count on it working when you need it. Also hope the electronics are water and EMP proof?

A large number of crew served and vehicle mounted weapons are electrically fired, and no one complains.

True. But shoulder fired weapons are mounted on soldiers that walk through streams and fall down into the dirt.

Not necessarily the same level of protection nor the same capacity for redundancy features as in vehicle mounted application. Overall weight is critical to the soldier carrying the weapon.

BMT

Javalin, TOW missle system are electronics heavy. Other infantry weapons may have night vision or LRF's that are electronic but they are only add ons. Murphy is a SOB, I sure would not want to have to count on any electronic rifle. Radio's, BFT's, GPS, Lazers, nightvision all had issues at times. My POS M4 is about the only piece of issue equipment that could be counted on to work when I said go.

They never saw the effects of EMP though.

Just like GPS guided munitions work great.....right up until the geosync bird get's toasted, which will take about an hour should we ever go to war with a sophisticated enemy.

At the end of the day any round has compromises. For example, a larger round like .308 is more capable however weighs significantly more. On the other end 5.56 NATO is a much light round that is just as good as .308 for most situations that a soldier encounters, but allows for much more ammo to be carried. We have infantry for a reason. Not every soldier is a sniper who has to engage targets past 550 meters which is what the military states is the max effective range of the m4. While its great in theory to give every soldier a .308 rifle, in practice 5.56 NATO is a much better compromise for the average soldier in most situations. Lastly to say that the 5.56 NATO round doesnt have enough "stopping power" or to suggest that it isnt powerful enough to kill a man is simply ignorant. RyanScotts friend got it right when he said "Dude, it rips peoples [bleep] faces off!"

If any of you get a chance to read "The Black Rifle"
by Stevens & Ezell, it is an interesting read on the
M16/AR15/.223. It has first hand reports from the
field in VN by Rangers and SF using the M16 in combat.
Alot of issues with the first weapons, I think the
M16 has come a very long way since then.

I am going to be testing a 16" AR in 6.8 SPC. I expect it to be a bit higher on the terminal food chain, but time will tell

Swiss Arms 550's kick ass, why don't they just go buy them instead.

Rogue - if your M4 is all you have got left...what happened to your Kabar, Randall or e-tool? Grenades would be nice...beats using fingernails and teeth. Homesteader.

Luckily the m4 is an incredibly under rated weapon that is very reliable. I was refering to US issued electronics that us dumb Infantry grunts rely on far to much. I don't want an electronic rifle. If an add on goes down I can rip it off and stay in the fight.

Didn't pack a kabar, randle or etool. Though shankin taliban with the benchmade never quite happened and I'm ok with that.

Those Benchmades out of Oregon City are nice; I grew up right down the road, have a few friends grinding blades there now.

Oregon45 - "Benchmade" are extremely nice blades. Had a Gerber in the mid-60's, had a wasp waist about 6 inches long spear pointed, that was very useful. Now day's Gerber chose to put saw teeth in that section in case I need to cut the A/C skin and escape (Rambo style). Believe the Gerber's are still made in your neighborhood.

Rogue - ACOG's give you problems i.e. sand/dirt OR batteries go down? See a ton of stuff stuck up on top of M4's (and other's)- don't people use the "plain vanilla" sights anymore? Homesteader.

I had an ACOG, EOTECH and an Aimpoint in my gear box. I used the Acog with back up irons most the time and the Eotech the rest. Lots of different ways to skin that cat. But if it has glass or electronics then back up irons are a must. One of my pards did use straight irons to keep down on wieght and stay simple.

I've seen a bunch of aimpoints go down but to be fair they've probibly seen the most use. The acog is nice. One of my team mates doinked a dude right at 550M with a straight eotech. So optics are pretty solid over all.

With the manner in which the US Military DOES NOT put emphasis upon teaching these kids marksmanship today.....they'd be better off if they issued 12 ga. shotguns with 'bucking shot'!!

Oh....and yes...the 5.56MM aka M16 is a piss poor choice for a Service Rifle/Cartridge!!

My men shoot better qual scores today then my units did when I came in over 20 years ago AND the qual course of fire is tougher today.

Plus there is an additional CQB course of fire. Way to talk out your ass.

Maybe you should read the post by ones actually fighting. Not just some coffee shop REMF.

How about explaining your thoughts on all the many superior battle rifles and cartridges today.

Dear Rogue

As for 'talking out my ass'.....I guess that would also apply to the upper echelon that called a bunch of us 'old heads' back to Ft Hood several years ago at the beginning of all this BS in Iraq to teach marksmanship training to several thousand 'ground-pounders' getting ready to be deployed to the ME!! Yeah....we're talking out our ass alright! Tell that to all the men that came through our courses and they'd tell you to stick it up ya ass! Many of 'em had been in as long as 16 years and each and every one we trained/put through our courses walked physically by us and thanked us for what we had taught them; many saying that they had learned more in ten days of our training reference marksmanship than they had been given their entire time in service!! As a matter of fact some of 'your men' may have been a few of the ones that we trained if they were US Army!!

Post a pic dude . . . . .

Sure you took a couple . . . .

No disrespect intended.

BMT

Well just who the hell are "your men", inquiring minds want to know? The average Marine is a passable shot, a lot of them are quite good, and not just the snipers, because the Marine Corps thinks riflecraft is important. The US Army hasn't valued riflecraft and marksmanship for nearly a century.

When MSG Rick Boucher stood up the SF Sniper School at Ft Bragg, all the chitbird colonels at bunker 4 at Benning said, you can't have a sniper school, so he just changed the damn name to SOTIC and kept truckin'.

You wanna know when the "brass" got interested in marksmanship? When a few of their buddies started getting their brains blown out from some Chechens who could shoot.

Yeah, I just got out in January of 2007. I think of my 7 years in, we went to the range 5 times. Don't make me go into how pathetic the range time was.....

Sad.

It has to do with money. Bullets cost money. With defense budgets continually cut, then so does our level of training.

Sharpsman, warrior training center let you had out ammo on a zero range?

I couldn't get off at that time as I was invited being a top level national service rifle shooter at the time. The call back for instructors was for SDM.. a sorta mini version of a sniper and the issues there, mostly that they were bringing the M14 and optics out of the mothballs. Almost none of the instructors had mileage on that weapon and that was the weapon that I started with. It was simply to get up to speed the quickest.
FWIW the folks I dealt with, are the folks who think its stupid to move away from the M4... they, to the last one, tell me if you have an issue with the M4 not doing its job, its certainly not the weapon, but the operator(save for a few cases, and you ahve those with any platform..lemons if you will....)

Jeff

BTW won a couple nice medals in matches over the years at Polk.....

Lack of decent marksmanship training is one issue. Lack of quality range time is another issue. Lack of quality ranges is a huge issue. All this stuff was addressed in that CGS paper some MAJ wrote, "Taking Back the Inf Half-Kilometer". Lots of M855 green tip are woefully inaccurate, not to mention the projectile is designed for the last rifle and two wars ago. All this is why SF put the SPR rifle project together.

This thread has it all; some good info and some myths and downright BS (like GPS satellites in geosync orbits.)

One must realize the military has to work within the parameters of the Hague conventions when it comes to small arms, hence the use of FMJ bullets, which are neither as precise or as lethal as other configurations.

It IS all about the bullet and this is why the .mil has been changing and trying out various configuration. The 55 was designed to yaw and break apart and that needs the 1:12 or 1:14 twist; 1:7, not so much. The 62gr (aka M855 and SS109) has a 10gr steel penetrator in the tip, designed to penetrate Soviet body armor. The new Mk 318 SOST 5.56 has a lead core in front and a copper lower half, sort of like a Trophy Bonded Bear Claw.

Definitely, the 55 and 62 are not long range rounds, but the Ar can certainly get to 1000 yards with the proper ammo, trust me on this. The limiting factor for the AR is the size of the magazine.

Oh, BTW, the caseless ammo had a big problem that was difficult to overcome; heat. I love that recap posted a few pages back that touts the cook-off temperature of the G11 as being so much higher than usual. There is a reason for that; because the G11 gets very hot. When you fire a round in an AR-15, don't pick up the case right away lest you get burned quite badly. On the other had, in a bolt action rifle, you can fire the round, open the bolt and pick the case right out of it without getting bothered. You see in a semi auto, the case takes away a great deal of the heat of ignition before it has time to more from the brass to the chamber walls. The bolt action allows the case to transfer most or all of its heat to the chamber. The G11 had no way to get rid of this heat so it would build up quickly.

The temperatures given are in Celsius and that sort of minimizes that for us Americans. What's 135C between friends? Well when we remmember that 100C is boiling water, we pause. 135C is 275F. The 190C to 240C given as the cook-off range for the G11 translates to between 375 to 464 Farenheit. Why does the G11 ammo need such a high cook-off range? Answer is because the G11 gets VERY hot. I would think the last thing I need is to hug my 300 degree Farenheit rifle in combat.

This is not true, how do you think snipers get by with using Sierra Match Kings? The bullet can be designed for accuracy, you can use an SMK (because the hollowpoint is the most accurate bullet design), you can't use a Barnes X.

The reason big army doesn't use them is cost, combined with extreme ignorance of the importance of riflecraft. This is why SF had to come up with it's own "sharpshooter" rifle and ammo, the SPR project.

Seems as if some of you guys are a little too young to know about FMJ Match Bullets! I cut my teeth on shooting these and when I got with the USAAMU aka US Army Advanced Marksmanship Unit at Ft. Benning this was all we shot through National Match M1s and they were highly accurate! Shooting from machine rest when testing, some of the Frankfort Arsenal Lots of ammo would hold 4" groups through our rifles from 600 yards! This same ammo was used quite extensively in VN and one of my buddies made quite good use of it while there! His name?? Carlos Hathcock!

http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2010/07/full-metal-jacket-match-bullet.html

Sorry to disagree with you, but it is indeed true. The 77gr SMK had to be blessed by military lawyers and the reason they were accepted is that the bullet is not designed to expand. The hollow point is a by product of manufacture as the core is swaged in from the front to preserve the critical base, and the ogive is closed up. There was even an incident recently where a military lawyer barred usage of the Mk262 ammo, until someone higher up explained it to him.

It really does not matter, because the Hague treaties are very specific to the effect that expanding bullets cannot be used if the two combating nations are signatories of the treaty. If one side is not, or another nation joins in the fight and is not a signatory to the treaty, then it's legal to ignore the treaty. The Taliban is not a signatory nation to the Treaty, I don't think North Vietnam was either. Regardless, the US military chooses to abide by the treaties regardless of who we are fighting. I guess from a logistical and training POV, it's the right thing to do, but there are so many far superior bullets.

Very cool.

Post a pic.

BMT

Hey BMT, have you talked to lee latley?

Yeah whatever... you think we are all 18? I have a box of M118 with 173s sittting right here beside my computer... year date of my birth is why it sits here....
But if you think the FMJ of yesteryear holds a candle to current HP bullets... you are not paying attention.. why else do you think that there are very FEW old records anymore... the rifles and ammo continue to get better. 4 inches is a ho hum group at 600 from a cradle.

Now OTOH Carlos was a master woodsman, and a great shooter, just think what he could have done these days with current weapons and ammo. I have spoken with Carlos a few times, I have spoken with his son many times since we all shoot service rifle. Fine family. Carlos Jr would be the first to telll you things have come a long way!

The AMU Ft Benning stays on the cutting edge.... I left more than a bit of my long range 223 ammo there for them to test.... results were a load that shot the ONLY 200 at 1000 with a service rifle ever in competition.

Guess I know a hair about things too.

That's a fact. The graduation rate at SOTIC went up when that crap ammo finally got replaced. When you realize that the worn out M70 and the ammo that Hathcock had access to were, at best a 2moa system, he gains quite a bit of luster.

Take a knee,
You a sotic grad?

The U.S. is not a signature of the Hague Accord

I'd like to know that load......

Class 3-87. MSG Rick Boucher was NCOIC (last I heard, he's still there as a civilian instructor). Lambert, Simpson, and Zavitz were the instructors. Dean McHalis was my sniper buddy.

Those were pre M-24 days, we shot air force pilfered M700's with McMillan barrels and stocks that Zavitz and Lambert built. All our iron sight stuff was done with M14-M21's.

Take a knee

Thanks for your service to this country. I hope we get our country back for you too, its time for us to do our job for once.

Jeff

rost495

"you think we are all 18?"

What you need to do is 'brush up' on your reading comprehension! I used the word 'some'....which DOES NOT mean all but as for your comprehension...yes...I'd say you'd be about 15 to 18! And you can bet your sweet arse that the M70 that Carlos was using was way better than any 2 MOA capability!! And as for 4" ten shot groups from 600 yards being 'ho-hum' groups.....during the day....well....you weren't alive to no the difference!!

I've said all I'm going to say on this subject because anyone that says a .6 MOA group is 'ho-hum' is somewhat mentally challenged!!

Its ho hum these days. Even Germans article admits that FMJ are not cutting edge basically.. the Scenar tends to be an exception,... and the old cupro nickel jacketed slugs shot a bit better than average but fouled worse in our guns.

FWIW 10 shot groups from my AR15 service rifle at 600 off my bench here at home( my own personal range which helps a lot) not out of a vice though.... are smaller than 4 inches... 4 inches is the cutoff for junking a load for me. Most of the groups are 2.5 to 3 inches with a lot being somewhat smaller. Smallest groups we've shot from one particular hummer barrel, were on the order of 1.5 inches and one group came in at 1.25 inches basically... I don't dick with calipers, just measure whats close. I'm not in it for exact size but to know what its doing.

Yep Carlos gun would have had to been better, but you can bet it wasn't todays typical setup.

BTW its KNOW, not NO and nope, 15 to 18 was many years back, and many classifactions back...

I will agree though that many folks out there have 4-6 inch guns at 600, and that is a handicap to them... but find out what winners are shooting accuracy wise and you'll be surprised...

TOTALLY agree with the Kenya quote though!

There is nothing wrong with the M-16/M-4 that better marksmanship training and 77gr. bullets wouldn't solve. If legal questions are an issue FMG 77gr. bullets could be made adequately accurate.

Take a knee,
Good deal. Your screen name sounds grunt. This placed is packed with doers but we have had more than our share of google warriors. Wasn't trying to offend but my ears tend to perk up at times.

Went through robinson with 4 long tabs. 3 were great guys. One was a paper tiger that washed rather quickly.

When home my men are bn recon platoon (11b scouts). Deployed my boys are hazara, tajik, uzbek and pashto infantry.

Sigh.

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

Nice link!

plus one!

May God speed and protect you and your boys. Camp Robinson runs a top shelf sniper school. I was there for the Wilson Matches a few times in the 80's.